Category Archives: Equality

Evils of Equality

 

“Freedom is life’s great lie. Once you accept that, in your heart, you will know peace.”—Not Bernie Sanders but you’d be hard pressed to find a place where he disagrees with this idea.

So I’m sure we’re all tired of Bernie and his cult of stupid praising equality.  They’re quite an illiterate bunch. I call them illiterate because if he had ever picked up a book he might have had the chance to see the obvious evil of equality. Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell, and of course most beautifully Vonnegut in “Harrison Bergeron” show the clear dehumanizing nature of equality. Further these idiots have clearly been living in caves as I know everything from The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Star Trek back in the day to episodes of the Simpsons—not to mention a slew of movies have also dealt with how equality is really a terrible thing (and I mean movies of quality not just whatever the latest teen dystopia is). But for those of you who might not be sure why I’m suggesting equality is terrible let me explain.

As an English teacher by day I like to make sure we all have the same definition going in when we discuss something, so let us begin with a quick definition:

equality: noun, the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities

But that really doesn’t help us now does it?  Except in giving us the idea that things that have equality are essentially the same thing. This is why we have to break down equality into lots of different categories such as potential, rights, under the law, access to opportunities, abilities, and results. (Yeah I’m going to cover all of those.)calvin-coolidge-quotes.jpg

Now not all equality is bad, because in many ways we are perfectly equal. For instance we are all equal in our potential. We all have the potential to reach into that part of ourselves that is part of God.  In a more immediate sense we all have the potential to make our lives, and possibly this world, a better place than we found it (but again not everyone lives up to that potential).

We are equal in our natural rights. By definition we are beings with bodies, reason, free will, and souls. Because we have bodies we have the right to life, because without that right we could not use any of those other things we have. Because we have reason and free will we all have the right to liberty so long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of anyone else. Because we have souls we not only have a right but a moral obligation to pursue our Happiness because that is what we are made for. Wrapped up in the pursuit of Happiness while in this world is liberty but also the right to property to see the effort of our labor made manifest. We are all equal in these rights. No one has a greater natural right to liberty than another…although if you prove to be a danger to those around you, for the safety of everyone you can lose your right to liberty.

And because of the nature of government it must be enforced that we are all equal under the law. That the writing and enforcement of the law cannot, must not, favor one group over another. If we didn’t enforce strict equality under the law (which by the way we don’t with such wonderful ethical violations as Affirmative Action, and the DOJ’s current racist enforcement of voting rights laws) the system would be by definition corrupt.

And then there is this tricky one about access to opportunities. This is where equality stops. When conservatives and libertarians talk about equal access to opportunity they are speaking about something we are all equal in regards to. We all have a right to seek opportunities that will lead to our happiness, and while we don’t have this in real life because of the government, we do have the natural right to seek any job, any profession, any piece of property and try to achieve them. However, since we do not have a right to getting these things, only the equal right to pursue getting them, some of us will not achieve our pursuit. And in this respect individuals are not equal. Some will find success/happiness in the opportunities, some will not. And that is a fact of reality.

These are all things we are equal in because they all deal with potential. We all have these rights to do things as we choose, but notice nothing is guaranteed to us; we have to work for every end. Only means are rights not ends.*

Liberals, however, when they mention equality of opportunity they think of something else. They think of the evil which I spoke of in the first paragraph. When they say everyone should have access to the same opportunities, they don’t think with the addendum that conservatives do “so long as you have worked for them.” Do you want to have a pay check, a better job, a life-style where you can take 2 months, or a year off? Conservatives want you to have those things, so long as you work for them. Liberals just want to skip that little work point and just say you should have the opportunity to live that kind of life. To hell with whether you’ve earned it.

And that’s the problem with equality of results. It denies that people have to earn things; that they just have to be given things. And while the pragmatic problem is that when a government gives people things you have to steal them from others which is evil in and of itself, it reduces the incentives to actually produce. This is why communist and socialist nations produce less, because there is no incentive to produce more–only capitalism produces that. Don’t believe me, look at pictures of any Soviet breadline, then, go take a look at how many types of bread you have to choose from at the local Safeway.

But aside from the pragmatics that guaranteeing equality of results doesn’t work there is an inherent evil in equality of ends. First off people are not equal. One person is smarter, one stronger, one a better painter, one a great accountant, another a great teacher, another a great writer, another a great parent. People have different talents. Most of have two or three things we’re good at. A rare few are exceptional in multiple fields. A rare few are gifted in almost nothing. But each of us has different skills. Now while we all have our purpose on this Earth, it does not mean all of us will fulfill that to our fullest potential. And to treat everyone as if their gifts were all the same is to deny that which makes us good. To say we all get paid the same, or have equal rights to healthcare, states that your gifts and talents and efforts and character are worth the same as the most talentless, ungifted, lazy jerk. And that’s exactly what equality of ends is endorsing. It says that the most pathetic excuse of a human being is worth the same as you. It is to say that the person who has turned their back on making the world a better place should receive the same as the person who strives to use all their gifts to their fullest potential. It is to say that there is no difference between those who choose the best in ourselves and work to that end and those who fall to the worst in ourselves and work to no end but destruction.

You cannot bring the worst of us up to the level of the best of us unless they choose to bring themselves up to that level. Thus to say that everyone, without qualification, deserves the same payment, healthcare, means you deserve the same rewards, healthcare, place in society. Equality says you are worth no more than the most lazy, illogical, uneducated person in the world. Is that right? No it’s evil. Only by embracing the best within us and rewarding that, do we acknowledge that there is a difference between the best and worst within us. (And you’ll notice that those best among us then offer more opportunities through personal charity to others to let them shine as well). The only way to establish equality is to destroy those of skill and gifts because otherwise they would be a reminder to those who do not have those skills and gifts that they are not equal (go read Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”)…equality means that no one should be more special than any other or shine out from the crowd (go read Huxley’s Brave New World)…it means you cannot exercise your liberty because the full use of liberty means you might be different and better (go read 1984). Equality in the way liberals mean it is slavery.

Yes we need equality under the law, equality of rights, equality to pursue our dreams because we are humans. But that which makes us human allows us to progress at different rates, which by definition means an inequality of results. And to go against that is to go against what makes us human. It is an evil that denies the best within us.

*Liberals will of course bring up handicaps here.  Guess what real handicaps didn’t stop Keller, Hawking, or Reeves, humans have potential because of their soul and their brain and for the vast majority of people with handicaps we have no problem making legitimate accommodations when people legitimately have something that is out of the norm that might offer a small stumbling block to them demonstrating the full potential of their mind.  As for mental handicaps, well we as a society take care of those who literally can’t take care of themselves—it’s an incredibly small group and this minuscule exception doesn’t actually challenge the idea of rights and equality of opportunity being more important than equality of results.

Leave a comment

Filed under Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Individualism, Uncategorized

Capitalism: The ONLY hope of Mankind

Capitalism is the only system that has been shown to raise people out of poverty. It is the only system that benefits the rich, the middle class, and the poor. It is the only system that can bring a nation out of destitution. It is the only system that works long term. It is the only system compatible with human nature. It is the only system of economics that is ethical. It is the only system of economics that is sustainable because only capitalism creates and encourages the innovation and imagination needs to deal with the constant slew of problems that life brings.

You can either be in favor of Capitalism or you can be an idiot who knows nothing about economics, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, human nature, politics, reason, logic or facts.











Let me say again…You can either be in favor of Capitalism or you can be an idiot who knows nothing about economics, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, human nature, politics, reason, logic or facts. That is all.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, philosophy, politics, Tyranny, Unions

Progressives want more fair pay acts to create equality…that will be neither fair nor equal…

So the latest pointless legislation to come from idiots on the left is the  ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’:

Mikulski and DeLauro said the Paycheck Fairness Act would also allow women to seek punitive damages for pay discrimination, establish a grant program to strengthen salary negotiation and other workplace skills and require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to eliminate pay disparities.

Oh great more laws to enforce “fairness” between wages because of the myth that women earn less than men.

Yes because government programs, grants, Federal involvement in negations, and regulations will result in far more equal pay.  This equal pay will of course come in the form of more unemployed people because grants, programs, regulations and overreach tends to result in the contraction of the economy.  And everyone is equal when you don’t have a job.  But don’t worry we have the Obama and his Jobs Council to help find those people new jobs…oh, wait, we don’t.

But at least we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to protect us.  Obama said so in his inauguration.

Okay let’s first talk about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…or as I call it bullshit.  What is it really?  It’s a bone to the trial lawyers who now have legal cover to sue for perceived injustices that are decades old.  It’s the exact opposite of the tort reform we so dearly need.   Because it has nothing to do with equal pay.

But back to the myth that men make more than women.  It’s only true if you ignore all relevant detail.  It’s like saying that people in their 40’s make more than people in their 20’s and blaming age discrimination.  Factually the wage gap is true, but it ignores all the relevant reasons as to why it’s true.

Did you know that women in their 20’s make more money than their male counterparts in the same field? 

Did you know that when you correct for experience and education and the job then women of any age earn more?  (See Thomas Sowell’s book Economic Facts and Fallacies for more on this) It’s just that women take these large swaths of time off from their careers…the Obama administration can find no explanation but sexism for the time women take off from their jobs.

Since women in their 20′s are making more than men in their 20′s, actually if you had equal work for equal pay it means most men should be making more…hmmm…..oh wait because we’ve put in card check and unfair practices at the federal labor board everyone will be in a unions with a few year whether they want to be or not.  Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.

Or consider the fact that 93% of all workplace fatalities are men.  Did anyone want to talk about workplace equality for this?  Or did anyone want to consider this suggest that men are statistically taking more dangerous jobs which pay more for the risk, thus accounting for the discrepancy between wages when you consider ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN.

Yes when you consider all men to all women men make more.  But when you look at the same job for two people with the same education and years of experience, women make more.

Women you want to make more?  Take jobs that pay more and don’t take off time to have children.  That’s all you have to do, value income more than a job you may enjoy and value income more than having a family.  Statistically that’s all you have to do and you will make more than your male counterparts.  You don’t need legislation.

real war on women(Of course if we took that route we might have to acknowledge things like Obama’s economics have hurt women more than men, or that Obama is funneling guns and combat jets to countries that treat women as little more than slaves, or that one of the few places women are paid less than men is Obama’s Administration, or that the real war on women might be gender selective abortions pushed by Planned Parenthood and defended by Democrats*)

In the end this is just another BS law by the left using government to infantilize people and make them feel entirely dependent on a government to protect them and take care of them.

*I’m pro-choice but I think even pro-choice people can admit that gender selective abortion are really sick…although ironically the people who would have such an abortion are the last people I would ever want to raise a child–it’s the sad irony of all abortion.

***t

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, character, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Unions

Reflections on the Election: Why I was wrong, Why Obama Won, and what the GOP needs to do. Part III

It’s been a month since the election…and as you can tell from the limited number of posts, I’m still kind of depressed Obama won, America Lostabout this (and overworked at work, but that’s another story).  I’m still shell-shocked that people could be that stupid—even I, who believe the masses are idiots, can’t fully comprehend that people are so fucking stupid as to vote in a tyrant not once but twice.  It baffles the mind.  If you care about only what you can get you should have voted for the guy who would guarantee a higher chance at raises and better jobs: Romney.  If you cared about other people you should have cared about the guy who would have done the most to improve the middle class: Mitt.  If you care about character it would be the guy who personally does charity whenever he can: Willard Mitt Romney. Intelligence, that would be the guy who got his J.D. and MBA in the same 4 years: The Governor.  Experience, class, vision, leadership, surrounding himself with qualified people.  On every criteria you can come up with it’s a no brainer, but, but, but…

People are really fucking short sighted, envious and dumb.

But are we just powerless to do anything? Are we at the mercy of party leadership to pull us out of this tailspin the country has voted itself in (dear god that’s a depressing thought)?  Luckily no.  Unfortunately I’m not promising anything easy either.

So what can we as individuals do?

Well first I would like to turn back to the exit polls.  Now looking at ethnicity or gender or even age is pointless because there is nothing we can do to change that.   People are what they are.  (Yes, age changes, but it’s not like we have any actual control over it).

2012 exit polls education

Now education can change (complete shocker that Obama the no intelligence/no high school bracket and the no real world experience/postgraduate bracket) but unless you’re a parent most of us can’t really affect people’s education.  If you are a parent, I might suggest that you state you’re not paying for any kind of college education unless they get a degree in the Math/Science area and thus have marketable skills (if they want to get a dual major and have a liberal art as well, well you can negotiate) but parents do not pay for Sociology degrees they are worthless and breed dumb liberals.

2012 exit polls single

Next we turn to gender and marriage status.  A lot of to do was made about women in this election, but as you see it wasn’t really women so much as single women.  And I have seen conservative writers talk about how the single women pose a threat to liberty as they seem to look to the government for the security nets…but it if you look at the data single men are also pretty dumb. The conclusion I’m drawing here isn’t that women are liberal, it’s that single people on the whole are liberal and need to be stopped.  (Yes, I as a bachelor, may not want to throw stones in a glass house, but I’m not as dumb as my fellow singles who voted for Barry…but if you are or know any single, intelligent, conservative, spiritually open women in the Phoenix area…well…my email address is posted…).  Now does this mean we should all go out and get married without standards or relationships, that marriage is an end unto itself. No.  One of the reasons we have a high divorce rate is that people don’t take the time to plan and make sure they’re making a right choice.  So really unless you want to start playing matchmaker which some of us are more qualified than others (this would certainly not be a skill of mine).

