I worry about being perceived as ridiculous, but I’m going to advocate manliness despite being an effeminate homosexual. How effeminate? Your grandmother could pick me out as gay. Obviously, I'm not holding myself out as a role model. I can only encourage. When twenty year old boys whine about slight physical exertion or their suffering from being in a house heated only to 60 degrees, I insult them like a drill sargent would. So please don't lisp with me as I say manliness does matter. The decline of Rome, a very complex decline, was certainly aided by a decline in manliness in Rome. As a result, the Romans became less willing and able to fight for Rome.
I have stories about how this is happening in America. I went to watch the band Savage Republic. The band is full of macho posturing and displays a manly joy in banging on things. A current song of the band is titled 1938 with the implied observation about World War. The band is not part of the decline, but I went to watch the band with a 22 year old gay boy who is part of the problem. He's not particularly effeminate, as the stereotypical 22 year old gay boy would have nothing to do with a band like Savage Republic. It's his job. He’s working in Whole Foods grocery market stacking vegetables into neat piles. I told him he is a fucking faggot for doing such a job, but I smiled as I said it, because he wasn’t going to be shamed into giving up his ridiculous toy poodle of a job and because he’s quite an attractive boy. Being an attractive man does require some sinuous sinews, and those sinews could be put to use roofing a house, doing landscaping, but his biceps are for beauty only—not very different than his fucking earring. So he does a job that an 80 year old women could do, and Whole Foods’ pussy clientèle get their tidy piles of vegetables. His pussiness is why we are stuck with lonely old women with nothing to do and mexican illegal immigrants doing the work that this boy should be doing. Illegal immigration is an issue because American boys in their early twenties aren’t willing to do a man’s work. To be non-sexist in a non-pussy sort of way, I’d also like to see American women in their early twenties do some hard physical labor.
Even more of disaster than the flood of Mexicans into America is the pussy peace movement and its attack on manly self-defense. John Lott has shown gun control increases crime. (Though looking somewhat like a space alien, John Lott is a great guy who does excellent research. I meet him when was doing research on voting in Congress instead of gun control, and I will vouch that he does quality research.) But gun control is a minor issue. One of the two great challenges of our time is how we confront the imperialist religion Islam. The peace movment want us to follow the fucking pussy Gandhi, who was murdered by a muslim. The fucking pussy pacifists don’t seem to get the implication of Gahndi’s murder: while pacifism will sometimes work against decent chaps like the Brits, it’s not going to work against savages like Nazis or Muslims. And yet what do we hear from peace activist but that we should do nothing to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. What exactly do the pussy activists think Iran is going to do with nuclear weapons? What do Iranians mean by “wipe Israel from the map?” I wonder what other countries the Iranians hate?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Right Wing Moonbats
Most conservatives have no difficulty identifying the common moonbat who can't fly because his has only a left wing, but they tend to be blind to the right-wing moonbat. I pay attention to this fascinating but dangerous species. When I heard that Mark Cuban, a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of a sports team, is funding the 9/11 conspiracy theory film "Loose Change", my suspicions about his motivation were immediate, an instantaneousness reflex on my behalf. Yet when I ask other people the most probable reason for Cuban's funding of film that claims 9/11 was a government conspiracy, instead of muslim conspiracy, they draw a blank.
My guess was that Cuban is a libertarian and perhaps a libertarian of the Ayn Rand denomination called Objectivism. (Technically, Rand and the Objectivists hate the Libertarians, but it is one of those Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea fights and not easily understood by outsiders.) To test my theory of Cuban's belief, I went to the Wikipedia and, gosh darn it, I was right. If my understanding of Cuban's thinking is correct, Cuban is being slippery when he defended his decision to fund "Loose Change" on the O'Reilly Factor by saying "its better to have the film out in the open than lurk in the shadows." Cuban hints that we should understand his funding as similar in motive to those of former Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) when he translated Mien Kampf into English. Yet, if I'm right about how Cuban thinks, his funding of "Loose Change" is in fact out of sympathy for its message. Many Libertarians have the moonbat perception that the United States government is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorist. Thus, Cathy Young, the editor of most important Libertarian magazine, Reason, holds that Islam is no threat to us. And like the moonbats of the left, libertarian views of the Iraqi can descend to hopes of US defeat just like what you would see in the Kucinich moonbat cave. The current Liberty Unbound journal features an article this month on why the surge in Iraq will fail.
