Monthly Archives: January 2012

What’s in a name?

In my recent interview on The Conservative Pagan show on PaganRadio.net the issues of the terms New Ager vs. Pagan was brought up.  And for whatever reason we have this whole group of terms for a large spiritual movement that includes such titles as:

Pagan

Wiccan

New Ager

Druid

Earth Based Religion

Neo-Pagan

Alternative Spirituality

I even found a web page for Jewish Wiccans…who knew?

It’s a mess.

And it doesn’t necessarily have to be.  As all of these groups have some core beliefs.

We agree on personal responsibility and connection to God (or whatever term we’re using).

We all believe in some kind of single God to which all religions are directed toward.  (Or almost all, there are some belief systems out there that are insulting to human nature with every precept they have).

We all believe in an interconnectedness of existence.  Some focus on how it manifests in nature, some in society, some in the individual, but I think we all agree that all life at all levels is connected—that where I end and you begin isn’t as obvious as the material world would make it appear.

We agree that while we have our individual beliefs, and while other religions have their beliefs, no set of beliefs is perfect that we are all heading to some divine truth.  And I think this is what defines us best, while we all have our own way of communicating with the divine, we would agree that’s a personal issue.  We would never tell a Christian that Christianity will never lead to God; it’s just not going to work for us in this life time.  Hinduism can easily let someone become one with the eternal, but it is not the path that is for me right now.  And while Eastern beliefs might agree with us that all paths can lead to God, I have to say until you get to the upper levels of Lamas and rishis there is still a certain pretentiousness in Eastern beliefs that add, “but my religion is the best way to reach God.”  I think what unites the New Age/Pagan/Wiccan/Pick the term of your choice group the most is that most of us simply argue that this path is best for me in this life time, it by no means is necessarily the best path for everyone.  At most all we ask is that everyone ask themselves if the path they are on is the right one for them, other than that we’re usually (there are always exceptions) not that pushy or tied to our belief as superior to others.

Yet that really doesn’t seem to unite us all that much.

And it gets worse when you have a person who identifies with one term and gets offended when you refer to them by another.  Pagans hate being called New Agers because they think it means they’re a bunch of ditzy hippies who don’t have any depth to their beliefs.  New Agers dislike being called Pagan because they don’t reject a lot of Christian beliefs, as the term Pagan suggest, they simply believe it’s been misinterpreted.  People who just know they’re spiritual but don’t want to be called Wiccans because that is a very specific belief system.  It’s almost enough to make you think we were all different religions and had nothing to do with one another.

But try this.  Read that paragraph but substitute in the words Lutheran, Catholic and Jehovah’s Witness.  It still more or less would makes sense.  And despite the massive gulf in belief they all have a nice overarching term: Christianity.   And that’s kind of the problem we don’t have an overarching term.

Now I go with New Ager more often than not (I also use Pagan from time to time when I’m feeling lazy because I think people have a better understanding of the term Pagan, describing the term New Age can be difficult, as shown here and here) for a few reasons.  The first is I have some problems with Pagan because whenever I use it the English teacher in me screams at the rest of me that it’s a Christian term meant to describe anyone who isn’t part of the Judeo-Christian heritage and technically encompasses Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Greek mythology, and a whole host of other beliefs.  The correct use of the word merely means non-Christian…or believing in multiple gods.  And one thing I do know about all of these groups that I’m a part of is that we are monotheists—we may believe that God wears many different masks at many times, and we have a whole mess of ascended masters and angels we call upon for help,  but we do believe in one single divine source.  I don’t use Wiccan because that a very, very specific branch of this belief I belong to, with very specific rituals and custom…that I don’t practice.  I generally go with New Age because I do believe we are on the cusp of a major transition in human history…and, sad to say, because it appears easiest catch all term when you look at any store (especially book stores) the section is called New Age.  But while I don’t have a problem with the term, I understand why others do.  Earth based religions also seem to me to be a limited way of looking at it, as the interconnectedness that the name suggests I believe goes far beyond the mere physical manifestation of this planet and its environment.

So the fact is that we need a new term.  A catch all phrase that separates us from the other main spiritual groups of the world, but still lets us have our denominations under that banner heading.

I have no ideas…but I’m open to suggestions.

I've always liked this as it represent what I find to be a key tenet of New Age belief, the idea that all religions have truth in them. And before anyone complains, that's a Jain/Hindu/Buddhist symbol in the lower lefthand part.

3 Comments

Filed under Faith, God, New Age, philosophy, Prayer, Republicans and Reincarnation, Spirituality

Stupid liberal quote of the day…he said it, I didn’t

“I second-guess constantly…I make a mistake, every hour, every day”

That little Duh statement came from the moron-in-cheif.  Granted it’s more like every second, every minute.  But for a moment here let’s look at the correct things he has done.  Bin-Laden.  Heavy use of drones.  The trade agreement with S. Korea.  Uh.  Well there was ummm….and then there was…

I think more importantly is the other truthful statement that he didn’t say.  “I do one thing right every quarter, every year.”

And do I need to point out that good leaders don’t second guess themselves usually.  They admit when they’re wrong, but they are not constantly filled with doubt.

But then he goes from harsh truth to complete delusion:

“But when you look at the broad outlines of what we did, had it not been for the steps we took our economy would be profoundly weaker than we are right now.”

Barry, if you had cut spending, cut all taxes, cut regulation, cut the size of government, not declared war on private property, individual choice and businesses doing what they want (as opposed to doing what you want) the economy would be stronger.  If you had done nothing, the economy would be stronger.  Just because economies have a tendency to recover on your own does not negate the fact that your policies have done everything you could think of to halt, slow, and diminish that growth.  If you and your Keynesian ilk are so stupid as to think you’ve helped, well then there is no hope for you whatsoever.

2 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes

Stupid liberal quote of the day…The State of the Union

…oh so many to pick from in the State of the Union…oh so many….

Do I pick the ones that make me laugh?  The ones that defy logic?  The ones that leave me going WTF?

Oh so many to pick from.

Let’s go with one from the near the beginning:

What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Would those be American values like Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness unencumbered by an intrusive government?  Perhaps it’s the free market that our Founders believed in and de Tocqueville recognized as a cornerstone of our greatness?  Maybe it’s a the belief in limited government?  Perhaps it’s in the balance of power between the branches of government to prevent a petty dictator from taking power?

Well if those are American values you believe in then to reclaim it I guess we know that you, Barry, are going to be getting a pink slip come November as you are antithetically opposed to anything I can even think of an American value.

Leave a comment

Filed under Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Quote of the Day

It’s not really a liberal quote per se…but the underlying psychology is what creates a lot of liberal political belief.

I saw this picture make the rounds on facebook the other day.

 

It seems like a hopeful statement of compassion and thankfulness.  So what’s the problem?

“Much more than I deserve.”  That’s my problem.  The idea that you are unworthy.  The Bible states we are made in God’s image.  The Bhagavad-Gita states that the soul is unchangeable and a piece of God himself (Chapter II verses 24-30).  And of course in the second part of A Course in Miracles among the many lessons there are these three that you are supposed to learn and believe because they are true “I am blessed as a Son of God.” “I am the light of the world.” “I am entitled to miracles.”  And of course there is that Marianne Williamson quote I overuse. 

The long and short of it is that you are divine in your nature.  You deserve enlightenment, eternal happiness, and all blessings.  What could possibly count as “more than I deserve” after that?

But so many people believe they are not worthy of that Happiness which they are…and thus they prevent themselves  from experiencing the blessing.  God is infinite love and does not hold back on his blessing which are infinite.  The only limiting factor is what you choose to take for yourself.

And thus what seems like an uplifting statement is actually bordering on evil in that it reaffirms the lie that your are not worth what you have, that you are corrupt and given more than you deserve, that you fall short of what you have earned.  Not in the least.

(And it is this lie that you are guilty and inferior that liberals use to make you think that you have some obligation and duty to sacrifice your happiness for the whole.)

Try this instead “Thank you God, for helping me realize I deserve infinite Happiness.”

Leave a comment

Filed under A Course in Miracles, Happiness, Individualism, Marianne Williamson, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Some people are like slinkies…

…not good for anything… …but they provide a pointless distraction.

So over the last couple of days liberals of all stripes have called me and friends of mine cold, lacking in empathy, privileged (because apparently using reason to judge a statement makes you a privileged member of the upper class…this does not speak well of the intelligence of the 99% if this statement were true) and heartless for critiquing the numerous, pointless, pathologically riddled  with lies and half truths, and nothing but  worthless whines of all the schmucks who claim to be “the 99%”  (who strangely tend to endlessly piss off the 47% who actually pay taxes).