2012 exit polls religion

And then we see that Obama did well with the non-religious crowd* and Romney did well with the religious crowd.  Let me put these last two points in context. It doesn’t have as much to do with faith or companionship.  For a lot of people it is an issue of safety.  If you have a spouse, if you have an active church community you have someone you know you can fall back on if things go bad, if you don’t have these things, then the psychology of most people is to seek something you can fall back on: the government.  Now I would rather people evolve and see themselves as their fallback (or at least maybe God) but if we’re going to get there we first have to have an economic system that allows people to take care of themselves (i.e. we need to get rid of liberals and progressives at every level).

So what does this have to do with religion?  Well it means that if you’re a member of a church you need to encourage, push for, and if necessary demand, that your church be more active in the community—charity, public works and improvement projects, fundraisers not for the church but those honestly in need. This should have nothing to do with demonization or dogma.  Only about helping the community and strengthening the bonds of community.

If you’re not in a church, say a New Ager, it couldn’t hurt to find a non-pushy church out there and see if they would like help with those charity projects.

If you’re in a church that does do these kinds of charity projects then see if you can invite people you know to help, don’t proselytize, don’t make it about belief, only about helping others.  (Also may I suggest making your charity functions known to the local middle and high schools—students, especially college bound students, are more and more looking for community service on their resumes—and let them know their parents are invited as well).

This has nothing to do with dogma, it has to with a core tenet in every religion I can think of, charity, community, compassion.

Show people that government isn’t the only source that they can fall back on.  Look at it this way, the way people talk about others often shows how they themselves think.  I call it the “I am the world” fallacy, and I’m guilty of it myself sometimes, we all are.  We tend to make assumptions about the way people act based on our own habits and thoughts.  Conservatives naturally tend to think that the government isn’t needed because we ourselves are more generous and just assume everybody does the right thing.  Liberals assume others are avaricious, cruel, irrationally selfish, and miserly not because they’re saints and know everyone else is stingy, but because they themselves are not compassionate at their heart—they fear they will have no one to fall back on because in their heart of heart they know they won’t help other either.  (Liberals give to charity less than conservatives and they volunteer a hell of a lot less than conservatives, see Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks).

But if we get people who might not usually attend church to come to charity events we can show them that people do care for people and that we don’t need government to care for us…and maybe we can even show them there is personal joy in compassion and charity.  Trust me, a person who does charity out of the joy it brings them never votes liberal, liberals give out of guilt not joy.

So get your church (or any other group that has the resources) involved in the community (if you’re not doing at least 3 events a month, it’s not enough), invite people to come just for the charity aspect, and watch their belief that the government is the only one looking out for them disappear (also with more human contact and larger social circles we might fix that single problem listed above).

Also this process will help destroy that one thing that Obama did well in “He cares about people like me.”

2012 exit polls key points

Charity and a strong community teach us that we are capable of caring for people who aren’t like ourselves.

But that can’t be all we have to do.  Liberals have done a great job with controlling the media.  News, movies, TV shows, you name it there are liberal messages.  But we cannot give in on this.

So there are a few things we can do.  The first is that we can try to pull their funding.  Here at the Conservative New Ager we’re going after that Goebbels style propaganda wing MSNBC.  We encourage people to write to their advertisers and pull their ads.  It works.  If a company just gets a hundred letters asking them to make sure the shows they are advertising on are only reporting the truth, they will either pull the ads or they will use the power their money buys them to get results.  We have already heard from P&G and UPS.

The next thing is that we need to expose people to the truth.  I would recommend everyone use all the social media they have to expose their friends to the truth.  Now you don’t have to repost a thousand articles every day, but don’t be afraid to share something for fear of losing a friend.  For everyone you lose you’ll likely help push a two or three that much closer to the truth.  (And if you’re like me you don’t have many liberal friends left anyway, it’s the middle we’re trying to win, not the ones beyond hope).

Also if you get a real newspaper (there aren’t many left: The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times…if it uses AP articles don’t bother) take it to work and leave it in the break room every day.  It can only help expose people to the truth.

But on that note we need to share the media that is conservative we need to focus on the stuff that isn’t the news and isn’t explicitly political.  Liberals have tried to infect every book, every movie, every show with liberal messages and just habituate people into thinking in liberal terms.  The problem is that most good literature is more conservative in its themes.  Self sufficiency, rational thought, ethical behavior, connection to God.  These subtle themes are in literature everywhere, even when it’s written by artists who are liberal themselves.  George Orwell was a socialist, but 1984 and Animal Farm are scathing critiques of the very state Orwell would likely have supported.   Given time, the truth will out, as a conservative writer once put it. What conservatives make the mistake of doing is trying to give people Atlas Shrugged and Ann Coulter and Thomas Sowell.  It doesn’t matter that we enjoy those, those books only preach to the choir.  If someone isn’t open to those ideas, if they’ve been indoctrinated to think conservatives are evil, Rand was psychotic, Coulter is vicious and Sowell is an Uncle Tom, it doesn’t matter if the facts are there, their emotional reaction to those works will prevent them from seeing the facts.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t share books and TV shows with friends, family, acquaintances. I’m sure we know lots of people who are not conservative but if they were introduced to those ideas the logic and reason of it would come out.  That is why I am putting together a list of books, movies and TV shows that depict the conservative themes and that we agree with, without being explicitly conservative.   The Individual, reason, ethical behavior, long term thinking, the truth.  These are things that bring people close to conservatism.  I would take a look at this list (and keep coming back as I hope to keep adding to it).  Lend these works out to people who you think might be open to them.  Give them as gifts for any holiday and any excuse you can.  And then discuss them with the person after they’ve read or watched it (never give out something you’re not familiar with already!  You don’t want to get caught where they make some silly liberal interpretation and don’t have a comeback for it).  It seems silly but ideas have power, and once they’re in a person’s mind they spread not just to affecting the other ideas of that mind but in the way they behave to others and the way they influence the ideas of others.  And if they get more conservative in their thoughts introduce them to the more explicitly conservative works…but don’t start with those, they’ll just shut people down.

Finally it’s the old stand-bys.  Write a blog or letters to editors.  Donate to organizations that promote your beliefs (right now I would focus on Heritage and Freedomwork because they do not seem overly obsessed with the social issues which are dragging this party down and giving the left too many easy targets), volunteer for campaigns, get involved.  We have four years where we can do next to nothing to save the economy or well being of our allies across the sea.  Nothing.  We have this idiot tyrant in charge and he will wreck the place as much as he can through a combination of stupidity and malice.  Focusing too much on that will be somewhat fruitless for us as individuals—but as individuals we do have the power to influence those around us and help bring them to our side.

*Also Obama did exceedingly well with people who aren’t not affiliated with any religion but are spiritual  you know, the kind of people the Republicans and Reincarnation was written specifically for.  If you know some of these people, could it hurt to give them a copy?

3 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Ayn Rand, Books, Books for Conservatives, Books for New Agers, Capitalism, character, Charity, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Movies, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Popular Culture, Republicans and Reincarnation, Spirituality

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part II

“”They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So just to be clear, Obama did say:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

But why is this so bad?

It’s terrible because it shows us exactly what Obama thinks.  He thinks that without an activist government you cannot survive.  That without an activist government there is no progress.  That without an activist government there is no growth.

Intellectually, factually, morally and ethically he could not be more wrong.

Now some very, very stupid people trying to sound reasonable might say something like:

“Neither private sector nor public sector are sufficient. Both are necessary.”

Now in a grander sense, yes, this is true.  The necessary evil of government is necessary to provide a system of laws, a police and military force, and a court system for prosecution of crimes and arbitration of disagreements, a handful of various other services.  Not a single Classically Liberal or capitalist philosopher, be it Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or F.A. Hayek, would ever argue that government is not necessary to a successfully run economy and society.  Capitalism is just as opposed to anarchy as it is to socialism and tyranny.  But every Classically Liberal and capitalistic philosopher will also point out that government’s function are there to provide rules, protect others from violence and fraud, serve as arbiter, and provide those few services that the private sector cannot easily provide.  And also, while many of them hadn’t seen the monster of an overgrown federal government, most would argue that where government does need to step in it should as locally controlled and locally funded as possible.

Now what is an example of a function that only the federal government can do.  Well you have the army and navy.  You have the post office in the early days of the Republic (although nowadays you could cut the Post Office down to 10% of it’s current size and FedEx, UPS, and local companies could more than pick up the slack at lower prices and higher efficiency).   I’m sure a private mail carrier could have made money in the early days of the Republic, but the Founding Fathers realized how useful the committees of correspondence were, and how communication is one of the most deadly tools against tyranny, and thus had to make sure there was always an option for communication that could not go bankrupt (as there exists with any private company)…which is also the reason I advocate drastically cutting the USPS but not completely destroying it.

But is infrastructure something that only the public sector can provide?

No it’s not.  And this is a self evident truth.  Governments were building infrastructure before they started using dimwitted Keynesian tactics of spending money they didn’t have.  Logically this meant that they were getting money from commerce to build infrastructure.  Commerce and business predated infrastructure, their success is not dependent on it…it is the reverse that is true, that infrastructure is dependent on business success.

Look at the entirety of U.S. history and you will see this.  In terms of transportation, stage coaches, ferries, and even railroads started out as private sector industries that did not have government funding (yes railroads became the transcontinental giants with government help…but they also became inefficient, monopolistic, corrupt and low quality when government money got involved).  Most of the infrastructure that raised Britain to an economic powerhouse in the Industrial Revolution was privately built.  I recall that a good portion of Hong Kong’s early infrastructure post-WWII was more privately funding by booming business more than by the hands off government of the colony.  Even in now uber-liberal California, we should all remember the completely private Red Car system provided efficient and cheap transportation (using it’s own infrastructure) to most of Southern California for nearly 4 decades before being taken over by the state.

Yes the interstate highway system is wonderful and has been a great boon to commerce…of course Ike built it as an easy way to move the military in the Cold War, the economic benefit was secondary so you don’t get to claim that it was built for the purpose of the economy.  However even if the highway system should have originally been a federal project to ensure that all states are connected…it no longer needs to be federal—at this point states are more than capable of up keep of their own roads as they need them to stay economically competitive (i.e. they won’t let them just fall apart) and the local control will keep overhead, graft, and inefficiency down (at least it will be far less than what a distant federal government would create).  So even the highway system isn’t an argument that Obama has.  Yes does the system of roads and bridges need work?  Yeah, it does.  Of course if it was such an important function why didn’t you get it done in the first 4 years Barry?  And why did you saddle the debts with such massive future debts via Obamacare so that they couldn’t deal with the problem themselves?

But maybe we’re not just talking about roads for infrastructure.  Electricity maybe?  No, that was originally built by private companies…and the modern government controlled national grid is such an unmitigated disaster that even liberal Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went off on what a joke it is in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Communication?  No.  Private company AT&T built the original infrastructure and controlled it so well that the government felt the need to unjustly break the company into the baby bells…which was really dumb because within only a few years the private built cell phone infrastructure made AT&T’s land-line infrastructure about as important as your appendix.

But the internet!  Oh I love this argument.  So the military builds a communication network and does nothing for over a decade (beside being a plot point in 2nd rate Matthew Broderick film…Shall we play a game?) and then private industry built on computers (which was also built on computers the government had been working on for years to no avail. Government had silicon chips since the 1960′s but it took a Steve Jobs to create the personal computer.) and suddenly makes use of it.  Trust me if the network the military (and Al Gore) built hadn’t been in existence there would have been some genius on par with Gates, Jobs or Ellison, who would have created a network that would have allowed computers to speak to each other easily.

Everyone seems to forget that the empty cities in China or Detroit have lots of infrastructure that does nothing for them.  However there are literally hundreds of towns  in this nation where a factory was built first and then the infrastructure and growth followed…if you look at the world and the joys of globalization and outsources (which makes life better both for America and the country work is being outsourced to) the examples reach thousands.  Business success always precedes infrastructure in a sane system.  To say the opposite is to say the cart pulls the horse.

The fact is that business has traditionally built the infrastructure it needs to grow if it is not already present.  Private companies wanted to build high speed rail back in the early 90’s but were stopped over and over again by environmental regulators in the government…and unlike the BS high speed rail Obama and California want to put in that doesn’t really go anywhere, the plans in the 90’s were for things like LA to Vegas…you know rail that would have paid for itself and paid for further expansion.

FedEx was stopped by government regulation and bickering from creating a second hub in its distribution infrastructure in the 90’s.

Private airlines where hampered in their growth early on by government regulation (usually taking off from fields that the airlines had built with their own money in the early days).

I could go on.

You would have to be a brainless troll or an idiot of the highest caliber to not see that industry builds the infrastructure it needs with its own money (often cheaper than the government) and has more often has had its growth hampered by government than it has been helped by it.