At first glance, it makes no sense that the Libertarians would undermine the United States in the fight against Islam. Why would Libertarians hate the United States, one of the most stalwart defenders of capitalism in the world? In fact, the United States ranks fourth world-wide in Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Part of the problem is simply the United States is not a libertarian utopia, and American democracy stands in their way. Thus, as always with fanatics, the US government is evil. Permit to pause my anti-Libertarian rant to observe that we make more reasonable decisions when we view decision making as balancing between different values, when we think economically in terms of costs and benefits rather than when we pursue a true faith. Without this pluralism of values, we observe creatures like one libertarian I met who compared a publicly funded library to a Nazi death camp. I have found that my friend's over the top comparison of a public library is only slightly more unhinged than what you will encounter in the average discussion with a libertarian about the government, but there is no reason to listen to me. Please read up about libertarianism yourself, here's a link which will help you find many Libertarian sites on the web: http://www.rlc.org/Libertarian.html. And remember even if the idea seems a joke, they mean it. I had a discussion with a guy who had been an intern at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. He believed we could solve the Greenhouse Gas problem by painting Canada white with the stuff that makes toothpaste white. He was completely serious! I asked him what we would do if Canada got dusty. There are other amusing libertarian "solutions" to climate change out there if you google around, and while you're googling try "blue libertarian candidate Senate Montana" for more wacky libertarianism. And I once rented an apartment from a libertarian whose blue in the last story was orange! It was the magic of beta carotene, completely excessive amounts of beta carotene. The Libertarians are a colorful bunch.
In fairness to libertarians, I should point out that libertarian ideas about economic policy are in almost every case are the best ideas (e.g., the Cato Institute's ideas about Social Security) and that not every libertarian is anti-American. For instance, the Ayn Rand Institute has good ideas about how to deal with Iraq. In fact, I was too glib in my earlier statement about the lack of real difference between Libertarians and Objectivists. Some Objectivists do seem willing to defend the West. I welcome their aid. However, despite the exception of some Objectivists, we should view Libertarian organizations--despite being right wing--as every bit as disloyal to the West as John Murtha's congressional office.
My guess was that Cuban is a libertarian and perhaps a libertarian of the Ayn Rand denomination called Objectivism. (Technically, Rand and the Objectivists hate the Libertarians, but it is one of those Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea fights and not easily understood by outsiders.) To test my theory of Cuban's belief, I went to the Wikipedia and, gosh darn it, I was right. If my understanding of Cuban's thinking is correct, Cuban is being slippery when he defended his decision to fund "Loose Change" on the O'Reilly Factor by saying "its better to have the film out in the open than lurk in the shadows." Cuban hints that we should understand his funding as similar in motive to those of former Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) when he translated Mien Kampf into English. Yet, if I'm right about how Cuban thinks, his funding of "Loose Change" is in fact out of sympathy for its message. Many Libertarians have the moonbat perception that the United States government is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorist. Thus, Cathy Young, the editor of most important Libertarian magazine, Reason, holds that Islam is no threat to us. And like the moonbats of the left, libertarian views of the Iraqi can descend to hopes of US defeat just like what you would see in the Kucinich moonbat cave. The current Liberty Unbound journal features an article this month on why the surge in Iraq will fail.
At first glance, it makes no sense that the Libertarians would undermine the United States in the fight against Islam. Why would Libertarians hate the United States, one of the most stalwart defenders of capitalism in the world? In fact, the United States ranks fourth world-wide in Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Part of the problem is simply the United States is not a libertarian utopia, and American democracy stands in their way. Thus, as always with fanatics, the US government is evil. Permit to pause my anti-Libertarian rant to observe that we make more reasonable decisions when we view decision making as balancing between different values, when we think economically in terms of costs and benefits rather than when we pursue a true faith. Without this pluralism of values, we observe creatures like one libertarian I met who compared a publicly funded library to a Nazi death camp. I have found that my friend's over the top comparison of a public library is only slightly more unhinged than what you will encounter in the average discussion with a libertarian about the government, but there is no reason to listen to me. Please read up about libertarianism yourself, here's a link which will help you find many Libertarian sites on the web: http://www.rlc.org/Libertarian.html. And remember even if the idea seems a joke, they mean it. I had a discussion with a guy who had been an intern at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. He believed we could solve the Greenhouse Gas problem by painting Canada white with the stuff that makes toothpaste white. He was completely serious! I asked him what we would do if Canada got dusty. There are other amusing libertarian "solutions" to climate change out there if you google around, and while you're googling try "blue libertarian candidate Senate Montana" for more wacky libertarianism. And I once rented an apartment from a libertarian whose blue in the last story was orange! It was the magic of beta carotene, completely excessive amounts of beta carotene. The Libertarians are a colorful bunch.