So let me give a blanket critique of the “99% whiners”  because I can guarantee you that each and every one will fall somewhere in this critique.  Why do I feel that these people need a complete, total dressing down?  Well first because I remember reading in the Bhagavad Gita:

“Charity given for the sake of righteousness, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness. But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion. And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance.”—Bhagavad-Gita  Ch17. 20-22

And I find giving to people who whine and choose to not improve themselves, but demand others pay for them to be quite literally the “unworthy persons” warned about in this point.  Intelligent religions over all of history have made a distinction between giving for the sake of helping people improve themselves and just giving because they want (or does no one remember that you’re not supposed to give a man a fish) .  But still they feel you should give them anything they want because I have and they don’t…because they think they are entitled to my empathy and compassion because they were born, because I am under some order to love my neighbor…well guess what, because I can actually read I know I am advised to “love my neighbor as I would love myself” and let me tell you I am very critical of myself when I succumb to my worst habits, my worst inclinations, and my worst faults.  People who don’t love themselves, but ask me to feel compassion for them are the most rank hypocrites.  But why do I say they don’t love themselves…well generally rational self-interest, the love of yourself that this guy 2,000 year ago advocated (I’m sure he was a disgusting egotist for such a suggestion) tends to mean people take care of themselves, to better themselves, to have some concern for their well being…or at least to work in their best interests.

So let me ask about all the people who claim to be in “the other 99%”, have they acted always in their best interests?  (Now I will admit I do not meet all of the points I’m about to go over…but I’m not asking for sympathy.  You can be a good person and not do these things…you cannot be a sympathetic one and not meet all of these requirements).

 

Let me ask, did you graduate high school?

Cause the other 99% percent seems to suffer from a rather bizarre level of unemployment.  Now the people who have the highest levels of unemployment.  I hate to say this but a lot of these 99%’s are not exactly singing the virtues of their education while they’re complaining about unemployment (not all but a lot) which makes me ask if they’re unemployed because no employer would legitimately be insane enough to hire them if they had a choice.  Which is made all the sadder because, as a high school teacher, I know how unspeakably easy it is to get a high school diploma.  Really.  With schools, charter schools, alternative schools, online schools and GED you have to try to NOT get a diploma.  It takes work–Lots of work—to not pass high school.  Yet around 16% of this country manages to do it.  Oh, yes some of you might argue about the quality of the diploma (I have no argument there, only to say that given how low that quality is, it’s kind of sad when you can’t reach that bar) or the schools are not set up to teach students…to the latter point I would say that I would bet that even in the worst school in America there is one teacher there who actually does give a shit and if you went to them with an honest desire to learn, a drive to do whatever they asked, and willingness to be helped they would help anyone who came to them.  THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR NOT HAVING A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR THE EQUIVALENT.  And before I could even possibly feel sorry for someone I need to see that they have the brains and self respect for even the most bare bones level of education.  Yet I don’t see a lot of 99%’s talking about their education…

Which brings me to my second question, did you go to community college, a trade school, or state school?

This is tied to the first.  If you don’t have the desire for self improvement, why should my money or the money of the 1% go to you?  Getting an AA at a community college is possible, even on a minimum wage salary.  Same is true of a trade school.  It will take time, but it is possible.  So when I see all these people who say, “I worked for 30 years”  I always have to wonder what were they doing those 30 years.  The signs are designed to elicit sympathy, so if they were doing something like nursing, or teaching, or getting an education they would include that.  But they almost never include what they were doing.  Would full disclosure of what you were doing not elicit sympathy?  But back to schooling, anyone if they scrimp, save and work for it can get an AA or trade school degree which would make it far more unlikely that they would ever be fired and make it far more likely that you will get a new job easily if you were fired. Anyone can do it and anyone with a half functioning brain knows that education provides a safety net.

Do you like your job and don’t need anymore education.  Fine.  Commendable.  You did what we recommended to find something you like and do that.  But you knew that staying in that one position, not constantly improving yourself, not making yourself more skilled, not seeking a better job or position came with a risk and that risk was that when the shit hit the fan you were the most expendable person around.  There is nothing wrong with not seeking more education than the job you enjoy needs…but don’t come crying to me.  You took that risk.  I take lots of risks, I don’t ask anyone to be held responsible for them but myself.

Why do I put state college there?  Because a lot of these people on these 99% pictures list their tuition debts at levels far exceeding what a state college could cost to a state resident (even with room and board).  This means they chose a private school or an out of state school knowing what the cost would be.  Yet, somehow, as implicit in their whining is they think their debt is too high.  Well if it was too high, go to a state school.  I went to a private school, but I was under no illusion that I would be tying an albatross around my neck for the next 30 years—and I’d do it again in a heart beat.  It was worth it.  But don’t complain to someone else because you don’t want the bill for the services you used.  Don’t want high college debt?  Go to a cheap community college, get your AA then go to a state school for the BA.  If you’re working fulltime you won’t be more than a high car loan worth in debt.

Let me ask did you get a degree in a practical skill or a hard science?

And a lot of these whiners who complain about their college debt also bitch about not having a job.  Which is odd because the unemployment rate for college graduates is around 4.4%.  So I have to ask, what did you get your degree in?  Was it sociology?  Women’s studies in relation to Enlightenment culture?  A Master’s degree in Music theory?  What possible degree did you get that makes a high school graduate a more appealing hire?  I got a B.A. in English with a minor in Education, I knew that this qualified me to teach English and not much else, good thing I wanted to be an English teacher…but I got a degree in a field I wanted to go into and I knew there was a reasonable need for the profession.  What worthless liberal arts degree did you think it was a good idea to drop 60K on…because I can promise you if we split that 4.4% into hard science degrees and Liberal arts, the hard science ones would be much lower than 4.4%.  You wanted to study what you wanted to study.  Fine, it’ s your right.  But when you have given yourself a skill set that makes you unemployable you should learn to live with the consequences of your actions and not whine to me about it.

Did you refrain from having children until you were married?

Oh, here is a big one for the people whining about their lives in “the other 99%”  they bitch about child costs but very often I do not see reference to a spouse.  I know some wonderful women who had children before they got married and who are doing well in life (strangely they don’t whine a lot about things being other people’s fault), but I get the feeling they’re going to not only tell their own children, but society in general, having children before marriage is really, really dumb.   I would even go as far to say that having children before you’re relatively financially stable is a questionable move, but let’s deal with the more egregious problems.  Having children, married or not, employed or not, makes your life infinitely more complicated and difficult.  More rewarding, certainly, but infinitely more complicated.

And I’m sorry but I can’t feel sorry for people who have children when they’re not ready.  It’s not like it just randomly happens without any personal choice (okay yes there are two exceptions, one involves rape and then you have my instant compassion and desire to help you, and the second way usually also comes with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh…but these are the exceptions, not the general rule) on your part being involved.  Yes, are the deadbeat dad’s also to blame, hell yes, and I will instantly support a law that says that dead beat dads who don’t pay should have the very organs that got them into this mess surgically removed…but I don’t see many 99% people arguing for more personal responsibility, so that’s neither here nor there.  You made your bed, you sleep in it, don’t ask me to subsidize your bad choices and I won’t ask you to subsidize mine.

Let me ask did you work hard at your job before you were fired?

Oh so many of these people who say, “I am the other 99%”  seem to have lost their jobs.  Oh boo-hoo.  I know some people have lost their jobs because their companies went under, but if they were competent I think a good many of them got new jobs.  And other people are fired because they refuse to go along with the incompetence/unethical behavior of their superiors, and again if they were competent they probably got a new job relatively quickly.  But you know what, most people who get fired get fired because they’re the worst person on the job.  Businesses that need to fire 1,000 people don’t fire their 1,000 best employees—no they tend to try to fire their 1,000 worst employees. (Unless it is a union job and then they are required to go by seniority.  But I don’t see many people identify themselves as “the other 99%” being against such corrupt union practices, in fact if anything I’ve see n nothing but support for unions.  And well it’s a little hard to feel compassion for someone who loves their destroyer.)  So I really have to ask, every jackass who complains about A. losing a job and B. not being able to get a new one, did your prior work ethic and skill set have anything to do with those things?  Because even in this economy I have a really hard time thinking that someone with a good education, a strong work ethic (which breeds strong recommendations from your coworkers), and dedication can’t find a job.  Yes it may not be as good a paying job or even one they really want, but it’s a job, and people with good work ethics tend to find those jobs.  So really, can you tell me straight faced you were the best employee the company had and that despite your skills and work ethic you lost your job.  Or is it that these whiners who worked for 20 years and were then laid off were laid off because they just sat in that one job for 20 years, becoming complacent and letting their skill rust, seeking only to meet the bare minimum of work…a minimum which during economic hardships gets reset at a level higher than they’ve ever given.

