Why Kobe Bryant is worth $45 Million

(Note: This is the second in my series of blogs on the fallacies of populism) First, let’s be crystal clear here: I’m no Kobe Bryant fan. I actually have a deep seated distaste for him. But as the second highest paid professional athele last year, making $45 million, he is worth every penny. Why is he worth $45 million? Does his life hold any more intrinsic value than the bum on the street, or–more importantly– me or you? Is his job more important than that of a school teacher? These are all interesting questions, particularly to demagogues and populists. But they are the wrong questions.
The right question is, “why have people chosen to give Kobe Bryant $45 million to play basketball and endorse their products?” The answer is very simple: because they believe they can make money off of Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant has been blessed with highly unusual atheletic gifts and also works very hard to maintain and improve himself. He may or may not work as hard as some people who make 1/1000 as much as he does. But people are not paid based on how much schooling they’ve had, how hard they work, how necessary their jobs are, or how nice they are. Most people (except for those in unions and nonprofits, and government work) are paid based upon how much they produce. And Kobe Bryant produces millions of dollars of revenue for the NBA, the LA Lakers, and the companies that he endorses. A lot more than $45 million, no doubt.

The Politics of Envy and Stupidity

In Barack Obama’s deceptive, disingenuous and self-congratulatory speech today, he declared, “we want our money back.” Which is really ironic, considering the fact that 9 months ago, we didn’t want our money back. With no hint of irony, Obama also proclaimed that “my commitment is to the tax payer” and managed to stifle his laughter. Referring to the TARP program, Obama’s plan is to tax companies that didn’t get TARP funds and companies that already paid back their TARP funds (funds that many companies were forced to accept). And how are these companies going to pay back this money that they don’t owe? Well, of course the President expects them to break their contracts and withhold compensation to executives. Nevermind the legal consequences or the business consequences of such bad faith actions. From his imaginary post of supreme ruler of everything within the USA, Obama stated “I’d urge you to cover the costs of the rescue not by sticking it to your shareholders or your customers, or fellow citizens with the bill, but by rolling back bonuses to top earners and executives. And more broadly, I’m continuing to call on these firms to put greater effort into helping families stay in their homes, to provide small businesses with needed loans, and to embrace, rather than fight serious financial reform.”
So let’s put this all together and see if we can make any sense of it. First, we got into a financial crisis because banks were making bad loans. Second, the Bush administration and congress develop TARP to keep banks from going under, and Fed Chairman Bernake forces Banks to take TARP funds. Third, the government refuses to accept TARP repayment. Fourth, Barack Obama plays the populist envy card because some people are making money and says “we don’t care if you took our money, or if you only took our money because we made you take it, or if you already paid us back with interest, WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!!! Such great political courage. But the populist rant neither started or ended with this stupid proclaimation. Obama told the banks they should accept regulations that will make them less profitable, take risks that would make them more likely to end up causing the financial system to collapse once again, and not to pay their most valuable employees what they’re worth. Makes perfect sense to me.

Obama Wants You To Read This Blog

I’m not sure if you’ve seen those annoying ads on the interweb, but they seem to be everywhere. Even on conservative blogs, some brilliant marketer has decided that the tagline “Obama wants you to shave your back” is going to sell backhair trimmers. It sounds absurd, but maybe there’s a reason that they choose to advertise that the President of the United States is urging you to get your bunions removed. I think they are counting on two factors: first, people are so used to seeing companies get bailed out and billions upon billions of dollars wasted on “economic stimulus,” and second, liberals are pro-authoritarian. While a few might have a mind of their own, many or most are just as willing to take a good liberal at their word. After all, they want their politicians to dictate how much money people can make, what kind of lightbulbs we can buy, what temperature our thermostats can be set at, where and when we can smoke, what kind of toilet paper we can use, how many kids we should have, where we can live, what we can do with our property, etc. So maybe if they think Barack Obama wants them to refinance their mortgage they might just click on the banner.

The Ruse of Materialism

The reason that liberals love the climate change/global warming myth so much is that it allows them to control each and every aspect of everyone’s lives, all the while claiming some sort of unassailable higher ground. It’s the perfect combination of authoritarianism and self-righteousness. And that self-righteousness frequently manifests itself in a do as I say, not as I do reproach of materialism. It’s really fun and easy to decry materialism. But it’s nearly impossible to escape its grasp, very simply because it is really part of life, an inextricable part of the human condition.

What the powers-that-would-be-authoritarian-internationalists desire is to subject everyone–except for them and their families–to mere subsistent living. Their Utopia is a more orderly African continent, spread worldwide. Of course, this really could solve our problems, if you think about it. Obesity would vanish except among the tiny aristocracy, for no one would have more to eat than absolutely necessary. Taxes would be gone, because there would be no individual property. Healthcare would be universally available to all in the form of a waiting line for the doctor’s office that had neither a beginning nor end. Crime would under the control of a central government that operates through fear, intimidation and exclusive control of all firearms. Perhaps I’m sounding a little like Glenn Beck here. For that I apologize. But understand, this is not a prediction that I’m making. This is not my doom and gloom anti-fantasy that I believe is coming, or even that most prominent politicians are seeking. Rather, this is the end result of fascistic, anti-capitalist policies being proposed in Copenhagen and among Marxists and authoritarians around the world.

It is the direction that a very clear majority of world leaders are leaning. And it is reflected in society when we accept and condone anti-materialism. When we make ludicrous statements like “no one should make that much” or “who needs a $10 million dollar house?”, we expose our hubris and envy. These are not decisions for us to make, nor are they (under most circumstances) of any personal consequence.

This is not my personal endorsement of avarice or even the hollywood lifestyle. I don’t believe excessive materialism is a personally constructive pursuit or lifestyle. But rational self-interest is mutually beneficial and controlling materialism is neither in the purview nor interest of a republican government. When you see or hear materialism decried as some great form of evil, realize this is simply a populist ruse based on personal envy. Last I checked, the commandment against envy was the 10th. And materialism? Well, as Michael Bluth once said, “I’m not sure that one made it down the mountain.”

A Fragile Republic

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity” William Butler Yeats

It is often said that Benjamin Franklin was questioned as to what type of government had been adopted after the first Constitutional convention. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” This seems to be a most daunting task in this time. Indeed, the framework of authoritarianism is being built at this very hour. One of the greatest assaults on personal liberty, individual responsibility, scientific progress and free markets– five of the most vital elements that make the United States the greatest nation on God’s green earth– the current “healthcare reform bill(s)” being debated in the Senate will devestate. To deny this to any extent is self deceit. This must be crystal clear: this bill, in whatever form it takes will be the vehicle for universal, single payer healthcare. The socialists have said as much, and the limp wristed moderates and malleable, unprincipled independents will acquiesce, particularly as the liberals become more adament about healthcare being a “right.”
The radical nature of the changes proposed stretch the bounds of credulity. It causes one to doubt if it could actually happen–that the voice of the people could be ignored and our heritage forgetten. Perhaps we can be saved from this fate, one which our founding fathers would say is worse than death.
We can stop this seemingly inevitable slide towards socialsm. Now is the time that all who love freedom must be heard. We must make our petitions to God and to congress. We must inform the ignorant and energize the lethargic. The gradual slide towards socialism is approaching a sheer cliff.

A Fate Worse than Death?

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” General George W. Casey Jr.

On the top is the quote of an unquestioned patriot. Below is a the sentiment of a lifelong politician, genuflecting in a clearly Obamaesque manner to the supremacy of diversity and tolerance above all logic and natural love of life. Patrick Henry was willing to face death to be free. General Casey would rather die than be politically incorrect. Taken at his word, General Casey would rather have a dozen soldiers die and dozens more injured than have Muslims leave the army en masse.

What the Fort Hood shooting has done is reveal another of the things that separates liberals from the mainstream, or even logic itself. Upon hearing of the brutal murder of 13 of America’s finest in cold blood, the biggest concern of the “progressives” has been an imagined backlash, apparently because those of us who are less progressive are intolerant racists inclined to attack anyone who is different than us. While there are bound to be some attacks on a tiny minority by a few crazies, it shouldn’t be our primary concern after the first terrorist attack since 9/11. Indeed, even the often overreacting Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) offered this lukewarm indictment “”Maybe you won’t see any damage if people are more reluctant to go into the military, or if they are thinking about it. Maybe they won’t join, and you won’t know. But it may not be something that’s obvious until years from now.” (Ibrahim Cooper quoted in the Star Tribune here: http://www.startribune.com/local/69625557.htm ) Now if that doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. What is truly alarming is Janet Napolitano’s significantly stronger response against the dreaded backlash. Because that is her job as Homeland Security secretary, to react immediately to any Islamic terrorist attack by protecting Muslims. And also to gin up concerns in Arab countries about angry Americans attacking Muslims at random. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/08/napolitano-warns-anti-muslim-backlash

A study in contrasts: McCain’s Leadership, Obama’s lack of focus.

John McCain has set out a course of action. Barack Obama shrugged and said he will answer his phone if anyone needs him. McCain has set aside his campaign to focus on the biggest potential financial bailout in US history. Obama has intimated that its simply a matter of multitasking, like answering the phone while you are baking cookies. Or maybe calling for takeout while working on a spreadsheet. Is this Barack Obama’s belief in his own political superpowers? Does he actually believe he isn’t subject to the laws of physics and can actually be in two places (Washington and the campaign trail) at once? Or is he underestimating the importance of this issue? I would venture this: he believes, very firmly that talk is more important than action, that his campaign is more important than the economic crisis we’re facing, and most likely that once he becomes President “we will provide care to the sick and good jobs to the jobless…the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal” and since we will have a 100% employment for the first time in the history of the US (and not just employment mind you but “good jobs”) we shouldn’t have to worry about any current economic crisis. So that’s our two Presidential candidates’ plans in this, the biggest economic crisis in decades: one is going to Washington to commit his time in a very close election to helping solve the current crisis, the other is making sure to check his blackberry in between campaign events. One is leading by being involved, determined to get the best deal for the taxpayer and to get it done by this weekend, the other is determined to not let this crisis get in the way of his campaign.
You can tell a lot about someone’s character by looking at their priorities. Obama’s priority since gaining office has been his personal ambition, most likely with the idea that the more resposibility he had the more people he could help. This is probably why he voted “present” on 130 (presumably) controversial bills in the Illinois state senate, and began running for President a short two years and two weeks after being sworn into office in the US senate. You can also tell a lot about someone’s leadership by examining their response to crises. McCain has taken leadership by proposing an aggressive series of meetings with the President and leaders in Congress, affirming his resolve to come to a solution within the week. Obama has shirked responsibility, letting the leaders of Congress and the President figure it out themselves and letting them know they can call him if they need him. How anyone can see a leadership in Barack Obama’s reluctance to be involved in solving one of the biggest financial crises in recent history can only be explained by pure partisanship. Die hard leftists will support Obama no matter what, but those who value leadership, those who seek decisiveness and clear thinking in crises need to look elsewhere.

Rejecting Political Rigidty

“The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend and ally not a 20% traitor” -Ronald Reagan
They’re coming again, those well meaning but ultimately dangerous advocates of political puritanism are back on the attack, up on their high horses. They claim that John McCain’s support for the bailout bills prove that he’s some sort of socialist or worse. The truth is, I’m not sold on how great or awful any of the proposed bailout bills were. There were plenty on both sides of the issue who on other issues would be very unlikely to disagree, and frankly I didn’t have the time and/or patience to read each bill. Obviously, the initial bill was flawed, but to keep insisting that any of the bills would actually cost $700 billion is a bit dishonest since the bills involved purchasing assets and then eventually reselling them. Of course, it is usually this part that conservatives balk at. Clearly, buying and selling property isn’t a normal function of government, and it certainly should be one of the last things that this government does. There are many who have insisted that we should let the free market resolve the credit crisis caused by the unwise use of credit by lenders and lendees, but it wasn’t, in fact the excesses of the free market that caused the credit crisis, but government intervention. Should the market be forced to to correct the wrong that well intentioned federal policies have caused? Perhaps it is betraying my free market principles, but I don’t know how to put the genie back in the bottle. Can we return to a pure free market now, when we have allowed socialism to creep in so far? I hope we can, and it’s too late to debate this since the bill has finally passed, but the credit crisis disabled the free market, and though it would eventually free itself, I don’t see a great deal of harm in this single instance of government intrusion. I certainly could be wrong though, I must admit. It is rare that I feel so politically uncertain as I do right now. But there were many reasonable members of congress who voted for the final bailout bill, including: Bachus, Shadegg, Boozman, Lundgren, Herger, Radanovitch, McKeon, Tancredo, Putnam, Weldon, Souder, Lewis, Rogers, Alexander, Boustany, McCrery, Hoekstra, Camp, Kline, Blunt, Boehner, Schmidt, Cole, Sullivan, Fallin, Shuster, Barrett, Brown, Wilson, Wamp, Sessions, Conaway, Thornberry, Brady, Granger, Cannon, Cantor, Ryan, and Cubin, who all had at least a 90 or higher conservative rating (on a scale of 1-100) from the American Conservative Union in 2007, many who had a perfect 100 rating. Was this the right bill? It’s hard to say, it certainly was very far from perfect. The urgency behind it, though disconcerting, was probably necessary considering the shape of the market last week.
I didn’t mean to go into such detail concerning the bailout bill, because there was a bigger point I wish to make, but it certainly is the biggest political issue since the decision to go to war against Iraq, so I certainly couldn’t ignore it. The point I need to make is that McCain’s lack of perfection isn’t a good enough reason to vote against him. It certainly would be understandable to vote against McCain in the primaries, but this is the general election coming up and rigid political idealism in a national Presidential election would mean voting for someone who has no chance of winning. For a serious conservative, voting for a third party candidate or not voting for President is the same as voting for Obama. For those who proclaim the importance of personal responsibility, copping out and not voting for John McCain is inexcusable, because John McCain is the only candidate who has shown an ability to reject a spending bill, and Barack Obama has never seen a tax he didn’t like. Moreover, there are likely to be two or three new Supreme Court justices in the next 4-8 years. John McCain has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges, Barack Obama prefers activists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. The Supreme Court justices should be enough to convince any on-the-fence conservative that voting for McCain isn’t optional. How a conservative can say they are voting their conscience and not vote for McCain in November is beyond me. To me, it seems they are voting with their heart, because I think their conscience would take issue with not voting against Barack Obama, and that’s the real issue, make no mistake. Primary voting is over, and the candidates are the candidates. We don’t get a do-over in November, we just have to make do. A Barack Obama Presidency would be a disaster, one which would be exceedingly difficult to redeem. And remember, there will be no Republican majority in the house or the senate this time. A McCain Presidency is the only thing that will stand between a Democrat majority and total socialism in the United States. Socialized medical care. Higher taxes across the board. Less religious liberty. No more war on terror. A weak national defense. The list is endless. Just try sell to the American people cutting all the programs Obama will create in four years. And you won’t have the McCain voters to blame.

Who is responsible for our financial crisis?

This is a very hard question to answer, believe me I’ve tried and tried to figure it out. And it’s only because I don’t have a reactionary temperment, nor endless hours to research that it’s taken this long. The answer: nearly everyone. Is one political party more resposible than another? I am very confident to say that it was more the Democratic than Republican party, but it comes down to individual members than whole political parties. Even Alec Baldwin, as loony left as they get, acknowledges that Democrats, especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, have a great deal of responsibility. Read this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/04/baldwin-blames-financial-crisis-clinton-dems-barney-frank. More thoroughly, the eminent economist Thomas Sowell addresses the culpability in one of his recent columns. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100308.php3. It is titled “Do Facts Matter?” because Democrats enabled the financial crisis. And of course, one of Barack Obama’s chief financial advisors, Frank Raines just happened to be running Fannie Mae, which nearly single-handedly causes this crisis. But for some reason people “feel” that Obama can help us out of this crisis. It’s like a bad joke.

Obama’s fascist Third Way

In Barack Obama’s new health care commercial the velvet-smooth narrator intones, “On healthcare reform, two extremes, on one end government run healthcare, higher taxes. On the other end, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong. His plan? Keep employer paid coverage, keep your own doctor, take on insurance companies to bring down costs. Cover pre-existing conditions, cover preventive care. Common sense, for the change we need.” As my favorite talk show host, Michael Medved would say after hearing such pie-in-the-sky drivel, “uh-huh.” Of course the brilliant thing about this tax–ahem–healthcare plan is the third way aspect. Barack Obama stole one right out of Benito Mussolini’s handbook! As Jonah Goldberg put it in his superb book Liberal Fascism, “Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a ‘middle’ or ‘Third Way’ between capitalism and socialism. Mussolini zigzagged every which way, from free trade and low taxes to a totalitarian state apparatus.” Goldberg later continues, “The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically, the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayers say that there are no false choices–’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian beacause they–like communist and heretical Christian movements–assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes that the right man–or, in the case of Leninists, the right party–can resolve all of these contradictions through sheer will.”
Are the pieces falling together now? Is this portrait clear? Barack Obama, the man who would be king–who fosters so much ambition that he can’t serve more than a year in a national office before starting a Presidential campaign–is now advocating a Third Way, and this isn’t likely to be confined to just healthcare. Obama’s overriding ambition and utopian idealism are a dangerous combination. And with a Democratic majority in both the house and the senate, the damage that could be done might be monumental. Don’t be fooled by Obama’s promise to let us “keep employer paid healthcare” (is that better than allowing people to buy and choose their own healthcare?) he is promising to allow those without healthcare to get the same coverage that government workers get. Which is, of course, better than many or perhaps most of employer subsidized health care plans. So how many people are going to keep their employer paid healthcare if they can get cheaper coverage from the government? Just reading Obama’s healthcare plan exhausts an entire year’s worth of suspended disbelief. But this is the man who requires that you believe in to such an extent that he can raise spending by a trillion dollars yet still cut the budget–without any proposed budget cuts to speak of. Is this hope? The true believers sure have hope. They believe. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I want proof.  

 

Understanding the 2008 election

“He changes times and seasons; He sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.” Daniel 2:21 (NIV)

This is perhaps the most difficult blog for me to ever write. Not that these are exceptionally difficult times or anything melodramatic like that. But because I am both perplexed and conflicted in writing it. Perplexed because I don’t understand the why, and conflicted because I want to think better of my countrymen. But here I am, writing, trying to simplify the complicated while still trying to figure it out. This is what I seek to do in every one of my blogs: to connect the dots which so often seem to be scattered so haphazardly. I do this because it seems that truth is constantly obscured, and also because it allows me to understand things personally. That is, while I know what I believe and what I think instictively, writing enables me to put things in perspective.  There is something enlightening about writing. Writing about a given subject doesn’t expose my understanding of it, but rather enables my understanding. I hope I can do the same thing for those reading this.
First, let’s understand that the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is not by any means the sole concern of the 2008 election, though of the contests it might have been the most clear. More troubling, it seems to me is the number of “red states” which turned “blue” in the national election. Obviously, this had to happen in order for Obama to win, but the way it happened is quite disconcerting. North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia aren’t supposed to vote for a democrat, but they all did. Likewise, Elizabeth Dole wasn’t supposed to lose her senate seat in the (formerly?) conservative state of North Carolina. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader isn’t supposed to struggle to maintain his seat in conservative Kentucky. In Pennsylvania, the detestable Jack Murtha–who openly called his own constituents racists, then when confronted didn’t retract his comment, but instead changed his insult to rednecks–managed to keep his seat in Congress. Of course, this was not Murtha’s only repulsive comment in recent memory. Murtha infamously disgraced himself and discredited his military service by proclaiming that marines had killed innocent civilians in cold blood in the Iraqi city of Haditha. This, despite the fact that the investigation of the Haditha incident was still under investigation and Murtha hadn’t even read the report. But Murtha was an incumbent. The situation in Minnesota is almost as bad. The immently disgraceful one, Al Franken nearly won a US senate seat over the experienced, competent, independent and thoroughly likeable Norm Coleman. Franken isn’t even a good comedian, is an unsuccessful talk show host and a remarkably angry and meanspirited political commentator, and as cuddly as a porcupine. Yet Coleman barely won the election and it was so close there is a mandatory recount that will get started any month now. Granted, Dean Barkley entered the race and probably stole a few of Coleman’s votes, but the fact remains that Al Franken was only a couple hundred votes away from being Minnesota’s second radical left wing senator, possibly to the left of even Amy Klobuchar.
The examples of how liberal this election was are numerous and can be seen at nearly every level. The question is, why? Rather than impune motives, denegrate the intelligence, or question the patriotism of the electorate, I submit that to some extent this election was an indictment of our character. Specifically, this election exposed our growing love of convenience. Leisure has become our new national past time, one which we will legislate, if necessary. Why should we pay for and choose our own healthcare if the government can do it for us? Why should we have to work to pay off our school loans if the department of education can pay for it? Why should we have to pay attention to what we eat, when the FDA and legislators can just outlaw what’s bad for us? Why should we take responsibility for our family, when human services can handle it? We have spurned individual responsibility in favor of newly found “rights.” We have mistaken subjective fairness for objective justice and rejected reason in deference to emotion.
Barack Obama was wrong. His campaign slogan might have been “change we can believe in”, but it was nihilism–a belief in nothing at all– that won the day. This is not a declaration of defeat, nor an indictment of the United States as a whole. This is still the greatest country in the world, and we still love freedom more than anyone else. To lose faith in the American people is unthinkable, for it would mean surrendering to the same nihilism.

A dispassionate look at the economy

“Men of intemperate minds never can be free: their passions form their fetters.” –Edmund Burke

“We are always paid for our suspicion by finding what we suspect.” — Henry David Thoureau

There’s a story I am fond of telling, the origin of which is forever lost between synapses destined never to fire again. A professor, in an experiment, assigns to two different groups of students the same project. Go out and survey a certain number of people. The students were told to ask one question, with only a yes or no answer. One group was told that the average or expected results would be 60% yes and 40% no. The other group was told to expect 40% yes and 60% no. The groups came back, and both groups got what they were told to expect. Expectation and perception are two very big shapers of what we commonly call “reality” or “life.” Unfortunately, the liberal media often actively shapes our perceptions in the most imperceptible ways. And it is almost never for the good.
With regard to the economy, it is almost exclusively destructive. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in As Good as it Gets, We’re drowning here, and they’re describing the water. But it is more like a constant drumbeat of a sort of fatalistic, mololithic press that cries “Recession! Recession!” with the wince of a masochist, barely able to hold back a giant grin. For good news is truly no news these days. Consider the inane and utterly unnewsworthy coverage of gas prices on a weekly basis when our economy was actually growing. Now that gas prices have fallen precipitously, where is the coverage? Where is the silver lining that comes with this recession? I’ll give you a hint: you won’t ever hear of one on ABC or CBS or NBC. You won’t find stories about the natural business cycle in your local, state or national newspaper. No one will ever actually admit that the government can’t prevent, fix, or shorten a recession. Because that doesn’t fit with their story. Its no wonder we’re in a recession. We’ve been talking ourselves into one for the last 3 years. This is why the consumer confidence index is such an important economic indicator. Consumer confidence is by definition a psychological factor– guided by perception as much as hard economic reality. The only fix for this economy is a vital combination of individual action and collective optimism. Individually, we must prepare ourselves for the worst but hope (in the Obama meaning) for the best. Collectively, we need to remember we still live in the greatest nation in the world and have the most economic opportunity of anyone. And focusing on the rising water will only hasten our demise.

Obama doesn’t care about your IRA

President Barack Obama doesn’t care about your 401k or your precious IRA. As he said Tuesday, “the market bobs up and down day to day, and if you worry about that, you’re probably going to get your long term strategy wrong.” Displaying his vast lack of financial knowledge, he also stated that stocks are “potentially a good deal” because “profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it.” Of course, P/E ratios, which stands for price to earnings and measures a stocks relative value (literally the value of all outstanding stock divided by the annual earnings) have been going down, but the reason stock prices are more than the earnings is because investors factor in anticipated earnings. Therefore, the stock market isn’t just a barometer of the current economic situation, but also a measure of the perceived future of the economy. And unfortunately for Obama, the market hasn’t fluctuated since he won the election in November. It has tanked. I wonder if he’s noticed? After all, why would he refer to the stock market being down 30% since his election as “market fluctuation”? Isn’t that a slap in the face to everyone with a retirement savings plan? Calling 200 point drops in the DJI average every other day “market fluctuation” is like calling a bank robbery “asset fluctuation” or referring to the Minnesota Timberwolves’ season as “record fluctuation.” It reflects either a lack of understanding of the serious nature of the problem, a callous disregard or ignorance of how it affects investors (including just about everyone with an IRA, 401k or any stocks or mutual funds) or maybe, just maybe he is aware of all of this but just doesn’t care. There’s one thing I want to make abundantly clear here: I am not one to impune the motives of those who I disagree with, no matter how vehement the disagreement. I believe that Barack Obama wants the best for his country. I don’t think that Obama is “a radical communist.” I don’t even think he’s a fascist, despite his fascist tendencies and several blogs I might have written with Obama and fascist in the title. I believe that he believes he knows what’s best for this country, and probably thinks he could help you run your life a little better. And what’s best for this country? Less money for the rich, he can spend it better than they can. Don’t worry, all you demonized yacht and private jet manufacturers, your bailout is coming soon. And don’t worry charities who are losing large donations because of higher taxes on the rich and limited tax deductions for donations. The government can do it better than you. Besides, the government doesn’t have to ask for donations, it just has to raise your taxes.  But this is also why I say President Barack Obama doesn’t care about your IRA. Because he doesn’t care about the stock market. The stock market is simply for the independently wealthy and if they lose money, who cares? And Barack Obama has previously indicated that the health of the economy isn’t as important as fairness. It is more important to bring the rich down than for everyone to do better. This is what he said a little over a year ago while on the campaign trail. “[W]hat I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.” He later stated how he didn’t want to raise our national debt (a lame excuse for raising taxes if there ever were one, and obviously untrue). This was in reaction to a question about how cutting capital gains taxes helps the economy. And he did not bother to disagree with this statement, though he didn’t agree either. The point he made is very clear, however. It isn’t fair to make too much money, and if cutting your taxes helps the economy it doesn’t matter, because fairness is more important. This is the tyranny of socialism. This is the contradiction of so-called progressivism. Equality trumps economic progress. Equality of results is favored over equality of opportunity. So, if those super wealthy lost billions and the average joe just thousands, this is a win in Barack Obama’s mind. Bringing those on the top down is at least as or more important than bringing those on the bottom up. And those on the bottom? Don’t worry, that’s what the government’s there for.

Obama’s stimulus: only for party members

This is a quote of a quote, but I think it is right on point. James Pethokoukis, quotes Economist Joel Kotkin here:http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/3/8/obamas-chicago-style-economics.html saying,

“The question is what strategy? Right now it seems like Chicago style interest politics with a Moveon.org spin. Money will be there for key what passes for”left” groups – urban real estate interests, greens, smart growthers, wind/solar lobby and, the shocktroops, the public employee unions. This is not a growth strategy but a politic technique designed to knit together a coalition of poor urbanites, bureaucrats, professors, greens and the Gorite energy speculators. It may work politically but I wonder what it will do longer-term for the economy.