In fairness to libertarians, I should point out that libertarian ideas about economic policy are in almost every case are the best ideas (e.g., the Cato Institute's ideas about Social Security) and that not every libertarian is anti-American. For instance, the Ayn Rand Institute has good ideas about how to deal with Iraq. In fact, I was too glib in my earlier statement about the lack of real difference between Libertarians and Objectivists. Some Objectivists do seem willing to defend the West. I welcome their aid. However, despite the exception of some Objectivists, we should view Libertarian organizations--despite being right wing--as every bit as disloyal to the West as John Murtha's congressional office.
faulty logic
Rational political dialog is a necessary step to solve our problems. It's too bad we have Sean Hannity instead. Of course, Hannity is just my example of the day. Just about any political commentator would do as well, but I just saw Hannity being egregiously irrational to people on both his left and his right. On his left, Hannity did a presentation of the top ten instances of liberal hate speech. For the most part, the liberal "hate speech" was wishful thinking on his part. He should ask himself if his interpretations are reasonable. Even worse was his conflation of race-mentioning speech with racism and hate speech. Hilary Clinton made some utterly harmless remark about asian Indians and Hannity used it as an example of hate speech. I suppose Hannity would also call hate speech something I said at age 18 years when I was trying to be seductive. I told a black boy that his skin was the most wonderful shade of chocolate. Send me to rehab, now!! And wait, I just committed another crime, I called a black boy of age 19, a "black boy"!! I'm worse than David Duke. I'm even worse than Ann Coulter!
And then there was Hannity arguing with someone to his right. Yes, there are people to Hannity's right. It was Reverend Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International. Reverend Thomas Euteneuer thinks Hannity is a "heretic" for not fully supporting the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control. Now there was a chance for a rational conversation here. One could talk about the role of reason in the faith of the lay Catholic. Instead, Hannity went off on some attack on the Catholic Church for its sex scandals. Hannity would have accused any liberal of hating religion, if the liberal would have talked to a Catholic priest like he did. On the other hand Euteneuer, whom I hate in the same way I hate Osama bin Laden[*], tried to have a rational conversation. I wish Colmes would have tried to get Hannity to let Euteneuer talk more. Though I don't agree with Colmes often, he at least tries to be more rational than Hannity does.
[*]Both Euteneuer and Osama bin Laden spend every ounce of their energy attempting to recreate the Earth as a hell world. Euteneuer wants to lead us to environmental disaster and bin Laden to sharia.
And then there was Hannity arguing with someone to his right. Yes, there are people to Hannity's right. It was Reverend Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International. Reverend Thomas Euteneuer thinks Hannity is a "heretic" for not fully supporting the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control. Now there was a chance for a rational conversation here. One could talk about the role of reason in the faith of the lay Catholic. Instead, Hannity went off on some attack on the Catholic Church for its sex scandals. Hannity would have accused any liberal of hating religion, if the liberal would have talked to a Catholic priest like he did. On the other hand Euteneuer, whom I hate in the same way I hate Osama bin Laden[*], tried to have a rational conversation. I wish Colmes would have tried to get Hannity to let Euteneuer talk more. Though I don't agree with Colmes often, he at least tries to be more rational than Hannity does.
[*]Both Euteneuer and Osama bin Laden spend every ounce of their energy attempting to recreate the Earth as a hell world. Euteneuer wants to lead us to environmental disaster and bin Laden to sharia.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
What the Right Gets Right about Al Gore
I'm not clear whether I watched the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's Climate Change Hearing on 3/21/2007 or MTV's Real World-DC. All I know is that Al Gore was there with a couple of Senators not intimidated by cameras into phony niceness. Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer(D-CA) and the ranking member James Inhofe(R-OK) kept it real with their petty bickering. Jerry Springer's idea of becoming a Senator from Ohio may be a natural job progression. I suppose it is a weakness on my behalf, but my reaction to petty nastiness is to turn away in disgust.