Let me ask do you have friends?  Real friends?

I am the world’s biggest asshole.  There are days I make Greg House look like a cuddly puppy.  And I know without a doubt that if I were to lose my job or my apartment or come down sick that in addition to my family I have at least a dozen friends who would take me in and do whatever was in their means to help me get back on my feet if I needed it…as I would do for them without even thinking.

How few real friends must these people have to have no one to fall back on.  How bad are all of these people that they have to whine that the rich should have their wealth stolen from them.  I’ve always noticed that when I complain about these people on their blogs that so many of the friends of these self reported “other 99%” are quick to call me heartless and unempathic for not wanting to share my money for someone I don’t have any respect for…well where were you when your friend was in need?  You’re quick to chastise me for not wanting to share my hard earned money with someone I dislike, did you so graciously share every dime you could with your friends?  Did you stop going to the movies to help pay for that extra $20 for your friend’s chemo?  Did you cut back on dining out?  Did you make up the spare room for them so they wouldn’t have to pay rent?  There are friends in my life who I will put myself in debt for to help them, because they are worth it.  Where were you for your friends?  Or is beating up on people who use logic instead of blind unquestioning corrupted empathy the extent to which you will go?  With friends like you…

 

Let me ask, do you have character? 

Obviously the mere act of whining states no.  But let’s ignore this for a moment. The fact of the matter is that many of these people shade facts, use half truths or out right lies to drum up sympathy.  All of it is ethically equivalent to lying.  And anyone who engages in it is totally without character.  Let’s use the most recent picture I’ve seen to make the rounds as an example.  (And I’m using screen shots from his blog instead of just links…because I’ll be honest, he strikes me as the kind of guy who would go back, edit the facts, and then call me a liar).

He uses the phrase “part time” to get sympathy because we all think of part time as less than 40 hours of work…a technical definition is 30 hours or less.

He says here in his picture that the insurance he was getting wouldn’t cover his treatment of cancer.

Yet on his blog he states:


He was not “part time” in any conventional sense until after his diagnosis.  So that’s a half truth at best.  And at 60 hours he must have been making more than the limit that Arizona aid requires.  So let me ask you what is a fair limit?  How many people should be allowed on state and federal aid.  Give me a dollar figure of where the line should be?

He outright lies when he says churches won’t help.

So they did  help up to a point.  Yes could they get the money in time, no, but this guy says he has stage IV cancer…it takes time for churches to raise money for charity, they can do it, but just because you can’t have it now does not mean churches can’t and aren’t willing to help, they’re bound by the same laws of economics everyone is.  (Laws that state it would be much easier to raise money for charity if it weren’t for the fact that Americans are being beaten down with massive government regulation and taxes, you know what the 99% is demanding).

But my personal favorite is his implication that his minimum wage insurance wouldn’t cover his treatment.  Why do I love this one…well…this one from his blog announcing that he has cancer…

It’s so hard being a pathological liar when you don’t have the entire DNC there to help keep your lies straight.  So which is it?…is it that the insurance wouldn’t cover it (which in reality, I have my doubts, most plans, even crappy, will always cover the removal of a tumor…they just won’t cover the chemo and radiation because those treatments actually have an obscenely low success rate…especially on Stage IV cancer…but who knows it could be a really, really crappy insurance plan) or is it that you stopped paying for insurance of your own free will (he looks to be in his 40’s which would makes this an incredibly dumb move, given how after 40 your chances of major disease jumps, no matter how little he’s getting paid).  It’s one or the other, it can’t be both.  Either you had crappy insurance or you stopped paying for it.  Being a liar is so difficult when you have to keep all your lies straight.

(I could do a whole blog on how he seems to be saying he hated the pay cut that saved the business from bankruptcy and by extension everyone else’s job…but let’s ignore his gross lack of economic understanding for the moment).

Did you maintain a healthy community life?

This one is actually part of the friendship question. As Aristotle observed no one can live completely out of society and be considered a good person unless they are a beast or a god.  And there are remarkably few who can live with only a few close friends as their primary contact.  Most people need human connection to be considered a good person…so if you shunned society for so long, why is it society’s responsibility to take care of you.  Seems rather selfish and self-serving….but I forget I’m the egotistical and unempathetic one.

Did you start saving from an early age?

Really there is no excuse for this one.  If you didn’t save you’re either an idiot or knowing taking a risk hoping that whatever you are putting your money into will pay off.  If it’s the latter you wouldn’t bitch because you knew it was your fault and your fault alone.  If you’re an idiot, well, as you can guess, I’m not inclined to sympathize with you.

Oh and a lot of these people have a lot of medical problems.  Cancer seems to the biggest one.  Strangely, unlike every cancer patient I’ve ever seen they’re awfully vague about what they have…they describe having cancer and then describe symptoms that sound like benign cysts.  They say they have cancer….but if you can track down their blog they use the technical term for a throat doctor…which makes me ask how much did you smoke?

So before you want me to feel sorry for your disease let me ask some other things:

Do you ever habitually smoke or drink?

Lung cancer is one of the 3rd most common types of cancer up there (when you add in all the other cancer that smoking can increase the odds on the whole smoking related thing because it’s the number one killer).  Now if you smoke or drink I do not look down on you.  I understand it’s a wonderful feeling.  Hell, if I could afford the habit, I would look like a sixth member of the Rat Pack with the amount of alcohol and nicotine I would be putting in my body.  But guess what, I would blame only myself when I got diagnosed with a disease caused by my habits.

Do you over-eat?  Do you exercise?  Did you not lead a sedentary life style?

I’m sorry but a lot of diseases are heavily related to lifestyle and asking me to pay for medical treatment that was the direct result of the fact you did not care for your body…I’m having a hard time caring.

Now if you have a disease or condition that is no fault of your own, of course I feel for you.  I mean I wouldn’t expect someone who from childhood was deaf and blind to be able to write books and take care of herself…oh wait.  Or someone who had their neck broken to be expected to learn to breath on their own again without the help of a machine and make it a goal of walking again…oh wait.  Or someone with a degenerative neurological disease to make major contributions to science and beat all odds by living to 70…oh wait.  Damn, is it just me, or are there enough cases of people with a debilitating disease overcoming the challenges that disease brought and showing us the best of humanity not by whining others should take care of them, but by doing what no one thought they could, that it makes it hard to take the major whiners seriously.  My heart goes tends to go with one group and not the other.

Did you abuse drugs?

Kind of a no brainer.  But given the amount of crack pipes they found at Zuccati Park, I feel the need to mention this one.  I do believe that people can recreationally use certain drugs and not have it damage their life…but most of the time that is not the case, and if you feel the need to engage in this kind of activity don’t expect me to feel sorry for you. (And of course there’s that little hypocrisy about the money spent on drugs that could have gone to savings or self betterment). 

And finally do you learn and grow…or do you whine?

I believe that all of life is a giant classroom from which we are supposed to learn from.  And the best lessons are the hardships, the crucibles that show us what we are made of, and what, if we choose to, is the best within us.  Choosing to whine about it on the internet.  Not exactly what I would call learning.   Frankly, even ignoring this point I doubt anyone who claims that they are “the other 99%” could claim that they have not made the mistake I have detailed.

I know some of the people who whine and bitch and moan about their problems when they read this will wish I got to experience their hardships.   They’ll wish I lose my job.  They’ll wish I get cancer or some other debilitating disease.  Bring it on.  I’ve dealt with unemployment before with grace and honor.  I can do it again.  As for disease…well I had to die of something, I accepted that decades ago, and because it will not come as a shock I guarantee you I will not whine or say that it is unfair or that others should help me because they have more than I do. I promise you that in my death I will have more honor, courage, and virtue than those who claim to be in “the other 99%” have in their entire lives.