Few serious people outside the Administration and its “ditto heads” around think this will turn around the private economy, although it may boost many individuals’ economies. Private sector employment is collapsing even in the last strong economies – the Great Plains and Texas. The hangover in capital markets will make the government the defacto funder of first resort.”

My thoughts precisely. These are investments with no expected payoff, except politically. Which is what liberals mean when they call public spending “investment.” It is an investment in their political future, an investment to grow their political base.

The Onslaught of Fascism

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ” Gerald Ford
It’s not even coming slowly any more. No, Barack Obama and his ever willing congress is attacking liberty at every turn. And it’s easy to spot when you know where to look, as it’s not hidden, the fascism is merely camoflaged. It’s simply called government spending. Each dollar that government spends beyond the most basic of national defense and police, the court system, etc. is a dollar spent in the enslavement of the American people. When someone spends more time working to pay taxes than they do for themselves are they actually free? Every single action of this administration has been to one dangerous end: more power for government. This is why instead of cutting taxes to “stimulate the economy”–which is exactly what tax cuts would do– we are spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have. It is a gamble which might make the Barack Obama Presidency significantly more infamous in the future than it has been historic thus far. How any supporter of Barack Obama can justify such massive spending when he hasn’t even begun bankrupting the country with nationalized healthcare and cap amd trade–aka economic suicide– is beyond me.
The result of these radical changes, if they are all implemented, particularly if the economy doesn’t begin picking up soon–I don’t know what will happen, I can’t conceive it, but it will signify the victory of fascism. This is why I don’t think it will happen. The American people will rise up. Obama is a shrewd politician and I don’t think anyone is ready for this radical change. The 2010 election seems so far away, but the Democrats’ overreaching will backfire. Reality is starting to kick in regarding Obama’s naive pledge to close Gitmo.
There’s so much to say here, so many things to write about, it’s very frustrating. I think my recent case of writer’s block is not for a lack of things to say or issues to talk about. To the contrary, there’s too much for my addled mind to focus on just one issue at a time. But it can all be boiled down to a simple idea: Barack Obama and liberals in general believe that they know better than individuals and corporations at running their lives and companies. The only logical solution for this new aristocracy is to take over for us all. And how will they accomplish this? By simply growing government. Every new regulation, every new tax, every new program, every extra-constitutional “czar” added to the President’s staff, every bailout, every smoking ban, every little annoyance, every nonsensical resolution, every government take over, every new welfare program–these are the building blocks of fascism, the links of the chains that enslave each and everyone of us. Please don’t misunderstand me; government is entirely necessary and is even capable of doing good. But it does so by protecting personal freedom. Once the government seeks to do good for individuals, once it steps outside reactive law enforcement and tries to protect people from themselves or bestow wealth to the poor, it begins to take away those freedoms it was supposed to protect.

Rejecting Populism

Dictionary.com describes populism as follows: 1.the political philosophy of the People’s party 2.(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies. 3.(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts.  Actually explaining the concept of populism is more complicated. The simplest way for me to explain it is that populism is the victimhood of the common man. Typical populist gripes are about how someone makes too much money (very popular are professional athletes and CEOs) and usually include defeatist attitudes and the general idea of a conspiracy or collusion among the powerful and wealthy against “us.”
In short, populism is an appealing but dangerously insidious force that politicians use in the most cynical ways in order to control people. It takes an educated and critical thinker to resist the siren’s song of populism, but resist we must. We must reject deifying “the common man” or “average joe” as politicians so often like to do. It is a pernicious self-delusion appealing to a false idealization. Populism is the politics of the narcissist. It fails to look the at country, particularly the ever-so-divine middle class with a critical eye. Populism is ugly, self serving and self destructive.
Even conservatives get it wrong, in so many ways about populism. There are so many maxims, myths, and general pie in the sky ideas that are used in common political talk that are based in populist myths, it would take dozens of blogs to debunk them all. Good thing I don’t have many blog ideas right now. I guess this is the start of another series of blogs. Here are just a few examples of populist folklore which politicians run to whenever they are running for office or see their poll numbers tanking: energy independence, outsourcing, price gouging, collusion among businesses, windfall profits, conspiracy theories, golden parachutes, the ridiculously populist and factually incorrect song “shutting detroit down” (which totally drives me nuts), the precautionary principle, global climate change, the two party system has to go, and reality tv. Okay, so I threw in reality tv there at the end, which isn’t really an issue but is totally populist, which is probably why I despise it so much.
In summation, populism is the result of lazy thinking. There, I said it. Now that I called you stupid, since you probably believe in a lot or all of those things you’ll probably hate me. But that’s the risk of going against populist myth. People have already had their minds made up for them about these things because they have failed to look at these issues critically. Instead, they have followed the path of least resistance and are floating downstream like so many dead fish. Please take some time with me, if you’ve read this far and try to look at these issues objectively. Instead of envying the rich, realize that many, if not most of these people are poorer than you in many ways and really have sad existences. This website chronicles some of the really sad stories of those “lucky” lottery winners: http://www.lottoreport.com/sadbuttrue.htm Make it a practice every day like Michael Medved does, to say “I am not a victim!” And understand that returning to a production economy, to return low paying jobs which have been shipped overseas is no way to improve an economy. Realize that in a global economy, “energy independence” isn’t a viable or even attractive goal. And this isn’t a nation of “haves” and “have nots.” We are not stuck in one particular class all our lives and we can always better ourselves financially and otherwise, so long as we live in a free country.
The more I write about this, the more important I think this topic is. It really is something that needs to be heard. I don’t care about being offensive as long as I speak the truth as best I know it. But voicing these opinions in polite conversation probably would result in bitter arguments, that is why I am writing this blog without any provocation. There is no specific impetus for this blog, only my continual displeasure with both friends and family and nearly everyone I ever attempt to talk politics with on these issues. My purpose is not to alienate, but inform. My desire is to put an end to the tactful sidestepping of populist issues. I am no longer willing to just play devil’s advocate to populist screeds. It is time to demolish these myths and insist on logical arguments. Because populism never passes a logical analysis.

