Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Obama Finds Jesus, Says He's Great
Obama is not who he is presenting himself as. I know all politicians move toward the center after the primaries, but Obama's newfound respect for the Christian faith is ridiculous given his previous statements of contempt for people of faith. Obama is a TEXTBOOK liberal straight out of the 1930s. He's a socialist, he's a statist, and he has a marxist view of religion. Fine, great, if that works for you, go for it. What downright offends me is when he's disingenuous and represents himself as someone he's not. If you think people "cling" to religion out of prejudice, or irrationality, or fear of brown people and change, fine, we can debate that, but don't insult my intelligence by trying to cozy up to James Dobson. Kudos to you Mr. Dobson for calling him out and pointing out his bastardization of the scripture. Leftists using scripture to justify their convictions bothers me to no end because the real secular leftists have no convictions about scripture. They see the Bible as just an old collection of myths, just an "opiate of the masses". Obama's contention that the Sermon on the Mount condemns the Defense Department is ludicrous. If Obama had learned anything in church besides "Whitey = Satan" maybe he'd understand that the Sermon on the Mount condemns the entire world as sinful because none of us can live up to its ideals. Thank God the Defense Department understands that the world isn't filled with nations concerned with blessing the meek or peacemaking. Its filled with Kim Jong Ils and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads. The Bible says there can't be a Heaven on Earth until Christ's return, so stop using it to justify your attempts at a leftist utopia. Don't sit there and pretend to have common cause with evangelicals when we know full damn well what the "liberation theology" taught at Trinity United is all about. I'm going to go more in depth on this as the campaign continues.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Does Yelling "Heil Hansen" Produce Too Much Carbon?
Anyone who doesn't believe that the environmental movement has become a haven for anti-capitalist types like Communists and Fascists needs to take a good look at NASA scientist James Hansen's testimony today before Congress. According to The Guardian he plans to call:
"for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Regardless of your opinion on climate change, this is Stalinist. Outlawing your opponent's opinion and making free speech a high crime "against humanity and nature" is a bald faced tyranny that I'd hoped would stay relegated to Canada. Oil companies doing too well refuting your points? Just make fossil fuel apology illegal. Much easier to make your case when you make your opponents out to be the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Stalin first found this handy when he branded Trotsky and any other Communist he found inconvenient a "fascist". Now those found inconvenient are branded "deniers" which implies a moral equivalence that I hope outrages anyone who had a family member killed in a Nazi death camp.
There is a deeper point here however, and one that must be understood in order to see where this is leading. Like many global warmists, Hanson is screaming that "radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." This is a favorite global warmist tactic. There is no debate to be had, the crisis is now. "Deniers" are merely filibustering and wasting what little time we have left. Society must unite under the government for a superhuman effort. Hansen says "the new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon." Global warmists didn't invent this tactic, its been in use since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Use a crisis -- real or imagined-- and exploit it to expand the powers of government and unify the State into one combined will. Wilson did it during World War One, FDR during the Great Depression and World War Two, Kennedy with Space Program, LBJ with the "War on Poverty". What Americans need to be perfectly clear on is what ideology underpins this line of thought. Manufacturing a crisis in order to unify the collective will behind the leadership of the State is a Fascist method of governing. I cannot emphasize this enough. Anytime a crisis is given the moral equivalence of war (as the global warmists have given the fight against "climate change") and there is a call to abandon selfish interests (your SUVs) and unite in common cause with the State, it is fascism. From Wilson's "War Socialism" to LBJ's "Great Society", national calls to action have been right out of the fascist play book. Even the "War on Drugs" is at its heart fascistic.
While Ike may have seen the costs of putting a man on the moon as a boondoggle, this green effort has more ominous consequences than 25 billion dollars to stick it to the Soviets. This crisis is created by the celebrated "American way of life". Its our cars, our food, the temperature of our homes, even the light bulbs we use. This call for Americans to work together on a new "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Mission" to combat "climate change" is a permission slip for the government into the life of the private citizen that would make Hitler drool. This is a back door attack on capitalism and must be recognized as such. Capitalism itself isn't directly questioned, just its results: unfettered access to fossil fuels, oil company profits, bigger cars, private jets, unlimited travel, larger homes, cheap light bulbs, cheap anything really. Instead of our affluence coming at the expense of the "proletariat", it now comes at the expense of "Mother Earth". For a self described middle-of-the-road conservative, James Hansen has certainly let himself become the pawn of big government socialists.
"for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Regardless of your opinion on climate change, this is Stalinist. Outlawing your opponent's opinion and making free speech a high crime "against humanity and nature" is a bald faced tyranny that I'd hoped would stay relegated to Canada. Oil companies doing too well refuting your points? Just make fossil fuel apology illegal. Much easier to make your case when you make your opponents out to be the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Stalin first found this handy when he branded Trotsky and any other Communist he found inconvenient a "fascist". Now those found inconvenient are branded "deniers" which implies a moral equivalence that I hope outrages anyone who had a family member killed in a Nazi death camp.
There is a deeper point here however, and one that must be understood in order to see where this is leading. Like many global warmists, Hanson is screaming that "radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." This is a favorite global warmist tactic. There is no debate to be had, the crisis is now. "Deniers" are merely filibustering and wasting what little time we have left. Society must unite under the government for a superhuman effort. Hansen says "the new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon." Global warmists didn't invent this tactic, its been in use since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Use a crisis -- real or imagined-- and exploit it to expand the powers of government and unify the State into one combined will. Wilson did it during World War One, FDR during the Great Depression and World War Two, Kennedy with Space Program, LBJ with the "War on Poverty". What Americans need to be perfectly clear on is what ideology underpins this line of thought. Manufacturing a crisis in order to unify the collective will behind the leadership of the State is a Fascist method of governing. I cannot emphasize this enough. Anytime a crisis is given the moral equivalence of war (as the global warmists have given the fight against "climate change") and there is a call to abandon selfish interests (your SUVs) and unite in common cause with the State, it is fascism. From Wilson's "War Socialism" to LBJ's "Great Society", national calls to action have been right out of the fascist play book. Even the "War on Drugs" is at its heart fascistic.
While Ike may have seen the costs of putting a man on the moon as a boondoggle, this green effort has more ominous consequences than 25 billion dollars to stick it to the Soviets. This crisis is created by the celebrated "American way of life". Its our cars, our food, the temperature of our homes, even the light bulbs we use. This call for Americans to work together on a new "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Mission" to combat "climate change" is a permission slip for the government into the life of the private citizen that would make Hitler drool. This is a back door attack on capitalism and must be recognized as such. Capitalism itself isn't directly questioned, just its results: unfettered access to fossil fuels, oil company profits, bigger cars, private jets, unlimited travel, larger homes, cheap light bulbs, cheap anything really. Instead of our affluence coming at the expense of the "proletariat", it now comes at the expense of "Mother Earth". For a self described middle-of-the-road conservative, James Hansen has certainly let himself become the pawn of big government socialists.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Whining to the Nanny State
The West seems to be tripping all over itself in an effort to surrender to whomever we can find. Its an odd civilizational suicide that may be unprecedented in human history. Islam is ascendant, let's just concede now and hope for favorable terms. Thus we come to a story in today's Globe and Mail about Britain's effort to be first among slaves. Sarah Desrosiers, a seemingly progressive owner of an "alternative" hair salon in London has been ordered to pay an aggrieved muslim "£4,000 compensation by way of 'injury to feelings'." How did she injure this poor woman's feelings? She didn't hire her because she said she wouldn't remove her hair covering during work.
"Sarah felt that a job requirement of any hairdresser was that the stylist's hair would provide clients with a showcase of different looks. Especially one working in a salon such as hers, which specialises in alternative cuts and colours."
Sarah has made the mistake of believing that the purpose of a business is to provide a product or service in return for compensation. This is no longer necessarily true in a socialistic welfare state. The purpose of a business is now more properly seen as providing employment. While we have rightly lamented the traditional rights being discarded in Canada right now, we all too often fail to see to potential tyranny in new rights being invented by progressives. The "right to work" has been a mantra of progressives, socialists, and communists alike, and is gaining more and more acceptance in the west. People have a right to employment and a "living wage". The case of Sarah's salon is the natural progression of this invented "right". British, Canadian, and even American muslims are twisting this well meaning concept to force western societies to bend to their demands, and the western judiciaries seem only too eager to acquiesce.