Now will all of these apply to everyone, no…but you show me someone who over time earned a college level education when times were good in a practical field, who always gave their best and excelled at work, who lived a healthy lifestyle and didn’t engage in behavior that was utterly lacking in common sense who is in on hard times but still trying to support themselves, looking for any job, because no job is below them, or has come down with a debilitating disease, I have and will help them in any way I can.  I have not seen one person like that claim “I am the other 99%.”

7 Comments

Filed under Arizona, Capitalism, Charity, Death, Economics, Education, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, God, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Law of Intention, Long Term Thinking, Love, People Are Stupid, politics, Purpose of Life, Selfishness, Welfare

Freedom and Income Inequality…thanks to the people at Economic Freedom


Gee…that chart looks really familiar…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…(Obama at Disney World)

It’s not so much a quote as it is an action…but let me ask you.  If you’re trying to boost tourism would you shut down a popular tourist attraction?

No, sane person would.

But Barrack Obama decided to shut down DisneyWorld Main Street USA to give a speech on how he plans to boost tourism.  

 

It’s doubly sad when you consider all the possible jokes about “shutting down Main Street.”  The comments about a Mickey Mouse presidency are also highlighted by this event.  Did Obama’s people really think this through..or did someone owe Leno and Letterman big time and felt they needed to sacrifice whatever respect Obama had left so that the nation’s comics would have weeks upon weeks worth of material?

2 Comments

Filed under Obama, Stupid liberal quote of the day

I agree, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….

But we are a decent people.

I bring this up because I have been getting a lot of people telling me that “The U.S. is not the policeman of the world” in that snide way only a coward can manage.  And again let me say, I agree with you, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….but we are a decent people.

What do I mean by that?

Well think about it this way.  If you are walking down the street and you see a woman getting raped in alley.   Do you just walk past?  I hope not.  I hope you at least scream, although it’s not quite as effective as looking for a piece of rebar and, in the parlance of Pulp Fiction, going medieval on someone’s ass.  You do it not because of some rule or regulation, not because of some obligation, but because you are ethical, we feel empathy and we understand a basic concept of natural rights.  You of course could walk by, but that would mean you are unethical, have no ability to feel empathy or any respect for another person’s natural rights.   But I assume you are a decent person and will stop evil when you see it and are in a position to stop it.  Now what if it wasn’t one person you had to fight off but a large group who caused not a single act of violence but were terrorizing your neighborhood.  I believe a neighborhood watch would solve that issue.  And the larger the problem the larger the group we form to counter that evil (I remember a couple hundred militias being formed to fight the greatest empire on Earth and their lobster-backs).  We as individuals know that we should stop evil when we find it and are in a position to do so.  We don’t do it for a reward or even to secure our own safety, as often ignoring the problem would put us at less risk…yet somehow we know that it is wrong to ignore evil and do nothing.

Yes we have police, country sheriffs, state troopers, and federal special agents…but we don’t say that these people make it ethically acceptable to walk by when we see evil right in front of us, we hire these professionals to be available to protect not just us, but those around us when we can’t be everywhere.  We believe everyone is entitled to be free of the threat of violence, even if we have never met them.

And we would rightly judge anyone who did walk by and ignore evil in front of them morally reprehensible.  Yes we might forgive someone if the problem was too big for them to deal with personally and if they did contact the police, but otherwise there is no ethical excuse.

Now some will say: Isn’t what you’re describing an ethical duty?  Something you claim to hate?  No, no it is not.  A duty is a moral obligation, a concept that you have to do this, not because is good for you, not because it brings you pleasure or makes you feel good, not because to not do it will bring you emotional pain…no a duty is done because that is the rule, that is what you do, and you don’t question it.  (Notice duty, when properly used is often in the context of a military organization, a place where you don’t get to question why, yours is but to do and die.  Improperly duty is often misused in the place of “virtuous.”)  We have a choice we can do something or not.  There is no rule or obligation or duty toward one side or the other.  But to do nothing does not mean we condone, we allow, we support that evil because we did nothing.  And we are thus guilty for doing nothing.   But we do act and stop evil where we find it, because we are a decent people.

But I go back to my original example.  There are times and places where there is no authority, no cop to call upon to stop evil and it falls unto you, the person who sees it and has the power to act.

And as this is true with individuals, and groups of individuals, so it is true of governments.  When a government is a tyranny, it is evil—the worst evil known, which commits as standard operating procedure the worst atrocities on a daily basis.

We as individuals see these evils, and we know our government is not ignorant of them.  There is no police force of the world (if you even thought the U.N. you clearly don’t know how corrupt, evil, and ineffective that organization is) thus there are only individual nations.  Nations which can act, which have the resources to act.  They just lack the will.  The world knew what Hitler was up to, maybe not down to the details of human skin lamp shades, but they knew he was killing people by hundreds of thousands and enforcing slave labor.  That alone should have necessitated attacking Germany, but everyone waited until it was their own country being invaded before it became an issue…and millions of innocents died because no one had the will to challenge what they knew to be evil.  Innocents were sacrificed, no one wanted to be viewed as acting unilaterally or being called the policeman of the world, no one wanted to take responsibility and say “This is wrong and it must stop.”  (At least nowadays.  Back in the old days Jefferson, the most anti-war of the Founding Fathers, would use the cutting down of a flag by the Bey of Tripoli as the justification to invade not just Tripoli, but Algiers and Tunis and bring the Barbary pirates to their knees.  Not because they were a direct threat to U.S. interests, hell might have been cheaper to pay them off…no, because they were engaged in piracy and extortion and they needed to be stopped.  And that was over piracy, nowadays we turn a blind eye to genocide, how distorted a policy is that?)

Nations like individuals have an ethical choice to make.  Do they stop the evil which they know about and have the power to do something about, or do they ignore it and thus condone and agree with it.  This is a choice every nation faces.  When the U.S. acts “unilaterally” as the misnamed “policeman of the world” it’s not because it’s our job, it’s because we recognize evil when we see it and choose not to stand by and willingly let it happen.  (I put unilaterally in quotations because I recall there being about 40 other countries that joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations that made the correct ethical choice to not sit quietly by and do nothing.)

Should the people in these nations rise up and overthrow their tyrants as the people of other nations have done.  Yes, they should.  But either they haven’t or they’ve been killed when they tried.

Does that mean we shouldn’t first try negotiation and diplomacy?  No. We should because we are the reasonable ones…but don’t expect it to do much.  Please tell me of the last time a dictator reformed when there wasn’t a threat or implication of force but just out the warm fuzziness of their cuddly heart?

Does that mean we should attack and not care about rebuilding?  No.  You do this to help the victims of evil, not because you enjoy beating up people.  That means, unlike the actions of Clinton, Bush and Obama, when you invade a country the first thing you do after you beat them militarily is you rebuild the nation.  Energy production and delivery systems, roads, plumbing, water…all the infrastructure we take for granted.   And creating government.  Notice that the biggest problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we tried to immediately give control of the government back to the people (both within Bush’s first term).  I love democracy as much as the next sane person, but shoe horning it in before the people have the structural and local infrastructure necessary to support it is insane.  It was 4 years before we returned control of Germany to Germany (and that might have been rushed due to the Cold War) and 7 years before Japan was under self rule after their surrender.  Classical liberal democratic-republics take time and support, they cannot be rushed and that is one of the biggest flaws of our invasion and occupation of these two nations.  Oh, and why do we have a Peace Corp if we don’t use them in nations we’re helping to rebuild?…you know kind of what they’re supposed to be there for.

Now does this mean we should we invade every dictatorship this second?  No, are you out of your mind!  I said what you are aware of AND IN A POSITION TO STOP IT.   Right now we first need to disentangle ourselves from our current exploits abroad which have either been bungled to the point of being irreparable in the immediate future (Afghanistan) or simply it was pointless to be there (Libya, Yemen, Uganda).  I would say personally we should drop a massive amount of ordinance on every Taliban controlled area, carpet bomb (and possibly Dresden-style fire bomb) the hills where they are hiding (yes even in Pakistan), burn every poppy field, and send special forces in to kill every drug lord in the country and the get the hell out of there.  We screwed up Afghanistan so badly I think the best thing we can do is destroy the worst aspects of the evil still left in the country and try to let them find their own way at this point.  Had it been done better at first I would be having a different argument, but the actions of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in regards to that country had been so stupidly incompetent we need to disengage from there for a while.  Yes, right now the U.S. and the Western World need to re-embrace capitalism and get their economies straightened out, because then and only then will they be in a position where we can help others, but putting first things first does not mean we are not committed to the goal of stopping evil.