You can build all the infrastructure you want. It won’t create business.  It will help business…but it’s not like the business isn’t paying for that infrastructure (through income, corporate, sales, and a myriad of other taxes).  If the government doesn’t provide the infrastructure business will create it themselves or someone else will find some way to provide the service that infrastructure would provide, often at costs less than the inefficient government creation.  Government created infrastructure is never NECESSARY for business success.  Government laws and protection against harm are necessary, but not infrastructure.

Now some claim that we need government infrastructure to provide things like TVA giving electricity to rural communities…to which I respond, when did electricity become a right?  My grandparents lived quite contently in a house until the late 80’s, in California, without public electricity (they had a wind generator that they built)…it didn’t harm them.  If there is no economic reason to have electricity in an area, then it probably shouldn’t be there…and if you don’t like it, it’s a free country, move to an area that has those services or create a business that makes it feasible to bring those services out there.   Arguing we have to provide things to people where there is no financial reason to provide it to them is the mentality of building bridges to nowhere and repairing roads no one drives on it.  It is the mentality of government waste.  And that is the kind of infrastructure that Obama is touting…or do you think the man who thought Solyndra was a good idea knows more about infrastructure?

Everyone likes to point to highways, the internet, the advance of the space race….but everyone forgets these were military ventures with military goals, not economic ones (those were merely unintended side effects)—I bring this up because which area of spending do those who tout infrastructure call on most to be cut?*  And this leads to the reason why I have repeatedly said one of our biggest mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan was not spending more time on building infrastructure.  I wanted the communication and military benefits of modern infrastructure as a counter to the insurgency (which are getting their own benefits provided by other countries). Yes such projects put the cost of a system that would benefit commerce on those countries on the US taxpayer instead of the Iraq or Afghani businessman, but I believed in the long term the military benefit would pay for itself (if you think we’re not going to have to go back to Afghanistan within a generation because we botched it so badly this time, you’re crazy).

But back to Obama’s “You didn’t build that” quote.

In context he is referring to the businesses.  But even if you take his reading that it was government provided infrastructure you built your business on and you couldn’t have done it without that infrastructure…it’s still a bullshit statement.

With only a small exception in education, everyone has equal access to the benefits of infrastructure.  Everyone has access to the roads.  Everyone has access to the electric system and all the other utilities. From the things that only government can provide (police, courts, health control, an income safety net**) to those things that government and the private sector and justifiably provide (roads, schools, post service, electricity and water) to those things which the only private sector should be providing but the government can’t keep it’s stupid hands out (green energy, wifi, medical services) everybody pretty much has equal access to all of these benefits and all of this infrastructure.  And yet some build great businesses and some don’t.  Because some had the intelligence and the work ethic and the drive to succeed and some didn’t.  Because some people built that for themselves.  This is why there is that quote at the beginning about standing on the shoulders of giants…everyone is standing on the same giant but some choose to see further and some don’t.  Now success for many may not be building a business but doing something else…but it is because of their drive, their intelligence, their work, and their choices that makes them successful or not, not because of government.

Now I did bring up that education is not always equal. Its not. And education can be a greater equalizer in terms of access to opportunity than any road or Internet hub…and our system of education in America is screwed up.  But notice also in this most important of things the government provides it is Obama preventing growth, preventing change, preventing charters and vouchers and experimentation, and wholeheartedly backing the vile teacher’s union which seeks to maintain the status quo.  So in the one thing he could really affect to help give people more opportunity to build their own lives, he doesn’t actually want to improve that system.

Nothing in infrastructure determined who would succeed and who wouldn’t (except for education) it is will, intelligence, and work that does.

It is those things which build infrastructure.

And it is those things which Barack Obama is most opposed to and most wants to destroy.

*Not that that I don’t think the military couldn’t lose quite a bit of fat from its budget…however much of its waste is in Congressional pork projects that can’t be cut without Congressional approval…if you just cut the military’s budget the DOD doesn’t have the authority to cut those pork projects, only needed things like troops and body armor.

**Even Friedman and Hayek believed you need some form of income safety net, and they were right, you do…they were also right it needs to be for the lowest of the low (like the bottom 5%) not the for a third of the nation.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, China, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare

The Conservative New Ager and The Snark Who Hunts Back Review The Dark Knight Rises: A Tale of Heroes, Politics and Death

This last week we (The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager) went to go see The Dark Knight Rises together for the second time (the first being a trilogy marathon on opening night). We delayed writing a blog then because it became obvious there was so much we would have to see it again to fully appreciate the depth…and even on a second viewing we realized there is more than a single blog here.

But let’s get the overture out of the way. The final piece of this spectacular trilogy, like almost all of director Christopher Nolan’s recent work is thematically based off a work of literature…A Tale of Two Cities, in the case of The Dark Knight Rises. And while it might be hard to find the undercurrents of Othello in The Dark Knight, Faust in The Prestige, or Zorro in Batman Begins (which for symmetry should be renamed The Dark Knight Begins).

But it’s not just literary, it’s political…or at least it appears to be. The Dark Knight seemed pretty obviously a defense of the War on Terror, and The Dark Knight Rises seems a pretty striking assault on the morals of leftist economics. Now Nolan claims that his works aren’t political (a common defense by those who want to survive in a hostile political environment) and Occupy Wall Street thugs think they’re really smart in pointing out that the movie was written before OWS so it can’t be about them (this poor argument ignores that their rhetoric of evil has been spouted by the left quite vehemently in the last few years and also they clearly are so ignorant of the history of their own ideas that they don’t know their filth was spouted by demagogues in ancient Athens, and shown to be stupid then…so just because Nolan didn’t know about OWS doesn’t mean he wasn’t responding to the evil)…and even if Nolan is telling the truth that he didn’t intend it to a political statement (which I doubt) it works too well as one not to make some comments about the philosophy of the work.

Now ignoring the message of the trilogy taken as a whole (that’s another blog for another time) we think there are three main philosophical statements to this film: The nature of heroism, the politics of progressivism, envy and “social justice”, and the fear of death.

The Nature of the Hero

“A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat over a little boy’s shoulder to let him know the world hadn’t ended.”

One of the more unbelievable complaints I’ve heard about The Dark Knight Rises was that it made it look like the common man can’t do anything for themselves, that they need the rich to save them. Never mind the fact that, by the end, Bruce Wayne barely had a cent to his name or that his money certainly didn’t help him climb out of the pit. We would just want to know if the person who made the complaint was even watching the same movie that we saw with our friends.

Not long after Bruce Wayne loses all his money, due to Bane’s attack on the stock exchange, he has a conversation with John Blake, a police officer who knows Wayne’s identity as Batman. Wayne tells Blake that the whole point of Batman was that he could be anyone, Batman was meant to be an inspiration to the people of Gotham, something that is repeated in both of the previous movies.

In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne tell Alfred:

“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. And I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I’m just flesh and blood, I can be ignored, destroyed. But a symbol….as a symbol I can be incorruptible, everlasting…..”

In The Dark Knight, the Joker asks the fake Batman, Brian what batman means to him. Brian answers “He’s a symbol … that we don’t have to be afraid of scum like you”. And the whole point of Batman, as we see come to fruition at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, was not to create a legion of caped crusaders, but an army of men like Harvey Dent (before his psychotic break) and Jim Gordon—a group of people willing to stand up for what is right.

But we digress. The point is what made the average person a hero in The Dark Knight Rises.

At no point did John Blake, Commissioner Gordon, or the other members of the resistance, sit down and go ‘well, I’m just a common person, I’m just going to wait for the government or Batman to come save us’ (except for the character of Foley, who was rightly called out for being a coward). They worked tirelessly to find a way out on their own, they realized they were on their own the moment Bane took over the city and began to look for ways to free the city’s police force from the sewers.

When Batman did come back, in an a miraculous 11th hour miracle, they didn’t wait for him to clean up the mess. The police banded together and marched on Bane’s army, many of them dying in the fighting to save their city.

Selina Kyle, despite telling Batman that she was leaving the city as soon as she destroyed the debris blocking the tunnel, turned around and risked her life to fight for the city and to save Batman’s life.

Lucius Fox risked death and drowning , trying to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb from detonating.

Even Ra’s al Ghul (don’t you hate it when you agree with the words, if not the actions, of a villain?) says, during Bruce’s training, “The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act.”

The heroes who kept Gotham alive while Batman fought his way out of the pit

Every one of these people, training or no, had the will to act. They were all willing to give everything for their city, for their freedom. What could possibly be more heroic than that?

Fancy toys, nice cars, and a cool suit will only get you so far if you don’t have the will to do what is necessary, even when what is necessary may end your life.

Heroism isn’t about money, toys, or good looks; it’s a state of mind and living life, not with no fear of death, but with a willingness to die to defend others and defend your beliefs.

You may not be a superhero, but anyone can be a hero. That’s what The Dark Knight Rises shows us about heroism.

Politics, Socialism and evils of envy

“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.'”—A Tale of Two Cities*

You would have to have been pretty dense not to get that this movie was thematically inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. Even Dickens, for all of his sickeningly naïve progressive rhetoric, had an inkling of the evil of the French Revolution. A quick review of history if it’s been too long since that high school history class. Louis XVI in response to economic woes and civil unrest had given the public everything they wanted: an assembly, power of due process of law, and abdicated much of the absolute power of the monarchy. And while many where happy with these changes, the ignorant rabble who were open to the rhetoric of the most extreme thought it wasn’t enough. They stormed the Bastille, arrested Louis and his wife (who if you actually study history was not the vapid slut a layman’s understand of history tries to depict her as), and placed power in the hands of radicals like Robespierre and Marat. The Terror, Madam Guillotine, rivers of blood, atrocities on a scale that wouldn’t be seen again in France until the Nazi’s allowed the French to revel in their anti-Semitism. (A similar pattern would be seen when the Russians replaced the Tsar with a democratic government…but soon got rid of that in favor of a psychotically evil government).

She learned to hate her “ideal” world quickly enough.

This history lesson is important because this is the same pattern Nolan shows in Gotham. For all of it’s corruption in the first two films, Gotham at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises was a city that had everything it wanted: Clean streets, an efficient police force (a city of 12 million with only 3,000 uniformed officers means an obscenely low crime rate), a healthy economy (the city could afford multiple simultaneous construction projects by Dagget, that means an incredibly good tax base, ergo strong economy…and football stadiums aren’t packed to the brim with every last seat filled during hard times), a mayor who has survived for over 8 years in office (usually a sign of prosperity) Even Selina Kyle’s words of decrying inequality ring hollow, he “old town” (suggestive of the gutter) apartment is hardly a shabby SRO or the slum heap of “the narrows” from the first film—and while in Batman Begins criminals could carry on with their nefarious dealings out in the open, or hide them in the vast slums, this is a Gotham where there are so few places to hide your activities you literally have skulk in the sewers (everywhere else is too bright and too well off to hide such activities)…Like the French they had everything they had asked for. And, like France, it took only a little fear and few mad men to stir the lowest rungs of society and bring about anarchy.
There are of course differences between A Tale of Two Cities and the Revolution it describes and the events of The Dark Knight Rises. The Bastille was stormed not to free prisoners (there were hardly any left in the Bastille by the time of the Revolution) but to gain weapons to take over the city. And even if you buy the myth of the Storming of the Bastille, the prisoners released from the Bastille were primarily political prisoners…not hardened thugs of organized crime. The fact that the Dent Law in The Dark Knight Rises was passed because there was a martyr to push through the law, does not change the fact that it, like all three-strikes laws and mandatory sentencing laws, are a particular point of hatred for the progressive who think it’s unfair that people who do evil and horrific things should, heaven forbid, be locked up where they can’t do any harm. But be it the Bastille and the release of a mere seven political prisoners or the opening of Blackgate Prison and letting a host of violent criminals go free, the result was ironically the same: The Terror.

The terror: a system where justice and trials are a mockery and the innocent are held as guilty for crimes they never committed…and where there is only one punishment: death. The terror, a system that provides so much that it makes everyone so equal that they are all starving and tearing at each other for daily sustenance (or like the Soviet Union or Gotham you could have food imported from the capitalistic society because you can’t produce any on your own). The terror: the utopia every half brained progressive idealist praises, only to lead to their own downfall.

In the real French Revolution the villain was Robespierre who used high rhetoric to justify rank thugery as a progressive march to fraternity and equality. In A Tale of Two Cities the villain was Madame De Farge, a woman so hell bent on avenging her family’s murders that she will see the whole world burn to get her pound of flesh. Nolan gives us both villains in the form of Bane and Talia al Ghul. Which of course leads us into the villainy of their perverse understanding of economics.

Let me spout the politics of envy and class warfare knowing it will only lead to your eventual destruction!

Before we get into showing how Nolan destroys the ideals of progressivism by showing what it brings, let’s dismiss one semi-intelligent objection: Bane and Talia don’t believe in progressivism, they’re trying to show how it is a failed system and how people must reject it. That’s not entirely an incorrect point…but what you need to also realize is that just because the villains may be a tool they don’t really believe in doesn’t mean that it isn’t showing the flaws of progressivism…and that just because they don’t believe in progressivism doesn’t mean they’re capitalist. Point in fact, the entire League of Shadows from Ra’s Al Ghul’s first words to Talia’s last is a world view based on feudalism and cronyism. The League believes it should be the one who decides who shall be successful and who shall fail. Bane says as much when he tells Wayne, “I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to “stay in the sun.” You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s destiny… We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die.” As we stated above they rule through terror, not reason, not ethics, not law, justice—they dress their words up in the clothes of these higher ideals but their actions show them to be as hollow and lacking in substance on the inside as any scarecrow (especially if said Scarecrow sets himself up as the instrument of justice).

Politically speaking, there is much that is applicable to our current political situation in our country. Now, to be fair, I don’t believe that Christopher Nolan’s intent was to create a modern political allegory. This movie was written and being filmed long before the Occupy Wall Street movement, which shares many of the villains sentiments, began.

During the first few weeks of the Occupy movement we both remember having many conversations about the similarities between that movement and the early days of the French Revolution. Which is why the connection between The Dark Knight Rises and OWS comes so easily.

The views of Occupy Wall Street were shown almost perfectly in Bane’s and Catwoman’s words, as well as the actions of the people who jump at the chance to drag the rich out and punish them for their success.

Bane’s entire speech outside of Black Gate Prison is so reminiscent of something from a ‘mic check’ at Occupy Wall Street

“We take power from the corrupt, who, for generations, have kept you down with myths of…opportunity and we give it back to you, the people. Gotham is yours, none shall interfere, do as you please. We’ll start by storming Black Gate and freeing the oppressed…an army will be raised, the powerful will be ripped from their decadence and cast out into the cold where we all have endured, courts will be convened, spoils will be enjoyed…”

-Bane (apologies for mistakes, I was working from a VERY scratchy audio clip)

and for those of you who remember the scenes that accompanied the final lines of that speech, the violence is so similar to the rioting at Occupy Oakland that is was almost frightening, especially when you realize that this movie was written months before any of that every happened.

Selina Kyle (Catwoman) starts out with the same exact rhetoric as many an Occupy Wall Street supporter. In a conversation with Bruce Wayne she says “You think this is gonna last? There’s a storm coming Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. ‘Cause when it hits, you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us.”

Though after her betrayal of Batman she appears to change her tone in a way that OWS never did. Upon entering a home that had been ransacked after Bane’s Black Gate speech she comments on the fact that ‘this used to be someone’s home’ when she looks at a smashed family photo. Her friend says ‘now it’s everyone’s home.’ Kyle, unlike just about everyone in OWS who only has to look to the failure of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Greece or the repression of China and North Korea to know what a failed system socialism, when she saw what her ideals brought about very quickly had no problem seeing their evil and abandoning them.

The Dark Knight Rises shows what happens when give us capitalisms for anarchy or socialism. You have perversion of justice. You have to survive on the handouts and scraps provided to you. There is no growth. No prosperity. No civilization. Only blood and the terror.

Now on to a slightly more hilarious turn of events.

Shortly before the movie came out the Obama campaign (and liberals in general) noticed something they thought they could use as a brilliant attack against Romney.

Did you know that Romney had a business named Bain Capital?

Bain/Bane…get it?**

One of these guys is someone rich who could easily leave others to fend for themselves but doesn’t…the other is named Bane. Which one reminds you the most of the presidential challengert?

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

As the Friday release date has neared, liberal blogs were the first to connect Batman’s toughest foe with Romney’s firm.

– Christopher Lehane (via Washington Examiner)

Yeah, they actually did that.

Hilariously, when Rush Limbaugh dared to point out the name similarities, liberal bloggers thought he was being insane and completely ignored that their side was the one who made the comparison first.

Luckily conservatives had a fellow conservative Chuck Dixon, comic book creator, and coincidentally, the co-creator of the villain Bane, to smack some sense into liberals.

In an interview with ComicBook.com Dixon had this to say.

“The idea that there’s some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly…I refuted this within hours of the article in the Washington Examiner suggesting that Bane would be tied to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney appearing. Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics…As for his appearance in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is a force for evil and the destruction of the status quo. He’s far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you’re looking to cast him politically. And if there ever was a Bruce Wayne running for the White House it would have to be Romney.”

-Chuck Dixon (Via ComicBook.com)

Romney is Bruce Wayne? That’s the best pseudo-endorsement I’ve heard all year. If I wasn’t voting for Romney before, I sure am now.

The Fear of Death

Blind Prisoner: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.
Bruce Wayne: Why?
Blind Prisoner: How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible without the most powerful impulse of the spirit: the fear of death.
Bruce Wayne: I do fear death. I fear dying in here, while my city burns, and there’s no one there to save it.
Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Now on the Conservative New Ager we have a fairly low opinion of the fear of death. In numerous blogs it has been ridiculed as the foolish, childish, ignorant paralytic it is. However, it must be admitted, that in the rush of these blogs to point out that “Wise men at their end know [death] is right” and that it is nothing to be feared but merely a natural part of life, that the wise also “do not go gentle into that good night.”

Bruce Wayne doesn’t fear death for the first half of the movie, that is true. He is not hindered by the fears that he once was. The problem is that in this attempt to rid himself of fear he went too far and rid himself of the desire for life as well. While the movie only uses the phrase “fear death” it might seem that it is encouraging people to embrace fear. But from context the movie is not telling people to embrace the paralyzing fear of death because it is this fear that encourages the federal government and the people of Gotham to stand ideally by, and the fear that causes Modine’s Foley to hide, while a terrorist takes over the city. Rather, the movie is encouraging a balance—that the proper way is to rid one’s self of the paralyzing fear of death of Wayne did in the first film, but to maintain the love of live, and the appreciation of death and knowledge that each moment could be your last and must be fought for, that comes with this love of life. It is only this appreciation of death, that pushes Wayne to make a jump that he could not otherwise make, because he knows that if he is to live he must push himself—and he cannot push himself without both the knowledge that there is no turning back or without the desire to do something other than seek his own end.

And then of course, as a final thought we can’t forget how wonderfully patriotic this film is. Okay maybe not so much in it showing the President to be a sniveling coward who gives into terrorist demands (patriotic or not that might be an accurate assessment)…or in how cowardly the bureaucracy is when they blow the bridge condemning many to die (again might be an accurate conservative message). But you will notice that the people of Gotham (not the scum the who follow Bain mind you, but the people who are terrorized by them) stand for “The Star Spangled Banner” and the only person shown to not have his hand over his heart is the scummy mayor (who apparently is close to an even scummier Congressmen…again perhaps an accurate assessment of current events). And along with the police it is these people who fight against Bain. And you’ll notice that on the day of the battle even a British director like Nolan knows to show the tattered remains of the flag still flying, still offering hope, and as a symbol that on that day evil will fall. Finally the last words about Gotham, which they say is America’s greatest city, is that it will rise from the ashes of this act of terrorism…you would have to be pretty dense not to see this as a reference to New York, and a testament to how quickly America did pick itself up.

You don’t owe these people anymore. You’ve given them everything.

Not everything. Not Yet.

And the sad fact is that we’ve only scratched the surface of this film…

*On a side note, it should be said that, for all of Dickens’ flaws, A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens’ best work…too bad he stole half the plot from Victor Hugo’s Ninety-Three.

** Oh and if you want to to play the silly let’s compare political figures to fictional ones…I see your Bane/Bain…and raise you…
(Romney Ryan photos thanks to Heather Parsons)
 

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, Paul Ryan, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Purpose of Life, Taxes, Tyranny, virtue, War on Terrorism

From Republicans and Reincarnation: Part of the Ethical Argument for Capitalism

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul vs. Peter giving to Paul

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” —Winston Churchill

            Let’s look at two hypothetical systems.

System 1:

Peter is rich.  Very rich.  The government takes what it considers a reasonable amount of money (which has nothing to do with what a reasonable person would consider a reasonable amount).  Let’s say 31 cents on the dollar.  The government then takes that money and spends about 18 cents, of every dollar Peter makes, on Paul.  So what is the point of this system?  Supposedly it’s to help Paul improve his station in life.  We take money from Peter because Peter can afford it.  So now let’s looks at this.  Through the questions we established earlier.

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

I’m going to take these in reverse order, so bear with me.  This is hurting at least on face value a smaller portion of the population (not really, Peter as representative of “the rich”[1] is actually a fairly large portion of the population) to help a larger portion of the population (again not really, Paul as representative of those on the dole is a relatively small portion of the population[2]…but we’re going to play in the opposition ballpark for the moment).  So at least the argument (no matter how flimsy it is) is that few people are hurt and lots of people are helped.

But how are they helped?  Is this a long-term benefit or a short-term benefit?  When we talk about this we have to think about what Paul will do with that welfare check.  Now I couldn’t find figures on how many welfare checks are spent on capital investment or college tuitions, but given the fact that until the 1990’s welfare reform the number of people leaving the dole could not be described as a mass exodus, I think it’s a safe assumption that not much of that money was being used to better Paul.  Quite frankly it’s human nature.  People value things by what they sacrifice to get it, by the amount of work that goes into it, by what had to be done to earn it—thus money just thrown at you without strings has little value.  As such it will be spent on things of no lasting value.  Yes there are numerous examples of people who climbed their way out of welfare, and I applaud these people for the strength of character to fight human nature’s more lazy and apathetic tendencies, but no one can be foolish enough to say that these few examples are indicative of the whole—nor ignore the fact that many of these people who have gotten themselves out of the cycle of poverty are some of welfare’s harshest and most vocal critics.  Thus welfare in general is at best a short-term fix; it by no means attacks the root of the problem.[3]

So it helps lots of people, but is only a short-term solution.  Now obviously this has material benefit (at least for Paul, to hell if it actually depresses the economy as a whole) but does it actually have any spiritual benefits?  Sadly, and rather obviously, the answer is no.  Peter gets none of the spiritual benefits described in the previous chapter that come from giving, because he did not give by choice, the money was taken from him against his will.  Nor is Peter also likely to give to charity now, or at least not as much, because human nature is that once that money has been taken, then that person feels that they’ve already given, when they haven’t.  In fact if anything this leaves Peter more negative and bitter toward humanity as he now sees money stolen from him and given to people who are less than deserving and not using said money to better themselves.  This is likely to make Peter more bitter toward humanity around him, more cynical, and overall a worse human being.  So it’s actually a spiritual negative.  How about for Paul?  The answer is again in the negative.  Paul feels no need to earn this act of charity; it was given to him by an unfeeling, cold, heartless institution, not another human being.  The insult to self-esteem alone comes as a spiritual negative.  More often than not the psychological effects of such a handout will make Paul feel even in less control of his life than before because now that he must depend on the government for his existence—this increases his feelings of powerlessness, increases fear that he is not in control of his existence and rather a mere victim of fate and circumstance.  In short another spiritual negative.

Finally is it ethical?  No!  The phrase is “to rob Peter to pay Paul” for a reason.  It’s stealing money from a human being by force.  I know I don’t pay my taxes out of the goodness of my heart; I do it because I don’t wish to go to jail or have a standoff with the FBI and ATF.  I’m pretty sure that’s the same reason you pay your taxes.  They have jails and guns, a lot of them—certainly more than I would like to make a standoff against.  So in the end it’s theft.  A clear violation of “Thou shalt not steal” or its numerous variations in every religion on earth, and New Agers are no different on this point.  Stealing is stealing; it’s a complete and total violation of any conception of ethics I can think of.   Now we do honor the myth of Robin Hood, but not because he was a thief, as someone once tried to disprove my point that we never believe theft to be a good thing.  Notice that if you actually look at all the legends, it wasn’t that he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor (a more modern socialist reinterpretation) but rather robbed from the robbing tax collector and gave back to the people who had actually earned the money.  His heroism isn’t in the theft, it’s in putting his life on the line to get back for people what was stolen from them, what was originally theirs (which is what we would like to think the police do when they put their life on the line for us).

But don’t the ends justify the means you ask—to which I respond: did you read the previous paragraphs?  Even if there were cases where the ends justify the means, I can’t see how stealing hard-earned money from people is justified by short-term material benefits and long-term spiritual and economic harm.  The welfare system in all its myriad forms is actually harming the spiritual growth of everyone it touches.  Unless you were an atheist you couldn’t possibly support it, and even then to believe that this system pragmatically worked you’d need to be an atheist and a moron to… (Or am I being redundant there?)

System 2:

            So let’s say that starting today we started reducing all welfare entitlements.  Making them harder to get, requiring more oversight of the people who get them, and requiring even further time constraints in regards to how long you can be on the program.  In terms of social security this would be cutting benefits, raising retirement ages and begin to either privatize or simply eliminate[4] through a phased out process.  Now you might be wondering why I’m not suggesting this second system as being one of completely wiping welfare, social security, Medicaid, and Medicare simply off the face of the earth.  The answer would be that for better or much much worse, these programs have unfortunately become part of the country’s society and while they do eventually need to die, just cutting them with a machete, while greatly satisfying, will cause short-term chaos, and long term societal scars.  Welfare, like heroin, is not an addiction that one just quits cold turkey.[5]  There does need to be a large initial cut to show we mean business of somewhere in the ballpark of 10% cuts right off the top—but this needs to be followed by a 10 to 20 year plan of phasing these programs out of existence.

So assuming we do the right thing, and cutting these programs back with the intention of eventually leaving them only as significantly smaller local programs or just out and out killing them.  What are the benefits and losses?

First, how many people are helped?  While I’m sure we all agree that supply-side economics doesn’t work quite as well or as quickly as everyone thought it did back in the ‘80’s, but it does work, albeit its effects take time to work through.  When the economy improves everyone benefits, and when you cut government intrusion the economy improves…eventually.  But the fact of the matter is that more money in the hands of the people is still more money circulating through the economy and not being lost in some bureaucratic nightmare land that creates nothing but red tape and paperwork and thus doesn’t really add anything to the flow of the economy.  More money, more things being bought.  More things being bought, more profit.  More profit, more investment.  More investment, more jobs…you know how this goes.  So certainly this will take time, but then again that’s what we conservatives like—long-term fixes, not short term band-aids.  Further if we do this properly as a long term rollback of funds people receiving these handouts should have time to plan and adjust to the changing environment (like doing things of such a radical nature as getting an education, getting a job, or actually saving for retirement…I know it’s radical thinking, but I believe it just might work for most people).  So there is no harm to this group either.  So everyone makes out with the status quo if not better.

As I already said these are long-term benefits.  Long term the economy does better, more people have jobs, more people have control of their lives, and if we don’t fall in the trap of socialism again, this is a self-perpetuating system.  Yes, long term we will have recessions, can’t do anything about that, but they will work themselves out, and if people begin to learn how to save properly and educate themselves properly to be able to move from career to career if needed they will not need to worry.

But more than these advantages, this puts the control of a person’s life back in their own hands.  A major spiritual benefit.  For both Peter and Paul, the government is no longer butting into their lives more than it needs to.   This will reduce the likelihood of fear in their lives.  It will also increase the feelings of security since for Paul survival depends on himself now, and for Peter there is less worry about how much the Brownshirts at the IRS will be taking this year.  Further, as I pointed out previously, more money in Peter’s hands will increase the odds and amounts that Peter will give to charity, and this charity will come from living human beings who care about people not the cold, mechanical system of welfare.  With this charity to Paul comes the emotional and ethical ties that will force Paul to in some way to be worthy of the gift he has been given and improve himself.

So materially, psychologically, spiritually this provides long-term benefits to the majority of people.  But is it ethical?  Well we’re not stealing from anyone, so there it’s ethical.  And as I stipulated this program has to be carried out slowly, so were not just uprooting people from the system they have become accustomed to…But I hear one last objection about it being ethical coming from the far left: That people have a right to health care or a livable wage, or a right to care from the government in old age and that to deny them that right is unethical.

The crux of this argument is that everyone has a right to these things.  If you believe this you A) have not the foggiest conception of what a right is and B) are just as confused about ethics.  No one has a right to health care or a livable wage or even happiness.  What you have a right to is that the government will not overtly deny you the chance to achieve, to earn, or to buy these things.  But neither the government, society, your neighbor, nor your brother owes you these things.  You have rights to what you come into this world with: Life, Liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness (emphasis on the pursue).  Nor is anyone ethically required to provide these things to you just because you exist (except for your parents as long as you can’t provide these things for yourself).  First and foremost a person is ethically bound to seek their own happiness, not yours.  Now we are ethically bound to help those in immediate need; the Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind, but notice that in that case the story revolves around people who are not victims of their own laziness but literally victims to the violence of others or circumstance completely out of their control.  Yes we are ethically bound to help those people.  We are even ethically called for to be generous and charitable, but keep in mind the entire concept of generosity and charity are dependant on the idea we are not bound to help people out of duty, law, or right…if we were it wouldn’t be generosity now would it?  Further generosity does not call for us to help everyone who would come and demand our help—that would bankrupt anyone and certainly lead to personal unhappiness, a very unethical end.  Charity, to have true meaning and worth, must be to those who will use it for their own long term benefit and betterment, not merely short term waste, and anyone who demands the work and property of others as their own isn’t someone who cares about personal betterment because this is indicative of a character that believes in not doing anything for themselves.  Anyone with this sort of entitlement and need for instant gratification can never better themselves, because they cannot even conceive of what is required to better themselves[6].  Hence they are not worthy of the generosity or charity you would give.

Charity is ethical.  But its generosity must be coupled with a desire to improve one’s self, otherwise whatever work or money that is given is merely wasted.  The claim that one has a right to other people’s works is an affront to that belief and merely helps to instill a feeling of helplessness and that is irresponsible.


[1] Of course this isn’t accurate as it is more like the top 50% of wage earners that liberals like to define as “the rich”…so ask yourself do you personally make more than $45,000…if you do, then many in Congress define you as “the rich”.

[2] Unless you count all those elderly people who were somehow too stupid to have any understanding of saving for retirement, and rather chose to live like leaches off people who actually have jobs and know what the stock market is for, but one has trouble feeling sympathy for someone who had over forty years to plan for the inevitable and didn’t do anything about it.  And if you tell me they expected the government to be there for them…well that makes me lose even more respect for them. Even the Sheriff of Nottingham wasn’t dumb enough to think Robin was going to give the money back to him when he retired.

[3] I’m actually going to exclude all job training and education problems from this critique as those do actually attack the root of the problem and do exhibit long-term thinking.  I have no problem in theory spending money on those…although I’m sure the money itself could be spent more wisely.

[4] Even privatizing the system is the government still saying you’re too incompetent to handle your own money…which I’ll grant you, a good portion of America does fit into that description, but it’s still the government calling you stupid…this from an organization currently run by some of the biggest buffoons the world has to offer.  A statement about pots and kettles comes to mind.

[5] Interestingly enough, welfare also shares the quality of heroin of leaving its users emaciated, soulless shells of their former selves.

[6] I would like to point out that this critique is not aimed necessarily at those who are poor, but rather at the demagogues and activists that propose such a system of entitlement and character flaws, who in effect create a system that encourages the poor to stay victims and not seek a better life.

To read more Republicans and Reincarnation: The Conscience of a New Age Conservative is available at AuthorHouse, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble 

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Books for Conservatives, Books for New Agers, Capitalism, Charity, Conservative, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Love, Natural Rights, New Age, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare

The Most Patriotic Film Ever: State of the Union

“I can be interested in the county, without being interested in politics.”

State of the Union?  Haven’t heard of it have you?  (If you have you have to admit you’re in the minority on this).  Which is odd—it’s Tracy and Hepburn!  How can you miss Tracy and Hepburn?  And in a Capra film too!  It also stars Angela Lansbury as the woman trying to break our eternal couple up, and control Tracy…Lansbury always plays the villain, be it the communist mother in Manchurian Candidate or the weekly serial killer who always frames others for her crimes in Murder She Wrote (there’s no other way to explain the body count), she always plays the villain…

So since you probably are not familiar with the plot, let me quickly sum up. Estranged husband and wife Grant and Mary Matthews are thrown together when Grant decides to move from a highly successful business career to taking a chance at running for President in 1948.  But first he has to get the Republican nomination.  At first he speaks from his heart…but when swayed by Lansbury’s Kay Thorndyke, the other woman, and a W.R. Hearst-esque media baron, he begins to play the games of politics he had previously hated.  Here we see Capra in full swing detailing the cynicism of voting bloc politics, of playing one minority off against other, of making deals for votes.  This nearly destroys him, and his chances for election, until he’s brought back to his senses by his loving wife. Whether he wins or not, the movie doesn’t cover.

It’s a good story, but what makes this film so patriotic is that Matthews at several points makes comments on what does and doesn’t work in America. The character of Matthews is actually given to making some very detailed speeches, (which I sadly could not find clips of on youtube, found a couple edited to seem to benefit liberal positions alone, but not the full speech).  It is in these speeches that you see the virtue of America praised, and our flaws acknowledged and combated.

Matthews: Well the next time you’re up there, Mr. Conover, look down.  Look down on Pittsburgh, for example, what do you see?

Spike: Smoke

Mathews: That’s right, smoke.  From the steel mills.   Miles and miles of steel mills.  But you see something else, too, don’t you?  Farms, factories, lumber, mines, railroads, business, management, labor.  Not one able to exist alone, but together, working together with courage and imagination.  That makes America.  That’s a great picture from the air.  Yeah but come down to Earth and walk into one of those meetings like that one in Cleveland, and what do you find? Farmers, cattlemen, lumbermen, business, labor, they were all there.  All working together?  In a pig’s eye.  All scared to death, all fighting each other.  Each out for the biggest bite in the apple.  Well, there aren’t that many bites in the apple.

[…]

Because you politicians instead of helping pull the country together are helping to pull it part, just to get votes.  To labor you promise higher wages and lower prices.  To business, higher prices and lower wages.  To the rich you say, “Let’s cut taxes”.  To the poor, “Soak the rich”.  To the veterans cheaper housing.  To the builders uncontrolled prices. [Italics added]

Notice that here the win-win mentality of rational self-interest and capitalism is stated.  That capitalism is dependant on numerous individuals working together, out of their own rational self-interest, but together.  Rather than the greed and irrational, short-sighted self-interest of “what’s in it for me politics” of promising this group or that group something.  Notice this is in 1948, before the post-war boom, before the boom of the early 60’s before the boom of the 80’s and 90’s…and yet it foresees that our “courage and imagination” are the things that will bring about this great prosperity.  It subtly implies the truth, that while socialism simply divides the apple between this group or that, it is capitalism and capitalism alone that creates wealth (not just distributes it) so that there is actually an apple for everyone.

Or when he goes to see the White House while considering his run, a man chides him for bluntly stating the White House needs a new paint job:

Bystander: Do you know who lives in that historic mansion [the White House]?

Matthews: Yeah the spirit of all those who fought for human dignity lives there.  Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Paul, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Plato, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Edison, Franklin, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Crispus Attucks, Lafayette, Garibaldi, Bolivar, Kosciusko.  The martyrs, the saints, and the poets.  Civilizations past and present. Man’s whole history. His evolution from worm to animal to Einstein, his long search for God, all those things live in that noble dwelling, but I still say it needs painting.

And of course the central point of the movie is when after giving an off camera speech filleting big labor he prepares to give an equally harsh speech against what would be called big business then, but now we use the more correct term cronyism. (Please note that in 1948 almost everything he says is the action we should have taken…from a man this principled however, the speech would be different on a few points, so please keep the times in mind as you read it).

Matthews: Those men [labor bosses] in there are the kind of men who are responsible for the wildcat strikes.  If I can make them see something bigger than their own jobs as head of their own locals and what little power they get from that…Why? What did I say to them? I just said that when the members stop running the unions, the unions start running the members.

[…]

Matthews: I’m going to tell them they do a lot of yapping about communism but as long as they think about high profits instead of high production, they’re playing the communist game.  High production is the way to kill high prices.

Conover: They want high prices.

M: High prices means inflation. Inflation today means depression tomorrow.  And a depression in these United State is exactly the ace card Moscow is waiting to draw.

C: They don’t want to hear these things.

M: They’re gonna hear them.  They’re going to hear that capitalism itself is being challenged.  If it doesn’t survive, it’s because men like themselves haven’t the guts or the imagination to make it survive.

C: You can’t talk to that crowd this way you’ll antagonize them.

All right.  So what?  So I’ll antagonize them.  I yelled my head off about labor, didn’t I, and its responsibilities.  Well, I’m going to lay it right on the line about industry too.  Now look here Jim, you know just as well as I do that there are men at that banquet who’ll be rooting for a depression, just so they can slap labor’s ears back.

C: And I suppose you have a few well-chosen words to say about tax reduction.

M: You better not worry so much about tax reduction until we accomplish some of the things we have to accomplish.  I’m going to tell the wealthiest nation in the world it is a failure unless it’s also the healthiest nation in the world.  That means the highest medical care for the lowest income groups.  And that goes for housing, too.  The one thing this nation is not rich enough to afford is not having a roof over our heads.  And I’m going to tell them the American Dream is not making money.  It is the well being and the freedom of the individual throughout the world from Patagonia to Detroit.  We can’t be an island of plenty in a world of starvation.  We have to send, food, clothing, machinery, and money to the bitter, impoverished people of the world.  Try to recreate their self-respect.  Give them the desire again for individual freedom.  And I’m gonna tell them that as long as dictatorships remain in the world, we better remain well armed.  Because the next time we’re not going to get two years to get ready.  They’re gonna jump us overnight.  And I’m gonna tell them that there’s only one government which is capable of handling the atomic control, world disarmament, world employment, world peace, and that’s a world government.  The people of thirteen states started the United States of America.  Well, I think the people of that many nations are ready to start a United States of the World.  With or with out Russia.  And I mean a “United” States of the World.  With one Bill of Rights.  One international law. One international currency.  One international citizenship. And I’m gonna tell them that the brotherhood of man is not just an idealistic dream, but a practical necessity if man is going to survive. [Italics added]

Here he correctly realizes that there are two sides to both labor and business.  In labor there are actual workers, and there are the corrupt union bosses who fleece their members, pad their pockets, and make ungodly campaign contributions to politicians who allow them to repeat the cycle. A bit prophetic in his critique of labor isn’t he?  I would never advocate for ending unions (except for public employees and professional), they serve an important function, but today they have become worse than the caricatured robber barons they were supposedly formed to end.

