Category Archives: Racism

The Most Patriotic Films #11 To Kill A Mockingbird

Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system – that’s no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality! Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review, without passion, the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision and restore this man to his family. In the name of GOD, do your duty. In the name of God, believe… Tom Robinson.

 

Okay first off, I’ll admit the central theme of this film is not the greatness of America, there is no denying that, but the theme is there.

 

First off this is a great patriotic film, because as I have said before we Americans are able to admit our mistakes, own up to them, learn from them and then move on.  And this film makes clear some of our worst behavior without giving a blanket indictment to all Americans past, present and future.

 

Think about it, which other countries are so open about their flaws?

 

I looked around and I couldn’t find that there were any monuments in England to their treatment of Catholics or to their actions in India (I could be wrong and if I am please tell me).  And if you go to Japan try and find public acknowledgement of Nanking, Bataan, or Pearl Harbor…that has some very interesting selective amnesia.  And let’s not forget Russia seems on the verge of re-embracing their darkest days.  But as America is a nation that does not believe in pedigree or the idea that the sins (or virtues) of the father automatically fall to the son, we aren’t told to feel personally guilty for the actions of our ancestors (like the German education system seems to be based on a near daily dose of “We are terrible evil people”—I’m sorry but the children nowadays, while they should knows what happened, shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about something they didn’t do).  Only America has, more or less, a history of admitting their flaws and mistakes but not dwelling and wallowing in them—just as an individual should.  Yes there are people in this nation that want to make us likes the dregs of Europe either denying our wrongs or wallowing in them as if no redemption is possible, but these people never seem to gain any long term traction because ignorance and guilt are not the American way.

 

Now, as the opening quote suggests, this is a movie tied heavily to our legal system. Its flaws and its strengths.  Atticus’ speech speaks to the hopes of its strengths.  Its flawed verdict speaks to the weakness of depending on people who are by nature imperfect for justice (but you come up with a better system).  But I think there is a point missed in all the injustice here.  The majority of the people act within the rules of the law.  Atticus of course always follows the law to the letter (even to the point where he thought he would have to bring his son to court for murder charges)—but it is not just Atticus.  The Judge of the story, who could have given any lawyer to Tom Robbinson, ensures he gets the one lawyer in town who will not allow a man he knows to be innocent to be railroaded without even mounting a defense. Further the character of Sheriff Tate when limited by the rules of the law charges a man he doesn’t believe to be innocent, because a complaint has been filed and it is not for the police to determine guilt or innocence…but when it is in his legal power to determine what happened he makes it quite clear “Bob Ewell fell on his knife”…Arthur “Boo” Radley Who?  For all the flaws of the legal system shown in this film, it is shown that it is a system worthy of following in this nation because even when it has gross injustices it is still better than the alternative. (Further let us not forget this film was made in the 1960’s and worked as a powerful piece of propaganda to help pass civil rights reform that ended the kind of injustice seen in this film.

A man who stands up for what he believes in, even in the face of certain violence,is almost always to be admired (so long as his cause is right and just…which is a given in with Atticus.)

And then there is Atticus Finch.  A heroes hero whom we all wish we could be more like.  And he is a distinctly America kind of hero. He doesn’t care about what the community at large thinks, he doesn’t care what his neighbors say, he doesn’t care when he personally is threatened.  He care about his children and what is right.  There is no other consideration for the opinion of community or loyalty to society, only what is right.  Some countries may ask devotion to “king and country” others demand obedience to race or religion…but America is the nation that glorifies loyalty to self, to reason, and to right. Which is the reason why we love Atticus and admire him so deeply.

Also, a very subtle theme that is tied to the core of America is that action and principle must go hand in hand.  Yes Atticus Finch is a man of morals and virtue and character that we should all aspire to.  His guiding light of  “The main one is that if I didn’t, I couldn’t hold my head up in town. I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do somethin’ again” is a belief that far too many are lacking in the modern world (clearly no one in France or Greece has any conception of this kind of thinking).  But the fact of the matter is that there is a certain lack of action in his moral. He stands tall when a piece of filth like Ewell spits in his face and doesn’t give in to the provocation to fight…which if it were just Atticus who was in jeopardy would be fine…but he failed to take into account that Ewell had a history of attacking the defenseless and innocent. Which is why it is Boo Radley who shows the very American propensity for knowing that sometimes you have to put evil people down and make sure they can never get back up again.