But we can’t act unilaterally, some say.  The hell we can’t.  Just because a group of people can watch a single woman get raped and murdered doesn’t relieve you of the ethical call to be the one person who actually does something.  If the whole group does nothing, then the whole group deserves to be damned.  And if one person chooses to act unilaterally, then they are the only good person among the group and the fact that they went against the will of the crowd does not condemn that one, it condemns the group.  The same applies to nations.  Every free nation on Earth should be doing all they can to end tyranny (granted, a lot aren’t exactly in an economic position to do so right now, that doesn’t exactly excuse the last 70 years of being complacent about evil).

There is no policeman of the world.  There are merely free nations that have a choice.  And because, on occasion, we are a nation made up of decent people who act to end evil rather than condoning it we act in a way that cowards label us as unilateral.  (Again I would like to point out that other nations were with us in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan…so we are not alone in knowing right from wrong, the media just likes to paint it that way.)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”—attributed to Edmund Burke (he didn’t actually say it, but it is a nice summary of a large point he was making).

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Patriotism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Misconceptions about New Agers and Pagans: That we’re all liberals

One of the main reasons for this blog and my book Republicans and Reincarnation is to kill this persistent myth that that all Pagans and New Agers are liberals (usually the common beliefs paints us as the hippie progressive type).  And I’ve had a few blogs about various misconceptions about New Agers but I felt I should once again deal with this major one.

Why?  Well because as the GOP race gets closer to the end (and especially since that dimwit Santorum has been given press time far exceeding what his lacking intellect would justify) I get to once again hear the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” bantered around and around in debates, speeches, on blogs, in news stories, on Facebook and Twitter.  Judeo-Christian values.

I have asked in various different forums and in person what that phrase “Judeo-Christian values” means.  Each time I have asked I have gotten nothing for answer.  I mean if it’s supposed to be a catchall phrase for a long list of values and principles shouldn’t someone be able to list it?  And it seems to be usually argued that these values dictate that you should be a conservative, but I’ve heard it argued the other way around.  I think part of the problem is that nobody really knows what that list means.  Yes the Founding Fathers followed Judeo-Christian values, but if you corned Washington, Adams or Madison and got them to delineate even 5 of those values I doubt it would be even remotely be close the list Santorum, Huckabee, or Perry would come up with.  And if we don’t know what that list is, then how can we even use the phrase.

One the other hand I can tell you exactly what some of the values of New Agers and Pagans are.  Is this a complete list?  I doubt it.  But it is a list I think any person who calls themselves a Pagan or New Ager (I’m just going to use New Ager as a catchall from here on in) can agree to…and I think they clearly lean to one political philosophy over another.

God is a being of love and reason.

Unlike some religions New Agers do not load down God with very human flaws like anger and jealously (or in some truly insane cases genocidal rage and say He is not bound by such things as reason).  We accept that old Platonic formula that God is Good, which means that God is Reason and Just and Beautiful and True (and adding the logical extension that Plato forgot but the Christians didn’t, God is Love).  This doesn’t translate into any political form by itself, but it does offer us the idea that reason and compassion should be a guidepost in all things.

The Divinity of Life

Every New Ager I think would agree that life, all life, has a spark of the divine in it and as such has value.  Now there might be a wide variety of debate over the equality of the value of a turnip and a human, I would be more firmly planted in the field that human life is unique and given special predominance, but I think we’ll all agree that we are not slaves or servants of God, but a part of him, his children (and if we can get rid of our fears and delusions) his equal.

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” Marianne Williamson, A Return To Love: Reflections on A Course in Miracles [Italics added]

What does this translate into politically?  It wipes away any political system that denies that “all men are created equal.” This doesn’t have a lot of value in most modern American political discussions, because I would hope we all agree on this, but it is a place to start.

Intellect, Free Will and Liberty

The next thing I think we all agree on is that our greatest gift from God is our intellect and our free will.  We have the ability to look at our life and not just analyze but choose the course we are to take.  This is what makes us the equals of God; beside God no other being in the universe has both the intellect to judge the world around them and free will to act upon those choices.  Some religions decry reason, others consider our free will a sin and think we should slavishly reject our will and submit to another’s.  We however revel in ours because we know that when we use both perfectly our will and God’s are not opposed, but the same.  We take comfort in the fact that while free will can allow us to make mistakes it also allows us to learn from those mistakes and grow.

“He tells you but YOUR will; He speaks for YOU. In HIS Divinity is but your own. And all He knows is but YOUR knowledge, saved for YOU, that you may do YOUR will through Him. God ASKS you do your will. He joins with YOU. He did not set His kingdom up alone. And Heaven itself but represents your will, where everything created is for you. No spark of life but was created with your glad consent, as you would have it be. And not one Thought that God has ever had but waited for your blessing to be born. God is no enemy to you. He asks no more than that He hear you call Him Friend.”—A Course In Miracles Chapter 30, Section 3

What does this one mean politically…well quite obviously the political extension of free will is liberty, the right to exert your free will.  And as it is a gift from God the freest use of our liberty should be allowed to the greatest extent that it does not harm anyone else’s right to life and liberty.  Thus it is the government that governs least that governs best.  Further since everyone is equal this pretty much dictates a classically liberal democratic-republic.  It also means that any drive to control society through government should be curbed, government is not there to tell people how to live their lives, only to protect their right to life and liberty (oh and a few other things, but we’ll get to that).

The Point of Life is Happiness and Learning

 

See there is a reason I ordered the first three this way.  New Agers view life in two ways, as an individual life, and as a series of lives in a long chain of reincarnated existences.  From the individual life perspective the highest goal is Happiness  (capital H), Happiness in the Aristotelian sense as a fulfillment not just of our needs but of our aspirations and highest virtues and greatest gifts shared with friends.    Meanwhile the goal of the multi-life existence is Enlightenment (a return to God) which is more of an eternal Happiness.  Happiness is in each individual life is a requirement for meeting this goal, but you also need learning, self-reflection and growth.

“If you possess happiness you possess everything:  to be happy is to be in tune with God.”–Paramahansa Yogananda

In a political sense this translates into two very important points.  The first point, when considered in light of our first three values, leads to an acceptance that rational self-interest (if Happiness is a goal rational self-interest is the only way to get there) and rational self-interest leads to capitalism when taken to a grand scheme.  Capitalism is the only system of economics that allows for the expression of free will where people are allowed to treat each other as equals and deal with each other through reason (or if they choose through compassion).

Quality over Quantity in Life

Having that view to Happiness and leads to a natural preference for quality of life over the quantity of life.  What does that mean?  It means we New Agers should find more beauty in a single act of compassion of one person helping another than in a million welfare checks handed out.  It means that a short life lived well is more important than a long life merely survived.  It means that life should be judged by the quality of our choices, the number of true friends we make, and the amount of learning we achieve…not the years lived, the diseases survived, or the amount of things collected.

“Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives.”—A. Sachs

What does this mean in a political sense?  It means we should reject calls for social welfare programs because they only care about quantity of life not quality…but it does reaffirm our need to be generous and charitable in our personal lives.  But just because some choose to make the wrong choice and not show the amount of charity that will bring them the most happiness, it is the previous points about free will and Happiness destroy any argument that these individual’s foolish choices of irrational self interest means we have to provide for those who do not have.

The Long Term Solution is the Best One

When you live with a belief that you’ll be reincarnated, as most New Agers do, long term planning is kind of important.  The karmic payment plan “Buy now, pay forever.”  So not just in your personal life, but in the political sphere, short term fixes are usually to be shunned as you will always have to deal with their effects…even if those effects are over a generation off.  So government plans that won’t work for the next 50 years, hell even a hundred years are not popular when in the New Age mind set.  Programs that will never be able to pay for themselves and never yield real long term progress should not be popular with New Agers, and this leads to a fairly conservative view point (note I’m saying conservative not Republican, those idiots can be some of the most short term thinkers around).

***

Classically Liberal democratic-republics coupled with near laissez-faire capitalism and thedesire to keep government small, efficient, and protecting your rights is the logical out- growth of Pagan and New Age principles.  One wonders why so many Pagans and New Agers are liberal.

 

 

And you know what?   Forgetting that these are values of one spiritual outlook or another…I would bet you the Founding Fathers would agree with this list more than any list Rick Santorum or Barrack Obama would come up with as their guiding values.