Meanwhile in business there are real businessmen like Matthews who enjoy making a great product and enjoy making profit off that great product (the heroes of an Ayn Rand novel) and there are those who like cronyism, who as this movie makes clear are very un-capitalistically for high tariffs, anti-free trade, protectionist legislation against competition from new inventions, and low taxes ON THEIR INDUSTRY (GE, GM, Google, Goldman Sachs, and basically all the biggest Obama contributors).  And I’ll forgive Matthews’ statement about not lowering taxes before we have paid for what we need to do, at least he’s advocating balanced budgets, and 10 years before Rand, 15 before Goldwater, 20 before Milton Friedman, and before Laffer and Reagan it’s forgivable to not know the truth and facts of supply-side economics (at least implicitly he understands the heart of supply-side economics by putting the focus on high production).  And before anyone thinks I’m giving up my conservative roots by praising his call for the healthiest nation and housing for all…go back and read your Hayek and Friedman…you need a safety net, it just should be at the local, not federal level (and in 1948, I can assume a Republican defines “the lowest income groups” as the bottom 5% not the modern Democratic definition of the “the lowest income groups” as the other 99%).

And I have to love the admission that America is not a nation of isolationists, as some would now have you believe.  We are the beacon of freedom in the world and that comes with a responsibility to spread freedom.  There’s a throwaway joke early on “After all Senator Fosdick was an isolationist.  I think he should be isolated.”  This was the correct view of isolationism: it doesn’t and can’t work.  Not just on pragmatic reasons, but on ethical ones.

And you’ll also notice that the ideal world government presented is one of a union of free nations, that will advocate and push for liberty around the world, not just throwing everyone into one body and being run through with corruption.

This is close to the kind of speech I want to hear now. Praising America’s greatness and condemning those who see it only as a way to make a quick buck for themselves and screw everyone else.

The movie is also quick to condemn the evils of identity politics and condemn those who trade in it (I’m looking at you Democratic Party).  It is expressed best by “Spike” McManous, a reporter sent to keep an eye on Matthews, “In Conover’s eyes a lazy people, an ignorant people, a prejudiced people are not free.”  And he’s sadly right; people who are lazy, ignorant, and prejudiced are always slave to those who would exploit those flaws.  And that is why it is the responsibility of Americans to keep themselves informed and reasonable…but it is also the responsibility of politicians to not to play to such disgusting habits.

And at the end of the film, when, after making a dozen crooked deals, Matthews realizes his sins, he takes to the air and gives an impromptu speech baring his soul and again showing what is great about this nation.

I had the right idea when I started to talk to you people of America. The idea that you voters, you farmers, you businessmen, you working men, you ordinary citizens of whatever party, are not the selfish scum that venal politicians make you out to be. I thought I could speak my peace straight out and forward. I thought I could tell you that this country of ours is young, it’s not old. That we’ve just begun to grow. That all we need is courage, and from out of that courage will come a greatness greater than we ever dreamed. I wanted to tell you that we Americans are the hope of the world, and the secret of our great plenty is freedom, and we’ve got to share that secret and that plenty with the other nations of the world. And I wanted to tell you that we face a great problem, because when people are cold and hungry and scared, they gather together in panicky herds, ready to be led by communists and fascists who promise them bread for freedom, and deliver neither.  [Italics added]

A sobering reminder we still need to this day.

As he says, we are a young nation.

Today we are 236 years old. 236 years old…just for comparison at 236 years the Roman Republic had managed to come up with a crappy constitution, get the city burned to the ground by Gaul’s and conquer most of Italy (which sounds impressive until you realize that France was once able to conquer most of Italy, and if France can do it, well…) and at 236 England had done…well…um….nothing. Same story for France. Certainly none of them were the center of the world at 236. Oh and before you ask none of these countries had art at 236 let alone jazz, rock’n’roll, Frank Lloyd Wright, almost all film, Faulkner, Twain, Hawthorne, Frost, Gibran, Whitman. Not bad for only 236 years.  None of these others were economic powerhouses, or beacons of any ideal. And that’s at 236 for nations that would leave an undisputed mark on history.  We’ve already begun to make our mark and it is one of spreading liberty, freedom, capitalism, and all that speaks to the best in human nature.

This movie, possibly more than any other, reminds me of what a great nation this can be, and what we are capable of.  It reminds me of our greatness that was, is, and will be if we just embrace the best within us and do away with the rest.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Tyranny

The Roberts Courts leaves us going…huh?…And how to solve the problem.

What the hell were they thinking?  If that statue could get up she would be lopping off head with that sword.

You know there are supremely bad Supreme Court calls–Swann v. Charolotte-Mechlenburg County Board of Education, which created racial busing; Gibbons v. Ogden, which gave the government too much power in regulating commerce; South Dakota v. Dole, which gave the federal government the right to control internal state matters; Kelo, which abolished private property rights–and there are truly evil Supreme Court calls (Dred Scott, Plessey, Korematsu…actually Kelo belongs in this category)…there are even well intentioned but just supremely stupid calls like Brown v Board of Education whose answer to government overreach of power was to give the government more power or Roe which for all the right reasons created the most useless headache in American history.

And then there is this shit which has me going WTF.

So let me get this straight. The Commerce Clause is limited, and the Obamacare isn’t Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This would be nice if we interpreted this decision as over turning judicial BS like Gibbons and Wickard v Filburn which have always given the government the right to regulate all commerce (which the Founders never intended and were quite against) not just interstate commerce. And if this ruling is used to strike down such socialistic abuses of the federal government and restore us to a more capitalistic society, then great.

But while that is a correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause…Roberts and his idiotic liberal friends find an interpretation of the taxing clause to be so insane I have to ask if LSD has been put in the Supreme Court drinking water.

Here is everything the Constitution has to say about taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (This clause changed by the 16th Amendment)

AMENDMENT XVI : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I’m well read and can reason for myself. Most of the points about taxes have no bearing on this debate. The only relevant parts are the last two lines. Article 1 Section 9 denying all taxes but in direct proportion to the census and Amendment giving the federal government the right to tax income. Now stop me if I’m wrong here, but nowhere does it say they can tax me for not doing something. Further the 16th Amendment only gives the right to tax income, not punish, not impose fees. The government does have the right to impose fees and charges under the Commerce Clause, but we’ve already dealt with the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

The 16th Amendment gives the right to tax income and income alone. I don’t see the right to tax actions or more importantly the lack of action. So please explain to me how this court decision does not give almost infinite power to compel obedience through the taxing clause instead of the commerce clause.

Now some conservative commentators have been trying to defend Roberts’ actions, as if stripping the Commerce Clause alone was a great thing. But what profit it conservatives if they should gain the commerce clause but lose capitalism? Roberts took us one step forward and 10 steps back. Excuse me if I’m not thrilled. What the hell was Robert’s thinking?

If they can “tax” me for not buying insurance, what else can I be taxed for? Can I be “taxed” for owning a foreign made car every year (after all we have to give Government Motors running)? Can I be taxed every year for not joining a union? Can I be taxed for not giving money to his divine holiness Barack Obama’s campaign? Where is the limit to taxing power Roberts and his ilk created today?

And how is a “tax” for non-action not in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee I will not be deprived of property without Due Process? How is a fine designed to coerce action, which by nature must be unusually high, not in violation of the 8th Amendment’s statement that excessive fines will not be imposed. How is all of this not in violation of the general idea of the Constitution as a document to limit government power, not give carte blanche?

So Roberts is an idiot. And please don’t come off with your “you’re Constitutional scholar” crap unless you can tell me where the government has the right to tax me into compliance with their laws. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I am a citizen and it is not only my right, it is my responsibility to know the Constitution and question the action of government officials.

Now with the theoretical and long term problems this could present in that it now gives the government power to tax you into slavery…let’s deal with the pragmatic results and long term solutions…

First off, Obama just lost the election. One of the few things he had going for him was saying that he never raised taxes on the middle class (a lie, but he could get out of it by technicality). That technicality just ended. It’s a tax and he’s putting it right on the backs of the middle class.

And given how unpopular this law is, it’s not a shock that Romney has raised over 2 million since the Supreme Court came out with its brainless call this morning.

Instead of Romney having one issue to run on, the economy, he now has two to run on the economy and Obamacare. (Now add the fact that Egypt is probably going to do something psychotically evil and Europe is about to collapse, he’ll also have foreign policy to run on before November). Obama was at best running neck and neck this morning…now the conservative base is energized like never before, independents have something to fear, and the Tea Party has been given a shot of atropine to the heart. It’s over Barry.

Also a short term pragmatic effect is that this will kill any possibility of economic growth before November. Some businesses might have been hiring with hope that Obamacare was about to be overturned. That won’t happen now. Businesses aren’t stupid and they’re not going to take a risk on what they can’t afford…they will wait until November and see what happens rather than commit economic suicide and saddle themselves with employees they can’t afford. This in turn will help Romney win, but expect a few more months of hardship economically.

Okay so let’s ask how do we deal with this long term?

Well the first thing is we need to overturn Obamacare.

It needs to be replaced with tort reform to make care cheaper, reform of regulations in the FDA and drug companies to make the drugs cheaper, allowing insurance companies to cross state lines which will lower costs across the board. Further we need real immigration reform (1) to get rid of the illegals who are living off the taxpayer dole and who have been responsible for massive ER and medical provider closures throughout the country and massive state debts and (2) to further help attract those who are qualified medical care providers which we are short of right now.

As to the two popular points of Obamacare the covering of children until 26 and the preexisting condition coverage, both are actually easily fixed. You can require that insurance companies offer coverage of children until they are 26 for premiums to be paid by the parents. Most insurance companies are already saying they’re going to offer the 26 thing even if Obamacare is overturned…why? Because they get to justify raising their premiums to cover a segment of the population that next to never need medical attention. Better to make it an optional idea and then only if your parents want to pay are you still covered (even if they offered it for an extra 50 they’d still make a profit…the real question is are you such a whining college drop out that your parents aren’t going to waste the money on your useless liberal ass).

As for preexisting conditions, we all know why insurance companies don’t like to take them on. They’re going to pay more money for your care and thus not make a profit. They’re in business to make a profit. Your doctor is in business to make a profit. Every sane person is out to make a profit. Only the insane and evil are self-sacrificing. Now what we can do is write laws that, if you have a preexisting condition they get to charge you more, which is only fair as I would say the majority of preexisting conditions are at least partly caused by behavior and lifestyle…and that if you have a preexisting condition you agree to pay for that policy for a specified amount of time (say 15 years) which guarantees that you won’t just stop insurance once you get the treatment you need (the reason why taking on preexisting conditions is usually a loss) and that if you kick the bucket your insurance company is the first creditor to be paid off. This is both a just way to deal with the situation and it takes much of the risk out of taking on preexisting conditions.

However just solving the problem of Obamacare isn’t the only problem.

We still have the problem that the Supreme Court just expanded the powers of the government to what the Founding Fathers would have shot people over.

Now there is the fact that I can hope Romney will appoint better people than Bush did. But that still doesn’t fix the problem entirely.

And I know that getting a constitutional amendment passed is near impossible these days but we have to push for these if this nation is to survive.

  • We need an Amendment overturning this decision and Kelo reaffirming that private property is sacrosanct and that private property rights are one of the most central reasons for government to exist in the first place.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the government’s taxing power to only taxing actual monetary transactions (which bars them from taxing you for NOT doing something). I would prefer changing the whole thing to only being able to tax sales and abolish the income tax, but I’ll take barring them from not taxing me for not doing something.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the power of the Commerce Clause to ONLY commerce that crosses state lines (not theoretically could cross, not commerce that is tangentially involved in interstate, ONLY COMMERCE THAT CROSSES STATE LINES).

And we probably need something reaffirming the sacrosanct nature of a contract…but that’s tangential to this argument.

I know just the laws of tort reform and repealing Obamacare are going to be huge hurdles in and of themselves…but we need to focus on Amendments like this more than anything else or we risk legislation like this and bad court decisions like this every time the nation goes stupid and elects a liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Most Patriotic Movies #17 National Treasure

“To high treason.  That’s what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. […] Here’s to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right…”

Okay it’s a silly and fun movie.  It’s lacking in depth and real history…oh who am I kidding it’s The DaVinci Code in America.  But that doesn’t change the fact that for all of historical inaccuracy (I’m being polite) it still places ideals of America first and foremost.

“Of all the ideas that became the United States, there’s a line here that’s at the heart of all of the others.  ‘When a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to render the under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. ‘  People don’t talk that way anymore. […] It means that if there is something wrong those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.”