Obama’s Straw Man Fallacy

One of the more infuriating aspects of Barack Obama’s presidency thus far is reliance on strawmen when making policy arguments. In fact, it would be difficult to point to any policy discussion in which Obama hasn’t engaged in this disingenuous discourse. Reflexively, he and his administration rejects any opposition to his policies as defense of the dreaded “status quo.” He continually stated when proposing his outrageous and untenable “stimulus” bill that doing nothing was not an option. As if that was the only other option. Joe Biden used the same “anything is better than nothing” argument just today concerning the newly tweaked health care bill. But this is all nonsense. Doing nothing is always an option, especially when the action we’re taking only make the problems worse. Which is exactly what Obama’s stimulus package will do according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9987/Gregg_Year-by-Year_Stimulus.pdf The same, no doubt is true concerning the government healthcare that they want to shove down our collective throat. Just take a little time and read between the lines. Obama continually states that we have to cut overall spending on healthcare. Yet, at the same time he is saying that everyone needs to have insurance. More people with insurance means more people demanding healthcare, and if those people don’t have to pay much or anything for their doctor visits, spending will dramatically increase. The only way to cut overall spending is to limit the services that are available, otherwise known as rationing. This was euphamistically referred to as ” realigning incentives to focus on quality care, instead of quantity of procedures” by Joe Biden this afternoon. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to read between the lines here. Fewer procedures means saving money while raising the risk if the doctor’s wrong. And how exactly are they going to “raise incentives to focus on quality care” in the first place? If the doctor does a really good job, he’s going to be paid more? Does that make any sense? This is all just camouflage for more government control. The power grab by the federal government isn’t going to stop anytime as long as democrats are in charge. And the alternative? Well if you believe them, there is no alternative.

The Meaning of Eternal Vigilance

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active.  The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran

If July 4th is to have any meaningful significance beyond a historic day in the 18th century– if there is really any cause for celebration, if the founding of this nation holds any transcendence– then it is up to us, the benefactors of the greatest civil inheritance history has ever known to both understand and guard it. This inheritance is the greatest level of personal liberty that man has known under human rule. And the product of this restrained liberty has been the greatest level of prosperity in history. True gratitude for this great legacy requires a jealous defense of the individual freedom which our founding fathers secured for us through the American Revolution.
But the prosperity which we have the priviledge to enjoy today is jeopardized by our collective ignorance and apathy. While it is certainly important to recognize the sacrifices that our troops are making every day and have made in the wars of the past, it is impossible to truly appreciate their sacrifice without fully recognizing the exceptional situation which we have today. We are indeed the freest nation in the world because we have a constitution unlike any other in the world, written by mortal men who truly believed that God’s hand sustained and enabled them to ”secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posterity.  
Eternal vigilance requires that we protect this Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, just as soldiers are required to pledge.  The most basic way to do this is to love and guard our rights which the Constitution guarantees. Obviously, the space and time constraints on me as a writer do not allow me to thoroughly enumerate and expound upon these rights. But there are fundamental rights that the writers of the Constitution identified from which all other rights are derived. This was what was commonly called natural (meaning God-given) law, summed up in the Declaration of Independence as ”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but are more commonly referred to as life, liberty and property.
Each of these fundamental rights is continually under attack, more often by domestic than foreign enemies. Our duty, then, is to understand what these rights mean, how they are being attacked, and do whatever we can to defend them. This requires an active involvement in the cause of liberty. If not in direct involvement, at least in indirect or simple ways, like supporting those who protect our freedoms both in the foreign battlefield as well the ideological battlefield, such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute or other great institutions. I daresay, however, that without political involvement, particularly at the grass roots level, our Constitution will no longer be relevant to political discussion. Some day, we will have so strayed from the Constitution and our founding father’s original intent, that only a violent overthrow of the government would liberate us. We cannot afford apathy anymore. We must not remain blind to the intrusions on our liberties. While we are still empowered to do something, we must take action.

In Defense of the Republican Party and Partisanship

It’s become very in vogue among conservatives to beat up the Republican Party over the last couple of years. And many Republicans have deserved to be criticized for their liberal votes and policies. Medicare part D is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the last several years. There certainly have been some bad Republicans lately, both in policy and personal behavior. I believe that some have taken the easy way out by adopting a populist-yet-conservative philosophy. They say they don’t care about party, they just want people in office that listen to the people. They want politicians who believe in and understand the Constitution. They want politicians with “common sense.” They don’t care what party you’re in if you are a true conservative.
The problem with this is it doesn’t work that way. It might sound good. It might feel good, like you’re proclaiming your independence from any given party. You’re no partisan hack, you’re a free thinker! Or maybe you’re even a “libertarian.” You don’t vote for Libertarians and think they get carried away sometimes, but you like that they’re so individualistic they have absolutely no cooperation or cohesive strategy. Well, stop patting yourself on the back for a minute and think about this critically for a second. You don’t care what party someone’s in? I think you do. Have you ever once found a conservative Democrat? Can you think of one Democrat that you are glad you voted for or wanted to vote for? Have you ever seen a race in which the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican? Of course, the answer for any conservative to these questions would be no. Perhaps there’s an exception to this out there somewhere, but it would be an extremely rare exception. (Zell Miller, perhaps?) And it doesn’t pay to vote for third party candidates. Third party candidates are automatic losers. If a third party candidate actually wins election it is a candidate that is more liberal than the Republican. Libertarians have yet to win a national office. Furthermore, which would be more feasible: to elect a conservative Republican or a third party candidate? While all Republicans aren’t perfect, and there are some that are almost just as liberal as Democrats, following a rigidly idealist voting strategy is simply not helpful. A vote which is wasted on a third party candidate is not only one vote which a Republican should get, it is also an encouragement to the needless and harmful third party.
But before I go further, let me just point out how great some of our conservative Republicans are. You wouldn’t know it by listening to those “conservatives” who enjoy defaming everything Republican, but there are some great leaders in both the House and the Senate who stand for individual liberty, a strong national defense, real family values, and limited government. Leaders like Jim DeMint, John Thune, James Imhofe, and Jon Kyl in the Senate. True conservatives such as Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Jeff Miller, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan in the House. While none of these are perfect, they are all true conservatives, and they’re all Republicans. They could very well agree with those conservatives who express antipathy towards the Republican party on 100% of the issues. Aren’t the conservatives who demonize the Republican party attacking real conservatives like these? I would argue yes. By turning “Republican” into some dirty word, they are besmirching all Republicans. They are throwing the  baby out with the bath water in some delusional and self serving attempt at “objectivity” or ”fairness.”
The question is, what can an average person do to help more conservatives elected, how can we as individuals affect national politics in a way that favors individual liberty? The answer is not to waste a vote on a meaningless loser. The answer is to get involved at the local level first. Get involved in your local Republican party. Read the Republican platform. You can find it right here: http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. I dare you to find something you disagree with in it. More importantly, get involved in the primary process. Inform yourself on the primary candidates, find the best conservative leader and advocate for him. I realize this isn’t easy. It takes work to actually make an impact in politics. But just like those who don’t vote shouldn’t complain about our politicians, those who don’t vote in the Republican primary shouldn’t complain about the Republican Party. Unless you’re a Democrat.
Finally, let me say that there is certainly more to life than politics. This is, as Jefferson might say, self evident. But politics does require a great deal of passion and knowledge from those who would wish to actually serve their country in a seemingly self-serving profession. Indeed, our founding fathers truly saw themselves and office holders as public servants. For this reason they gave office holders a meager salary. Higher office was an honor bestowed, not a duly chosen position of power. Great conservatives tend to not make a career out of politics, though it could be argued that they could better serve their country if they remained in the system. But conservatives don’t treasure the power. They don’t tolerate the types of strain that public life puts on their families. They have interests outside of politics and they realize there is more to life. But it is commitment to those individual, Judeo-Christian principles which animates a true conservative. A passion for politics does not strip someone of his social or cultural ideals, nor does it require that he lose his moral and religious foundation. Rather, true men of integrity recognize that they are inseparable. An exposition of religious principles naturally relates to certain corresponding political philosophies and vice versa. These worldviews are what separates left from right, pagan from orthodoxy.