Despite Boxer and Inhofe challenging my resolve to watch Al Gore testify, I was able to make it through with the occasional use of the mute button. To give Gore credit, he talked with the gentility we would hope to observe in the Senate, which gets called "august body" for some reason. Yet, I was unimpressed by Gore's testimony. He almost certainly overstates about the effects of Global Warming and thus gives deniers like Inhofe the openings that they need to attack doing anything about Global Warming. There is another more subtle problem with overstating Global Warming. Our environmental problems are far greater than the carbon dioxide in the air. We face a collapse in the number of species on this planet as great as when a meteorite struck the Yucatan peninsula and caused massive devastation. It's somewhat delusional to think that this is not going to cause difficulties for homo sapien.
My disappointment with Gore began to crescendo with Inhofe's cross-examination. While I find Senator Inhofe a contemptible maggot, he really honed into Gore's tragic flaw in his bid for secular eco-sainthood. Inhofe hammered Gore's personal consumption of electricity at his home. Talking about the consumption of electricty at Gore's home is fair. I have seen attacks on Gore based on his airline travel, which is wrong as Gore does need to travel to publicize this issue--even if air travel is a major source of greenhouse gases. Gore's response to Inhofe was to simply repeat some silliness about carbon neutral energy. There is only form of carbon neutral energy that will amount to much in the short run. It's called nuclear power. It's not the windmills and pious hopes of the wine and cheese liberals. We should all remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics when people start suggestimg we need more research into alternative energy. Except for nuclear energy, virtually all the rest of the energy on this planet ultimately comes from the sun. The basic implication of this is that Gore is paying a little more for energy to assuage liberal guilt without the chance that his solutions will have any impact. Actually, Gore reaction is worse than hypocrisy. If one wants eco-sainthood, one should be able to consume less energy than the average America not twelve times as much. Unless Gore is running some sort of commune and his household is twenty times the average American household size, I can't even begin to understand how Gore's energy consumption is reasonable. If he is running a commune more power to him.
Despite Boxer and Inhofe challenging my resolve to watch Al Gore testify, I was able to make it through with the occasional use of the mute button. To give Gore credit, he talked with the gentility we would hope to observe in the Senate, which gets called "august body" for some reason. Yet, I was unimpressed by Gore's testimony. He almost certainly overstates about the effects of Global Warming and thus gives deniers like Inhofe the openings that they need to attack doing anything about Global Warming. There is another more subtle problem with overstating Global Warming. Our environmental problems are far greater than the carbon dioxide in the air. We face a collapse in the number of species on this planet as great as when a meteorite struck the Yucatan peninsula and caused massive devastation. It's somewhat delusional to think that this is not going to cause difficulties for homo sapien.
My disappointment with Gore began to crescendo with Inhofe's cross-examination. While I find Senator Inhofe a contemptible maggot, he really honed into Gore's tragic flaw in his bid for secular eco-sainthood. Inhofe hammered Gore's personal consumption of electricity at his home. Talking about the consumption of electricty at Gore's home is fair. I have seen attacks on Gore based on his airline travel, which is wrong as Gore does need to travel to publicize this issue--even if air travel is a major source of greenhouse gases. Gore's response to Inhofe was to simply repeat some silliness about carbon neutral energy. There is only form of carbon neutral energy that will amount to much in the short run. It's called nuclear power. It's not the windmills and pious hopes of the wine and cheese liberals. We should all remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics when people start suggestimg we need more research into alternative energy. Except for nuclear energy, virtually all the rest of the energy on this planet ultimately comes from the sun. The basic implication of this is that Gore is paying a little more for energy to assuage liberal guilt without the chance that his solutions will have any impact. Actually, Gore reaction is worse than hypocrisy. If one wants eco-sainthood, one should be able to consume less energy than the average America not twelve times as much. Unless Gore is running some sort of commune and his household is twenty times the average American household size, I can't even begin to understand how Gore's energy consumption is reasonable. If he is running a commune more power to him.
Friday, March 16, 2007
An Orwellian Note from the Sierra Club
I continue to be a member of the Sierra Club so that I can take the occasional hike, though my feelings towards the commissars who head the Sierra Club is little short of total loathing. My loathing is not that we disagree, as I strive to be tolerant about disagreement.
The issue instead is that the commissars sabotaged democracy within the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club used to have vibrant elections where different viewpoints were expressed. The elections were real elections about policy--not the rubber stamp events that typically occur when a major corporation elects a board of directors or when a leftist dictatorship holds an election. Sadly, the Sierra Club Board of Directors decided that debating real issues was not appropriate for a Sierra Club election, because some people wanted the Sierra Club to support efforts by right-wing politicians to reduce immigration in the United States and thus keep the population relatively low. Meanwhile, the Board of Directors want to walk the path of leftist political correctness with their blue/green alliance with labor. So, they made it much more difficult for non-approved candidates to become a candidate for the Board of Directors, and then proceeded to lie about their opponents in the media, and in Sierra Club meetings. The Board of Directors called their opponents "racist" and "far right". Peculiarly enough, I found out about these charges just after a phone call to the leader of Sierra Club dissidents, Alan Kuper. He struck me as a typical leftist pussy--not nearly the man Ann Coulter is. While he wants to keep down the population of the United States, he didn't even seem to get my ideas about how we can have ecologically useful economic growth and he certainly didn't like my idea that it would be environmentally useful to allow to chemical warfare and forbid instead huge traditional bombs.
Anyway--to get to the punchline--the envelop for this year's Sierra Club elections have the slogan "Make Democracy Work" on them.
Further note: Alan Kuper someway managed to get on the ballot this year. Last year, he had a whole slate of candidates to run with him. I shall send Alan an email and find out how he managed to get on the ballot. If he has anything interesting to say, I'll add it to this post. Alan Kuper has my full support, even if he is a leftist pussy.
The issue instead is that the commissars sabotaged democracy within the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club used to have vibrant elections where different viewpoints were expressed. The elections were real elections about policy--not the rubber stamp events that typically occur when a major corporation elects a board of directors or when a leftist dictatorship holds an election. Sadly, the Sierra Club Board of Directors decided that debating real issues was not appropriate for a Sierra Club election, because some people wanted the Sierra Club to support efforts by right-wing politicians to reduce immigration in the United States and thus keep the population relatively low. Meanwhile, the Board of Directors want to walk the path of leftist political correctness with their blue/green alliance with labor. So, they made it much more difficult for non-approved candidates to become a candidate for the Board of Directors, and then proceeded to lie about their opponents in the media, and in Sierra Club meetings. The Board of Directors called their opponents "racist" and "far right". Peculiarly enough, I found out about these charges just after a phone call to the leader of Sierra Club dissidents, Alan Kuper. He struck me as a typical leftist pussy--not nearly the man Ann Coulter is. While he wants to keep down the population of the United States, he didn't even seem to get my ideas about how we can have ecologically useful economic growth and he certainly didn't like my idea that it would be environmentally useful to allow to chemical warfare and forbid instead huge traditional bombs.
Anyway--to get to the punchline--the envelop for this year's Sierra Club elections have the slogan "Make Democracy Work" on them.
Further note: Alan Kuper someway managed to get on the ballot this year. Last year, he had a whole slate of candidates to run with him. I shall send Alan an email and find out how he managed to get on the ballot. If he has anything interesting to say, I'll add it to this post. Alan Kuper has my full support, even if he is a leftist pussy.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Lynn Woolsey Counseling Center for Battered Women
I watched the latest C-SPAN interview with Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) about Iraq. She is a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House, but didn't manage to sound as crazy as one would guess. She admitted that it would take six months to withdraw, but Iraq is not the issue that concerns me.
It is the portion of the interview about Iran, which starts about 18:40 minutes into the interview. Congresswomen Woolsey doesn't consider Iran to be a particular threat--"not if we use some diplomacy". I was truly impressed by this statement. If I had the funds, I'd would start The Lynn Woolsey Counseling Center for Battered Women. It would teach battered women to return to their spouse--of either gender--and deal with their batterers through diplomacy. Discussion can solve all problems!
It is the portion of the interview about Iran, which starts about 18:40 minutes into the interview. Congresswomen Woolsey doesn't consider Iran to be a particular threat--"not if we use some diplomacy". I was truly impressed by this statement. If I had the funds, I'd would start The Lynn Woolsey Counseling Center for Battered Women. It would teach battered women to return to their spouse--of either gender--and deal with their batterers through diplomacy. Discussion can solve all problems!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