Americans in the early days of the nation through the hay day of the Monroe Doctrine and off and on since WWII has understood this principle.  All men are created equal and their rights aren’t tied to a Declaration or border, they are inalienable to all…and you have if you wish to be ethical and have the power to do something, you do it or you are not ethical.  This is why our government was one that in the early days laid to waste three nations that engaged in piracy and extortion of all of Europe, not just for our own shipping rights, but because it was the right thing to do.  And this why this nation above all others believes in personal charity, because it is not the duty of some government bureaucrat to help people, it is the ethical responsibility of people to determine not just need but also worthiness so we do not throw away money on those who would waste it.

And it’s nice to see that this movie understands that ethics are not some bygone passé idea that along with chivalry we have move past, but rather the guiding light and loadstone of our lives.

I will be honest I cringed every time they touch the Declaration in the movie. I know it wasn’t the real thing, but even the thought of putting the Declaration in harm’s way was a horrifying idea to me.

The movie also makes clear the true value of the Declaration.  The sanctity of the idea of bringing it back to Independence Hall, the willingness to do anything to protect it, going so far as when Abigail agrees that dropping her (possibly killing her) was the correct move to save the Declaration.  Now maybe it’s just me who understands this reaction to the Declaration, but then again I choke when I read it aloud, but I cannot find any holy book on earth, even my beloved Course In Miracles or Bhagavad-Gita, that seems to divinely inspired as to recognize the value of individual human life and the power it has.  And this movie, through the character’s reverence for the document, at least shows that I’m not alone.

The movie also shows the American way of thought in the character’s dialogue:

Ben Gates: “No, but I hope it’s real. I mean I’ve dreamt it’s real since my grandfather told me about it. But I want to hold it.  I feel like I’m so close I can taste it. But I just…just want to know it’s not just something I my head or in my heart. “

Abigail Chase: “People don’t really talk that way you know”

Ben Gates: “I know.  But they think that way.”

Thinking in these grand idealistic ways is a distinctly American trait.

And finally, even the treasure itself becomes just another way to show the greatness of America in the film:

Agent Sandusky: The Templars and the Freemasons believed that the treasure was too great for any one man to have, not even a king. That’s why they went to such lengths to keep it hidden.

Ben Gates: That’s right. The founding fathers believed the same thing about government. I figure their solution will work for the treasure too.

Agent Sadusky: Give it to the people.

That we have entrusted the people of the republic with an awesome power and responsibility (maybe they should try living up to it once in a while).

Overall for all of simplicity and flaws, it is a deeply patriotic film.  I’ll be honest I was less impressed by the sequel…but I always have hopes for the third which they keep promising.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Declaration, Equality, Faith, Founding, God, Happiness, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics

Romney’s “Lack of Specific Plans” or Romney The Man with A Plan

Recently I’ve been hearing from all sides things like, “Romney isn’t specific enough about what he’s going to do” “I don’t know what he would do in office” “He needs to be more clear about his plans” “he’s doing well for someone who hasn’t articulated a plan yet.”  I’ve heard it from the right, from the left, from the far right, from the far left, on Beck, on O’Reilly, on Blitzer, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RealClearPolitics, DrudgeReport.  From pundits I love, from pundits I have no feelings about one way or another, from pundits I loathe with a fiery passion.  You name a media outlet I will show you someone who said Romney doesn’t have any specifics just vague generalities.

Are you people living in a goddamn cave? A sensory deprivation chamber?  The darkness of space, where no one can hear Mitt Romney’s extensive plans?

Ignoring that his speech can get pretty detailed…spoken words are imperfect…let’s look at the written record,

This man has more specific plans the media knows what do with. So rather than critique him on points, they just say he’s lacking specifics.

namely MittRomney.com.  Have you been to MittRomney.com, because it’s not your typical campaign website.  Typical campaign websites, even Obama’s, are a half-dozen or so issues, most of them covered by a paragraph or two with a general statement of goals, and maybe one or two pages with two or three more pages of detail for the really important things.

And then there is Mitt Romney.   This is the CEO of Bain.  The Savior of the Salt Lake Olympics.  The guy who balanced the Massachusetts’s budget without raising taxes. This is not only a guy who gets things done, he gets them done because he plans out what he is going to do.

And this kind of shows you why of the hundred deals Bain did, Obama can only find a few that were failures.  This man plans for EVERYTHING.

26 Topics!  And he didn’t just put a paragraph in each…no, I think he hired a Russian Novelist to fill these pages up.

This man covers every issues you could have questions about…

Let’s for instance go to the Jobs and Economic Growth page…

Not only does he have a link to a 5 page pdf that explains the 5 bills he will send to Congress on his first day and the 5 executive orders he will sign literally seconds after finishing the inaugural address (hell he might actually sign them during)

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

How many Presidents do you know who has 5 bills and 5 executive orders ready to go day one?

But that’s not all…on that same page you have a link to the 160 page plan of Romney’s for the Economy called “Believe in America.”  Let me say that again 160 pages of details of what caused our problems, what Obama did wrong and pages 31-153 of how Romney is going to fix the problem.  And if you read it, it becomes pretty clear that this is the combined work of CEO’s and economists that know what they’re doing.   “But I don’t have time to read 120 pages of plans” bitch the same people who claim that he’s not specific.  Well lucky for you there is an Appendix of the 59 specific things he’s going to do.  But you don’t know what he’s going to do to you…he only gave you 59 specifics.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

But it gets better.

Want to know about foreign policy?…well, where Obama’s got one page of vague generalities Romney’s got pages on every section of the world…

plus a page that lists ALL of Romney’s advisors on foreign policy and their qualifications.  I’ll admit I don’t know the names of most of these people…but from the lists of credentials and experience this is a who’s who of foreign policy experience.   Do you know who’s advising Obama…probably not, as he devotes only a page to economics and a page to defense.  Ooooh…two whole pages for the most important issues facing the nation at this point.
Romney also has an impressive list of judicial advisors… as opposed to the crack team of Obama’s that gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, possibly the two most incompetent justices in the history of the Court, save Earl Warren.

There are over 670 blog posts by Romney supporters and advisors, 30 articles written by Romney himself, nearly 800 press releases, and 32 video .  Yeah, that’s a real lack of information from Romney.

As for most of the other pages, they follow a pretty specific format.  They list basic principles, describe what Obama is doing wrong, and give SPECIFICS on what Romney will do.  Don’t believe me, go read for yourself.

I mean how can that compare to Obama’s eight whole issues (one of them a made up issue) with pages full of nothing…oh and there’s pandering to a lot of different minority groups.  They spend more time telling you about Michelle’s life than they do on how they’re going to fix the economy.  But remember it’s Romney who is short on specifics.  Oh, and Obama has a massive button that says “Espanol” (let’s forget that speaking fluent English is a requirement for naturalization…so exactly which legal voters aren’t speaking English?)  Clearly Romney is the candidate who is just dealing in platitudes and vagaries, changing his talking points with the wind.  Clearly.

So when you get a moment, drop by MittRomney.com and actually read some of the stuff there.  I know that sounds boring, but you really should.  Because if you do you will realize that not only is the comment that he doesn’t have specifics is insane as saying 2+2=5 (yes there are some lack of specifics where it comes to things that will actually be the purview of Congress to work out the details, but that would mean that Romney actually understands how laws are made, unlike Obama who thinks he rules by fiat).

Now, you can tell me that you don’t think Romney is being honest in what he says, you can tell me that you think his plans won’t work, but please stop this bullshit about him not having specifics.

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part VI:The Twilight of a Moocher

And so Julia’s is coming to a close…you’ll notice that her life seems to end around 67…hmmm…I wonder if the health care rationing boards have something to do with that?

Drugs which are over priced because of terrible policy for patents and over regulation that causes shortages…not to mention that Medicare will be bankrupt in only 8 years (2020)…so assuming that Julia is 3 right now then she’ll be 65 in 2074 Medicare will have been bankrupt for over 50 years, so I’m not sure how it’s paying for her prescription drugs, but Obama is just a magical being and can do anything he wants.  2074, a mere 66 years of Obama in office, Obama will also be about 110…one has to wonder how he is still cogent enough to rule with an iron fist, I’m not ruling out at this point a deal with Mephistopheles).  Or to put this another way, the Congressional Budget Office projects that, assuming the economy keeps growing at a steady rate (not under Obama it won’t) and that Medicare keeps growing at the rate it has been then right now it accounts for 2.9% of GDP, in 2020 when it goes bankrupt it will account for about 4.1% of GDP, and in 2074 it will account for about 12.8% of GDP (over 4 times the bankruptcy level).

Under the Ryan plan which brings in competition and sanity the Medicare program is saved and it puts the whole system on a track to have private competition drive costs down across the board.  And Romney’s plan is pretty much the same.  So let me see here, a plan to keep Medicare alive and create private competition that will turn Medicare back into a safety net for those who absolutely need it rather than a money and soul sucking entitlement.  Oohhh, tough choice.  Throw granny off a cliff in 2020 or make the program actually work.  I’m sure trying to make sure that a safety net is around for Julia later in life is just right-wing social engineering.   Yes Romney and Ryan would end Medicare as we know it—they’d make it work.

Well under current Social Security plans she is pulling out more than she put in (goddamn moocher)…of course that’s if she is 67 right now and pulling out benefits.  If this is 64 years from now after Obama’s obscenely long rule as dictator she won’t be drawing any benefits whatsoever as Social Security will be bankrupt in only a few years (kind of like Medicare)

Now I’m not sure where they get the 40% number (I searched for it, and I couldn’t even find that number listed on any liberal websites) so I am forced to conclude (like unemployment numbers and so many other facts purported by Obama and his administration) that these numbers are a complete and total fiction.

Now what the Ryan plan calls for is a slowdown in the growth of Social Security and Romney calls for:

“First, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that the retirement age should be slowly increased to account for increases in longevity.

Second, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes.”

Wow cut benefits from social security for the rich…how terrible.  Also exactly which reasonable person is arguing that we don’t need to raise the retirement age and probably slow growth to at least only account for inflation if not under inflation to put benefits back on par with what the person has put in.

***

In the final analysis there are numerous problems with the life of Julia.

Obama’s rule for almost another 7 decades.

Obama proudly touting cradle to grave socialism.

Obama seeing nothing wrong with a person who needs government help at every stage of their life.

The obscene amount of lies in every single supposed fact and number that Obama’s people displayed in the show.

Ask yourself if you want to live the life of Julia?  Dependency, ignorance, control, misery.  That’s what Obama is offering in this plan.  Makes you yearn for the sweet-talk of Mondale promising to raise our taxes; it was at least more honest and less power hungry.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part V: Middle Age Dependency

It’s a shame Julia’s time in Head Start never taught her to not stand right in front of a frickin’ bus…there’s a reason little Zack never shows up again.  (This is what happens when you go to government funded schools that don’t have competition).

So I’ve already been over how Obama being beholden to unions and against choice is really bad for schools and will drive them down.  But let’s deal with the idea that Romney and Ryan would cut federal funding to schools.  So what if they did.  I can promise you, with a teacher’s view from the front lines, federal money does jack to actually help students.  It goes to programs and policies that benefit administration and bureaucracy, not students.  Now if individual states wanted to put in a rule that principals and superintendents can’t make more than twice their highest paid teacher (a good principal might actually be worth more than that…but a good principal in my experience is in the same category as unicorns and non-homicidal postal employees, they don’t really exist).

Also, I’m big on standards in education but regrettably the standards Obama has been hyping lately, now being referred to as the Race to the Top, are sadly underdeveloped.  The math standards seem to stop at Algebra and Geometry (maybe some of what would be included in Algebra II) and the English standards, which as an English teacher I’m very familiar with, actually are an improvement on the previous standards I was dealing with in Arizona…but are still woefully lacking.

Honestly their standards don’t do go further than halfway through what you’d expect a student should know halfway through 10th grade in an ideal world.  And I still have yet to see Science and History standards.  So we’re still aiming to only play second fiddle to the rest of the world in education.  I’m sure that will yield spectacular results.  Also may I add that in typical bureaucratic speak they take nearly 100 pages to say what could be said in 10 (I’ve even boiled it down to 1 page for my own personal use…but I have to use a lot of fragmented thoughts that still get the point across).

But Zachary really shouldn’t have to worry because, as you can see Julia has placed him in just the right place to join Obama’s grandma, Rev. Wright, Mubarak, Israel, Van Jones, and Hillary Rosen (among others) in being thrown under a bus when it’s convenient.  It’s SOP for the Obama bunch.

Now after 4 decades of the Philosopher King’s absolute rule construction by forced community service gangs (at this point community organizer takes on a whole new meaning—crack that whip) on the Great Pyramid of Chicago, which will serve as the divine one’s tomb, is nearly complete.  But even the massive structure, 10 times the size of its Giza counterpart, but still 100 times smaller than the ego of its future resident, needs promotion on the web.

So Julia thinks she should start a web design business of her own.

I have a few issues with this.

First, if the history of technology has taught me anything it’s that we don’t have an f’ing clue what technology is going to look like in 40 years.  Star Trek predicted we would have major genetic engineering by the 1990’s but cell phones wouldn’t come into use until the 24th century.  And I don’t see the hover-boards or high level of automation promised me by 2015 in Back to the Future.  And remember in the 90’s when they thought those virtual reality head gear things would take off…uh-huh.  And I think we can all agree we are tired of waiting and want our goddamn flying cars now; we’ve been promised them for over half a century and we want them NOW.  My point here is that it might be just a little arrogant to say with certainty that the internet as we know it will still be around…but then again that might make Julia’s web design business perfect to the Obama administration loans as I will bring up with my 2nd point.

Solyndra, and 13 other green energy companies, the black holes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG and every other incompetent bank, Government Motors and their fabulous death trap the Volt, not to mention that spectacular bit of idiocy Cash for Clunkers. The Obama administration sure knows how to pick’em.  So this only confirms my suspicion that Julia is in a now dead field, the Obama administration is giving her a loan…something they don’t do for people who could ever theoretically make money.

I also love how the internet business is going to “help grow the local economy.”  Screw what the internet is going to be like now, internet companies aren’t exactly limited by local market nowadays.

There are of course two reasons why Julia has to get a loan from the government and couldn’t get one from a private bank like the rest of us.  The first being that, as we have discussed, Julia, she of the 7 years to get her degree in a field you go to a 2 year tech school to get, has clearly never made very good decisions and is probably a shitty programmer to boot.  The second is that after 40 years of Obama, private banks will have gone out of business.  To recap, in the past and currently banks are being forced to continue making bad loans as the Obama administration is still pushing them, while, and I’m not making this up, simultaneously suing them for making those bad loans.   Private banks don’t stand a chance after 40 years of this insanity.  And that may make the idiots of Occupy Wall Street thrilled, but the rest of us have to understand such a move will result in an economy that makes the Great Depression look like the salad days of prosperity.  So Obama will be the only money lender in town.

My last problem with the logic here is that she’s 42, which makes Zachary 9? 10?  Who has time to start a business when you have a 10 year old?  They’re still too young to take care of themselves…oh wait I forgot, she threw him under the bus.

And I’m not sure where this 20% cut thing for Romney/Ryan comes from (I’d be happy with a 100% cut and possible jail terms for the people who work for the SBA) but I do know that while I haven’t heard anything about Romney talking about the loans the SBA gives out, he has been very clear on gutting the $1.75 Trillion annual burden of regulation this monster of an anti-capitalist organization places on the American economy.

And rather than giving out money, Romney and Ryan have put forward plans that will improve the fundamentals of the system and actually allow businesses to grow on their own and make profits, hire employees, create new markets, all without government help.  It’s this strange miracle of capitalism.  Even though it’s always been hindered to one degree or another throughout U.S. history it has created the greatest advance to quality of life and opportunity of any system conceivable.  But you would have to believe in America instead of Obama to understand that.

Also is that a biohazard symbol on the wall outside Julia’s office?  What kind of web design is she doing?

2 Comments

Filed under Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Waiting For Superman, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part IV

So Julia is someone made it through childhood, adolescence and out of college (after 7 years) and has been working at web design for 9 years.  You’d think she would be doing well…but not our Julia.  No she still needs Obama to wipe certain things for her because she’s too inept to do that herself.

Wow, Julia is such a great web designer that not only is she apparently working for the crappiest web design company on Earth (since it appears they pick an insurance plan that doesn’t cover contraception)…and Julia apparently has such marketable skills that she can’t get hired anywhere else.  So what does she need, she needs the divine Philosopher King and Imperator Obama to make sure that all insurance plans cover birth control. And you know Julia is also working for the worst web design company on Earth because they don’t obviously pay her much…after all generic birth control is only $9 a month at Target or Walmart (assuming Obama hasn’t shut those down in his 24 year reign).  Clearly they’re paying her so little that an extra $9 a month is the choice between LIFE AND DEATH!  Great Obama economy you got there.

But what if she needs birth control for something other than contraception?  She needs Obama to pay for the particular kind of birth control she needs…not really if it’s for medical issues and her doctor says so, then even insurance plans that don’t cover birth control will still cover it.

But what if her psycho employer fires her for using birth control….well long before Obama came to power through the junta that established in his position for over 2 decades, there was this law called HIPPA.  HIPPA is a law that protects the privacy of your medical records and means your employer can’t know your medical history.  So if Julia’s employer fires her for using birth control, the lawsuit Julia will win against them for the HIPPA violation will leave her with money for life!  And she would win.  Imagine, she had protections before Obama the Great took power.

Meanwhile those mean Romney and Ryan bastards want to allow insurance policies to charge women more than men.  To think!  I think the 50% number is a bit silly, but yes women pay more for insurance.  Maybe because women have more medical costs than men…apparently testes take up far less medical expertise and have far fewer problems than a uterus.  This is mind blowing information I just found out about today.  Who knew?  But you see those medical insurance companies aren’t charging women more because they’re sexists bastards, they’re doing it because the actuarial tables say that it will cost more to insure women.  Did you want to also complain about the fact that women pay lower car insurance, lower life insurance, and I’m sure low just about every other kind of insurance (because aside from medical issues, women are typically a safer bet, according to the actuarial tables).  Did you want to raise all your other insurance rates to counter the rise in men’s health insurance rates (and make no mistake, if the insurance companies can’t discriminate based on the actuarial tables, then they’re just going to raise rates, not cut them anywhere).

Or you know I could have sworn a second ago Obama was demanding equal pay for equal work.  But now when women require more work he wants equal pay.  So because I never will need an OBGYN, I still have to pay for the coverage….yeah, that makes sense.

Or how about this, let’s introduce Romney and Ryan plans into health care which will introduce competition and drive down costs across the board.  And maybe introduce tort reform and thus ensure that your OBGYN is not paying the GDP of a third world nation every month in liability insurance costs…I think that may lower the astounding cost disparity caused from this particular specialty.

God help us all, she’s spawning!

Because none of that existed before Obamacare.  Before Obamacare a woman’s only option was to take care of herself for 9 months and then squat wherever she stood and give birth to the child right there, only because of Obamacare were the fields of gynecology and obstetrics created.  And if you repeal Obamacare then we will go back to the days where OBGYN’s could only operate out of dark alleys as their field was one punishable by death! Death I tell you! Death!

WTF?

This has to be my favorite slide because it is the most detached from reality.  Name for me an insurance plan that didn’t already cover all of that.  Guess what, you could repeal every line of Obamacare and all those things promised to Julia will still be there.

Also I hate to tell you this Barry, but Mitt Romney might not get a chance to overturn Obamacare, even though he is planning to send such a bill to Congress on his first day in office…Why might he not get a chance to overturn it?  Because odds are in favor of somewhere between 5 to 7 thumbs down from the Supreme Court, who, if nothing else, would like to remind you, O Great God King, that you are the weakest branch of the federal government.

On a side note, exactly how did she get pregnant?  I mean if there is a guy in her life, married or not, you would expect him to shoulder a great deal of the burden of the costs for medical care of pregnancy and raising the child…certainly he should be paying long before I or any taxpayer should have to.  And if she is gay and she and her wife decided to have a child, or even if she’s single and decided she just wanted to have a child on her own,  I’m confused by the fact because artificial insemination ain’t cheap (or am I as a taxpayer footing that bill too now for anyone who wants that service?)  Or is it, given that up to this point in Julia’s life I’ve never seen her with another human being that Julia magically reproduces asexually?  I’m going to deviate a little from just the life of Julia, but legally you have a right to have children without anyone telling you that you can’t…but ethically you are a piece of shit if you have a child when you do not have the money to provide for them.  You have a responsibility to any children you bring into the world to provide for them until they are adults and can provide for themselves, and shame on you if the only way you can provide for a child is by living off the government teat and the labor of others.  As a parent you are supposed to provide not only materially for your children but also by showing them the right way to live…and starting their whole life by showing them how to mooch off others is beyond disgraceful.

(Oh and the hair is again, inexplicably, back to that bizarre blue color).

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part III–The wacky college years

Our little Julia continues to be among the most worthless excuses for a human I’ve ever seen (not really, there are worse)

So now that we’ve covered her early life and adolescence let’s move onto her college years.


Ah, I remember the first time I had major surgery in my early 20’s, just like everyone I know…oh wait, no…most people don’t have surgery in their 20’s.  Assuming Obama took office when Julia was 3, that would mean he has been Fuehrer for 19 years so I can promise you that almost all private insurance companies have gone out of business as Obamacare is designed to put private companies out of business and have everyone go to government care  …but don’t worry most of the doctors and nurses will have already left the field long before the private insurance companies as there will be no way to make ends meet in the medical profession if Obamacare goes into full effect.  But don’t worry, long before this happens drug companies and medical supply companies will go out of business.  And have we talked about this thing called the adverse selection death spiral, which is as bad as it sounds, caused by Obamacare.   So Julia will be having her surgery in a government facility, being treated by third rate doctors (the first and second rate ones went to countries with fewer regulations on the medical field like Canada and the UK…maybe India will start importing doctors from America), being done on a very limited use of anesthetics and antibiotics.

So it’s actually a small miracle she makes it out of the hospital alive…truly God loves Julia, and of course, by God, I mean the divine Obama.

Let’s compare this to the Ryan plan or Romney’s proposals for health care.  You know the ones that would one up choice and competition, lower fraud, reduce prices, and improve quality all over.  Yes Julia and her parents would have to pay for her surgery…but it will be half of what it costs rights now and one-twentieth of what it would cost under Obamacare.  And God (and I don’t mean Barry) help Julia if the rationing board determines that her surgery isn’t worth the cost.

Well if there were any jobs left…which at this rate 110% of the populace will have dropped out of the work force by the time Julia is 23 and Obama has been ruling the People’s Republic of America for 20 years.  Of course with no one seeking jobs anymore the Department of Labor will declare 100% employment and praise Obama for his genius.

I’m curious about the fact that she’s starting her career two years before finishing college…but I’m just not going to touch this bizarre non-sequitur.

Okay let’s take about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…or as I call it bullshit.

What is it really?  It’s a bone to the trial lawyers who now have legal cover to sue for perceived injustices that are decades old.  It’s the exact opposite of the tort reform we so dearly need.   Because it has nothing to do with equal pay.

Did you know that women in their 20’s make more money than their male counterparts in the same field?  Did you know that when you correct for experience and education and the job then women of any age earn more?   It’s just that women take these large swaths of time off from their careers…the Obama administration can find no explanation but sexism for the time women take off from their jobs.

Since women in their 20’s are making more than men in their 20’s, actually if you had equal work for equal pay it means most men should be making more…hmmm…..oh wait because we’ve put in card check and unfair practices at the federal labor board everyone will be in a union by Julia’s 20’s whether they want to be or not.  Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.

But let’s see with lawyers suing up a storm expect everything to cost so much more which means even if Julia is making the same amount of money (which is odd as web design is often more of personal venture than a big corporation…but again let’s not get into the leaps of logic) it really doesn’t matter as with her inflated (caused by everything else Obama is doing to the economy) currency she will be able to buy even less!

I’m still a little confused, if she started her career 3 years ago and is still in the same field at 42…what was so important about college?  I think college is important, and when I have children it will be very clear that they will be going to college…but if you already have a career before finishing college and are making money off of it (and since she doesn’t switch careers between now and 42 she’s either making money or is very very stupid…oh wait)…but going to college has worked for a few like Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay Ash, John D. Rockerfeller, Mark Zuckerberg, and Robert Jackson (Attorney General of the United States, Supreme Court Justice, and chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials…never finished college let alone Law School) and I’m not so much of a snob as to chide someone for not going to college if they can make their career work…

Anyone a bit disturbed by the fact that it’s taken Julia 7 years to graduate from college?  It doesn’t quite make sense.  I can only assume she studied computer engineering, as she’s a web designer, but 7 years?  Web design actually wouldn’t take even an AA…so does she have a MA (still a year too long) or a Ph.D. in computer engineering…if so Microsoft, Apple or a dozen other programming firms would have hired her on the spot and lavished her with money, benefits and stock options…but she’s only a poor web designer.  And since she is still dependent on Obama for the rest of her existence I can only conclude it took her 7 years to get her B.A. (now we’re seeing why she didn’t get any scholarships and needed Obama’s help to pay for college tuition…and not a very bright college either as they don’t know that flag code requires that flag goes on the LEFT of the podium if you are facing the podium).

Also, and I’m not entirely sure here, but isn’t “web design” something you can get done it 2 years at ITT Tech or DeVry?  7 years?  Really?

And yes Obama kept the interest rates low, making that money cheap.  Which any basic understanding of how an economy works means that money that could have gone for investment in business or industry and created jobs will go to fund Julia and other slackers like her in their 7 year quest to become Web Designers.  Hey, Barry, look up the term “opportunity cost” and ask yourself if it has any bearing on artificially lowering the interest rate on college loans.  Of course it’s a lie that her loans are more manageable, the college jacked up their prices to be on par with what Julia could borrow…it’s just that Julia is really hoping for a bailout from Obama soon, like he bails out everyone.

(I wonder if Barry also paid for the dye job to her hair as it has gone from an inhuman shade of blue to red for no explicable reason).

So rather than letting the Romney/Ryan plan burst the bubble on college costs and actually make it more affordable for a far greater portion of the country, we must keep those prices artificially inflated.

3 Comments

Filed under Atlas Shrugged, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare