Thursday, October 19, 2006
My Most Brilliant Post Ever
This is my most brilliant post ever, and that's saying a lot. Just read the following and you'll be as well-informed as I am.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
There, was I right, or was I right? Did you learn something from the above? I know the subject of this post might seem a little vague, but some of you might be clever enough to figure out what all these words of wisdom were about. Care to guess? I'll give the answer in tomorrow's post, but I'm very interested to see if anyone can surmise.
click to hide most of this post
Madonna and Her Adopted Baby
Father of Madonna's planned Malawi child wanted him back, 16/10/2006, ABC News Online
The father of the Malawian child pop star Madonna wants to adopt said he had not originally planned to give up his son for good when he handed him to an orphanage after the death of his wife last year.
Yohane Banda told a British newspaper he put his son David in an orphanage when he was just over one-month-old, fearing that he was ill with malaria, which killed his two other sons.
“I suppose deep in my heart I always imagined that when he was better, or I had got another wife, I would go and take him back,” Mr. Banda told the Mail on Sunday.
“I did not think anyone would want to take him away.”
Malawi's High Court granted the 48-year-old entertainer and her filmmaker husband Guy Ritchie an interim order allowing them to take custody of the boy less than a week ago, but the adoption plan has sparked anger in Malawi and elsewhere.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Malawian law prohibits adoptions by non-residents, but officials granted an exemption or waiver to Madonna.
Human rights groups are challenging that decision and plan to seek a court injunction on Monday to stop the adoption.
Eye of the Child, the leading child advocacy group in Malawi, said the request would be filed in a magistrate's court in the capital Lilongwe on behalf of about five dozen non-governmental organizations.
Madonna defends Malawi adoption Baltimore Sun, October 18, 2006.
Madonna said yesterday that she had acted according to the law in taking custody of a 1-year-old Malawian boy, responding for the first time to the debate about the legality and morality of the planned adoption. The pop star's e-mailed statement came after she was united with the baby, David Banda, at her London mansion. Madonna said she hoped to make the adoption permanent after an l8-month evaluation period, imposed by Malawi authorities.
“We have gone about the adoption procedure according to the law, like anyone else who adopts a child. Reports to the contrary are totally inaccurate,” Madonna wrote. David, who has spent most of his life in an orphanage in poverty-stricken Malawi, arrived before dawn at Heathrow Airport aboard a British Airways flight from Johannesburg, South Africa. Human rights and child protection groups were challenging a custody order in court in Malawi's capital, Lilongwe. They wanted to ensure that child-protection regulations were not swept aside for Madonna, who has been generous to Malawi.
FOXNews.com - Clinton-Madonna-Pellicano-Kabbalah: Africa Connection - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment
Can you connect these dots? Madonna-Bill Clinton-Kabbalah-Anthony Pellicano and ... Africa?
Madonna’s disastrous public-relations effort in the small African country of Malawi only gets worse. I can tell you that she has started a new charitable foundation, Raising Malawi, to help orphans in that country, but that the whole thing is a front for the Kabbalah Centre in Hollywood.
To compound matters, Clinton's own foundation is right there on Madge's new Web site as her No. 1 supporter. The Clinton Foundation is the only one of Raising Malawi’s listed partners to have a usable link on the Web site. But the chief individual benefactress is the second wife of a Hollywood billionaire who hired jailed private detective Pellicano to spy on his first wife.
The charity, Raising Malawi, is designed to spread the word of Philip Berg’s Kabbalah Centre, his own version of Kabbalah beliefs and mysticism, through Malawi’s orphaned children.
Indeed, the Web site for Raising Malawi, the new charity, tells the whole story. The entire organization is run by the Bergs as a kind of missionary program for Africa, with Madonna as the leading proselytizer.
Unlike U2’s Bono, who’s merely trying to send money to Africa by pushing the sales of red phones and T-shirts, Madonna is preaching as she disseminates her funds and largesse.
Madonna is already suffering worldwide criticism this week for taking a child away from its father and “adopting” it against Malawi law. Some say she’s “bought” a 1-year-old boy named David, and Tuesday there was news that she whisked the child out of Malawi under the cloak of secrecy. There is fresh news Wednesday that now Madonna may even want a Malawian girl to add to her collection.
But now it seems that the charity she’s set up in Malawi is just the infamous Kabbalah Centre of Hollywood under a different name. The listed founders of Raising Malawi are Michael and Monica Berg. He is described as the son of Philip Berg, founder of the Kabbalah Centre.
Madonna to join Africa Aids fight: BBC NEWS | Entertainment |
Pop star Madonna is in the African country of Malawi on a mission to try to help orphaned children living with HIV and Aids.
The singer plans to launch six projects to help underprivileged children.
According to a government official there, Madonna is also hoping to adopt a local child.
Benston Kilimbe from the Social Welfare Department claims the singer is due to file adoption papers. There has been no official word from the star herself.
Madonna and her husband already have two children, five-year-old Rocco and their daughter, Lourdes, nine.Feeding Centre
The pop star is due to travel to a village called Mphandula where she wants to set up an education and feeding centre for children orphaned by the Aids epidemic.
I have nothing against Madonna except that she is liberal. Except for passing on the liberal myths that are destroying our society and the world, Madonna probably is a good person and a good mother. No doubt she is doing good for the world, for children with AIDS, for Malawi and for many charities. I believe she has the right to adopt a baby, or babies, in need. I don’t care if she gets special treatment because of her wealth and fame, because to me all that matters is the welfare of the child, or children. This child, except again for being brought up with the awful ideas of liberalism, will have a good life. I wish Madonna would adopt me. I’d even convert to liberalism.
Kabbalah
Some people, with their own religious preferences, are making a big deal about Madonna and her Kabbalah proselytizing in this matter. Proselytizing the Kabbalah bothers me far less than Madonna proselytizing liberalism. The Kabbalah is an old, Jewish mysticism cult, but it’s not a bad cult. It’s just quirky. It teaches many good things, and is very humanitarian, advocating such things as generosity to charities. It’s just not Christian, and this is what bothers some.The Disaster of Multiculturalism
One example of today’s liberal philosophy that is relevant in this case is the disastrous idea of multi-culturalism. The left thinks that all cultures are beautiful, and that you need to be indoctrinated in specific cultures depending on your skin color. If you are black, then you must be immersed in African-American culture. If you are brown, then you must be surrounded with Hispanic culture. If you are born in Malawi, then you must be immersed in Malawian culture. They of course don’t do the same if you are white. After all, white people are the “dominant” culture, so if you are born white you don’t need any cultural training at all. In fact, for you to be surrounded with “white culture” would be racist. White people are bad.I think the true racists here are the ones who promote these fascist ideas of multiculturalism. First, not all cultures are good. Cannibalism, clitorectomy, beheadings, human sacrifice, slavery, racism, and genocide, among other things, are cultural practices that bespeak of inferior cultures. We have a right and a duty as human beings and as citizens of the world, to denounce cultures that promote such practices. Not all cultures are beautiful. Not all cultures are good. Some cultures are better than others.
That being said, it is true that all races are beautiful. All races are equal. All races deserve to be honored the same, and are equal in the eyes of God. Racism is wrong.
But so is multiculturalism. Madonna’s baby, according to the leftist multiculturalists, should be taught Malawian culture. Why? He has black skin. He was born in Malawi. It doesn’t matter whether Malawian culture is good or not. It doesn’t matter whether British or “white” culture is good or not. This child must be indoctrinated into the Malawian culture.
I’m willing to admit that every culture has beautiful things about it. Every culture has things to contribute to the world. I’m also willing to admit that “white” culture, European culture, may lack some of the beautiful things of other cultures. What I object to is the separation of human beings into groups based on skin color, or based on where you were born. I find this racist and separatist.
Separatism
One of the unfortunate unintended consequences of the predominance of liberalism in America since the 1960’s is that we as a people have grown more separate instead of together. Liberalism has promoted separate languages, separate cultures, separate political ideologies, and separate ways of looking at the world. You have your Black Caucus, your Hispanic Student Union, and your women’s rights organizations. The only organization you’re not allowed to have, again, is anything “white.” White people are bad, and white organizations are racist.Special interests have their place. I think it’s all right to be proud of your heritage. The problem comes when you begin to see the world only in terms of skin color or culture. America’s melting pot is not what it used to be. In getting rid of our racism, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. Now we have less racism but replaced it with separatism. I think this is just another form of racism. If you are Black, you are my brother. If you are Hispanic, I’ll give you a scholarship. If you are Malawian, you can join our union. If you are African-American, I’ll vote for you, even if you get caught smoking crack. If you are White, I’ll go to your school. It’s all racism. It’s all based on skin color or national origin, rather than on the “content of our character.”
There is something beautiful about the varieties of mankind. There is something wonderful about the various languages and cultures. On the other hand, we are all brothers. We have a lot in common. We ought to be looking out for all the world, not just our particular skin color or culture.
Madonna's Baby
Madonna’s baby, except for its torturous immersion into liberalism, will be a lucky child. He will no longer face a bleak future of poverty and hunger and disease. He will be loved by a mother instead of living in an impersonal orphanage. He will be taught beautiful religious principles, in the Jewish tradition. He will also learn about his own heritage, and return to visit his country from time to time. This child could be a future leader in the world, or in Malawi.Yes, Madonna could have just given the boy’s father a boatload of money to help get his boy back and raise him with financial security, but that could have presented its own set of problems for the boy. For example, the other children could have been merciless in their jealousy of the boy’s good fortune. In addition, could the father know what to do with the money? Just dumping money on people can backfire. Look what happens to lottery winners. Really, all that matters should be—where would the child be better off? All things being considered, even taking into account Madonna’s liberalism, the child will have a better chance living with her.
Give the kid a break. Give Madonna a break. The adoption is a good thing.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
I Love Liberals, and the Liberals I Love
I love liberals and I love progressives. Not all of them. Maybe not the majority of them, but enough of them for me to say unequivocally, I love liberals.
I’ll tell you what I mean by this in a moment. First, should you care how I feel about liberals, or about you? Not necessarily. You have the right to care, or not care. You have the right to see things as you do, and feel about things as you do. You have the right to love or hate George Bush, love or hate conservatives, and agree or disagree with me on every issue. I don’t have the right to tell you how you ought to see things, or feel about things.
On the other hand, I have the same rights as you. I have the right to think and feel as I do, about all these issues. I have the right to agree or disagree with you on everything, and to feel about you and your philosophies as I do.
I’m not out, then, to change your mind about anything. I’m not out to alter the way you feel about anything. My only purpose in writing this blog is to get you to be careful. Seek the truth. If you are careful and seek the truth diligently, and come to a different conclusion than I, and feel differently than I do, then I respect you and your thoughts and feelings. I may disagree with you. I may not understand you. But I’ll respect you.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
I will still try to present the truth as I see it, and hope that you’ll see things as I do, but this is just a hope. It is not a demand. I am sure I am wrong about some things, so I must remain humble. For example, I am very much in favor of the war in Iraq. I admit, though, that I might be wrong on this issue. You might be right, and I might be wrong. I think I am right. In fact, I’m sure I’m right. But, only God knows if I’m really right.