Liberty and Justice

Something struck me today, as I was hearing of the Obama administration’s disgraceful witch hunt du jour. I immediately thought of what is quite possibly the most cowardly and immoral “justice” decision in recent history, which just happened last week with the “compassionate” release of the Lockerbie bomber. What is most abundantly clear is that liberals and conservatives have vastly different ideas of what constitutes compassion and justice. Liberals want liberty and compassion for all and “social justice” for minorities and the poor. Conservatives want liberty and justice for all and compassion for the poor and disadvantaged. Of course, the difference is in liberals’ and conservatives’ idea of liberty.
The reason that liberty is paired so closely with justice is because it is impossible to have one without the other. Liberty is neither universal nor absolute, because this is anarchy and anarchy is neither sustainable nor desireable. In anarchy, the strong abuse the weak and thus deny them their personal liberty. Justice, then is inseverable from liberty. And it is justice which liberals seem to abhor most. If you listen to a liberal speak of the justice system, they hardly ever use the word, or when they do, they don’t use it literally, but emotionally. Instead, they see the justice system as trying to fix or “rehabilitate” the convicted. Instead of protecting society and dispensing fair punishment, they are more concerned with fixing the criminals. They see the correctional system as a way to discourage criminal acts, not to right wrongs. Because they loathe personal responsibility, their “compassion” is amoral, spread equally among victims and perpetrators of crime. Which is why they can justify not only not putting to death the most evil people such as the Lockerbie bomber, but also freeing such types in the name of “compassion.”
Their compassion for those who willfully choose to kill, maime and torture is nearly limitless, particularly on the fringes of the left wing. They choose to empathize with killers as much as or more than the victim’s family (they like to say that capital punishment won’t bring the dead back, again showing their inability to understand that in a just society, actions have consequences).  And their ideas of what constitutes “torture” is laughable in the extreme, particularly for anyone with any knowledge of historical torture tactics. Somewhere along the way, they decided that any mental anguish that an interrogator might inflict–regardless of whether they are criminals or non-uniformed enemy combatants–constitutes torture or “mistreatment.” I heard one example was that they told Mohamed Atta that they were going to kill his family if he didn’t cooperate, another example was that a CIA agent fired a gun in the next room and told a prisoner that he just killed another terrorist. Such tactics, though potentially frightening, fall far short of anything approaching cruelty in my book. Perhaps they prefer the torture of the Monty Python “Spanish Inquisition” in which the inept inquisitioners tie prisoners to a dish rack or force their victims to sit on “the comfy couch”? Harsh interrogation tactics which do not injure terrorist suspects seem completely legal (since nonuniformed enemy combatants aren’t covered by the Geneva Convention) and, it can be argued, completely ethical if they are used to gain information to save innocent lives. The justice system exists to maintain the rights and freedoms of law abiding individuals, not to rehabilitate or even punish the law breaker. Therefore, unreasonable judicial leniency threatens  and erodes individual liberty.

Individual vs. Organizational Responsibility

“I want a health insurance system that works as well for the American people as it does for the insurance industry. They should be free to make a profit, but they also have to be fair, they also have to be accountable. That’s what we’re talking about, security and stability for folks who have health insurance, help for those who don’t.” Barack Obama 9/7/09
It’s obvious here, to any person that doesn’t get goosebumps when they hear Barack Obama’s voice that the insurance companies are on our President’s hit list. When someone a politician has been demonizing a particular industry so brazenly for so long attempts such an obviously half-hearted endorsement of the need of corporations to make a profit–well it’s like the dreaded “vote of confidence” a football GM might give an unpopular head coach. It’s just like Obama’s view on building coal power plants. The insurance businesses can keep selling insurance, they just have to figure out how to make a profit under rules that totally destroy their ability to make a profit.

Clearly, Obama’s plans for health insurance will make it impossible for health insurance companies to stay in business. Which is precisely the reason he wants to legislate that health insurance must be “affordable” to everyone. The concept of affordability is so nebulous and plastic, it provides an almost unlimited range for new government regulation. And the idea that government can regulate anything to make it more affordable is beyond absurd. But it points to a clear strategy that democrats have been pushing lately. Democrats–who hold the free market in contempt–establish onerous regulations and pervert market conditions to favor socialist organizations like labor unions, then blame capitalism and greed (a pejorative code word for rational self interest) for the failure. It is the template that has been tried on every “third way” program that liberals have proposed. When the system fails, it is a demonstration that capitalism doesn’t work. As if socialism could ever work. If socialist programs were judged on the same grounds that a free market company is judged, no one could defend socialism. But if one company fails to succeed in the free market, it is an indictment of the whole system. And government regulation and interference is never considered causal. 

Instead, legislation is crafted to pander to populist concerns with corporations, “protecting” consumers and demonizing the profit motive.  It is organizations that are continually being held responsible for consumer safety, not the consumers themselves. It is government’s responsibility to protect individual from themselves. In fact, there are few limits to the responsibility of government. Anywhere the individual’s responsibility ends, government’s responsibility begins. And an individual’s responsibility begins wherever they say it does. This is the populist heart of the Democrat party. The individual cannot take responsibility for something which has has been ceded to organizational responsibility.

Misanthropy and Environmentalism

“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated.” Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder

The reason I am so violently anti-environmentalist is because I believe at the heart of it, environmentalism is destructive, misanthropic, and Godless. I can scarcely think of one redeeming quality of environmentalism. Yes, I’m all for national parks and the like and keeping the environment clean. But this is not what the modern environmental movement is about today. I am all for sensible conservation. I am against starving people to death because some people want to feel good about “sustainable farming” and “organic” food. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/26/185816.shtml and http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sec006group5/africa) I don’t think that people are a cancer on the earth (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/humcan.html) nor do I believe that there is an “optimum population” for the earth. (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html) I don’t think millions of people should have died in Africa because of the DDT ban. (one of  the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, largely unreported) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html I don’t like mysticism, neopaganism or other superstitious pseudo-faiths. And yet slowly but surely these fringe ideas are slipping into the mainstream. http://stanford.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/deep-ecology-misanthropy-moving-into-mainstream-environmentalism/631701 There just isn’t good science to support any of the green movement’s ideas and claims about nearly everything. We aren’t destroying the earth, at least not in the USA. The US is substantially cleaner than even 40 years ago. And I would discourage any God fearing person from believing that He would allow us to destroy it. The bottom line is this simple: environmentalism opposes the health and growth of the human race by prioritizing the “health of the planet” above the personal choices, quality of living, reproductive choice (i.e. the choice to have as many children as you want) and health of its human inhabitants. It quite literally seeks to destroy human life because human life is a cancer that is destroying all other life. This alone should make the green movement absolutely intolerable and should cause any rational person to oppose it. But the kicker is that none of it is true. Even if you believed the survival of the earth were more important than the survival of the human race, the environmental movement (for the most part) gets it wrong. Because mankind isn’t a cancer, and we aren’t destroying the environment. I don’t know if you’ve seen the Planet Earth documentary, but I dare anyone to watch that and explain how humans are destroying the earth.

