Politics and Culture

After weeks of picking winners, Obama finally gets to fulfill the other duty of liberal fascists, picking losers. The first victim is GM's Wagoner. I happen to agree with Obama on this one and only wish that he would be this straight-forward and disciplined when it comes to other industries, like economically nonviable energy, Obama's winners.

It's not entirely a coincidence that Obama's flash of tough centrism comes a day before a special congressional election in New York.

Nothing is ever as good or bad as it seems, but the race between Republican Tedisco and Democrat Murphy in NY-20 is huge. If a veteran Republican can't win over a Republican district after it's become clear that the Democratic President wants to stagnate the country into a Euro-style economic malaise and limit personal freedom, it will be a very depressing day for conservatives.

Dennis Prager picks up on another example of environmental ridiculousness, similar to mine on DDT and Malaria:

Use a tiny slice of an Arctic tundra that nobody will ever visit, yield energy that people can use today, and bring states revenue? "No way, you despoilers."

Tens of thousands of acres of desert that people can actually visit to produce tiny drops of government-subsidized energy, for half the day in the best of conditions, "Of course!"

We shouldn't do anything to stop North Korea from launching a rocket. South Korea is far richer, populous, and thanks to the North's communism, about three inches taller than their Norther cousins; the South can handle this themselves. They can ask Japan for help too.

In order for the cartoon above to make any kind of sense, either:

1. After Germany had withdrawn German citizens by force from the Polish Corridor in 1938, Poland would had to have attacked German civilians with rockets and sent suicide bombers to Berlin cabarets, while calling for Germany's destruction; and Germany would had to have reacted with a targeted raid in Warsaw.

or

2. Israel would had to have staged an unprovoked attack on Poland, taken its territories, and captured a percentage of the Polish population for an extermination program.

My daughter's school urged her to participate in Earth Hour by turning off the lights in our home. I said, "No, Guirado's don't do that." I explained:

Humans have a soul. Our nature, related to the fact that we have a soul, provides us with the characteristics that divide us from the animals: pride, love, hatred, self-awareness, intellect, and the need to worship. It's the recognition of the source of our creation and gratitude for it that prompts religious people to thank (worship) God.

Atheists, still possessing a human nature, but lacking belief in God, need a God substitute. Earth Hour is a certain kind of atheists' mass; turning off the lights is their kneeling; and sitting there in the dark, a secular "moment of silence."

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville

Why do I care?

One classic atheist complaint is that religious pursuits distract humanity from more valuable activities (as if people would spend the three or four hours a week they currently set aside for prayer and services helping out in soup kitchens, reading Shakespeare, or building bridges and not watching youtube videos or playing World of Warcraft).

World of Warcraft Battlechest by BradyGames

Well, things that secular people use to fill the worship "hole" in their soul bother me because they take people, like my daughter, away from the true order of reality. Some, like Earth Day, Earth Hour, and global warming nuttiness actually cost me money.

So, just like the secular do with Christmas and Easter, I will do what I can to ruin any length of time- hours, minutes, days, years- devoted to creation worship. In the spirit of earth humbug, I therefore urge every theist to neglect this useless, feelgood, mass-dumminess.

"It's just to build awareness."

I'm aware of the environment. I use it every day.

By the way, I expect a strong correlation between the concentration of secular people and how many lights are turned off in a neighborhood. It should be very dark in Europe and America's mini-Europes (San Francisco, Santa Monica, et al.) and blazingly bright in Texas, Saudi Arabia, and Poland.

I don't want to incessantly bash Obama, although I could and realize that most political people- those that read blogs- have difficulty with dissonance (it's also fun to make fun of Obama). The primary problem with Obama, and what people should focus on, are his policy prescriptions. From a personal perspective, at some point, personal attacks can breed hatred. And practically, people lose credibility if they just attack and spin negatively.

So, when President Obama said that stock markets are like tracking polls: they go up and down, he was correct. I disagree with him that his plans will bring about long-term prosperity, but a president should do things for the interest of the country as a whole and should keep one eye on its long term viability.

He also sandwiched something not dumb on race, during his press conference, between a bunch of insanity: that he hasn't thought about race because he's been focused on the economy (I'd prefer, actually, that he spent all of his time on race and leave the economy alone).

I'm thinking that Obama's Afghanistan policy is correct. At least he wants to win.

I have ambivalent feelings on Clinton's statement that the violence in Mexico is partly our fault. She's right that demand drives Mexican drug violence, and I don't mind her criticizing drug users, but people with bad values will kill over a slice of bread.

I still don't know how Clinton plans to "stop guns and night vision goggles" from entering Mexico. Will she check cars leaving the United States?

Unlike drugs and guns in Mexico, guns and goggles are legal in the United States. Could the Obama administration be setting us up for more gun regulation, using the Mexican crisis as an excuse (remember, all liberal policy is driven by "crisis")?

I also think that Mexican violence would decrease if more good Mexicans had guns.

We're still lucky that we won Iraq before he became president.

Cuban cigar sales are down.

This Yahoo question asks whether Democrats are more educated than Republicans.

It turns out that Republicans are, on average, better educated than Democrats.

I'm sure that there's a greater difference between what people of different political parties learn than how many years they go to school. Republicans are probably better represented in useful trades like engineering while Democrats make up a larger percentage of parasitic subjects like sociology and various racial and sexual "studies" programs.

Republicans may also be more likely to leave school and work instead of stay in graduate school.

Changing the name of the Twin Towers replacement building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center" would have bothered me more if it was a government decision.

Capitalism diffuses anger in such things because of the belief that people have control over their property.

It's probably much easier for people to influence a for-profit than an entrenched political machine.

I'd get used to seeing deference to Chinese sensibilities.

...so, what does he do? He uses a TV monitor. "Who says I need a teleprompter?"

Honestly, I feel bad just saying negative things about the president, but nothing made sense tonight unless he was just trying to divert public attention from his dive into socialism and pro-choice policies. Really, nothing.

I kind of thought his AIG answer about why we needed to take it over or something sounded good, but what do I know?

His stem cell answer was for stupid people.

His idea that it's not fair for rich people to get a deduction at the rate they're taxed was bizarre.

Wow! In no order (if it seems rushed, it's because little Nelson has a baseball game in ten minutes):

1. Best quote of the press conference: "I'll see what the congress is proposing, and if they have better ideas, we'll listen to them." If it's a better idea, why don't you just use it?

2. Leno, 60 Minutes, and now this: all of Obama's recent public appearances have hurt him. Mr. President, stick to telepromtered banalities.

3. His fiscal/deficit answers are just crazy talk. "Yes, I'm concerned." No, you're not. Concerned people try not to exacerbate the problem they're supposedly trying to fix, like the deficit. His thinking is that if we don't spend a bunch of money on liberal things that don't work, we won't have economic growth or smart kids. Mr. President, How did we grow before? Was it by spending? His "fiscal responsibility summit" is supposed to make me feel better.

4. His vocal ticks are starting to wear. There's "umm," of course, but there's also "what we've said," "what that means," "whole host," "not the first," "all to often," "we're doing everything we can," and "I don't expect."

5. He wants to help Mexico deal with drug gangs by preventing guns and cash from entering Mexico? Is he going to inspect cars on the way out of the United States?

6. "I haven't asked people to do anything. What I've suggested..." Yes, big difference. It's Obama's way. Deception. What he was talking about is getting other countries to ruin their economies as much as he's going to ruin ours. You have to know that socialism requires an all-out effort by everybody. Why? Well, in this case, the country with the freest market will be the country doing the best. That would make socialism (and him) look bad. That's what Ireland (90s) and Great Britain (80s) did to the rest of Europe.

7. How will the cost of private sector health care grow the federal deficit? If the government assumes that responsibility, won't that be, like, more money it has to spend? Prices in the private sector go down, if allowed. Do government programs ever get cheaper?

8. Second best quote: "[I'm blowing a bunch of money and not reducing the deficit] If the budget were easy, we'd be done." Huh?

9. Veterans are victims stuff. Surely, he lied about veterans being "far" more likely to be homeless.

10. Reporters have to ask questions twice because they can never get a strait answer.

I agree with Prager here. An interesting case is how the Spanish government arrested Pinochet, but continue to laud the much worse Castro and Che. I'd add that Nazis de jure discriminated when they killed while Communists were more inclusive and that Nazis were just weirder, with their neo-paganism, sexual perversions, God-hating, and, military fetishism. Just a repulsive movement all around.