So, if you read me, then I am honored. I’ll return the favor. I’ll read you, and listen to you. I’ll still go on, though, most likely, believing what I do and feeling how I feel. I’ll go on bashing charlatans and wrong-headedness, and pacifism, and communism and socialism. And you’ll go on bashing Bush. And I’ll hate you when you do this. And you’ll hate me for supporting Bush, and on and on. We’re a democracy.
If you win the upcoming elections, then there is a reason for it. If we win, ditto. Nobody is stealing elections. Again, I respect your right to believe that elections are being stolen. I just believe you are wrong on this, and unnecessarily upsetting yourself over nothing. Concentrate on the issues and try to convince me and the electorate that you can do better than the Republicans, instead of bashing us and accusing us of voter fraud.
Since I am so often on the other side of issues than liberals at this time in history, and at this time in my life, I don’t want it thought that I don’t appreciate them. I think they are wrong about a lot of things at this time. Plus, a large percentage of them have slipped into hatred instead of concentrating on their noble goals. On the other hand, even if they are wrong a lot, we need them. They still have their noble instinct, which is the desire to improve life for their fellow man. They may be misguided sometimes, as we are too, but they want good things for all of mankind.
I’m not trying to be patronizing. I sincerely believe that we need both liberals and conservatives.
For example, the present crop of Republicans, who are supposedly conservative, have made a mess of things in congress, no matter which side of the aisle you see them from. They’ve abandoned their conservative principles, and their morals it seems, and blown the chance to lead with honor at this crucial time in history. So now, the Republicans might pay for this with their jobs. The Democrats might step in to fill the void. Then, they will have the chance to live up to their, liberal we presume, principles.
I’ve never been against liberalism, per se, nor even against progressivism. Rather, I’ve been against the perversion of these great philosophies by charlatans like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
Liberals of the past I love are Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey, and Robert F. Kennedy. Three liberals of today I love now are Barack Obama, Joe Lieberman, and Bill Richardson. Even Clinton is growing on me. Not Hillary.
I’m not so much against the philosophy of liberalism as I am against pseudo-liberals. People that claim compassion, but live with hatred in their hearts. The worst are the Air America crowd, Michael Moore, and people like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Close behind are your Nancy Palosi’s and your Howard Dean’s. Oh, yeah, and let’s not forget the Hollywood bunch, with Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen and their ilk. To me, these people are not true liberals, and not progressives either. Neither is Noam Chomsky.
Listen to Bill Richardson if you want to hear a true liberal. This man I respect. He will vote 95% on the left side of issues, but he doesn’t spend any time at all attacking people’s characters. He doesn’t blame conservatives for all that is wrong in the world. He actually offers positive solutions. I’m telling you, this man is presidential. Yet, he is definitely a liberal. Barack seems reasonable to me also.
So, if you act like a true liberal, I will respect you, and I may even love you. If you present yourself, however, as a mere Bush-basher, or as just anti-Republican, a bitter hater of all things conservative, then I don’t see how you can expect our country to elect you or your leaders to office. You might win the upcoming off-year elections, but if you continue to hate, the people will tire of that real soon—just in time for ’08.
Return to your liberal roots. You can be proud to be liberal. Focus on the good of the country and stop getting yourselves all riled up over conspiracy theories and voter fraud. You have the power to win this election, and the next, but only if you really become liberals. As I say, I love liberals, and I could even vote for a real one, if he or she came along.
There is a time. There is a season. Now, in my mind, is the time for conservatism. Your time, though, will come again. That time will be when we are in an unjust war (not this just war we are in now), when workers’ rights are being abused, when racism rears its ugly head again, or when there is a need for any myriad kinds of social justice.
Some issues on which I agree with you even now are: the right to choose, reasonable environmentalism, being against the concentration of the media in the hands of a few, the worry about the distribution of wealth in America, the harmful effects of globalism, and other issues.
Some issues on which I disagree with you now are: your solutions to the above problems; the economy; your tendency to love socialism; your position on taxes; free trade; the war in Iraq; war in general; George W. Bush; and other issues.
Overall, though, I love liberals. They are good, decent people. They have a basic noble instinct to help their fellow man. They keep us conservatives in check. They balance our view of the world. They save the downtrodden. They keep us out of war unless it is truly necessary. They are a legitimate part of our democracy.
Understood? I hope so. Tomorrow I’m probably back to my anti-leftist stuff.
Don’t be confused. I’m not pro-conservative or anti-left. I’m pro-truth. Part of truth is that conservatives and conservatism are wrong sometimes. Part of truth is that leftists and liberalism are right sometimes. Part of truth is that we need them both. Part of truth is that there are good, intelligent people on both sides of this political spectrum.
Now, get ready to rumble.
When I was in high school, my IQ was about 117. I've raised it 18 points! Just a few more points and I’m there. I’m already at Mensa level, the 98th percentile of all human beings. Maybe it’s time now for me to take their tests.
Anyway, don’t worry, I score lower on other tests. My EQ, for example, was quite low for much of my life. I’ve raised that too, although I don’t know if it’s above average yet or not. I’m still working on it. EQ is more important, I’m convinced, than IQ. Don’t count me out, though. As I’ve said, I’ve raised mine, through hard work, and it might even be above average now.
IQ is important. What you do with it is even more important. EQ is even more important. A good heart is the most important. Plus, voting conservative. Just kidding. See, I’m back already.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
I’ll tell you what I mean by this in a moment. First, should you care how I feel about liberals, or about you? Not necessarily. You have the right to care, or not care. You have the right to see things as you do, and feel about things as you do. You have the right to love or hate George Bush, love or hate conservatives, and agree or disagree with me on every issue. I don’t have the right to tell you how you ought to see things, or feel about things.
On the other hand, I have the same rights as you. I have the right to think and feel as I do, about all these issues. I have the right to agree or disagree with you on everything, and to feel about you and your philosophies as I do.
I’m not out, then, to change your mind about anything. I’m not out to alter the way you feel about anything. My only purpose in writing this blog is to get you to be careful. Seek the truth. If you are careful and seek the truth diligently, and come to a different conclusion than I, and feel differently than I do, then I respect you and your thoughts and feelings. I may disagree with you. I may not understand you. But I’ll respect you.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
I will still try to present the truth as I see it, and hope that you’ll see things as I do, but this is just a hope. It is not a demand. I am sure I am wrong about some things, so I must remain humble. For example, I am very much in favor of the war in Iraq. I admit, though, that I might be wrong on this issue. You might be right, and I might be wrong. I think I am right. In fact, I’m sure I’m right. But, only God knows if I’m really right.
So, if you read me, then I am honored. I’ll return the favor. I’ll read you, and listen to you. I’ll still go on, though, most likely, believing what I do and feeling how I feel. I’ll go on bashing charlatans and wrong-headedness, and pacifism, and communism and socialism. And you’ll go on bashing Bush. And I’ll hate you when you do this. And you’ll hate me for supporting Bush, and on and on. We’re a democracy.
If you win the upcoming elections, then there is a reason for it. If we win, ditto. Nobody is stealing elections. Again, I respect your right to believe that elections are being stolen. I just believe you are wrong on this, and unnecessarily upsetting yourself over nothing. Concentrate on the issues and try to convince me and the electorate that you can do better than the Republicans, instead of bashing us and accusing us of voter fraud.
I Love Liberals
Wikipedia defines progressivism as anideology that mostly belongs to the political left wing, but not every leftist is a progressive. Progressives support the continual advancement of workers' rights and social justice within the context of a mixed economy. The first progressives were some of the earliest proponents of anti-trust laws, the welfare state, and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, and among the first advocates of environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.I think the progressive, leftist instinct is a noble one. These are the people, after all, that brought us women’s rights, civil rights, unions, anti-trust legislation, Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, the Great Society, anti-trust laws, environmentalism, health insurance, anti-hate laws, and many other good things.
Since I am so often on the other side of issues than liberals at this time in history, and at this time in my life, I don’t want it thought that I don’t appreciate them. I think they are wrong about a lot of things at this time. Plus, a large percentage of them have slipped into hatred instead of concentrating on their noble goals. On the other hand, even if they are wrong a lot, we need them. They still have their noble instinct, which is the desire to improve life for their fellow man. They may be misguided sometimes, as we are too, but they want good things for all of mankind.
I’m not trying to be patronizing. I sincerely believe that we need both liberals and conservatives.
For example, the present crop of Republicans, who are supposedly conservative, have made a mess of things in congress, no matter which side of the aisle you see them from. They’ve abandoned their conservative principles, and their morals it seems, and blown the chance to lead with honor at this crucial time in history. So now, the Republicans might pay for this with their jobs. The Democrats might step in to fill the void. Then, they will have the chance to live up to their, liberal we presume, principles.
I’ve never been against liberalism, per se, nor even against progressivism. Rather, I’ve been against the perversion of these great philosophies by charlatans like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
Liberals of the past I love are Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey, and Robert F. Kennedy. Three liberals of today I love now are Barack Obama, Joe Lieberman, and Bill Richardson. Even Clinton is growing on me. Not Hillary.
I’m not so much against the philosophy of liberalism as I am against pseudo-liberals. People that claim compassion, but live with hatred in their hearts. The worst are the Air America crowd, Michael Moore, and people like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Close behind are your Nancy Palosi’s and your Howard Dean’s. Oh, yeah, and let’s not forget the Hollywood bunch, with Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen and their ilk. To me, these people are not true liberals, and not progressives either. Neither is Noam Chomsky.
Listen to Bill Richardson if you want to hear a true liberal. This man I respect. He will vote 95% on the left side of issues, but he doesn’t spend any time at all attacking people’s characters. He doesn’t blame conservatives for all that is wrong in the world. He actually offers positive solutions. I’m telling you, this man is presidential. Yet, he is definitely a liberal. Barack seems reasonable to me also.
So, if you act like a true liberal, I will respect you, and I may even love you. If you present yourself, however, as a mere Bush-basher, or as just anti-Republican, a bitter hater of all things conservative, then I don’t see how you can expect our country to elect you or your leaders to office. You might win the upcoming off-year elections, but if you continue to hate, the people will tire of that real soon—just in time for ’08.
Return to your liberal roots. You can be proud to be liberal. Focus on the good of the country and stop getting yourselves all riled up over conspiracy theories and voter fraud. You have the power to win this election, and the next, but only if you really become liberals. As I say, I love liberals, and I could even vote for a real one, if he or she came along.
There is a time. There is a season. Now, in my mind, is the time for conservatism. Your time, though, will come again. That time will be when we are in an unjust war (not this just war we are in now), when workers’ rights are being abused, when racism rears its ugly head again, or when there is a need for any myriad kinds of social justice.
Some issues on which I agree with you even now are: the right to choose, reasonable environmentalism, being against the concentration of the media in the hands of a few, the worry about the distribution of wealth in America, the harmful effects of globalism, and other issues.
Some issues on which I disagree with you now are: your solutions to the above problems; the economy; your tendency to love socialism; your position on taxes; free trade; the war in Iraq; war in general; George W. Bush; and other issues.
Overall, though, I love liberals. They are good, decent people. They have a basic noble instinct to help their fellow man. They keep us conservatives in check. They balance our view of the world. They save the downtrodden. They keep us out of war unless it is truly necessary. They are a legitimate part of our democracy.
Understood? I hope so. Tomorrow I’m probably back to my anti-leftist stuff.
Don’t be confused. I’m not pro-conservative or anti-left. I’m pro-truth. Part of truth is that conservatives and conservatism are wrong sometimes. Part of truth is that leftists and liberalism are right sometimes. Part of truth is that we need them both. Part of truth is that there are good, intelligent people on both sides of this political spectrum.
Now, get ready to rumble.
My IQ
I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to hear that I took another IQ test. I do this from time to time to see if I’ve managed to raise my IQ since the last time I took a test. Yes, you can raise your IQ, as has been proven in the Venezuelan studies. I got a 135 this time. 140 is genius or near genius, so there. My boss, who is a liberal, probably has an even higher IQ than this. My other boss, another liberal (both are true liberals—well-informed, intelligent, and caring) is well-read and has probably raised her IQ like I have mine.When I was in high school, my IQ was about 117. I've raised it 18 points! Just a few more points and I’m there. I’m already at Mensa level, the 98th percentile of all human beings. Maybe it’s time now for me to take their tests.
Anyway, don’t worry, I score lower on other tests. My EQ, for example, was quite low for much of my life. I’ve raised that too, although I don’t know if it’s above average yet or not. I’m still working on it. EQ is more important, I’m convinced, than IQ. Don’t count me out, though. As I’ve said, I’ve raised mine, through hard work, and it might even be above average now.
IQ is important. What you do with it is even more important. EQ is even more important. A good heart is the most important. Plus, voting conservative. Just kidding. See, I’m back already.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Raise Taxes, Soak the Rich!
The universal answer to every human problem, according to today’s left, is to raise taxes and soak the rich. My question is, does this work?
There are countries that have done this. Did they function well? Guess which nations did this absolutely? You got it.
The Soviet Union of Russia, the old East Germany, the old communist China, and today’s Cuba, among others. They all had the liberal dream of universal health care, low CEO pay, government funded education and so on.
What was the result? The worst economies in the history of the modern world. Poor agricultural output, stagnant industrial growth, and little or no scientific innovations. Their health care was among the worst in the world. Their educational systems produced few noted scholars.
At the same time, the United States of America, using capitalism, grew to be the largest economy in the world. Why?
The Apprentice Factor
I have watched Donald Trump’s The Apprentice since its beginning, just as a human interest phenomena. What you see on the show is that the contestants are willing to do just about anything to become Donald’s apprentice. Of course this means the chance to become a CEO for one of Trump’s businesses. This means a bright future with all the compensations of a CEO. Yes, this includes million dollar salaries and above, plus all the perks, like stock options and so on. All the evils that liberals hate.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
What’s the result? These people are willing to kill their mothers to win. Or, are they? What becomes apparent is that yes, they are willing to do almost anything—but that Trump will always “fire” them if they don’t demonstrate good character and fair play along the way, in addition to being competitive.
Does this happen in business too? Yes, of course. People who cheat their companies usually get found out and never rise to become CEO’s. Instead, most often, as in The Apprentice, the people who become CEO’s are the ones in a company who work the hardest, the longest, the cleverest, and with the best communication and political skills of anyone in the organization. They are almost willing to kill their mothers to get the job, but they restrain themselves to remain fair. Are they cutthroat? Yes, probably. Do they contribute to the wellbeing of the company? Yes, or they wouldn’t have risen to the heights they have.
American CEO’s often make 300 to 400 times the salaries of their workers. Is this too much? European and Canadian CEO’s make about 20 times the salaries of their workers. Is this better?
I don’t mind if we study the issue, so let’s do it. Which companies do better? The ones that pay their CEO’s outlandish salaries and perks, or the ones that pay them less?
Let me apply logic first. Then, I’m willing to peruse any studies that are out there, and I invite economists and experts to weigh in.
Again, what about the Apprentice factor? What would you be willing to do to earn 300 to 400 times what you are making now? Would you work nights and weekends? Would you try to be innovative? I think the answer is yes. You’d be willing to work your tail end off. Which is what happens. A worker in a communist country usually doesn’t work very hard because there’s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It doesn’t matter how hard they work, so why should they exert themselves more than is necessary to just survive?
Take away the outlandish CEO compensation of American corporations and you take away the Apprentice factor. What do you have then? The Post Office Factor. The liberal dream of a corporation. One giant Post Office.
Many of us are working hard to make more money, and the more money the better.
Most Americans, the more money they make, the more money they do wind up giving away anyway. The richest people usually do give the most to charity, as with Bill Gates.
Yet, the prevailing liberal philosophy is, if you do get rich, we want to confiscate your money. We don’t want to give you the choice. Just give it to us. We know better what to do with it; we are more generous than you are; and money in the hands of the government is much better than in your dirty, grubby fingers.
Government programs are the solution to all the world’s ills.
The extreme of this kind of thinking, again, is communism. A lesser extreme is socialism. An even lesser extreme is capitalistic socialism. The most “selfish” kind of economy is pure capitalism.
So, did Soviet Russia work? Or Communist China? No. They took all the rich peoples’ money away and gave it to the government. Everyone had free health care. That health care, again, was among the worst in the world. The people had barely enough food to eat.
What about lesser extremes? The socialists? Israel, for example, was a purely socialist country for many years. Everyone had free health care and so on. Here again, their economy was a mess, with stratospheric inflation, high unemployment and little growth. Then, they turned capitalistic, in the 1980’s, and their growth took off. The same thing is happening in China today. They are turning away from soaking the rich, turning away from communism and towards capitalism. The result? Their economy is booming. Everybody in China is benefiting. The workers on up to their CEO’s.
What about Europe? I’d like to hear from Europeans what it is like to live in socialistic countries. I know I had a girlfriend from London a few years back who broke her arm. She had to wait for months before she received proper treatment. This is what we’ll get with socialism and universal health care.
Globalization has hurt the common man/woman in America too. A cheaper labor supply overseas means lower wages here.
Plus, illegal immigration has provided another source of cheap labor that drives down wages. Everyone from construction workers to truck drivers make less money because of the abundant supply of cheap labor provided by illegal immigration.
Raise the minimum wage? Maybe, but that hurts business, especially small business, and will mean fewer jobs.
I’d like a solution to a more even distribution of wealth, but I don’t want it to be the government stealing money and using it for programs that just enrich their administrators. Then, instead of rich, energetic CEO’s, we’ll have lazy, fat cat bureaucrats.
For example, just for argument’s sake, let’s say we create a pot of 10% ownership that is set aside for the employees. This means that employees can buy their share of this 10% as time passes. The pool of “owners” will grow with time, but the workers can also sell their shares too. Anyway, they’d be ahead of the game. They’d be getting their salaries plus this partial ownership of the company, maybe with dividends, maybe without.
Workable? I don’t know. I studied some economics in university and am a former stockbroker, but this stuff is still above my pay grade. I think ideas like this, though, are worth considering. This kind of idea seems better to me than merely stealing money from the rich with higher taxes. Give the money to the people, not the government. Plus, it’s not a giveaway. The workers buy their shares.
And, with this idea, you still have the Apprentice Factor, giving people the incentive to work hard. You aren’t stealing money from the rich, but you are sharing the wealth. Think about it. Economists, let me know if I’m on to something, or if the idea is half-baked. Liberals, go ahead and tell me why it’s better just to steal the money from the rich.
I’d choose the U.S., but I’d try to be innovative. Let’s find capitalistic-friendly solutions to health care and the distribution of wealth. Yes, this includes privatization, another liberal taboo. According to liberals, the government can always do things better than the people. They always know better than you what to do with your money. You aren’t fair, but trust them, they’ll take your money and give it to the poor. And the poor will invest that money wisely.
2. Find a capitalistic-friendly way to share the wealth of your company.
3. Create capitalistic-friendly ways of providing an economic safety net for the poor, and health care for everyone.
4. Send every liberal to university for free to take basic economics courses, where they can learn how economies and money markets work.
The most effective measure of all would be point number 4. I’d vote for any initiative that would give this free education to all liberals, to everyone in the Democratic Party, and to any of the up-and-coming communists and socialists that we are breeding in our schools and universities. Send the professors to these courses too. I’ll even let you raise my taxes to pay for this free education.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
There are countries that have done this. Did they function well? Guess which nations did this absolutely? You got it.
The Soviet Union of Russia, the old East Germany, the old communist China, and today’s Cuba, among others. They all had the liberal dream of universal health care, low CEO pay, government funded education and so on.
What was the result? The worst economies in the history of the modern world. Poor agricultural output, stagnant industrial growth, and little or no scientific innovations. Their health care was among the worst in the world. Their educational systems produced few noted scholars.
At the same time, the United States of America, using capitalism, grew to be the largest economy in the world. Why?
The Apprentice Factor
I have watched Donald Trump’s The Apprentice since its beginning, just as a human interest phenomena. What you see on the show is that the contestants are willing to do just about anything to become Donald’s apprentice. Of course this means the chance to become a CEO for one of Trump’s businesses. This means a bright future with all the compensations of a CEO. Yes, this includes million dollar salaries and above, plus all the perks, like stock options and so on. All the evils that liberals hate.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
What’s the result? These people are willing to kill their mothers to win. Or, are they? What becomes apparent is that yes, they are willing to do almost anything—but that Trump will always “fire” them if they don’t demonstrate good character and fair play along the way, in addition to being competitive.
Does this happen in business too? Yes, of course. People who cheat their companies usually get found out and never rise to become CEO’s. Instead, most often, as in The Apprentice, the people who become CEO’s are the ones in a company who work the hardest, the longest, the cleverest, and with the best communication and political skills of anyone in the organization. They are almost willing to kill their mothers to get the job, but they restrain themselves to remain fair. Are they cutthroat? Yes, probably. Do they contribute to the wellbeing of the company? Yes, or they wouldn’t have risen to the heights they have.
American CEO’s often make 300 to 400 times the salaries of their workers. Is this too much? European and Canadian CEO’s make about 20 times the salaries of their workers. Is this better?
I don’t mind if we study the issue, so let’s do it. Which companies do better? The ones that pay their CEO’s outlandish salaries and perks, or the ones that pay them less?
Let me apply logic first. Then, I’m willing to peruse any studies that are out there, and I invite economists and experts to weigh in.
Again, what about the Apprentice factor? What would you be willing to do to earn 300 to 400 times what you are making now? Would you work nights and weekends? Would you try to be innovative? I think the answer is yes. You’d be willing to work your tail end off. Which is what happens. A worker in a communist country usually doesn’t work very hard because there’s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It doesn’t matter how hard they work, so why should they exert themselves more than is necessary to just survive?
The Post Office Factor
The same thing happens in American companies that have no great incentives to work hard, like the Post Office. These companies are often inefficient, with poor service, bad customer relations, and poor treatment of workers. Why do their workers “go postal?” killing their co-workers and bosses? Because they are treated badly, and work in a poorly functioning environment. Most post office workers do a good enough job, but few of them are busting their tails like the up and coming CEO’s of other American corporations.Take away the outlandish CEO compensation of American corporations and you take away the Apprentice factor. What do you have then? The Post Office Factor. The liberal dream of a corporation. One giant Post Office.
Soak the Rich
Most people want to become rich, except for a few “saints.” If you give most people the winning lottery ticket, a small percentage of them will donate the money away to charity. The majority of us would keep almost all of the money.Many of us are working hard to make more money, and the more money the better.
Most Americans, the more money they make, the more money they do wind up giving away anyway. The richest people usually do give the most to charity, as with Bill Gates.
Yet, the prevailing liberal philosophy is, if you do get rich, we want to confiscate your money. We don’t want to give you the choice. Just give it to us. We know better what to do with it; we are more generous than you are; and money in the hands of the government is much better than in your dirty, grubby fingers.
Government programs are the solution to all the world’s ills.
The extreme of this kind of thinking, again, is communism. A lesser extreme is socialism. An even lesser extreme is capitalistic socialism. The most “selfish” kind of economy is pure capitalism.
So, did Soviet Russia work? Or Communist China? No. They took all the rich peoples’ money away and gave it to the government. Everyone had free health care. That health care, again, was among the worst in the world. The people had barely enough food to eat.
What about lesser extremes? The socialists? Israel, for example, was a purely socialist country for many years. Everyone had free health care and so on. Here again, their economy was a mess, with stratospheric inflation, high unemployment and little growth. Then, they turned capitalistic, in the 1980’s, and their growth took off. The same thing is happening in China today. They are turning away from soaking the rich, turning away from communism and towards capitalism. The result? Their economy is booming. Everybody in China is benefiting. The workers on up to their CEO’s.
What about Europe? I’d like to hear from Europeans what it is like to live in socialistic countries. I know I had a girlfriend from London a few years back who broke her arm. She had to wait for months before she received proper treatment. This is what we’ll get with socialism and universal health care.
Problems with the U.S. Economy
The U.S. is the most successful economy in the history of mankind, and yet I know there are still problems. The distribution of wealth is always an issue. Again, why do C.E.O.’s make so much money and the workers so little? That’s why unions were invented. Yet unions have caused problems too. Unions have driven several airlines out of business, and American steel makers, and automakers, and on and on.Globalization has hurt the common man/woman in America too. A cheaper labor supply overseas means lower wages here.
Plus, illegal immigration has provided another source of cheap labor that drives down wages. Everyone from construction workers to truck drivers make less money because of the abundant supply of cheap labor provided by illegal immigration.
Greedy CEO’s versus Lazy Bureaucrats
What is the solution? Take all the rich people’s money away, and become communist, or socialist? Again, those economies don’t grow very fast, have high unemployment, and provide lousy universal health care. Do we want that?Raise the minimum wage? Maybe, but that hurts business, especially small business, and will mean fewer jobs.
I’d like a solution to a more even distribution of wealth, but I don’t want it to be the government stealing money and using it for programs that just enrich their administrators. Then, instead of rich, energetic CEO’s, we’ll have lazy, fat cat bureaucrats.
A Modest Proposal
Let me propose one kind of solution. It’s not confiscatory, and yet it forces companies to share the wealth. Let’s pass a law that every company over a certain number of employees be forced to sell a certain portion of its ownership to its employees. This percentage of ownership need not grow so large as to present a threat to the decision-making in the companies, but it will be large enough that the workers will have a share in profits. Then, their wages and profits will grow naturally, with the success of the company.For example, just for argument’s sake, let’s say we create a pot of 10% ownership that is set aside for the employees. This means that employees can buy their share of this 10% as time passes. The pool of “owners” will grow with time, but the workers can also sell their shares too. Anyway, they’d be ahead of the game. They’d be getting their salaries plus this partial ownership of the company, maybe with dividends, maybe without.
Workable? I don’t know. I studied some economics in university and am a former stockbroker, but this stuff is still above my pay grade. I think ideas like this, though, are worth considering. This kind of idea seems better to me than merely stealing money from the rich with higher taxes. Give the money to the people, not the government. Plus, it’s not a giveaway. The workers buy their shares.
And, with this idea, you still have the Apprentice Factor, giving people the incentive to work hard. You aren’t stealing money from the rich, but you are sharing the wealth. Think about it. Economists, let me know if I’m on to something, or if the idea is half-baked. Liberals, go ahead and tell me why it’s better just to steal the money from the rich.
The Choices
Do you want Cuba, with its universal health care, or the United States of America, with its uneven distribution of wealth? Or Europe, with its high unemployment rate?I’d choose the U.S., but I’d try to be innovative. Let’s find capitalistic-friendly solutions to health care and the distribution of wealth. Yes, this includes privatization, another liberal taboo. According to liberals, the government can always do things better than the people. They always know better than you what to do with your money. You aren’t fair, but trust them, they’ll take your money and give it to the poor. And the poor will invest that money wisely.
Rock’s Plan for Economic Prosperity
1. Keep the Apprentice Factor. It helps your company prosper.2. Find a capitalistic-friendly way to share the wealth of your company.
3. Create capitalistic-friendly ways of providing an economic safety net for the poor, and health care for everyone.
4. Send every liberal to university for free to take basic economics courses, where they can learn how economies and money markets work.
The most effective measure of all would be point number 4. I’d vote for any initiative that would give this free education to all liberals, to everyone in the Democratic Party, and to any of the up-and-coming communists and socialists that we are breeding in our schools and universities. Send the professors to these courses too. I’ll even let you raise my taxes to pay for this free education.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
Monday, October 16, 2006
Good and Evil, Part Two
This is my second post on Good and Evil. In the first post I talked about Hollywood’s perception of the issue, both in their private and artistic lives. In this post, I’m going to examine good and evil in the eyes of this conservative, versus good and evil in the eyes of the left. Naturally, when I run astray, or am on target, you’ll let me know about it, and I appreciate it.
Second, I’m willing to enter the grey area where all liberals live to admit that these were, nonetheless, (a) human beings, and (b) probably had some good in them, or did some good things. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler was great at building the army. Stalin helped defeat the Nazis. Nixon went to China. Terrorists love their mothers. Beheaders are good with swords and chopping. Pol Pot made a mean won tong. Genghis Khan was a good lover, especially with the women he raped.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Osama bin Laden; al-Queda; Hezbollah; Hamas; anyone who targets innocent human beings, which includes all terrorists; murderers; rapists; child molesters; and their enablers.
The enablers are a special class. They are less evil than the actual perpetrators of evil, but they are the ones who allow evil to exist unchallenged. Enablers include people who are too lazy or stubborn to learn the truth about the real evil that exists in our world. It is, in my opinion, an obligation of a citizen in a free society to read, listen, correctly identify evil, and take up arms against it—whether this be with war or with words.
I’m not talking about jihad. I’m not advocating Crusades. I’m just talking about speaking the truth in the face of challenge and disagreement; and about supporting just wars, opposing unjust wars, and knowing the difference; and working to spread good to counter the evil.
If you don’t do this, you are an enabler of evil. Some of the left fall into this category. Hence, they are, unwittingly, doing evil. Some others of the left are just mistaken in their beliefs. They believe the liberal media, the worst enablers of all.
Let me clarify, so that I don’t become like the people I criticize. Millions of leftists are good people. Even Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, who know they are lying, might be doing so thinking that the end justifies the means. They might so sincerely believe that America is evil, and George Bush is so bad, that lying about them is a good thing. Fine. That still doesn’t relieve them of their real responsibility for the deaths of millions of people in the world that will happen because they have enabled the forces of evil. They are guilty. They are culpable. I don’t advocate any harm to them, nor even punishment, nor hatred, and not even ill will. I just want the world to know the truth about them.
The same can be said about the lies about Clinton. Clinton did one very bad thing, in my opinion. He lied under oath. This was despicable. Lying under oath was not presidential, nor a good thing for our country. Having an affair was not so different from most of our presidents, though. Clinton was not evil. In many ways, he was, and is a good man. I rate him high as a president except for the Monica Lewinski thing, lying under oath, and appeasing Korea, which brought us our present mess. Otherwise, he was pretty darn good.
I don’t think we’ve ever had a truly evil president. Nixon comes the closest. He did, though, do so much good in the world too. The only president now who really is evil (he wasn’t evil until the last ten years) is Jimmy Carter. He is a hate-filled old man who spreads lies and slander about anyone Republican and about America. He too, like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, brings disgrace to our nation, and is an enabler of evil people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and anyone who is at war with America or hates us. He made us look weak in the world, and so, invited the terrorists to think they could mess with us, and mess with us they did.
Yes, I know, they are sincere. So was Goebels. So was Timothy McVey. The fact that the Hollywood enablers are intelligent people makes them more culpable in my eyes.
Again, I advocate no harm to them, no hatred, no retribution at all. I just want them to hear what I think about them. I want them and the left to know that the people they consider to be their heroes are not heroes to me.
Again, I don’t mind if someone is liberal, including Hollywood stars. I do mind if they are mindlessly liberal, knee-jerk liberal, Bush-bashing, Republican-bashing, hate-filled, lying enablers of all that is bad in our world. Brad Pitt I had heard was a conservative, but now he’s off to Africa trying to save the world with his liberal nutcase wife. God help Africa. Fine, do good things. Adopt babies. Stop AIDS. But don’t enable terrorists while you’re doing it. Don’t bash America, the most noble country in the world, while you’re off showing everyone how generous you are.
Don’t get me started. They certainly aren’t evil, but they enable evil to the max. They might sneak into heaven because of sincerity, but they’ll have to go in by the back door, the one marked “Airheads and Other Miscellaneous Vacuities.” If there is reincarnation, they will come back as toads in tutus, or rats with the plague.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
All Monsters Believe They are Saints
First, I believe that every person on earth believes that he or she is good. Hitler probably believed he was good. Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Nixon, terrorists, beheaders, everyone. Their mothers and dogs probably thought they were good too. Caveat—I don’t mean to put Nixon in the same category as these monsters, but I use him as an example of someone who did great wrong.Second, I’m willing to enter the grey area where all liberals live to admit that these were, nonetheless, (a) human beings, and (b) probably had some good in them, or did some good things. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler was great at building the army. Stalin helped defeat the Nazis. Nixon went to China. Terrorists love their mothers. Beheaders are good with swords and chopping. Pol Pot made a mean won tong. Genghis Khan was a good lover, especially with the women he raped.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Who Are the Truly Evil People of Our Time?
The truly evil people we have in our world, at this time in history, are:Osama bin Laden; al-Queda; Hezbollah; Hamas; anyone who targets innocent human beings, which includes all terrorists; murderers; rapists; child molesters; and their enablers.
The enablers are a special class. They are less evil than the actual perpetrators of evil, but they are the ones who allow evil to exist unchallenged. Enablers include people who are too lazy or stubborn to learn the truth about the real evil that exists in our world. It is, in my opinion, an obligation of a citizen in a free society to read, listen, correctly identify evil, and take up arms against it—whether this be with war or with words.
I’m not talking about jihad. I’m not advocating Crusades. I’m just talking about speaking the truth in the face of challenge and disagreement; and about supporting just wars, opposing unjust wars, and knowing the difference; and working to spread good to counter the evil.
If you don’t do this, you are an enabler of evil. Some of the left fall into this category. Hence, they are, unwittingly, doing evil. Some others of the left are just mistaken in their beliefs. They believe the liberal media, the worst enablers of all.
The Liberal Media and Other Evil People
So, it may not be your everyday leftists who are truly evil, but the media that feeds their ignorance. Any intelligent person in the media who deliberately fosters untruths is truly evil. This includes people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. Every word out of their mouths is a lie—half-baked propaganda that literally gets people killed. I’m willing to admit that they might be unwitting propagandists, and sincere believers in their positions. But I am not willing to relieve them of their responsibility to mankind. They are perpetrating hatred and lies and causing people to die.Let me clarify, so that I don’t become like the people I criticize. Millions of leftists are good people. Even Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, who know they are lying, might be doing so thinking that the end justifies the means. They might so sincerely believe that America is evil, and George Bush is so bad, that lying about them is a good thing. Fine. That still doesn’t relieve them of their real responsibility for the deaths of millions of people in the world that will happen because they have enabled the forces of evil. They are guilty. They are culpable. I don’t advocate any harm to them, nor even punishment, nor hatred, and not even ill will. I just want the world to know the truth about them.
Lies to the Left of Me, Lies to the Right
For the lies and slander about George W. Bush, and about Republicans, shame on you who perpetrate them. You are not doing good in this world.The same can be said about the lies about Clinton. Clinton did one very bad thing, in my opinion. He lied under oath. This was despicable. Lying under oath was not presidential, nor a good thing for our country. Having an affair was not so different from most of our presidents, though. Clinton was not evil. In many ways, he was, and is a good man. I rate him high as a president except for the Monica Lewinski thing, lying under oath, and appeasing Korea, which brought us our present mess. Otherwise, he was pretty darn good.
I don’t think we’ve ever had a truly evil president. Nixon comes the closest. He did, though, do so much good in the world too. The only president now who really is evil (he wasn’t evil until the last ten years) is Jimmy Carter. He is a hate-filled old man who spreads lies and slander about anyone Republican and about America. He too, like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, brings disgrace to our nation, and is an enabler of evil people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and anyone who is at war with America or hates us. He made us look weak in the world, and so, invited the terrorists to think they could mess with us, and mess with us they did.
Hollywood Evil
The last group of people I would call evil are the Hollywood airheads. Not all of them. Just the ones that should know better. The ones who so much want to be loved that they are willing to sell their country down the river for filthy lucre and the approval of their knee-jerk liberal buddies. Again, people are dying because of their empty-headed proclamations. This includes Susan Sarandon and her husband Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, Ed Asner, Harry Belafonte, Barbara Streisand, and Danny Glover. If I can help it, I won’t see a movie or show with any of these people in it.Yes, I know, they are sincere. So was Goebels. So was Timothy McVey. The fact that the Hollywood enablers are intelligent people makes them more culpable in my eyes.
Again, I advocate no harm to them, no hatred, no retribution at all. I just want them to hear what I think about them. I want them and the left to know that the people they consider to be their heroes are not heroes to me.
Hollywood Heroes
The real Hollywood heroes are Dennis Miller, Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis , Britney Spears, Bo Derek, Ron Silver, and other brave actors who buck the Hollywood trend and proclaim their conservative views.Again, I don’t mind if someone is liberal, including Hollywood stars. I do mind if they are mindlessly liberal, knee-jerk liberal, Bush-bashing, Republican-bashing, hate-filled, lying enablers of all that is bad in our world. Brad Pitt I had heard was a conservative, but now he’s off to Africa trying to save the world with his liberal nutcase wife. God help Africa. Fine, do good things. Adopt babies. Stop AIDS. But don’t enable terrorists while you’re doing it. Don’t bash America, the most noble country in the world, while you’re off showing everyone how generous you are.
Will the Dixie Chicks go to Heaven?
And the Dixie Chicks?Don’t get me started. They certainly aren’t evil, but they enable evil to the max. They might sneak into heaven because of sincerity, but they’ll have to go in by the back door, the one marked “Airheads and Other Miscellaneous Vacuities.” If there is reincarnation, they will come back as toads in tutus, or rats with the plague.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Good and Evil, Part One
This will be a two-post series on Good and Evil, starting today with how Hollywood sees the issue.
In their private and political lives, Hollywood sees only one evil in the world, George Bush and the Republicans. Castro is fine. Chavez is peachy. Putin is tootin. Only the evil George Bush and his dark army of Republicans should be scourged from the earth.
We need to be “nice” to terrorists, so we don’t anger them. We must open a “dialogue” with Kim Jung Il, so he doesn’t blow us up with nukes. We ought to have left the “nasty” Saddam Hussein in power; after all, he was just mass murdering his people, and who cares about them?
Do we need to be “nice” to George Bush? Must we open a “dialogue” with him? No, heavens no. Demonize him. Belittle him. Stop him from speaking. Impeach him. Make movies about his assassination. Compare him to a chimpanzee. After all, he is the truly evil one. We should be polite to the terrorists and Kim Jung Il because they, after all, underneath, are human like us. But George W. Bush is a monster.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Hollywood History
Starting with Jane Fonda sitting behind a gun that shot down American airmen in Vietnam, applauding Viet Cong “heroism;” to Robert Redford lauding Castro; to Sean Penn visiting Iraq and giving the world advice on how to handle things there; to Cindy Sheehan gushing over Hugo Chavez, Hollywood and many on the left never met a tyrant they didn’t love. They never hugged a murderer who wasn’t a good person, like Tookie Williams. Many on the left say they don’t believe in good and evil. The Soviet Union was never an “evil empire.” Nazi Germany had some pretty good ideas (according to leftists of the time). The Viet Cong were just fighting for freedom. On and on.
Torture? So what. Mass murder? So what. Repression? So what. Leave those nice Muslims alone who behead Americans and repress their women. They have their beliefs, and we have ours, and we’re all good.
Except Republicans. Except George W. Bush. Those conservatives are really mean. They shouldn’t be allowed to exist, well maybe on some little farm in Nebraska, away from the rest of us.
Good and Evil in Hollywood Movies
The interesting thing to me, speaking as a psychologist, is that Hollywood really does believe in good and evil. You see it in their movies all the time. The Evil Empire strikes back. The good guy and the bad guy. The villain and the hero. You’ve got your good Jack even in Titanic and your bad rich guy. Your Luke Skywalker and your Darth Vader. Your Will Smith character in Independence Day and your evil aliens. The Hobbits in Lord of the Rings and your dragons. Good and evil.
Why do these movies resonate with the human spirit? Because they symbolically report the truth. There really is good and evil in the world, and people love to see the good guys triumph. Only for liberals, this unerring sense they have of reality evident in their fantasies, has become perverted in their perceptions of the real world. In the real world they, through cowardice, I believe, have made the good guys the bad guys and vice versa.
The Good Guys and the Bad Guys, Leftist Style
The U.N.? Good. America? Bad.
Terrorists? Good (they are “freedom fighters”). George Bush? Evil.
Communism and socialism? Good. Capitalism? Bad.
A just war? Bad. Terrorism? Understandable.
Dead Iraqis? Who cares? Dead terrorists? Oh my God!
The world hating America? Good, we deserve it. America hating terrorists? Bad.
The Planet of Liberalophlagy
in the second solar system, two blocks left of ICAN'TTHINKSTRAIGHT and one degree north of IWANTOMESSUPTHEWORLD.
Liberals live on another planet, another universe—and it isn’t even parallel.
Inside the Psyche of Today's Leftists
I have a theory about why rabid leftists are this way, and how they got this way. (Disclaimer--this applies only to the loons of the left, like Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and Cindy Sheehan). First, of course, Nixon betrayed us all and made us suspicious of government. Second, Hollywood has always, for some reason, had its sympathies for tyrants and communism.
Third,many of the loons come from broken homes or were abandoned by their fathers. This can lead to an unconscious hatred for authority. Since they don’t want to transfer this hatred to their bosses, as that would not be lucrative (they are capitalists too, for themselves, just not for anyone else), they transfer this hatred for authority to leaders of our country—especially when those leaders disagree with them politically. So, they hate the neglectful, abandoning, war-mongering, imperialistic, rights-stealing monster, George W. Bush.
They believe conspiracy theories because they are inclined to think of the world as being against them. All politicians are crooks, especially those with the most evil thing of all, “business connections.” Heavens to mergatroid if they have “oil connections.” Oil contacts automatically make already suspect politicians into conspirators and warmongers and, who knows what else.
Reality
To a conservative like me, thank God if a politician is “pro business.” That means he is “pro American,” “pro the common man,” and “pro poor people.” Business is a good thing. Here again, the liberals have the world backwards.
Good and evil exist. The United States of America is a good country, and George Bush is a good man. Conservatives see good and evil as it really occurs. Liberals live in Alice’s Wonderland, and are accurate judges of good and evil only in their movies.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Air America Bites the Dust
What a sad time for America.
Bloomberg.com:U.S.: "Air America Radio Network Seeks Bankruptcy Protection, By Don Jeffrey
Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Air America Radio, the liberal talk and news radio network, sought bankruptcy court protection afterDrudgeReportArchives.com, 2006: "HBO MOVIE SHOWS RADIO 'AIR AMERICA' CHAOS, **Exclusive**
losing $40.9 million since May 2004.
Air America, featuring comedian Al Franken, will keep
broadcasting after receiving court permission to use $900,000 in
financing from Democracy Allies LLC today, Tracy Klestadt, a
bankruptcy lawyer for the company, said in an interview.
"I think they're not going to make it in this current
form,'' said Paul Levinson, media studies chairman at Fordham
University in New York. "It's a sad day because we need as much
political diversity in our media as possible.''
The decision to seek legal protection from creditors came
after a creditor froze the bank accounts of Piquant LLC, which
operates as Air America, the court filing shows. Piquant said
Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Inc. "restrained all of the
Debtor's bank accounts,'' leaving Air Am helpless.
HBO is set to air a behind the scenes look at the launching of liberal radio network AIR AMERICA.ThinkProgress. Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive Radio Remains Strong:
The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a director's cut of LEFT OF THE DIAL, a grossly entertaining docu-drama of life on the other side of the AIR AMERICA microphone.
The doubts. The lies. The bounced checks. The heartbreak.
The viewer is taken up close to witness the ugly business of media ambition.
The main character, Evan Cohen, founding chairman and main investor, is depicted as a complete fraud.
The documentary shows Cohen arriving in the middle of night at AIR AMERICA offices to sign over the company and disappear again, but not before lying about how many ads have been sold and how much money is the bank [zero].
Dead Air.
It shows how AIR AMERICA executives lied and lied again about not bouncing checks to their Chicago and Los Angeles affiliate owners. [The network was quickly thrown off the stations.]
The film captures AIR AMERICA staff first learning about the Chicago and
LA nightmare by reading a DRUDGE REPORT exclusive on their computers.
It shows midday host Al Franken at a staff meeting being told there is no money left, hilariously, just moments after ranting about George Bush's ethics.
The HBO crew is told to shut down their cameras -- but they don't -- and the 'We're Broke!' meeting is filmed raw.
LEFT OF THE DIAL shows an angry meeting of the writing staff being told how money was deducted from their checks to pay for health care -- but the money was never paid to the HMO and they were never covered!
Host Janeane Garofalo looks suicidal in nearly ever scene which she appears.
“What am I going to do, just ramble on and on,” panics stand-up-comic-morning-drive-host Marc Maron, as he deals with the reality of becoming a talk-show host.
But every drama must have a hero: Enter Randi Rhodes …
UPDATE: According to Al Franken, Air America did not file for bankruptcy Friday. We regret the error. See our correction here.The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: Air America Radio Bankruptcy, Sale Possible: 13 September 2006, Air America Radio Bankruptcy, Sale Possible
Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told Think Progress.
Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.
The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely syndicated progressive talk hosts Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance aren’t even associated with Air America.
Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress and MSS Inc. to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.
BANKRUPT? Air America Out Of Cash, Up For Sale*** this story has been updated:Bye Bye Air America: "Left Mourns Air America's Bankruptcy Declaration, Posted by P.J. Gladnick on September 13, 2006 - 21:33.
Cash- starved Air America Radio is broke and up for sale, the Radio Equalizer has learned exclusively. In addition, a liberal website is reporting that the so- called 'progressive' radio network will announce a bankruptcy filing on Friday. As of this moment, the story has yet to be verified. What our own sources are telling the Radio Equalizer is that two potential buyers have recently been looking to scoop up Air America's assets. But internal board squabbling has created a disunited front, with some members looking to hand the network back to eccentric co- founder (and Huffington Post contributor) Sheldon Drobny, while the rest shop for buyers. Jon Sinton, a former Air America and Clear Channel Radio executive, is said to be leading the effort to seek a purchaser.
Drobny, meanwhile, has been scrambling to figure out a way to retake the network and intends to rehire former COO Carl Ginsburg if he is successful. To Radio Equalizer readers as well as Air America staffers, none of this should come as any surprise. Big layoffs came earlier this week and insiders have been bracing for the worst possible news. Recently, we had reported on a number of management departures and the fact that Air America could no longer afford to pay the Associated Press for wire service coverage. Plus, the Gloria Wise scandal has still not been resolved.
In addition, this indication of Air America's financial condition allows Al Franken to trigger a clause in his contract that would allow him to immediately depart the network if he so chooses. He first must request a financial statement, however. If Air America isn't able to continue its programming, it opens the door for new feminist talk radio network Green Stone Media to take over some, or …
Michelle Malkin: Air America: The end?: "Air America: The end? By Michelle Malkin, September 13, 2006
So, Air America leaks word of its bankruptcy to liberal blog Think Progress in an attempt to avoid complete humiliation by all those evil right-wingers who were spreading such vicious rumors about its financial chaos.As I’ve said, what a sad time for America. Air America, we will miss your inane Bush-bashing, anti-American, nonsense-spewing, liberal hours of hatred.
May I just say: Bwahahahahahaha.
First question: Will the New York Times fiiiiinally get around to covering this story? Hmmm?
Lefties think that being popular is a formula. All you have to do is copy Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly and give it a left slant, and you’ll have an audience. Did you learn your lesson? Let me tell you the real secret of Rush and Bill. Truth. Plus, as O’Reilly would say, “looking out for the folks.” Get the hatred out of your hearts. People don’t buy hatred, dum dumbs.
The people like the passion, intelligence, wit, and truth of Rush. They like O’Reilly’s telling it like it is, whether he is for or against the right, or Bush. O’Reilly isn’t always correct, and neither is Rush. But they do try to be right. They do try to speak the truth. They don’t just use Mao’s little book of propaganda like the left does. Air America was destined to fail, no matter how much money that hateful old man, George Soros, pumped into it. Did Rush ever need a donation? Not once.
Actually, I do wish there were some liberal alternatives to right wing and Christian right news etc. I don’t mean clones of Flatulence America, however. I don’t mean knee-jerk leftist media like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC. I also don’t mean Noam Chomsky America-haters either. Liberalism and progressivism are legitimate political philosophies. They have no credible spokespersons at this time. There are no Dennis Prager’s for the left. All the prominent left-wing spokespeople are airhead bashers with no positive ideas for America. FDR had some good ideas. Where is the left’s FDR of today? John F. Kennedy had his Peace Corps. Where is the left’s JFK now? John Kerry and Hillary Clinton? Give me a break.
Get back to your roots, my dear leftists. You don’t need to bash the right to contribute to America. Just think of the good of the country, for a change.
In the meantime, a moment of silence for that great American institution, Air America!
Friday, October 13, 2006
Truth is Like Kryptonite to a Liberal
First, if you are a liberal, you might not want to read this article. Liberals get upset with most of my posts anyway, so this one will drive you nuts. In fact, I’d advise liberals never to read my posts unless they are willing to hear a point of view different from their own. If you are going to ignore my advice and read this post anyway, get the children out of the room. Remember, I warned you. Don’t read this post.
Second, my views on liberals apply to most liberals, but not all. There are a few honest, logical, correct thinking people who are true classic liberals, and my views don’t apply to you. You are the ones who truly believe in liberal or progressive philosophy, have no hatred in your heart, and are mature enough to hear an opposing viewpoint. Unfortunately, most liberals are not this type. Most are superstitious, naïve, uneducated, fascist haters, rife with psychological problems, immature, illogical and emotionally stunted.
Third, am I going to prove my points? No. For you liberals, I’m stating opinions here. There is no way I can prove to you diehard liberals what I say in my blog. I can dance like a marionette like you want me to, give you statistics and “hard facts,” like you want, to prove my points, and then you’ll just go and say I’m wrong anyway. I’m not out to prove anything to you. The only purpose of this blog is to let you know there is a different point of view in this world than yours. In places like California this is vital. Many Californians, especially in hotbeds like San Francisco, never hear a conservative view all day long. Hollywood thinks conservatives are alien beings. Try proving to an airhead like Susan Sarandon anything logical and with common sense. You can’t do it. Just know, Susan and Tim, and Sean, and Alec, that not all the world thinks like your liberal vacuum-headed friends.
So, what good is telling the truth? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except, it’s the right thing to do. Jesus told the truth (even assuming you aren’t religious, or if you are Muslim, you might agree with this), and he was crucified. Copernicus told the truth and he was almost killed for it (for liberals, Copernicus was the first scientist to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun.) Bush tells the truth, and he is literally compared to a chimpanzee by liberals. Cassandra told the truth and she was never believed. (for liberals, Cassandra, in Greek mythology, was granted the gift of prophecy by Apollo, but cursed in that no one would ever believe her prophecies.)
I am Cassandra. I tell the truth. Liberals will never believe me. Whether you believe me or not is your right and privilege. If you do believe me, you’re smart. If you don’t, you’re dumb. That’s how I see it. You have a right to disagree with me. In fact, you might think I’m dumb. You’re wrong, but you have the right to think so.
Again, don’t continue reading this article if you are a liberal. You won’t like it. If you are liberal and have read up to this point, your blood is boiling, I know. Tough. Put the article down. Or, maybe you’re one of the few logical liberals, and can take the truth, so read on, you masochist.
Liberals have underdeveloped logical reasoning ability. They lack common sense. They can’t make up their own minds about, let’s say, Bush, for example, without somebody telling them what to think. They believe in conspiracy theories. What goes on behind closed doors is what is important to them. Not what they see and hear with their own eyes. If they read something in a newspaper, they believe that—even though the source might be biased. If they hear something on one of their liberal slanted shows they trust that, because it confirms their beliefs, their religion of liberalism.
Again, if all this does not apply to you, then you are a true liberal or true progressive. You I honor. You I respect. You sincerely believe in big government, socialism, helping the poor by government programs and so on. So, for you, don’t take this post personally. Then again, if you are this kind of liberal, this post won’t anger you anyway. You are the rare mature liberal, who can handle the truth.
Then again, I don’t mind if somebody is biased, as long as they are biased in favor of the truth. I trust anybody at this time in history who is biased in favor of conservatism, even if they are extreme. I trust Ann Coulter and Michael Savage for example, far more than I trust Noam Chomsky.
All three say some pretty extreme things. Liberals hate Coulter and Savage, and I understand why. I don’t agree with everything Coulter and Savage say, but I agree with their basic premises—which represent unabashed conservatism, which makes them good in my eyes. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, is not good. She is an example of the worst kind of human being I can imagine, outside of truly evil people like Saddam Hussein. She uses her dead son to make her political points. She makes points that her dead son would never agree with, points against what her son stood for and died for. Absolutely despicable.
I don’t feel I have to prove anything to you. I just call it like I see it. I let you know that my opinion exists, and that I see the world differently from you.
You have a right to your religion of liberalism. Is my conservatism a religion? Kind of. Unlike liberals, though, I can be persuaded to change my mind, if I see truth in an opposing argument. On the other hand, since I see truth so clearly, my Cassandra complex again, I feel a moral obligation to proclaim it. This I feel truly is a mission from God, literally.
In any event, I have the right to tell the truth, and be crucified for it. Just like Christ, I ask God if I can be relieved of this burden, but, just like Christ, God says “No, you must tell the truth to gain your salvation.” For you liberals, no, I’m not being literal. God is not speaking to me, really. I don’t hear voices. It’s figurative. Don’t understand? Look it up.
Bring it on.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Second, my views on liberals apply to most liberals, but not all. There are a few honest, logical, correct thinking people who are true classic liberals, and my views don’t apply to you. You are the ones who truly believe in liberal or progressive philosophy, have no hatred in your heart, and are mature enough to hear an opposing viewpoint. Unfortunately, most liberals are not this type. Most are superstitious, naïve, uneducated, fascist haters, rife with psychological problems, immature, illogical and emotionally stunted.
Third, am I going to prove my points? No. For you liberals, I’m stating opinions here. There is no way I can prove to you diehard liberals what I say in my blog. I can dance like a marionette like you want me to, give you statistics and “hard facts,” like you want, to prove my points, and then you’ll just go and say I’m wrong anyway. I’m not out to prove anything to you. The only purpose of this blog is to let you know there is a different point of view in this world than yours. In places like California this is vital. Many Californians, especially in hotbeds like San Francisco, never hear a conservative view all day long. Hollywood thinks conservatives are alien beings. Try proving to an airhead like Susan Sarandon anything logical and with common sense. You can’t do it. Just know, Susan and Tim, and Sean, and Alec, that not all the world thinks like your liberal vacuum-headed friends.
Why do I Write This Blog?
What is my purpose in writing this blog? As you can tell, it’s not to make friends. If you do as I do, tell the truth, you’re not going to be popular. You won’t be loved. You won’t even be believed. Most people aren’t smart enough to recognize the truth. You will be treated just like George W. Bush, who tells the truth most of the time. You will be vilified, slandered, ridiculed, and hated.So, what good is telling the truth? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except, it’s the right thing to do. Jesus told the truth (even assuming you aren’t religious, or if you are Muslim, you might agree with this), and he was crucified. Copernicus told the truth and he was almost killed for it (for liberals, Copernicus was the first scientist to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun.) Bush tells the truth, and he is literally compared to a chimpanzee by liberals. Cassandra told the truth and she was never believed. (for liberals, Cassandra, in Greek mythology, was granted the gift of prophecy by Apollo, but cursed in that no one would ever believe her prophecies.)
I am Cassandra. I tell the truth. Liberals will never believe me. Whether you believe me or not is your right and privilege. If you do believe me, you’re smart. If you don’t, you’re dumb. That’s how I see it. You have a right to disagree with me. In fact, you might think I’m dumb. You’re wrong, but you have the right to think so.
Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives
There are many differences between liberals and conservatives. I am a trained psychologist, and experienced in psychological research. I know there is a difference between the way liberals and conservatives think and feel. I suggest to some daring and brilliant PhD candidate that he or she do a study on parts of the brain used in thinking by liberals versus conservatives. You will find clear distinctions.Again, don’t continue reading this article if you are a liberal. You won’t like it. If you are liberal and have read up to this point, your blood is boiling, I know. Tough. Put the article down. Or, maybe you’re one of the few logical liberals, and can take the truth, so read on, you masochist.