3 Comments

Filed under A Course in Miracles, Aristotle, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Death, Declaration, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Love, Marianne Williamson, New Age, politics, Purpose of Life, Religion, Selfishness, Spirituality

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”–Edmund Burke, considered to be the father of modern Conservative thought

No, that’s not the stupid quote.  I don’t think Burke ever said a stupid thing in his life.  Even the points I would disagree with Burke on vehemently would still be genius.

I just quotde that to frame this idiotic statement from last night’s GOP Debate.  This little tidbit comes from lover of big government, regulations and unchecked executive power, uber-liberal Rick “What Constitution?  I have my wacky interpretation of the Bible!” Santorum.

 And with right-to-work, look, I represented the state of Pennsylvania, which is one of the — which is not a right-to-work state. If you look at who voted for the right-to-work bill in the Congress, those who came from right-to-work states voted for it. Those who came from non-right-to-work states represented their states. I wasn’t going to vote in Washington, D.C., to change the law in my state.
I support right-to-work. I actually, as president, will sign and advocate for a right-to-work bill, but when I represented the people of Pennsylvania, I made the decision that I wasn’t going to do in Washington and change the law in my state when my state didn’t want to have that provision in their laws.

So let me get this straight, you support right to work, but you voted against it?  Oh I’m sorry, I misspoke.  Rick Santorum filibustered a right to work bill.  He didn’t just vote against it, he tried to prevent it from even getting a vote.  Way to support your supposed values, Rick.  This wasn’t like Romney’s excuse of “I had a liberal legislature, let’s see you do better.”  This was “I joined the enemy to actively prevent you from engaging in a basic capitalist right which is covered by your right to pursue Happiness.”  It was “I thought my getting reelected was more important that the Declaration and Constitution and reason.”

Oh yeah, I trust this guy.  I trust him to not only try to legislate every aspect of my personal life, but to continue to sell us out to the unions every chance he gets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Declaration, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Unions

Newt shows he knows nothing about history

Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.

Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history.  Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:

“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”

The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford.  And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan.  So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.

Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS.  And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter Teaches You How To Speak “Democrat”

I love this man.

If only all of CSPAN were like this.

1 Comment

Filed under Humor

Learning from the past…

Six years ago, 2006, if you had asked me who I wanted for President my smartass answer would probably have been “Anyone but Hillary.”  Because why would I want a left-leaning pragmatist without a shred of moral or political principles running the country.  Yes I wanted Rudy, but I would have said I would be willing to take a lot of second tier alternatives.

Then a funny thing happened.  A Democratic challenger arose who was not a pragmatist with many left-leaning tendencies but a full blown socialist who was a true believer in the Marxist trash he was peddling…and Hillary started to look pretty good…but what did I have to worry about, I mean usually I vote Republican and I’ll be able to do that this time.  Oh wait.  Then the GOP in its usual level of “let’s-snatch-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory” stupidity nominated John McCain.  A corrupt liberal who sides with Democrats at the drop of a hat, desperate to get the approval of the mainstream media, who has declared war on the First Amendment before he ran for president through McCain-Feingold, (who through his recent defense of NDAA has declared war on the entire bill of rights), and let us not forget both in the past and present will never miss a chance to sell out our troops and condemn them (given this most recent betrayal of the armed services and NDAA I can say without a moment’s hesitation the world would be a better place if we had just left him to rot in that hole in North Vietnam).  In short I really hate John McCain (almost as much as I hate his pick for VP, who is also a completely unprincipled excuse for a human pretending to be a conservative).

And as the primary was ending in 2008 I was really hoping I could vote for Hillary.  She was a pragmatist which made her better than GOP tweedle-dumb and Democrat tweedle-dumber.  Sadly the Democrats disappointed me as much as the GOP.  I did a write in for Rudy because it would be a cold day in hell before I voted for either of those unprincipled SOB’s.

Did I learn then?  Not really.  Because I then spent the next four years saying “Anyone but Romney.”  Why because he hadn’t expressed his ideas well in his faceoff with McCain and his record as Governor of Massachusetts didn’t speak well for him.  And because I didn’t think it could really get worse than a weak conservative.  Dear God was I wrong again.

Yes I had the hope of Rudy (dashed) and the possibility of a real conservative, Bachman (also dashed) going for a few months.  And very, very sadly the GOP field offered very few options.  I’m not going to talk about the ones who have already left, why bother, but right now my choices other than Mitt comes down to Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul.  Gingrich is a man who is showing himself to have the emotional control of a 2 year old and who by attacking Romney’s career in the private sector is showing that he doesn’t know a thing about economics and business.  Clearly not a good leader or a good conservative.  Santorum, a religious loon who doesn’t respect individualism, so how can he possibly respect capitalism or the free market, who wants to institute some kind of Christian Sharia.   And while Ron Paul sounds like he understands economics, his actions show him to be a terrible leader and terrible person, and he knows less than nothing about foreign policy (or ethics)…and I’m actually now convinced that the U.S. would be worse off after 4 years of Paul than it would after 4 more years of Obama (not that either version wouldn’t involved America in a smoldering pile of rubble).

So I have gone from “anyone but Romney” to Romney has my vote.”  And I will never be saying “Any but ______” again.  But, I will admit that the Romney I was so opposed to isn’t the Romney I’m now seeing.

Yeah, I want the 2nd coming of Reagan.  But I’m not getting it this time round.  Do I still have my concerns about Mitt?  Yeah.  I do.  But the fact is that he is talking about different things than he did before…if Bain Capital had been more in the forefront last time I might have actually been able to get behind him, it shows he actually knows how to be a leader and knows what makes the economy run.  Also he now seems to be backing off some of the things in did in Massachusetts with an argument that boils down to “you try to do better with the liberal legislature I had to deal with.”  I feel that if we just keep the House, take the Senate and get more Tea Party blood in both we’ll be fine with Romney.

Oh if he had spoken 4 years ago like he did after the New Hampshire win, I would definitely have backed him 4 years ago.  Take a look.

“What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better”

A little vague, but he certainly understands America in this vague statement better than anything Obama (who only speaks in vague generalities “We are the ones we have been waiting for”)

“President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.”

He clearly understands that free enterprise is what is going to get us out of our mess and that his opponents are more RINO than he will ever be for critiquing his acts at Bain.

“Make no mistake, in this campaign, I will offer the American ideals of economic freedom a clear and unapologetic defense.”

The only thing that could make me love this statement more is seeing him back it up, which I actually think he will.

“President Obama wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great

You know, like freedom that thing Obama and Santorum are so opposed to.  And being the shining city on a hill a concept that an evil little troll like Paul will never understand.

And then of course there is this…I have no complaints about any of this.  I am hoping that we are now seeing the real Romney, free of advisors telling him to play the moderate, in action.

“Our campaign is about more than replacing a president; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

“He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.

“This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.

“This president puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.

“He is making the federal government bigger, burdensome, and bloated. I will make it simpler, smaller, and smarter.

“He raised the national debt. I will cut, cap, and balance the budget.

“He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them.

“He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it.

“He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it.

“When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as president will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.

“Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.

“He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.

“He chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends.

“He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

“Our plans protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.

“The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I’m not your president. You have that president today.

“But if you want to make this election about restoring American greatness, then I hope you will join us.

“If you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not our destiny, then I am asking for your vote.

“I’m asking each of you to remember how special it is to be an American.

“I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline.

“I want you to remember when you spent more time dreaming about where to send your kids to college than wondering how to make it to the next paycheck.

“I want you to remember when you weren’t afraid to look at your retirement savings or the price at the pump.

“I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become.

“That America is still out there. We still believe in that America.

“We still believe in the America that is a land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom. We believe in the America that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves.

“This election, let’s fight for the America we love. We believe in America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Obama, politics

In an argument with a Ron Paul supporter? send them here…

If you’re sane and like me you’re probably getting tired of these RonPaulBots who like Objectivists defending Ayn Rand (I wonder if there is any cross over there?) think the man walks on water and is no more infallible than the Pope…yeah because that kind of blind devotion really proves to me you’ve thought this one through. I think Reagan is probably the best President in history, but I can probably rattle off 20 things he did wrong right off the top of my head, easily. Even great leaders are human, and anyone who wants to portray their candidate as perfection defined clearly hasn’t thought about the issues very well…and as we have seen with Barrack “The One” Obama, blind devotion is often attributed to the worst, not the best candidates.

So to save you some time I am presenting you with a wide variety of valid resources on why Ron Paul must never, ever be allowed near the White House for any reason whatsoever.