The Individual vs. the State

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Thomas Paine

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Benito Mussolini

I am in the midst of re-reading the most enlightening book The 5000 Year Leap in honor of the July 4th holiday. What I am initially reminded of by this book is the fact that the left/right paradigm of our founding fathers was far different from the commonly accepted version today. While the current paradigm situates communism on the far left and fascism on the right, theirs was a more logical and functional continuum, with tyranny on the far left and anarchy on the far right. Instead of vague political ideas based upon a flawed interpretation of political parties, this scale represents the distribution of power. In the current paradigm, both extremes are nearly identical, with the state yielding all the power. But the biggest problem with this sort of continuum is that it indicates that conservatives wish to have as much power in the state as liberals. This is an obvious slander based upon an exaggeration of conservatives’ belief in law and order and traditional family values.
And it is family values that is the sticking point between liberals and conservatives. Both sides might believe in them in theory, but liberals must do everything within their power to subvert them. Because strong families are necessarily buffers to state power. Families command greater loyalty than the state. Likewise, fervent religion creates a greater loyalty. If you destroy families and true religion, the individual’s only resource is either charities or, more likely, the state. And don’t for a second think the liberals don’t want to destroy charities. Barack Obama has already proposed that the charitable giving deduction be cut–so money that could be given to charities goes where he believes it truly belongs, the government.
Laws which protect families, which ensure individual security, and which solidify and encourage voluntary association are necessary and good, because they encourage private endeavors and individual responsibility. Laws which discourage individual responsibility, which undermine family or voluntary association are an intolerable evil.
Determining which laws are which is undoubtedly a tricky proposition, but there are more than enough that are indisputably within the latter category which must be abolished.
When the state grows, it must invariably do so at the expense of the individual. Our founding fathers had it right. We need to identify what the government needs to do, based upon the Constitution, and the rest of the power falls to the states and individuals.

Not Another Conspiracy Blog

There are people who will believe anything and then there are the really gullible people. The really gullible people? They’re call conspiracy theorists. Their conspiracies always serve their political views–or they get special attention from people who believe these theories. The biggest problem with these conspiracy theories is they always lack one thing: tangible proof. If they had logical arguments and tangible proof, they wouldn’t be conspiracy theories. They would be commonly accepted. We don’t live in the USSR, people can say anything they want. And they do. We have a free press, anyone can write whatever they want. And they do. The really gullible have decided they will believe anything except for “the official story” as if each and every auspice of the government worked in conjunction with the other, following a rigid dogma that only religious cults have managed to maintain for short periods of time.
But ours is still a country of individuals. Individual rights and opinions have long been one of the defining characteristics of our culture, as firmly evidenced by the plethora of conspiracies and conspiracy theorists. And as a country of individuals, there is almost no ability of anyone to keep a secret. Consider the John Edwards’ fiasco, Watergate or any number of given scandals. They were all exposed in the middle of the scandal by individuals who “blew the whistle.” Indeed, the whistleblower is regarded a great deal of respect in our culture, and even freedom from retaliation in our laws.
People who believe that massive conspiracies can take place under our very noses are particularly naive about human nature. All these conspiracies require hundreds or more likely thousands of people to keep this secret. But it only takes one person to change their mind. It only takes one person to imagine all the press and attention they’ll get when they come out and expose the conspiracy. Occam’s razor has been a staple of logic theory for centuries because it is true: the simplest answer is usually the best. The more complex an explanation is, the more unbelievable. The more working parts a program has, the more that can go wrong. Consider the Apollo 11 moon landing conspiracy theory. How many years went into the planning of the mission? How many people were involved? How much money was spent? Multiply each of those numbers by ten, and that’s how much it would take to make it look like it happened when it actually didn’t. The number of people it would take to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy would be in the tens of thousands in the most conservative cases.
The only thing conspiracy theorists have are questions and an unwaivering commitment to believe anything except for a simple, honest answer. As the saying on X-files goes, they “want to believe.” And believe they do, in spite of logical answers and common sense reasoning. They choose to believe in the omnipotence of government because it’s what they fear the most. But those who believe this are not true conservatives, because a true conservative knows that if government ever attempted to deceive the American people on such a grand scale it would turn out like all the other stupid government programs, and accomplish absolutely nothing. If the government actually had a hand in 9/11, all the planes would have ended up like flight 93. In short, 9/11 was entirely too successful to be government work, and the framing of the 9/11 hijackers is beyond the comprehension of anyone except those who live in the make-believe worlds where governments can and will get away with anything they want. If I were a 9/11 truther who believed in an ultra-competent government that murdered its own citizens and was going to do other nefarious deeds, I would take up arms immediately. But you don’t see Alex Jones doing anything of the sort, do you? I suspect it’s because he doesn’t believe half of what he actually says. He is the consumate demagogue.

Multiculturalism: the Nihilistic Trojan Horse

ni⋅hil⋅ism [nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-] –noun 1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.
4. Philosophy. a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
(from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism)

“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.” Osama Bin Laden

Multiculturalism is the lie that all cultures are equal. Or maybe some believe they just should be treated equally. Regardless, to embrace the lie that cultures that celebrate death are equal to cultures that celebrate life is to reject objective truth. The folly of this is that no matter how irrational a culture might be, very few if any people from a non-western culture would offer the same deference. To believe in multiculuralism literally is to reject any notion of good and evil or right and wrong, because nearly everything that anyone regards as immoral or wrong is permissable in one culture or another. Check out my blog on the Kombai tribe for a few examples: http://totallyobliviousguy.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/cultural-confusion. So, logically speaking (I understand it’s asking a lot for most people who try to push multiculturalism to think logically) multiculturalism is nihilism. It is not merely nihilistic, it is nihilism at its very core.
Now come the concessions. Yes, there is some value in cultural customs from across the world, and we can learn things from other cultures. But there are objective concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil. And the cultures that identify and emphasize those are the most productive and advanced for a reason. To reject the moral superiority of western cultures (though they are far from perfect) is to reject civilization and modernity as we know it. Finally, we must separate the individuals from their culture. To say that one civilization’s culture is better than another’s is not to degrade the individuals in an inferior culture, nor does it somehow make them less human. But this should be self evident. To

The Truth About the Environmentalist Movement

Now, in video! A great video that really gets to the heart of the environmentalist movement. It really is all about the triumph of emotion over logic.

Climate Chains from Climate Chains on Vimeo.