And really, can you blame mulsims for exploiting the system as every other supposedly aggrieved minority group has? If it was ok for Jews, homosexuals, blacks, or spanish speaking immigrants to cry foul when they came up against societal norms, customs, traditions or prejudices, why is it wrong for muslims? Progressives didn't see (and still don't) how these laws against discrimination and protecting "feelings" could be used against the welfare state and liberal democracy in general. Banning blacks from a shop is wrong but outlawing it strips a business owner of sovereignty over his business and sets the stage for future tyrannies. Hanging a swastika in your doorway or denying the Holocaust is repulsive, but banning them is merely the first step in complete government regulation of speech.
Western society needs to come back to its senses and reembrace the principles that made it free and prosperous. Just look at a statement by Bushra Noah, the recipient of the £4,000 payout:
"I felt so down and got so depressed. I thought: 'If I am not going to defend myself, who is?' Hairdressing has been what I've wanted to do ever since I was at high school. This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs."
Tough cookies lady! Do you know what the relationship between employer and employee actually is? You give the employer something of value with your services in return for agreed upon compensation. If the employer believes someone else's services are of greater value, they are (supposedly) free to hire them, regardless of your "feelings". Maybe if you stopped whining long enough you could realize that you are free to start your own salon and do whatever you want with it. It seems that there is an opportunity in this neighborhood to open a salon that caters to muslim women who would be more comfortable with a hairdresser in a hair covering or burka. There were obviously none for you to apply to. This is what successful people in the west do, they create their own opportunities instead of bitching about what's been denied them.
"Sarah felt that a job requirement of any hairdresser was that the stylist's hair would provide clients with a showcase of different looks. Especially one working in a salon such as hers, which specialises in alternative cuts and colours."
Sarah has made the mistake of believing that the purpose of a business is to provide a product or service in return for compensation. This is no longer necessarily true in a socialistic welfare state. The purpose of a business is now more properly seen as providing employment. While we have rightly lamented the traditional rights being discarded in Canada right now, we all too often fail to see to potential tyranny in new rights being invented by progressives. The "right to work" has been a mantra of progressives, socialists, and communists alike, and is gaining more and more acceptance in the west. People have a right to employment and a "living wage". The case of Sarah's salon is the natural progression of this invented "right". British, Canadian, and even American muslims are twisting this well meaning concept to force western societies to bend to their demands, and the western judiciaries seem only too eager to acquiesce.
And really, can you blame mulsims for exploiting the system as every other supposedly aggrieved minority group has? If it was ok for Jews, homosexuals, blacks, or spanish speaking immigrants to cry foul when they came up against societal norms, customs, traditions or prejudices, why is it wrong for muslims? Progressives didn't see (and still don't) how these laws against discrimination and protecting "feelings" could be used against the welfare state and liberal democracy in general. Banning blacks from a shop is wrong but outlawing it strips a business owner of sovereignty over his business and sets the stage for future tyrannies. Hanging a swastika in your doorway or denying the Holocaust is repulsive, but banning them is merely the first step in complete government regulation of speech.
Western society needs to come back to its senses and reembrace the principles that made it free and prosperous. Just look at a statement by Bushra Noah, the recipient of the £4,000 payout:
"I felt so down and got so depressed. I thought: 'If I am not going to defend myself, who is?' Hairdressing has been what I've wanted to do ever since I was at high school. This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs."
Tough cookies lady! Do you know what the relationship between employer and employee actually is? You give the employer something of value with your services in return for agreed upon compensation. If the employer believes someone else's services are of greater value, they are (supposedly) free to hire them, regardless of your "feelings". Maybe if you stopped whining long enough you could realize that you are free to start your own salon and do whatever you want with it. It seems that there is an opportunity in this neighborhood to open a salon that caters to muslim women who would be more comfortable with a hairdresser in a hair covering or burka. There were obviously none for you to apply to. This is what successful people in the west do, they create their own opportunities instead of bitching about what's been denied them.
Will the Real John McCain Please Stand Up?
Barack Obama is certainly a presidential candidate in the mold of Jimmy Carter, and its nice to see McCain pointing that out. Speaking in Houston yesterday, McCain said this:
"He supports new taxes on oil producers. He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big-idea tool - and a lot of good it did us. I'm all for recycling - but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s."
This is a topic that Republicans need to hammer Obama on. His energy policy is insane. He resembles Carter on issues from energy to national defense. However, McCain seems to think we're too stupid to remember what he said last week:
"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits"
In the same interview he said that oil companies should "absolutely" return some of their profits. Is this not a call for a "windfall profits tax"? McCain's position on oil profits sounds a lot like Obama's to me. Which McCain is the real McCain? The one bashing Obama's Carteresque energy policy in Houston or the one espousing the same policies in an NBC interview? Why did we nominate this guy again?
"He supports new taxes on oil producers. He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big-idea tool - and a lot of good it did us. I'm all for recycling - but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s."
This is a topic that Republicans need to hammer Obama on. His energy policy is insane. He resembles Carter on issues from energy to national defense. However, McCain seems to think we're too stupid to remember what he said last week:
"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits"
In the same interview he said that oil companies should "absolutely" return some of their profits. Is this not a call for a "windfall profits tax"? McCain's position on oil profits sounds a lot like Obama's to me. Which McCain is the real McCain? The one bashing Obama's Carteresque energy policy in Houston or the one espousing the same policies in an NBC interview? Why did we nominate this guy again?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
McCain Briefly Pretends to Understand Economics
Finally John McCain has said something I can support. It is definitely time to begin drilling for oil off the coasts. If China and Cuba can do it, I don't see why we can't. Senator McCain plans to say this in a speech today:
"we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."
Great to hear him seemingly support market driven solutions to this problem, but sadly, it couldn't last. Lest conservatives actually begin to believe he had a sane grasp on the concepts of economics and the workings of the market, he also plans to say this about oil speculation:
"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk,"
Every time I try to grab his olive branch, he hits me in the face with the tree. Let's take a look and the Senator's complete ineptitude when it comes to the principles of a free(ish) market. This "reckless wagering" is actually a risk taken by speculators on the future price of oil. Not only is this done perfectly legally with all sorts of other commodities, it helps protect supply. Why do prices go up? High demand or low supply, in this situation a combination of both. When someone speculates on a barrel of oil, they are betting that the price will be higher in the future. They are betting that demand will be higher and/or the supply will be lower. At a future time, they plan on introducing the oil they have purchased back into the market when prices are higher. While this may drive up price now, it drives down price later. Contrary to the Senator's statements, this is absolutely "productive commerce". It doesn't "distort the market", it protects supply by holding reserves until they are most needed. There are no "rational limits" in a free market, there are the laws of supply and demand. They may be harsh, but they work for a reason, and when the government tries to control them, the problem is exacerbated. The good Senator is right to advocate increasing the supply, (as soon as the government even announces that restrictions on drilling will be lifted speculators will begin hedging their bets and selling, thus increasing supply and driving down cost) but punishing speculators will only hurt America in the long run.
"we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."
Great to hear him seemingly support market driven solutions to this problem, but sadly, it couldn't last. Lest conservatives actually begin to believe he had a sane grasp on the concepts of economics and the workings of the market, he also plans to say this about oil speculation:
"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk,"
Every time I try to grab his olive branch, he hits me in the face with the tree. Let's take a look and the Senator's complete ineptitude when it comes to the principles of a free(ish) market. This "reckless wagering" is actually a risk taken by speculators on the future price of oil. Not only is this done perfectly legally with all sorts of other commodities, it helps protect supply. Why do prices go up? High demand or low supply, in this situation a combination of both. When someone speculates on a barrel of oil, they are betting that the price will be higher in the future. They are betting that demand will be higher and/or the supply will be lower. At a future time, they plan on introducing the oil they have purchased back into the market when prices are higher. While this may drive up price now, it drives down price later. Contrary to the Senator's statements, this is absolutely "productive commerce". It doesn't "distort the market", it protects supply by holding reserves until they are most needed. There are no "rational limits" in a free market, there are the laws of supply and demand. They may be harsh, but they work for a reason, and when the government tries to control them, the problem is exacerbated. The good Senator is right to advocate increasing the supply, (as soon as the government even announces that restrictions on drilling will be lifted speculators will begin hedging their bets and selling, thus increasing supply and driving down cost) but punishing speculators will only hurt America in the long run.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Nanny State End Game
The New York Times has an interesting piece today on the circus in British Columbia last week and how unique the United States' protection of speech is in the western world. This got me thinking about how we got where we are today, with freedom of speech considered an "American concept" and many in America asking whether or not we are too free. This whole controversy cannot be completely understood if we only look at it from the perspective of speech. Speech itself must be understood as but one of a group of what Enlightenment thinkers liked to call Natural Rights. I believe that history is beginning to bear out that these rights cannot exist independently of one another. It is all or nothing.