Liberals have underdeveloped logical reasoning ability. They lack common sense. They can’t make up their own minds about, let’s say, Bush, for example, without somebody telling them what to think. They believe in conspiracy theories. What goes on behind closed doors is what is important to them. Not what they see and hear with their own eyes. If they read something in a newspaper, they believe that—even though the source might be biased. If they hear something on one of their liberal slanted shows they trust that, because it confirms their beliefs, their religion of liberalism.
Again, if all this does not apply to you, then you are a true liberal or true progressive. You I honor. You I respect. You sincerely believe in big government, socialism, helping the poor by government programs and so on. So, for you, don’t take this post personally. Then again, if you are this kind of liberal, this post won’t anger you anyway. You are the rare mature liberal, who can handle the truth.
Sources I Trust
I could go on and on, but I’ll leave that for future posts. I’ll just mention one last thing on the subject. What about sources? I trust conservative sources more than liberal sources. I hear nothing but lies from liberal sources, at this time in history. This includes all the major networks, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and so on. The only television sources I trust are FOX and sometimes PBS. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, for example, seems pretty accurate and unbiased to me.Then again, I don’t mind if somebody is biased, as long as they are biased in favor of the truth. I trust anybody at this time in history who is biased in favor of conservatism, even if they are extreme. I trust Ann Coulter and Michael Savage for example, far more than I trust Noam Chomsky.
All three say some pretty extreme things. Liberals hate Coulter and Savage, and I understand why. I don’t agree with everything Coulter and Savage say, but I agree with their basic premises—which represent unabashed conservatism, which makes them good in my eyes. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, is not good. She is an example of the worst kind of human being I can imagine, outside of truly evil people like Saddam Hussein. She uses her dead son to make her political points. She makes points that her dead son would never agree with, points against what her son stood for and died for. Absolutely despicable.Did I Prove My Positions?
There, see, did I prove my side of things? No. I just stated my opinions. My opinions are based on a vast amount of reading, listening, and viewing, from both liberal and conservative sources. This separates me immediately from almost all liberals. Liberals only listen to liberal sources. Truth is like kryptonite to a liberal. I trust what I see and hear. I use logic and common sense. I don’t care what goes on behind closed doors. I don’t give a hoot about the Tri-Lateral commission. I’m sure there are conspiracies, as existed in the Nixon White House, and with Exxon and on and on, but these are still rare. Oswald, for example, was the lone gunman who killed John F. Kennedy, period. Oliver Stone and people who believe him are nutcases.I don’t feel I have to prove anything to you. I just call it like I see it. I let you know that my opinion exists, and that I see the world differently from you.
You have a right to your religion of liberalism. Is my conservatism a religion? Kind of. Unlike liberals, though, I can be persuaded to change my mind, if I see truth in an opposing argument. On the other hand, since I see truth so clearly, my Cassandra complex again, I feel a moral obligation to proclaim it. This I feel truly is a mission from God, literally.
In any event, I have the right to tell the truth, and be crucified for it. Just like Christ, I ask God if I can be relieved of this burden, but, just like Christ, God says “No, you must tell the truth to gain your salvation.” For you liberals, no, I’m not being literal. God is not speaking to me, really. I don’t hear voices. It’s figurative. Don’t understand? Look it up.
Bring it on.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Lessons from Korea and Iraq
Note:
I was made aware today that I have won what I consider a great honor for this blog—Bestest Blog of the Day for October 12, 2006 (making the site eligible for further honors). This is in competition with thousands of other blogs. Thank you LAEvanesce for your kindness in nominating me, and to Bestest Blog for choosing me from among the many nominees. Thank you to my contributors, especially paz y amour (the path), LAEvanesce, and to passionate liberals like Miss V for keeping me honest.My Liberal Friends
I have ringing in my ears and thoughts racing through my mind with the comments and opinions of my liberal friends. I believe I have made myself truly open to hearing the other side of things, not only by listening to these bright, passionate people of the left, but also through tuning in to Air America, CNN, any Hollywood actor it seems, and even forcing myself to watch Keith Olberman. I couldn’t view him for long, though. He makes my skin crawl just like Michael Savage makes my liberal friends’ stomachs turn.Lessons from Korea and Iraq
Anyway, on the issues of Korea and Iraq, I know there are two (three? a hundred?) sides. I’ve listened to quite a few. Here is my take on the lessons we can learn from both, as I believe they are interrelated somehow:Invading Iraq
Bush was right in going into Iraq. Not for the reason of WMD, which was good enough, as everyone at that time believed Saddam had them—but for other reasons mentioned by many, and for some reasons only I and a few other people seem to notice. First, of course, Saddam was a butcher, slaughtering his own people. Second, he used WMD on live human beings. Third, he was paying suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 per family, supporting terrorism against that great country. Fourth, he did have connections with al-Queda and terrorists, even harboring some in Iraq. Fifth, he was shooting at American planes. Sixth, he did not comply with U.N. resolutions. Seventh, he had already invaded a neighboring country, Kuwait.There are other justifications I can think of, but I’ll just mention two more. He was a threat to our oil supply. I know, some liberals will say we went to war for oil. So what? Oil is a vital national interest. Just see how long we can support this economy without it. See what would happen to our poor people then.
My last reason (my very special reason) is simply that the invasion of Iraq shook up the Middle East. The Middle East needed shaking up. Bad people were killing good people. Bad countries were terrorizing good countries. In order to save lives, this war had to happen.
Invading Iraq Created More Terrorists?
In response to the left’s claim that the Iraq war has created more terrorists—what do they think 9/11 was? A love note from Islam? 9/11 happened before Iraq. Remember? These people already hated us. They didn’t need the excuse of an Iraqi war to despise Western culture. We are the infidels. We deserve to be killed. Period.Mistakes in the Iraq War
However, after invading Iraq and conquering Saddam, I will admit, then, that Bush and company made several mistakes. It was an ill-conceived war. We overwhelmed Iraq so much that we drove their thousands of soldiers into hiding, to later become part of the insurgency which kills us and each other today. We were, and remain, culturally insensitive. We imagined that American style democracy could take hold quickly. It can’t. If they are going to have a democracy, it’s going to be one that honors their cultures, tribalisms, values, religions and so on.The Lesson of Korea
Korea, though, and I’ll be brief here, is an example of what could have, and I believe would have, happened in Iraq if we hadn’t invaded. Iraq would have eventually gotten its nuclear weapons, and then what would we have? Another Korea. A rogue nation with a nuclear bomb—impossible to invade, impossible to easily discipline.The lesson of Korea is, if you’re going to invade a country—do it before they have nuclear weapons.
Voila! Bush was 100% correct in invading Iraq when he did, pre-emptively! His timing was perfect.
What Do You Think?
Tell me what lessons you think we need to learn from Korea and Iraq.Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Wisdom of Ted Turner
Usually, I don’t include long quotes in my posts, but I want you to read all of this one. Wolf Blitzer recently interviewed CNN's founder, Ted Turner about the situation in North Korea:(TT = Ted Turner; WB = Wolf Blitzer)
The collective wisdom is astounding. It makes me want to go back to being a liberal.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
WB: You spent some time recently in North Korea, Ted. Did this agreement come to you as a surprise?For the first time in my blogging career, I am just about speechless. The brilliance of the left. Think of it—Ted Turner, his ex-wife, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, Barbara Streisand, Cindy Sheehan.TT: No. No, I talked with quite a few of the North Korean leaders and South Korean leaders, too, and spent really the most time with the head negotiator for North Korea. And I was really over there to try and persuade North and South Korea to make the DMZ into an international peace park when they sign a peace treaty, which I anticipate will be fairly soon, now that we have these six-party talks. We have agreement there. But I had a great time. I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere.
WB: But this is one of the most despotic regimes, and Kim Jung Il is one of the worst men on Earth. Isn't that a fair assessment?
TT: Well, I didn't get to meet him, but he didn't look...in the pictures I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look too much different than most of the other people I've met.
WB: But look at the way he's treating his own people.
TT: Well, hey. Listen, I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin, and they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars. But I didn't see any brutality in the capitol, or out in the DMZ. We drove through the countryside quite a bit to down to P'annumjom and Kaesong. We traveled around. I'm sure we were on a special route, but I don't see North Korea never posed any significant threat to the United States. I mean, the whole economy of North Korea is only $30 billion dollars a year. It's less than the city of Detroit. It's a small place, and we do not have to worry about them attacking us.
WB: You know, they have a million troops within literally a few miles...
TT: A half million.
WB: Well, best estimates are a million. A million troops along the DMZ...
TT: Yes, and we have a half a million troops, of which 28,000 are Americans, and they've been there for fifty years. One of the things I've said in both North and South Korea is, it's time to end the Korean War officially, and move on and get those hundreds of thousands of young men that are sitting there back building hospitals and roads and schools in both North and South Korea, and improving the gross national product. It's just a waste of time and energy for them just to sit there.
WB: I think the bottom line, though, Ted, and I think you'd agree. They had this opportunity in the nineties, when they signed this first agreement, and they cheated. They didn't live up to it. Now they have a second chance. I hope you're right. I certainly do.
TT: Well, I hope I'm right, too. But, you know, in the Bible, it says you're supposed to forgive seven times seventy, or something like that.
WB: What about those ground-to-ground missiles, and the...
TT: They can't reach us.
WB: They can reach Japan. They can reach South Korea. They can reach a lot of our allies.
TT: They can't reach the U.S.A., and we can pound them into oblivion in 24 hours.
WB: But you don't want to get to that. There's some estimates, by the way, they could reach Alaska.
TT: Well, what? The Aleutian Islands? There's nothing up there but a few sea lions.
WB: Well, you know, this is a serious issue. I hope you're right, as I said. But...
TT: I know it's a serious issue. I mean, I didn't go over there to waste my time.
The collective wisdom is astounding. It makes me want to go back to being a liberal.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Monday, October 09, 2006
Going Cosmic Again
Zen and the Art of Political Sanity
When I start talking about Zen and paradox and get going cosmic again, I think that every conservative in the world who reads me probably smashes his laptop onto the floor in little bits, or kicks his PC into shards of glass and metal. Probably liberals don’t know what to do with me in this mode either. After all, going cosmic is a liberal frame of being. They wonder if I’ve had too much sake or went back to smoking weed, or maybe I’m doing a Reagan, going senile and falling asleep in the middle of meetings.
Nah! It’s just the old hippie in me, the New Ager, the Course in Miracles, Marianne Williamson, Wayne Dyer, Bob Dylan-listening secret part of me rearing up and looking around. I want to check out my place in the universe from time to time. I sincerely want to listen to God, speak the truth, and do good, so I look and listen. I try to spot the gurus I meet, which might be you, whether you are liberal or conservative. If you are a guru, I listen hard. You are God talking to me through you, and you might not even know it. I love you, though, for your messages to me. I love you for the love you give to the world. Part of your love is your passion.
I know some of you will remember my hit piece on Wayne Dyer. Today, I want to praise him. All of his concepts are true, on some days. (On other days, they aren’t.) Today, he is my genius, my guru. I’m not going to tell you why—that’s private. Trust me, though, he has saved my life on more than one occasion, sometimes literally, and sometimes figuratively.
Now that the conservative laptops are broken, and the intelligent liberals are scratching their heads, what does this have to do with anything?
All right, let me swing back to politics. I find our present situation in the world, particularly with Korea and Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear bombs and terrorism, to be overwhelming. I admire Bush and Bolton and Snow and the rest, who appear to have kept their heads in all this dire. I personally am not as calm about these things as they seem to be. So, sometimes, when I start to panic in life, when things get too dreary and overwhelming, I turn back to my New Age stuff. Yes, I open my Wayne Dyer (or, in my case, I turn on my audiobooks of him), and listen to his kind of wisdom, and find it comforting.
The gist of the relevant message is that there is a reason for everything. There is a plan for each one of us. Everything is as it should be. The trials and tribulations we must face are part of the learning process we must endure in order to get closer to true happiness and fulfillment, closer to God.
I believe the same thing is true for countries. We face our collective karma together, reaping the results of what we have earned for ourselves by our past behaviors, and helping change the nature of our future karma by what we choose to see and do now.
We are constantly being tested and purified by fire. Individually, and as a country, we face the tests of war, the flames of uncertainty.
Trust me, we will get through this.
Your Political Philosophy and Timing
I understand what it is to be a liberal. I was one. I understand what it is to be a conservative. I am one. Liberal and conservative are merely philosophies. I believe a healthy person is both. But I also believe that some times call for liberalism and some times call for conservatism. So, I can’t condemn you for being liberal. What I criticize is your timing.
If you were a liberal during WWII, then your timing was off. If you were a conservative during the Depression, then your timing was off. If you were a liberal during Vietnam, then your timing was—you make the call.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
When I start talking about Zen and paradox and get going cosmic again, I think that every conservative in the world who reads me probably smashes his laptop onto the floor in little bits, or kicks his PC into shards of glass and metal. Probably liberals don’t know what to do with me in this mode either. After all, going cosmic is a liberal frame of being. They wonder if I’ve had too much sake or went back to smoking weed, or maybe I’m doing a Reagan, going senile and falling asleep in the middle of meetings.
Nah! It’s just the old hippie in me, the New Ager, the Course in Miracles, Marianne Williamson, Wayne Dyer, Bob Dylan-listening secret part of me rearing up and looking around. I want to check out my place in the universe from time to time. I sincerely want to listen to God, speak the truth, and do good, so I look and listen. I try to spot the gurus I meet, which might be you, whether you are liberal or conservative. If you are a guru, I listen hard. You are God talking to me through you, and you might not even know it. I love you, though, for your messages to me. I love you for the love you give to the world. Part of your love is your passion.I know some of you will remember my hit piece on Wayne Dyer. Today, I want to praise him. All of his concepts are true, on some days. (On other days, they aren’t.) Today, he is my genius, my guru. I’m not going to tell you why—that’s private. Trust me, though, he has saved my life on more than one occasion, sometimes literally, and sometimes figuratively.
Now that the conservative laptops are broken, and the intelligent liberals are scratching their heads, what does this have to do with anything?
All right, let me swing back to politics. I find our present situation in the world, particularly with Korea and Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear bombs and terrorism, to be overwhelming. I admire Bush and Bolton and Snow and the rest, who appear to have kept their heads in all this dire. I personally am not as calm about these things as they seem to be. So, sometimes, when I start to panic in life, when things get too dreary and overwhelming, I turn back to my New Age stuff. Yes, I open my Wayne Dyer (or, in my case, I turn on my audiobooks of him), and listen to his kind of wisdom, and find it comforting.
The gist of the relevant message is that there is a reason for everything. There is a plan for each one of us. Everything is as it should be. The trials and tribulations we must face are part of the learning process we must endure in order to get closer to true happiness and fulfillment, closer to God.
I believe the same thing is true for countries. We face our collective karma together, reaping the results of what we have earned for ourselves by our past behaviors, and helping change the nature of our future karma by what we choose to see and do now.
We are constantly being tested and purified by fire. Individually, and as a country, we face the tests of war, the flames of uncertainty.
Trust me, we will get through this.
Your Political Philosophy and Timing
I understand what it is to be a liberal. I was one. I understand what it is to be a conservative. I am one. Liberal and conservative are merely philosophies. I believe a healthy person is both. But I also believe that some times call for liberalism and some times call for conservatism. So, I can’t condemn you for being liberal. What I criticize is your timing.
If you were a liberal during WWII, then your timing was off. If you were a conservative during the Depression, then your timing was off. If you were a liberal during Vietnam, then your timing was—you make the call.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Darfur
Yesterday I was watching on CNN the interminable coverage of Korea’s nuclear test when I saw an accusatory commercial advocating Bush’s intervention in Darfur (Darfur conflict).
The hypocrisy of the people who demonize George W. Bush is astounding. They’ve slandered and libeled him for years on his intervention in Iraq, and now they do the same for his non-intervention in Darfur. What’s the difference between Darfur and Iraq? There has been genocide in both places.
The differences between them include that Darfur has no American national interest involved. There is no oil interest, and no danger to America from the conflict in Darfur. Darfur would be a purely humanitarian venture. I’m not against intervention in Darfur. In fact, I favor it. Yet the same left that screams about Darfur are the ones who have weakened Bush’s ability for any interventionist policy abroad. They have made it next to impossible for Bush to lead any sort of militaristic coalition anywhere, including against Iran, Korea, or even Darfur.
Why, in the left’s mind, is Darfur more worthy of intervention than Iraq was? It boils down to political correctness. The left will not tolerate the U.S. protecting oil resources. They will not cheer the U.S. fighting terrorism, nor ensuring America’s safety. These are not the left’s causes. The only genocide worth stopping is if it involves politically correct causes, devoid of any American national interest. We are not supposed to be the world’s policemen, except when it affects the downtrodden, the weak, the helpless, the politically and strategically insignificant.
Iraq didn’t qualify with any of these measures. Iraq had genocide. Who cares? Iraq controls a huge oil supply. Good reason not to intervene. Iraq was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Protecting Israel is not politically correct to the left. Iraq tried to assassinate George Bush senior. Again, who cares? Iraq was advocating violence against America and shooting at our planes. So? Iraq had used chemical weapons on its own people and intended on building a nuclear weapon. Yeah, yeah.
Now that the left has crippled Bush politically, how can they possibly expect him to intervene in Darfur? Bush is a politician. This is not a dirty word. Polls do matter. Elections determine power. World opinion does count. A weakened Bush can, at most, lend support to any international effort to intervene in Darfur. He cannot do more. It is unthinkable for the “warmongering” Bush to lead a military effort anywhere now, even in the left’s favorite places. You reap what you sow.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
The hypocrisy of the people who demonize George W. Bush is astounding. They’ve slandered and libeled him for years on his intervention in Iraq, and now they do the same for his non-intervention in Darfur. What’s the difference between Darfur and Iraq? There has been genocide in both places.
The differences between them include that Darfur has no American national interest involved. There is no oil interest, and no danger to America from the conflict in Darfur. Darfur would be a purely humanitarian venture. I’m not against intervention in Darfur. In fact, I favor it. Yet the same left that screams about Darfur are the ones who have weakened Bush’s ability for any interventionist policy abroad. They have made it next to impossible for Bush to lead any sort of militaristic coalition anywhere, including against Iran, Korea, or even Darfur.
Why, in the left’s mind, is Darfur more worthy of intervention than Iraq was? It boils down to political correctness. The left will not tolerate the U.S. protecting oil resources. They will not cheer the U.S. fighting terrorism, nor ensuring America’s safety. These are not the left’s causes. The only genocide worth stopping is if it involves politically correct causes, devoid of any American national interest. We are not supposed to be the world’s policemen, except when it affects the downtrodden, the weak, the helpless, the politically and strategically insignificant.
Iraq didn’t qualify with any of these measures. Iraq had genocide. Who cares? Iraq controls a huge oil supply. Good reason not to intervene. Iraq was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Protecting Israel is not politically correct to the left. Iraq tried to assassinate George Bush senior. Again, who cares? Iraq was advocating violence against America and shooting at our planes. So? Iraq had used chemical weapons on its own people and intended on building a nuclear weapon. Yeah, yeah.
Now that the left has crippled Bush politically, how can they possibly expect him to intervene in Darfur? Bush is a politician. This is not a dirty word. Polls do matter. Elections determine power. World opinion does count. A weakened Bush can, at most, lend support to any international effort to intervene in Darfur. He cannot do more. It is unthinkable for the “warmongering” Bush to lead a military effort anywhere now, even in the left’s favorite places. You reap what you sow.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Death of a President
CNN.com - Some chains refuse Bush assassination film - Oct 6, 2006:
Is reaction against Death of a President; justified or downright censorship? Newmarket Films set itself an unusual challenge when it decided to release the controversial faux investigative documentary Death of a President just six weeks after acquiring the movie at the Toronto International Film Festival last month. But it might face an even more formidable obstacle because several major theater chains are refusing to play the film, which mixes real news footage with dramatized segments depicting the fictional 2007 death of President Bush.Theaters Balk on Bush Death Film - Oct 06, 2006 - E! Online News:
This gives new meaning to “presidential veto.” Some of the country's biggest theater chains are reportedly refusing to screen Death of a President, the controversial British-made drama that depicts a fictional assassination of President George W. Bush. Death of a President sparked controversy when it premiered last month at the Toronto Film Festival, where it won the International Critics Prize and scored a U.S. distribution deal with Newmarket Films. But according to the Hollywood Reporter, due to the R-rated film's incendiary subject matter, Newmarket is facing a tough time finding exhibitors willing to show Death of a President. Newmarket plans to unspool the ersatz documentary on Oct. 27, less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections.Bush 'Assassination' Film Makes Waves Across the Pond - washingtonpost.com: By Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post Foreign Service, Saturday, September 2, 2006.
The Republican Party in Texas has said it is 'shocking' and 'disturbing' that a TV drama is to depict the assassination of US President Bush.
Death of a President uses archive footage, actors and computer effects to portray the president being shot dead.
UK broadcaster Channel 4, who made the mock documentary, said it explored the effects of the War on Terror on the US.
But Gretchen Essell, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Texas, called for it not to be screened.
Nearly every British newspaper on Friday carried photos of the “assassination” of President Bush -- or, rather, the eerily realistic depiction of it from a new documentary-style television film that is causing an uproar in Britain. The film, “Death of a President,” has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world.I believe that the First Amendment right of freedom of expression is sacred to our nation. That is why I don’t mind, and even encourage opinions differing from mine. I also believe in freedom of artistic expression. So I would never ban Andress Serrano’s Piss Christ, the Muhammed cartoons, or satire on the Pope. So, too, I would not ban Death of a President. On the other hand, I would applaud any distributor who would refuse to show it. It is a disgusting film, no matter what we can “learn from it.” Anyone who sees it, or supports it, is a sick person. We’ll have enough “learning” experiences with real-life assassinations, I assume, without having to fictionalize them—especially when this movie is about a sitting president. Real assassins will love it, and pathological Bush-haters, and sadists, and many in the Muslim world. Good Muslims, and good people, will abhor it, and just not see it.
“It's a disturbing film,” said Peter Dale, head of More 4, the television channel that will telecast the film in England in October. It is scheduled to debut this month -- on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks -- at the Toronto Film Festival."
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Are you reading? Good. Keep reading.