 

—-

 

 

Oh, and not on the issue of patriotism…but a fun fact.  There is a portion of the movie (and it’s in the book too) about the arrogance of teachers who think that they know everything because they’ve been to college and that parents know nothing.  One might call it ironic that this is a book almost every English teacher loves, even though it is insulting the arrogant mentality of most teachers…but they would have to be bright enough to get that point, and, at the least most of the union hacks certainly are nowhere near that bright.

 

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Education, Faith, Fear, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Racism

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock wave after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Liberal or Conservative, Romney Critics aren’t that bright…

Conservatives can be a dumb bunch at times.  From the social conservative for whom there is nothing conservative about using government to run other people’s lives (how exactly is that different from liberals?).  Then you have the Ron Paul section of the party a bunch of cowardly isolationists who like to hold to an extreme view of an idealist economic philosophy (Austrian economics have many good points, but they are extremists who don’t want to worry about real world problems on in their little ideals).   And we certainly have our share of RINOS who want to be loved more by their liberal friends than having any fidelity to reason, truth or justice.  Not that liberals aren’t stupid (good lord they are) nor are true libertarians less insane than Ron Paul Republicans…but we conservatives have our share of idiots, no doubt.  And one can often see this stupidity in such publications as very inappropriately named “American Thinker” which seems to appeal to all strands of conservative idiocy.

For instance in a time when Republicans need to close ranks around Romney…hell even if you can’t see that he is in every way the inheritor of Reagan’s legacy, we’re fighting against the second-coming of Jimmy Carter meets FDR meets Benedict Arnold!    It’s time to close ranks.  But no, no, let’s let idiots complain about Romney on supposedly conservative web sites…and let’s let them use liberal talking points to do it.  Like this article “Mitt Flunks Education 101” by Robert Weissberg who as far as I can tell is a moron.  Why do I say that?  Well, going back over some of his other articles he states as a complaint against the election system that is designed to elect moderates like Romney (who really isn’t a moderate) and that “The system is supposed to produce moderation, not “full-strength” candidate [sic] such as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.”   I’m not sure when “full strength” became a synonym for “f*cking psychopath,” (not to mention homophone in Ricky and anti-Semite in Ron) but the use of the term really makes me doubt Weissberg’s intellectual credentials.

But it’s this hack’s work attacking Mitt’s education plan that I want to deal with today.  Why because it’s all the liberal BS talking points on education in one place. 

1.  The genius begins his complaints of six things wrong with Romney’s stance on education with something that isn’t even a proposal, rather Romney simply offering a statement of fact.

“He begins by calling the gap between whites and minorities (assumed to be blacks and Hispanics) ‘the civil rights issue of our era.’  This gap may, in fact, be a civil rights issue, but nobody, regardless of ideology, has any solid idea on how to close it.”

Um, actually genius, the solution would be in the next five points.  Although if you want a specific point to address the gap in minority scores then we could look at the one thing Bush got right in education reform—complaining about “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  I’m a teacher and trust me, there are many in education who are bigots and simply think that if minorities get a C then that’s the best they can do.  I actually once had an argument with a school administrator over who to give an award for academic achievement to—I wanted to give it to a high performing AP student, this administrator wanted to give it to a C student and his actual argument was “Yeah but she’s white, this kid is Hispanic do you know how hard it must be to get a C.”  Took everything I had not to punch the asshole in the face.  And it’s not just race, there are low expectations on gender and income level as well, despite the fact that I have learned you can push any kid from any background to any level so long as you have high expectations and the student is willing to learn.  But even though recognizing this as a problem, the only solution to this problem lies in points 2-6.

2.  Romney, quite intelligently, supports Vouchers and Charters, the idiot complaining about Romney seems to think they don’t work…and I love how he quotes a report, from a newspaper (I’m sure they’re qualified to run this kind of high level analysis), that shows charters don’t outperform regular schools.  (Let’s ignore that charters appeal to lower end students which removing them from the pool raises the public school numbers…and shows charters can bring the worst up to average level).  Heaven forbid we should look at real data that shows some charters do work.  I’ll be the first to admit that not all charters work, but the fun thing about charters is that unlike public schools, if they don’t work, they close and are replaced by something else.  I would also point out that it is simply impossible to judge any school until it has been in operation for at least 3 years—I’ve been involved in opening a school from the ground up, your first year you take whatever type of student you can get and have to deal with a myriad of education deficiencies caused by previous public school incompetence…it takes time to identify and put in systems to correct the most common problems and set up a culture in the school that encourages success, but once in place that culture is effective and hard to destroy. In the real world the same capitalistic market forces that create high quality low price goods for us, create high quality low priced education when competition is allowed to flourish.

The genius ends his critique of charters with what I assume is attempt at wit “Where are all the Bain Capital accountants to calculate gains versus losses?”  Ummm….as the people at Bain are quite good at what they do I would assume they put the profits as far exceeding the losses.

It gets even funnier however when you read this guy’s follow up article on what Mitt should do for education.  Weissberg says “Then dismantle all the Department of Education one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency.  And on and on.  In an instant, teachers could teach, not battle Mickey Mouse rules, and students will benefit.”  So what Mitt should do is let schools be free from the rules to experiment and try new things to see what works without overbearing control from above…which, in the real world is called, charter schools.  So advocating charter schools is dumb, because what we really need is charter schools.   Man, Weissberg, you are such a genius!

But don’t worry that the statement about freeing schools from “one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency” appears in paragraph 6 of his article on what Mitt should do.  In paragraph 8 we should “add nationally certified ‘super schools’ drawing on the top 1% or 2% as established by tough, no-nonsense tests.”  So testing is bad, what we need is testing.  Got it.

And you wonder why I find Mitt Romney critiques stupid?

3.  Next up he tries to hit Mitt for calling for Teacher Accountability.  And his proof that teacher accountability doesn’t work is that Mayor Bloomberg in New York has tried to do this and it’s been a disaster.  I’m shocked a big government statist like Bloomberg doesn’t effectively put into practice what should be a capitalist metric that is supposed to be controlled at a local level.  It’s like saying capitalism doesn’t work, because the economy didn’t do well under Obama.

Teacher Accountability should be an issue for principals and school boards, judging by open and fair, but local, criteria that can be adjusted to the needs of the individual school.  This will help address the needs of the students and reward those who meet those needs the best.  This is the advantage of charters, they have very local control. When controlled by a big government, pro-union, damn near fascist state like Bloomberg’s New York, of course it’s not going to work.  Duh.  More importantly Unions should not be in government – what exactly do they need protection from?  If schools were not protected by unions and worried about litigation we probably would not have as many teacher/student molestations as these people would lose their license and schools would tell other schools why they no longer work there – but that would never happen now under current conditions.

4.  Individual report cards for schools is apparently also a dumb idea of Mitt’s.  Yeah, why should parents know if the school their kid goes to is failing or not.  Why not?

According to Weissberg…because there’s been a lot of cheating involved.  So instead of coming up with rules and procedures to reduce cheating (outside proctors, not letting teacher’s proctor their own students, off site testing…you know all the things the SAT does) no, let’s just throw out any legitimate way to judge schools.  And again rather than look at where this has succeeded in raising the bar, let’s judge this by how Bloomberg has failed to implement it.  Schools need to be compared to minimum standards nationally along with all the local schools that should be in competition for a better way to make decisions.  This is how business does it – they have company standards and then they also compare along those lines to local competition.

5.  And Mitt is wrong for being anti union. “But unions are not the problem.”  Dipshit, unions are a huge portion of the problem.  Huge.  They are standing in the way of every major reform ever attempted.  There is a reason why everyone agrees the lawsuit against the California unions is likely to succeed…because the teacher’s unions protect bad teachers!  That is their only purpose.  To protect what is wrong in American education. And how does Weissberg show unions aren’t the problem?  Pro-union Massachusetts (which ironically also has school choice because of the efforts of a previous Governor…Mitt something or other) does better than anti-union South on school tests.  This is stupid because, first, as every state comes up with its own tests, or who gets tested in national tests, it never apples to apples comparisons; second, because, even I’ll admit socioeconomics is a greater predictor to performance than anything else (see point 1) and, last time I checked Massachusetts has better socioeconomics as a whole than most states in the South.  It would be like comparing a union public school in Beverly Hills against a non union charter in Watts and saying that because the charter school’s scores weren’t higher clearly the union isn’t to blame and charters don’t solve anything.  The rest of us realize that parents and culture are more important than school, school is supposed to be the stop gap against those forces which work against education, not merely a reflection of it (which Mr. Weissberg seems all too comfortable with).

And socioeconomics is an indicator only because the majority currently do not value education for their children and are not involved in their children’s lives, look to D.C. and those parents who cared and got their children into the better schools saw an improvement that has been substantiated in studies, despite low socioeconomics, thanks too…charters, vouchers, teacher accountability, grading schools, not having low expectations and…#6

6.  Finally he critiques Mitt’s push for parents to have the right to move their children out of failing schools.  Because why should you have any liberty, after all we live in a fascist/socialist regime where you have no rights, why should you question the government monopoly on education?  Oh, wait.   Why is school choice a bad thing?

“More important, again, past failure is crystal-clear.  Troubled students bring their troubled habits with them, and, more important, they typically undermine their new ‘good schools.’”

And while I’m sure that I’m just reading vehement implicit racism in that statement (the soft bigotry of low expectation), I’m sure no racism exists whatsoever in Mr. Wesissberg.  On the other hand as a charter teacher who has dealt with those students who bring their bad habits, I will simply say that good teachers, given time, are in the job of correcting bad habits and replacing them with good ones.

But Weissberg creates a preposterous example of what would happen if more students want to leave a school than there are slots for students in a good school…are we to shove some of the students that already go to the good school and force them into the bad?  This is stupid beyond belief.  We have lotteries for when there are not enough slots…and we would have more good schools if idiots didn’t oppose charters and vouchers.  Further, .  he is not accounting for the fact that even if there were no slots the schools that the parents want to leave would realize that they were losing students and would slowly need to compete – thus improve and they would realize – this will be a shock- but since the system is based on acquiring money (ADA) and they would need to improve so more people would want to bring their students to that school so they could make more money – what a concept.

Finally he complains that while Mitt’s idea to cut spending to the Department of Education is a good idea, it will fail because Mitt can’t pull it off…because Mitt has such a history of failure (so long as you ignore the history of success at Bain, the Olympics, Massachusetts…I mean if you just ignore the mountain of good stuff then Romney’s a complete failure at everything he does).

In the end Weissberg gives Romney an “F” on education.  Reason, logic, and common sense would give Weissberg a grade lower than “F” if such were possible.  In fact, saying this as someone from the trenches, Romney gets a “B” in education.  He’s saying the right things, identifying the problems and the correct solutions.  Now if he can actually pull it off, which will require a lot of fighting with liberals tooth and nail, then he gets an “A”.  And I think he will get an “A”, if the GOP backs him and ignores idiots like Weissberg.

Meanwhile you might want to read “A Chance for every Child” the 35 page proposal (because Mitt is always short on details) on what needs to be done about Education.

21 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Racism, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions

Ramblings from ConservativeCathy – What’s in a name??

The other day I was listening to O’Reily and heard a discussion between him and a young lady chosen to speak for the immigrants to our country (those not here legally) and she wanted to let all of us know how damaging to the soul and humanity of a person it was to refer to them as “illegal aliens”. She related this phrase to calling people names and dehumanizing them.

This is not the first time I have encountered this concept. Actually the liberal term of “undocumented workers” come from this concept. I always wondered what they were undocumented from? If I do not have copies of my transcripts from school – am I undocumented – If I lose my social security card – am I undocumented – if I do not have my drivers license on me – am I undocumented? I think that is a silly term.

Then looking around I also found other comments on the Internet:

Jesus Nebot, filmmaker, entrepreneur, and speaker, wrote in an Aug. 14, 2011 email to ProCon.org:

“‘Illegal alien’ is NOT a neutral term. ‘Illegal,’ used as an adjective or simply as a noun in ‘illegals’ stereotypes these immigrants as criminals, as if they were inherently bad people who must be punished.

Yet, crossing the border outside of legal channels is a violation of the civil code, not a criminal act. Their intent is not to cause harm or to steal. The illegal frame inflates the severity of their offense…..”

Cindy Rodríguez, Vice-President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, wrote in her Apr. 4, 2006 Denver Post article “‘Illegal’ As a Noun Breaks Law of Reason”:

“If you can control the words people use, you can frame the issue. In effect, you control the way people view it. That is exactly what is happening with the immigration debate …some politicians are taking the easy way out by focusing on undocumented immigrants. Those politicians are being goaded by nativists, racists and brainwashed people who are confused in our culture of fear. Their term of choice: ‘illegals.’…..”

“The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) calls on our nation’s news media to use accurate terminology in its coverage of immigration and to stop dehumanizing undocumented immigrants…”

Douglas Gould and Company

Communications for Change
Today’s Bad Word: Illegal Alien
Definition: ‘illegal alien’ refers to individuals who cross a boarder into the United States unlawfully and without proper documentation.
What is says: An intensely negative term, ‘illegal’ defines people as criminal, forbidden and illegitimate. While ‘alien’ is synonymous to foreign, unwanted and dangerous. Are we really likening people from other countries to creatures in sci-fi movies? Come on…
My beef? The term itself erodes basic human rights (such as the right to a fair court hearing) by presuming illegal status. Besides being presumptuous, it condones arbitrary detention and unfair deportation. Moreover, it ignores that fact that many cross the boarder to escape oppression and a life of poverty in search of greater economic opportunities, mobility and quality of life. Do we want to live in a country that would round up and deport millions of people? Or racially profile Arizona residents – stopping suspicious cars and passersby – who may remotely “look like” someone not of European decent?
We should treat all those among us with dignity and respect, welcome newcomers without assumption, and work toward a more comprehensive and just immigration policy. Because, in so many ways, immigration is a net positive for America (economically, demographically, etc.)
Suggested replacements: undocumented people, undocumented worker, migrants

“To me an alien is somebody who is from another planet,” Democrat Sen. Frederica Wilson told the Miami Herald

It has taken me a few days to think about this ….

Meanwhile the dictionary sheds some light on the real meaning of terms:

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Illegal
ADJECTIVE:
1. Prohibited by law.
NOUN:
An illegal immigrant.
Alien
ADJECTIVE:
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
NOUN:
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.

I looked at several sites and they were all pretty much the same along with using the detrimental phrase as the example. Actually I thought that was pretty funny.

Let’s see the word illegal is bad as it aligns the person with being a criminal – hmmm
Illegally entering the United States – Federal Misdemeanor
Illegally getting a social security card (if they are working) – Identity Theft –
Felony
Using any entitlements is a fraud and misuse of taxpayer funds
Using taxpayer funds for school and healthcare is immoral at best
Any one using or working with a coyote is involved in a criminal conspiracy
to illegally transport a human being

The word alien is self-explanatory. I think it is funny to hear them say they are not from space. Maybe the problem is not the phrase but that the immigrants understanding of the English language is lacking??

The problem with all of this other than for the humorous responses I might compose in my head is this is just another liberal way of changing the conversation. The issue here is everyone understands why people come here and what the opportunities are for them but does that mean that they are allowed to break out laws instead or fixing their own countries? The issue is that and I know this is difficult for liberals but what other country in the world allows people to just walk into their country and receive free stuff??? And why should we!

Liberals and “illegal immigrants” need to realize and accept that they are here illegally and are criminals regardless of the fact that many of us might do the same thing under the same conditions. Understanding does not change the facts of an issue it just allows for empathy.

Although this has been treated with an attitude of sympathy and not the criminal behavior it is, all need to understand that these acts are violations of our laws and country and if any of us citizens did the same thing we would end up in jail so why do we excuse them? These are not civil crimes but real felonies.

Although we all know that most of the immigrants coming to this country are doing it for their own betterment, there are exceptions and all entrance illegally in this country is a type of invasion and not in our countries or citizen’s best interest.

The other derogatory term being supposedly implied by the term is that it is racist. Wow, I think that shows where their head is at. The majority of illegal immigrants into our country are of Latino heritage but we have them from Canada, the Middle East, Africa and East Asian countries (actually from everywhere I would bet) so I think they are stealing thunder to make the issue personal instead of dealing with the actual issue regardless of where the people come from.

People by evading the truth do not allow the real discussion to take place. Do we want to have a guest worker program for a mutual benefit? Yes. Do we want to limit the number of people entering our country? Only mildly. Do we want to allow people to come here and not assimilate? No. Do we want to continue multiculturalism? Not the way liberals define that term. Do we want to limit a work program to high tech, low tech or whatever is needed or beneficial to all involved? Depends. Do we allow those who owe us no allegiance or chose to not honor our laws to stay in our country? No. Should illegal immigrants be counted in the census? No. Do we want non-citizens voting? HELL NO! There are many questions that must be answered and dealt with but what we call them is not one of them!

Basically other than bringing humor to me – let’s try and deal with actual issues and not make issues out of words as is so common these days.

15 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Illegal Immigration, Long Term Thinking, politics, Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Or listen to this:

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

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

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

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

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

His ideas on foreign affairs are beyond insane


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need further proof he has no moral compass…

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

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

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


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

But watch him be a total hypocrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that he is the only answer

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

6 Comments

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

The Random Thoughts of October

Never again am I doing a movie a day for a month series without doing some prep work the month before.

Sorry for the lack of some of the political and religious stuff.

Okay with the candidates.

I am disappointed beyond the telling of it that Giuliani did not run. Beyond the telling of it. So what do I have to say about the losers who are left?

Santorum, as always seems to know something about economics but when you get even a fraction off economics he turns into a raving lunatic.

How did Gingrich make a comeback? The man may be intelligent but he has personal financial problems to no end, and supports the idea that global warming is man-made and that healthcare is a right. WTF? How is this man doing well in the polls?

Perry. I used to think that Romney was Obama-lite. Romney should be getting down on his knees every night and thanking god that someone more sleazy and more willing to abuse executive power came into the race.

Romney. Eh.  He’s saying all the right things right now, but his actual actions have yet to show he is nothing but a New England Republican…

Bachman. Isn’t it nice that basically all of her ideas have been co-opted by other opponents and no one but Gingrich gives her credit for them? Isn’t it nice that she is the only one up there with any knowledge of foreign policy but no one seems to care? Isn’t it fascinating that she was the only one to explain, in detail, why 9-9-9 had very serious flaws with compounding nature of sales tax at every point in production which actually forced Cain to change some of the specifics (but not the name)? Being the only one who knows anything you would expect her to be out front…oh wait, I forgot what misogynists this country was filled with. What was I thinking? …However I will concede that she’s still making gaffes, like when you’re trying to down play your religious credentials because it has no bearing on your presidency don’t make the comment about turning 9-9-9 upside down.

Ron Paul continues to be a moron on foreign policy. Also I was struck dumb by his statement against the 9-9-9 plan that a problem with it was that it was a regressive tax and would force some of the people who aren’t paying taxes now to pay taxes in the future. I looked at that as a virtue of the plan. If you want to talk about fair then the fact that 47% of the population doesn’t pay taxes is what’s unfair. Why should someone reap the benefits of living in America but not pay for it…yes the argument will go, but they’re poor, they don’t get the benefits…really, well then let’s have them go be poor in Somalia or North Korea for a month and then tell me there are no benefits to being poor in the U.S. (Hell, a third of the country is on food stamps, it’s not like we’re taxing those, so it wouldn’t be regressive to the poorest among us.)

Oh and on that note do you know which group will see the biggest increase in tax payments if we go to a no loopholes flat tax (the Ryan plan) or a sales tax (9-9-9), it would be the rich who no longer have volumes of loopholes to get out of paying taxes. So really the liberals need to stop their bitching and get behind one of these plans.

And Cain continues to impress me. I still am a little hesitant about his lack of knowledge about foreign policy (especially in this day and age) but he may surprise me there as well. Yes I am a little worried that pundits may be right that he doesn’t have the structure ready to get voters out in Iowa and N.H. …but these are the same pundits who said he would never break single digits and who said he would be done by now. So there you go.

In other news Operation Fast and Furious continues to be the biggest cluster you know what I’ve ever heard of. This makes Iran-Contra look bright, Nobel worthy in fact, by comparison. At the absolute least Holder and Napolitano need to be fired and prosecuted.

Solyndra, Pigford, Fast and Furious…no, the media isn’t biased at all in the favor of Obama, they’ve fully reported on all the scandals of his administration.

So we’re pulling out of Iraq. Well, I would like to thank Bush and Obama for utterly ruining what could have been a wonderful moment for the progress of democracy. How do you go into a country and have no plan of what to do when you finish defeating the army? How? And then Obama’s running away is another sign of his incompetence.

But Obama has us now in Uganda (I’m still not sure why we were in Libya, because as bad as Gaddafi was, we’ll look back on him fondly after the Islamofacists take over…you know like how we all hated the Shah of Iran until we were introduced to the Ayatollah). Why are we in Uganda? This sounds like a civil war. With the government as the good guy. Why are we involved in such a thing? I can see getting involved in a civil war when the government is the villain…but Uganda; their public officials stopped eating people four years ago…why are we there?

The Occupy Wall Street people continue to show themselves to be a bunch of whiny, lawless, anti-Semitic thugs. But you have to love that story about the people running the Occupy kitchen complaining about the homeless coming around for free food when they aren’t even there for the protest. I know, lazy worthless freeloaders, how dare they demand to take the food that the Occupy people worked hard to get.

When you get stories of women being raped and sexually assaulted at these Occupy rallies and it is then reported that the organizers tell the victims to keep their mouths shut, how is it that everyone at these rallies isn’t immediately rounded up and thrown in jail on suspicion of aiding and abetting rape.

And if I hear one more liberal compare this Occupy BS to the civil rights marches I may hit someone…I don’t recall any claims of rape from the Civil Rights marches. I don’t recall a steady stream of anti-Semitic diatribes (that came more from the opposition in the Civil Right movement).

And I may do a whole blog on this, but I must have heard at least ten different stories on bullying in schools in the last week or so. And everyone seems to be saying what should the adults do to stop this. When did we stop telling our children to walk away once, walk away twice, walk away three times, and if they try to bully you after you have given them three chances to go away beat them within an inch of their life and make it clear you will go that last inch if they ever bully you or anyone else ever again. Bullies are wimps and cowards; they crumble easily and only can survive when people don’t stand up to them, but they will keep terrorizing people until someone stands up to them.

And of course there is this injustice which has yet to be dealt with…

Happy Halloween.  Good Samhain.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Art, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Death, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Halloween, Humor, Long Term Thinking, Michelle Bachmann, Movies, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism, Welfare

When Did Evil Become Socially Acceptable?

I could use this to declare all the Occupy Wall Street people as Anti-Semites, but that would be unfair and stupid. They’re not all Anti-Semites. However they seem to be a little accepting of them as this is like the fourth video I’ve seen from the protests. (Still waiting for the ones from the Tea Party…[crickets chirp]…)

But this isn’t about Occupy Wall Street, because this is a far bigger problem. Clearly this woman is evil. No argument can be made against that. However, it just used to seem to me that society had enough decency that we made it clear to sick people like this not to speak up.

We all admit that there are lots of racists and Anti-Semites who hold their perverted beliefs in their minds and souls, but don’t speak up about them. And we all wanted to root that out.

But the fact that I am seeing more and more of this suggests that Anti-Semites feel that it’s now socially acceptable to voice their hateful views. What the hell is wrong with society? In a sane world this woman would be without a job within the next week. Good lord, she said she worked for the LA School District. If I were a parent I would be demanding that she in no way, shape, or form be allowed to work at a school. I don’t care if she’s in the accounting department. A Nazi like this has no right to be working anywhere near children. I guarantee you, the odds of such a thing happening are very low. And even if the LA school district decided that this would be their once in a century right call, they would immediately get sued because judges in California are insane and wouldn’t have the guts to laugh her case out of court and tell her to go to hell while they’re at it.

I’m sure even the idiots at ACORN wouldn’t have been fully in support of forced prostitution of underage illegal immigrants if they had known they were on camera…so when did it become socially permissible to advocate what is essentially the Western world’s most effective barometer on evil (no really, you look at just about any evil in the last 2,000 years of Western civilization, 90%+ are tied in some way to Anti-Semitism).

I think we’ve forgotten that some views are not acceptable even in the most free speech nations. Do they have the right to spew such filth? Yes, yes they do. And they have to the right to be ostracized, humiliated, insulted, and maybe even slapped repeatedly for having such beliefs as well. I will defend your right to say anything to the death, but I will also ensure you accept the consequences of your actions. And advocating pure evil should have severe consequences.
.
Let me remind everyone, if you hear people utter things that are (actually are, not just a careless word that could be interpreted numerous ways) Anti-Semitic or racist you have a responsibility to insult and humiliate them publicly. Do not associate with them. Do not do business with them. Do not tolerate such behavior.

And if they’re working at the school your children go to, demand they be fired.

 

 

For another take on the Anti-Semitism that seems to be permeating the Occupy Wall Street Protests please read the post by our friend “Dirty Sex and Politics.” 

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Education, First Amendment, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, Racism, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Isolationists and the moral requirement to act

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Comments

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

Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn…

So a lot has already been said about this Obama/Joker picture, most of it inane, some of it entertaining (my favorite so far has been the constant point that the Joker’s plans actually worked and thus it’s unfair to compare him to this loser). Unfortunately as much fun as reading some of these comments have been, there is, as always, the occasional WTF moment brought you by some liberal with a publisher. Today’s “Are they on drugs?” moment is brought to you by Philip Kennicott and his article Obama as the Joker: Racial Fear’s Ugly Face and the Washington Post.

Kennicott correctly identifies that the poster is meant to link Barrack “The One” Obama with socialism and the villain from “The Dark Knight.” Really the man takes up a paragraph to make this point clear…as if someone couldn’t have gotten that in about half a second of looking at the picture. But I guess Kennicott knows his liberal audience, and they do so need to have things explained to them (as we’ve all seen latching onto the obvious is not the strongest suit of most liberals).

He then makes bizarre statements like:

Obama’s opponents, in Congress and among pundits, have already raised the specter of socialism.

The specter of socialism…like the word was only used in underground pamphlets and whispered in dark hallways. What specter, I think we’ve been quite clear, when this man isn’t out to control everyone through fascist strong arming (like asking the American public to inform on anyone who speaks out against the government and turn in anyone hiding Jews…oh wait that last one probably won’t be until next year, but given this administrations policies toward Israel…) I think the conservative in this country have been quite clear and loud about the fact that this man’s policies, beliefs, ideology, and behavior are and can only be interpreted as socialist.

But aside from Kennicott’s odd word choice in how to describe blunt criticism, he goes to step further into the ‘what the hell’ and states:

So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the “urban” makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can’t openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and ’70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates.

The Joker’s makeup in “Dark Knight” — the latest film in a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world — emphasized the wounded nature of the villain, the sense that he was both a product and source of violence. Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks — the thinking goes — don’t just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus.

I’ll give you just a minute to read that again. Probably because I need a minute to figure out where to start attacking this little piece of drivel, there’s just too many options.

Okay, first what make Ledger’s makeup “urban” and Nicholson’s “urbane”…they’re clowns…Jacks’s was a bit more ridiculous and looked more like a clown, Heath was a pure sociopath and looked more disheveled. I don’t think anyone could reasonably make a class distinction between the two Jokers, let alone a racial one.

Or how about “a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world”...okay, Gotham’s corrupt, but the villians of the Batman (and most comic books for that matter) are not the poor, it’s the mob (which could be considered the upper levels society) and in most comic books the rich and educated. If anything, the lastest Batman movies challenge the viewer to not accept the injustice caused by class disparity. Then the whole wounded villain thing…come on…if anything his shifting stories seemed to suggest that his scars are incidental, that he was always a psycho, not the product of some hideous accident. Heath Ledger’s Joker isn’t a normal villain, he’s the Devil, an “agent of Chaos” as he puts it, evil for evil’s sake. It’s a rare archetype in literature, because aside from a few others instances (Shakespeare’s Iago, Milton’s Satan, Chigurh from No Country for Old Men) it’s a difficult part to pull off believably without being absurdly comical. Kennicott seems to miss that the point of the multiple scar stories was part of what made the Joker the devil, that he had no true history, he was just evil.

Finally we come to the most egregious part of the argument: the fact that a frightening percentage of liberals are racists. “Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks — the thinking goes — don’t just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus.” What? I tend not to think in terms of race, and while I would say that for the lower classes there does seem to be in modern America a vicious circle of people not being able to get out of poverty, I tend to think of it as a lack of will power to change their circumstances (not to say that the middle and upper class have that will power, they don’t, that’s why they’re complacent and make so many bad business decisions you wind up in recession). I don’t quite get the virus thing. Is he saying that people think urban black are always going to be from the gutter no matter how far they progress? In my experience I find that people judge a person by what they’ve done and how they conduct themselves, not by where they come from…but maybe I just choose to associate with non-racist company.

But this shows a very basic nature of liberals. No one in their right mind would associate this poster with race, but this man did, and sadly I’ve heard that a lot of liberals have. Why? Because in my experience liberals can be some of the most racist people you run into. Some of the most vocal liberals I’ve ever known have been incapable to make any decision about people without taking race into account. I once worked with a very liberal person in a school who was incapable of separating race from their assessment of student. This person would literally complain if I praised the work of a white student, irregardless of basic facts like the student’s performance or the fact that there were lots of white students who didn’t do well in my classes or that I praised any student who did well without regard to the way light refracted off their skin. This person would blatantly state they wanted to put up minorities for awards. This person would praise mediocre performance by minority students as if they had just won a nobel prize…why because liberals of this sort think that members of minorities really are inferior, so if they just do okay, that’s really spectacular (please see the disgusting fawning by Democratic members of the Senate over a lackluster jurist like Sotomayor for more proof).

Liberals were quick to see the incident of a couple weeks ago as a black professor vs. a white cop, not as elitist twit vs. good cop which would be a far more accurate way to describe the event. Democrats like to bring up the race issue especially with this president, because then they get to brand every disagreement with his socialist policies (and they are socialist) as racist vs. Great President, not the more accurate competent objection vs. incompetent egotist of a president. Liberals are especially afraid of losing the race card right now, because if they lose that, then all they have to rest on are strength of the brains of Pelosi, Reed, and Obama (otherwise known as the number zero).

So really all Kennicott’s article did was not reveal some racist streak in conservatives, but rather his own failing to see people as people, and not as a member of a racial group.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama, Popular Culture, Racism