I’m going to be providing a lot of links, and just copying some of my previous statements, so that you have it all in one place at one time. Please feel free to share this with any mindless Ron Paul supporters.

He is a racist and Anti-Semite and just a bigot in general

This is, by far, my biggest problem. I had hoped that Jimmy Carter would be the last anti-Semite this country ever elected. 2008 ruined that hope. But that is no excuse to once again make that mistake.

In his book Liberty Defined (Liberty Defiled might be a better title for his understanding of liberty) he goes on about how in high school he heard a Palestinian student go on about how those mean evil Israeli’s forced them off their land. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He says it struck him as unfair. First, what conservative uses the word “fair”? Second, it strikes me as anti-Semitic propaganda and pretty much an outright lie, and history has shown me to be correct. But Paul would rather believe it than find the truth. For a high school student, or maybe some idiot hick that might be forgivable…for a person holding an advanced degree and who is in Congress and thus might have access to some legitimate records, it’s a complete denial of reality and unforgiveable. So there is point one for anti-Semitism, repeating anti-Semitic lies.

You might also notice, that any conversation would logically not start off with information from 60 years ago, but maybe deal in the here and now. But no he wouldn’t do that because that would show the Israeli’s to be people who target terrorists and military groups while on the other side you have thugs, tyrants and terrorists who target nightclubs, schools buses and other innocent civilians. Point two covering up legitimate evidence.

He uses the word Zionism as the title of that chapter as well. You know I know the word has historical meanings implications beyond a racial slur…but it’s pretty much a racial slur these days.

Then of course there is his newsletter which makes such statements as

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (I need to comment on this one, I could have sworn I saw white people involved in the in the LA riots in the early 90’s…and I believe order was restored, at least in part, because of the police).

“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”


An according to the Atlantic “Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.”

Oh and did you know that gays were, “far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” 

All of the articles have no byline but are written in the first person…so you believe that with a heading like the Ron Paul report, and written in the first person, Ron Paul has nothing to do with it’s content.  And if you believe that I have some lovely bridges to sell to you, please contact me. You know what I find interesting, if I found out someone was publishing racist material with my name attached suggesting I was the writer I would sue them for libel for every last cent they were worth, and if it cost me a job (like the Presidency) then that would be a solid case…yet I have seen no such lawsuit filed. And in 1996  “[h]e said they were being taken out of context.”  I would love to hear what context those statement were made in that doesn’t make them, at best, questionable.

A word on this. Let’s say Ron Paul’s latest excuse, that he owned the newsletter but didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the “very bad sentences” (there’s an understatement). Which means that he is 1. So incompetent a manager he has no clue what people under him are doing and 2. He has no ability to detect character in his employees as he apparently hired some really scummy people. So my option are he is a racist or the world’s worst manager. I can’t wait to see who he would pick as Attorney General…but I can tell you this, it would make Eric Holder look competent by comparison.

Or listen to this:

“…I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, that are almost like in concentration camps, and saying yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way…”

That’s right let’s compare the Israeli’s defending themselves to the acts of a Concentration Camp…who else talks like that, oh yeah, anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter. Oh and you have to like the typical propaganda: let’s ignore the fact that these flotillas were a cover weapons and funding. And to deny that is again something either means he is an idiot or he is intentionally lying to distort the facts to hurt Israel.

And you have to love how he doesn’t see any problem with Hamas being voted in, in fact preposterously claiming them to be democratic government. Because why should you care if a terrorist organization whose charter is to “drive the Jews into the sea” takes charge of country? Notice his only definition of a democracy is that there is s public election. When most sane people talk about spreading democracy they mean spreading Classical Liberalistic democratic-republics which are designed to protect people’s right…not destroy them. But in Ron Paul’s mind anyone who receives the majority of votes is a valid leader. I remind you that Hitler, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and a whole host of other tyrants are “democratically” elected by Paul’s definition. And it it’s good enough for Paul, Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world’s anti-Semites I guess it should be goo enough for us.

I also find it fun how he talks about “Didn’t we talk to the Soviets?” Yes, most presidents did…until Reagan who while he held a few conference pretty much gave them nothing and didn’t back down. So let’s see Truman-Carter talked and how did that go. Reagan gave them at best lip service…and that led to what? Cleary a ringing endorsement to always “talk” to despots.

Oh, and in 2008 he endorsed rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney for President.

His ideas on foreign affairs are beyond insane


I love his argument. Islamofacists are terrorists because we’re occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains their genocidal beliefs and actions towards women, Jews, homosexuals and all non-Muslims. Because the U.S. is occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains why Hitler was making an alliance with Mufti of Jerusalem to exterminate the Jews in Palestine, because they were a bunch of peace loving people. I’m sure that’s why the Muslim Ottoman Empire committed the first acts to be called genocide against the Armenia population. This could go all the way back to the genocide of the Persian Empire and the vicious eradication of Zorasterism in the 7th century and back to Mohammed personally ordering the genocidal slaughter of the Jews of Medina. It’s all because the U.S. was occupying the Middle East. Islam has always been a religion of peace and does not have a history of encouraging the absolute worst aspect of human nature. It does not have a track record for acts that even in the 6th century would be called evil. It doesn’t have a “holy” book that glorifies violence and slaughtering those who are different. No. No. Not at all, it’s only because we’re in the Middle East and if we left (and probably took all the Jews with us) they would return to their pre-Israel state of near Edenic peace and utopian prosperity.

Why am I the only one who thinks this man saying “It’s because we’re occupying the Middle East” and implying that if we left they wouldn’t attack us has all the ring of Neville Chamberlain saying if we just give Hitler the Sudetenland we shall have “Peace in our time.” Might be because I have even a layman’s understanding of history and human psychology. They hate because, since birth, they have been fed a steady stream of hate…and it is a fire that cannot be quenched by appeasement, it can’t even be stopped by reason, it can only be opposed. I think most Muslims are probably like most Christians they care more about paying the bills and their family more than they do about the more abhorrent parts of the their holy book…but there is a virulent strain in Islam that seeks to oppress and destroy liberty, and it cannot just be ignored by leaving.

And while we shouldn’t get involved in every countries problem there are evils that always have a nature of expanding (tyranny) and are so abhorrent that to not act is an act of evil (genocide). To not oppose tyranny and genocide wherever we find it when we are able is to relinquish everything we believe is right (you know, the little things like the idea that “all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”…I failed to see the line where it says that equality and those rights end at the U.S. border). If tyranny is an evil because it is in opposition to a natural right, it is as great an evil in someone else’s country as when it is in your own. And to sit by while this evil goes on and you have the ability to stop it is not only morally reprehensible, it is also patently foolish. One of my favorite authors, P.J. O’Rourke, pointed out that “evil is an outreach program.” History shows that tyrants and those who commit genocide are never content with their own little patch of ground and like a cancer they always, always spread…and when you’re the biggest country around they will always become your problem eventually. So why not stop evil when it’s small and easily handled, when the bloodshed committed by the evil has not gotten out of hand, and when it will take less bloodshed to put it down.

Or you can go with the Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain theory of isolationism. Because it always works so well.

Yes, there are numerous legitimate objections to the way we handled Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of legitimate objections. Might be helpful to have a plan on how to build a government next time. Maybe not make deals with the devils in the country. Just a thought. But there is a difference between complaining about how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (which any sane person should have issues with) and with complaining about the idea of opposing tyranny wherever we find it with all the weapons we have at our disposal (which includes but should not be limited to diplomacy, embargos, espionage, assassination, and full military force). Paul seems to think that if you aren’t directly attacking us it doesn’t matter how evil you are.

In fact, the absolute litmus test of a just war is World War II, which in retrospect every sane human being sees that we should have invaded Germany the moment they took over Austria (probably sooner), not waited for the Sudetenland, not waited for Poland, not waited for France, not waited for the Blitz and certainly not have waited for Pearl Harbor but taken them all out before millions of innocents were needlessly slaughter …how did Ron Paul respond to this particular test of sanity? Why he said in response to being asked if we should have used military force to end the Holocaust:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Not only is that line pure evil, and another point in the Anti-Semite court (what is that five? but notice also his statement about going to fight for someone. Notice the moral ambiguity. It seems to suggest that if you wanted to go fight with Chinese or the British (which many honorable Americans did) that would be fine…but it also seems to suggest that if you would have rather fought with the Germans or the Japanese that would also be okay with him. Now I may be stretching a little, but the man seems to have no moral compass whatsoever so can you say there is anything he has ever said that would have stopped someone going to fight for Germany or Japan. A sane human being would say anyone who did that should be put up against a wall and shot, I’d bet you Paul wouldn’t be bothered by such an idea.