I don't walk around wearing swastikas or denying the Holocaust, and I openly discriminate against those that do. They are not allowed in my house or place of business. Discrimination is not a bad thing, unless it is done by the government. Citizens in a free society should be allowed to reach conclusions on their own and let these conclusions guide their actions as long as they cause no one else direct harm. This is how we treat adults. Your words and actions are judged by other adults and they draw their own conclusions about you. However, many western democracies no longer see their citizens as adults. They cannot provide their own Health Care, the government must do it. They can't plan for their own retirement, the government must do it. They can't afford to provide themselves with the basic needs of life, the government must do it. They cannot be trusted to say what they wish in public, the government must regulate it. This is the natural conclusion of the Nanny State. It has taken some time, but it is finally apparent that totalitarianism isn't the exception in a Nanny or Welfare State, it is the rule. You are not an adult, you are a child. The State is your legal guardian. It will be gentle when it can, stern when it must. You are not to hurt the other children's feelings.
This is the way its playing out in much of the western world. I don't think we should be surprised. When you make the State your parent, don't be shocked when it treats you as a child. America hasn't totally descended into the loving embrace of the State yet. The First Amendment has been settled as an ironclad protection of all but the most directly threatening speech since after the Second World War, but I cannot emphasize enough that it has not always been this way. Americans must be ever vigilant or thus we fall into the Statist temptation. It must be clearly understood that the natural rights of man are not to be individually analyzed as neccessary or not. They must exist as a package, a whole. When just one is disregarded, the rest are on borrowed time. Economic freedom is eternally linked to all other freedoms, and is most always the first to go. Once you are dependent on the State to "make a living", the State will eventually control how you live. America must learn from Europe and Canadians must pray its not too late.
I don't walk around wearing swastikas or denying the Holocaust, and I openly discriminate against those that do. They are not allowed in my house or place of business. Discrimination is not a bad thing, unless it is done by the government. Citizens in a free society should be allowed to reach conclusions on their own and let these conclusions guide their actions as long as they cause no one else direct harm. This is how we treat adults. Your words and actions are judged by other adults and they draw their own conclusions about you. However, many western democracies no longer see their citizens as adults. They cannot provide their own Health Care, the government must do it. They can't plan for their own retirement, the government must do it. They can't afford to provide themselves with the basic needs of life, the government must do it. They cannot be trusted to say what they wish in public, the government must regulate it. This is the natural conclusion of the Nanny State. It has taken some time, but it is finally apparent that totalitarianism isn't the exception in a Nanny or Welfare State, it is the rule. You are not an adult, you are a child. The State is your legal guardian. It will be gentle when it can, stern when it must. You are not to hurt the other children's feelings.
This is the way its playing out in much of the western world. I don't think we should be surprised. When you make the State your parent, don't be shocked when it treats you as a child. America hasn't totally descended into the loving embrace of the State yet. The First Amendment has been settled as an ironclad protection of all but the most directly threatening speech since after the Second World War, but I cannot emphasize enough that it has not always been this way. Americans must be ever vigilant or thus we fall into the Statist temptation. It must be clearly understood that the natural rights of man are not to be individually analyzed as neccessary or not. They must exist as a package, a whole. When just one is disregarded, the rest are on borrowed time. Economic freedom is eternally linked to all other freedoms, and is most always the first to go. Once you are dependent on the State to "make a living", the State will eventually control how you live. America must learn from Europe and Canadians must pray its not too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