Need further proof he has no moral compass…

He doesn’t see a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. The fact that they’re a theocracy might be a problem. The fact that their president, Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denying lunatic who believes the end of the world is near, and that he might be able to hasten it by bringing about nuclear war…yeah can’t see how that guy having nukes could possibly end badly.  After all many will point out that Ahmadinejad answers to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is trying to get Ahmadinejad removed on charges of “sorcery”. Yes I feel much safer with the nukes being in the hands of a Holocaust-denying religious leader who finds “sorcery” to be a valid accusation against someone. Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? Because all the intelligent people were either killed, jailed, or are now too afraid to act after the U.S. didn’t support their uprising (maybe they should have demanded an even more Islamist government and Obama would have supported them…it worked in Libya and Egypt). And the fact that Ron Paul seems oblivious to this insanity is frightening. I guess since he feels that he, a lunatic, should have the nuke codes, why shouldn’t other mentally unstable dingbats.

Let me just ask this:  How do you expect a man to defend your rights, when he doesn’t apparently believe they are natural human rights in the first place?  I can see logical arguments for, we don’t have the manpower or money right not to take on the world’s tyrants…fine…but he isn’t making an argument from practicality, he’s saying that tyrants can burn the world to a cinder so long as they leave us for last.

The belief that his ideas on the economy are sound is a joke


Now in all fairness, Ron Paul claims to be a follower of Austrian economics, whereas usually I am more of Milton Freidman Monetarist, so while we agree on probably 99% of this economically, we would never agree on everything. But as I did research I found he doesn’t exactly live up to even his supposed Austrian economics ideals…

But watch him be a total hypocrite

So what he does is he gets pork put into the bill but then votes against it so he can say he has never voted for an earmark. The lack of a principle there is beyond astounding. I haven’t seen ethical summersaults like that since Kant tried to argue you should help murders find their victims. How much Pork has Ron Paul brought to his district?

·$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers.
·$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
·$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
·$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
·$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
·$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
·$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
·$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
·$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
·$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
·$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
·$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

Don’t believe me, think I just made this up, or got it off another website (I got the wording because this is getting long as it is and I’m trying to save time) …well then you can go to this website. It’s Ron Paul’s Congressional webpage, maintained by Paul and his staff and you can see pdf copies of all the requests WITH PAUL’S SIGNATURE on them. Oh yeah he really believes in small government. Not one of those pork projects has even the slightest thing to do with what federal spending should be. It takes balls to complain about the size of government spending with one hand and contribute to the tune of $82.4 million dollars in 2010 alone…let’s see, assuming this is an average year for him, he’s been in the House for over 2 decades at $82.4 million a year…last time a I checked that number comes out to just over a Billion dollars in pork. Truly this man is a champion of conservative economics and not a hypocrite like the rest of the Republican party.

And then does anyone remember his response to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, that is was too ”regressive” that it was utterly unfair to think that maybe, just maybe, the poor should pay some part of the tax burden of the economy. That’s right he only believes the middle class and the rich should shoulder the burden. Does that sound like a capitalist to you? Now if you want to complain that the numbers were too high, that it should have been 5-5-5 would be more economically logical, that would be fine, it was not a perfect plan…but to complain that it has an actual capitalist tenant that everyone has their money in the game…utterly astounds me that any supposed economic conservative can possibly support this man.

Or there is this little gem from his own website “ Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.” Sound nice doesn’t it. Do you know what it means? It means he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. You know ignore whether there was a rational argument for staying off the gold standard or going off it back in the day…the fact is that we have been off it for so long that there is no going back. Yeah, academics may like to banter around whether it would be a good thing or not…but show me one crazy enough to advocate to have it put back in place immediately. Even if you were going to do it you would have to lower the amount of money in the system (which the Fed has put far too much in) but continue lowering it beyond what any Monetarist would think healthy even over a 20 year period of time…but in Paul’s case, since you wouldn’t have 20 years to do it you would have to do it in 4 years or less! Even if returning to the gold standard was a good idea, trying to adjust an economy that fast is suicide. There is no going back and trying to force it back into place and it would possibly be the most economically destructive idea possible. It’s an arcane debate that whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is a pointless argument now. And a man who doesn’t get that is not qualified to be in the Oval Office.

This is a man who thinks that all countries are created equally and should be left alone to do whatever they want, because none of it is America’s business. First off it’s frightening to think that someone who claims to understand economics has not a single clue that the economy has reached a point where every country in the world is connected into one giant economy. No country is an island; every country is a piece of the whole global economy… any country’s economic problems diminishes America, because we are involved in the global economy, and therefore never seem to know for whom the closing bells on Wall Street tolls; it tolls for thee.

I have few problems with true Austrian economists like Hayek or Von Missus. But Paul, while he may at times parrot the words well. The man’s words may say economic capitalist…his actions show he knows nothing or is just a hypocrite. Either way he ruins the valid arguments of libertarian philosophy.

And that he is the only answer

Three times already I have been asked by a Ron Paul supporter in the last week “What do you support NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2011) or SOPA (the poorly named Stop Online Piracy bill)?” when I said it would be a cold day in hell before I supported Paul. Those would be the defense bill that allows Obama to imprison any American without trial and the bill that allows Obama to shut down any website he wants. Both bills were moves by the Obama administration to have near tyrannical power and to completely shred the Constitution. Both are entirely unconstitutional and I see a 9-0 thumbs down coming from the Supreme if they survive the first days of a new presidency. However, why if I oppose Obama’s power grabs would it follow I must support Paul or that if I don’t support Paul I must approve of shredding the Constitution. Huh? Is that the best they have, that a man who has been able to get exactly one bill through Congress in a very long political career is the only hope we have for getting this legislation overturned? That is beyond any form or reason as I understand. But RonPaulbot reason is very different than our Earth logic, they believe it to be superior form.

He appears to be very, very popular with liberals (which in this case I think is a valid case of guilt by association)

And then there is this. And I’m saving this for last, because I do know how laws are written and how there can often be extra materials that has nothing to do with the law that should be opposed (like I support funding for the military included in NDAA, I oppose the Constitutional violations, thus I oppose the whole law)…so I’m kind of willing to hear that there was something else that was terrible in this bill that was tacked on because no one would vote against it…but he voted against a bill that would have required wi-fi carriers to report child porn downloads to the police. I don’t care how libertarian you are, it’s child porn, if you’re caught with it you need to go away for a very, very long time. (Again I would be willing to hear an argument that there was some terrible part to this bill that did need it to be opposed until that part was removed…but otherwise this is kind of sick.) I’m sorry you vote against this there is either a legitimate legal reason, and in which case you scream from every mountain exactly why you’re doing it to make sure there is nothing unclear about your motives and you offer a bill or amendments that corrects those problem (which I can’t find any record of him attempting amendment or a different bill), which last time I checked is why we elect people to Congress, to work together to craft the best bills (yes I know they all fail miserably, that doesn’t forgive Paul’s sins)…or, besides getting money from Odessa, is NAMBLA funding this psycho as well?

You know what, you don’t like Obama or Romney, fine. But don’t vote for an even bigger idiot just because you don’t like your choices. Stay home, or vote for Mickey Mouse…anything, but do not support this vicious, hypocritical demagogue.

***

One last thing I have to say. I get very animated and passionate about my arguments with liberals or isolationist libertarians.  But unlike RonPaulBots I do understand where they are coming from.  I understand that much of what I say comes off as heartless to liberals (even though I would argue that it helps more people in the long run by being purely rational in terms of government) and I understand the desire of libertarians to just want to be left alone (even though I argue that attitude is never pragmatic).  My point is that while I cannot always agree with my opponents I can at an intellectual level understand where they are coming from.  Ron Paul supporters do not seem capable of this.  If you tell them you can’t support him because you think he’s an anti-Semite they act like you just said the sky is green with yellow polkadots or suddenly just started speaking Summerian in front of them.  I know this won’t actually shut them up, because they believe with a religious fervor that cannot be challenged with fact and data.  It is faith that Ron Paul is the only solution and there can be no challenging the faith, they cannot even conceive of there being an objection to their god-king–there can only be burning the heretics.

Vote for Ron Paul…prove the Mayans were right about 2012

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day

This video speaks for itself.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized