Politics and Culture

Part one, here.

The main problem with post-freedom, Marxist oriented, secular liberal thinking is its fundamentally flawed view of human nature. It's not that liberals are wrong sometimes and right other times; it's that this flaw will always cause error- they can't be right, even if the negative affects are absorbed into the greater social economy. It's why liberals are always wrong on crime, education, welfare, and, now mass condom use to reduce AIDS.

On AIDS, the liberal thinks: X amount of cases of AIDS. Condoms reduce the chances of getting AIDS by 90%. Therefore, ubiquitous use of condoms cause the AIDS rate to fall to (X*0.1).

As the evidence below suggests, the Pope is right, that the only hope for AIDS in Africa is spiritual renewal. AIDS is a 100% preventable disease, with the right attitude.

Here.

Read more »

Will anybody apologize to those scientists who went against the establishment?

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Here

My friends at Magnasquids posted this and, since I think it's typical of a certain mind-set, I thought I'd reply.

George Packer's a delusional idiot (I don't know if he's an idiot, but I thought I'd ape his argument style.). Let me elaborate: Democrats think that a general discontent caused mainly by the Iraq war (or arguing the Iraq war) and things unrelated to ideology like responses to disasters (Did Ray Nagin's or Kathleen Blanco's pro-government policies help?) gas prices- unrelated except that leftist solutions would make them much worse by not drilling more oil- that has given Democrats a slight advantage this election year means the downfall of conservatism.

Let's see. What liberal solutions are people dying to try?

1. Health care. People want to spend more money for less care so that everybody has the same plan? The public may be unhappy with the cost of health care, but that doesn't mean they're willing to try a completely ideological solution (I say "completely ideological" because liberals can't talk about health care without lying.).

2. Education. People think that spending money on schools will improve achievement? People may believe it, but it's not true.

3. People think raising taxes on their bosses will increase their salary?

4. People think paying farmers to not grow crops or convert it into fuel will lower food prices?

The fact is that Obama would have a much better chance in the general election if he had adopted the exact same platform as John McCain while still keeping the "D" in front of his name. Why does Obama want people like Bayh or Webb for a running mate? Why not Kucinich? What do you think it means that conservatives proudly declare their conservative values while Democrats like Arianna Huffington and Barack Obama hilariously run away from left synonyms, often within a statement like "We don't believe in the old politics?" Are the Democrats who won Republican seats this year proud liberals?

Why is Obama running on "McBush" and "change." Is that a positive agenda?

As for this passage:

Right. So conservatism, in short, is about wanking. Governments fuck up a lot, especially if you don't like governments. And that's it? Well, congratulations. You can see why any government elected on a platform of self-contempt would have trouble perpetuating itself. Of course, in reality, "conservative" politicians are not immune to the blandishments of power, as history rather spectacularly teaches us.

The real problem with "movement conservatism" is that it is reactive and deluded. Global warming is real. The Iraq war was a grotesque mistake. The mainstream media are not Democratic partisans. Gay marriage is not going to destroy America. And so on.

The real problem with "movement conservatism" is that the only people left who believe in it are completely crazy idiots.

And that's all she wrote.

Liberals use this ad-hominem style amongst themselves to sate their hatred, but sound stupid when they use it against an actual movement conservative, like Arianna Huffington did when Dennis Prager interviewed her. I'm just a run-of-the-mill movement conservative, right? Look:

1. Global warming being "real" doesn't mean that sabotaging our economy is worth trying to effect it or that it would even be effective. Most European countries are backing off from their GW solutions (here or here and here). Not that it really matters to GW worriers since anybody sincerely freaked out about global warming wouldn't wait around for new technologies and insist on nuclear power.

2. The Iraq war may have been a mistake (Certainly, if your goal is to win elections.), but Al Qaeda is nearly defeated, Iraqis and American troops are in much better shape. Iraqis are having an election in October and Americans needn't fear an unfettered Saddam Hussein competing nuclearly with Iran thanks to our mistake.

3. Most mainstream media people are Democrats. I don't know if that makes them partisans, but such a claim is at least as defensible as what's usually said about Fox or talk radio.

4. Nobody ever claimed that gay marriage would be America's Mount Vesuvius. Banning gay marriage (or all marriage or allowing polygamy) won't destroy the country either. An increase in unwed pregnancies didn't destroy the United States. In fact, it's hard to imagine any single social phenomenon sinking the United States into the sea (not a global warming reference) Is instant destruction a standard for adopting or rejecting policy?

Since I've already mentioned Europe, most European countries are more socialist than the United States. They must be happy, having experienced all that delicious leftism, right? Well, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Eastern Europe, Britain have moved right. They know it's wrong, but are so heavily invested in the government's handouts that only a national flowering of unselfishness and character- like Thatcher's Britain- will chip away at leftist calcification.

Easy, and I'm just a "conservative wanker."

Welcome to Asymmetric, liberal brothers and sisters. Doesn't it sound like Arianna has never heard anybody disagree with her? Her statement that she's not really giving a point of view so much as stating facts and everybody who disagrees with them is a nut is hilarious considering that she's factually wrong on everything. The category is "Debunking the Left" as Arianna is an auto-debunker (bunker?).

For those of you keeping score, Huffington lied or distorted:

1. The Nazi quote by Jim Inhofe.
2. That John McCain caved in on torture.
3. That John McCain caved in on immigration.
4. That Global Warming is a settled issue.
5. Everything about Iraq.
6. That she doesn't believe in left or right.

This is not an honest woman.

Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe by Arianna Huffington

Years ago, I read ads in the Nation for Spanish Civil War memorabilia. Nobody who doesn't at least think it was a good idea to fight buys war trinkets. Those ads serve as tangible proof that many leftists cheer their side in war as lustily as any Neocon. There's plenty cheer-worthy (from their perspective) war to choose from as well. Communists have stoked conflict on every continent-Latin America, Africa, Asia, well, not Australia- and have killed far more than any single movement- including religion- in history.

Besides usual suspects Che and Castro, the American Communists in the Spanish Civil War get lefty war-juices flowing. Here's an article on a memorial to the Lincoln Brigade in that most jingoistic of cities, San Francisco.

It's so important for our chief executive to look good in a bathing suit. That's my top criteria.

I was just watching one of the news commentary shows, and some knucklehead just said he thought Obama could realign the Democratic party like Reagan did for the Republicans almost 30 years ago.

What? Obama is charming, but he's only been in the Senate for 3 years. And this pundit thinks Obama could be the most influential Democratic leader since FDR? Bill Clinton didn't even do that. He didn't change how people think. He just took them as they were and went from there.

It's funny. Last night in Nevada, and last week in New Hampshire, Democratic voters told the country they're a little uncomfortable with Obama's relative inexperience. How else did Hillary win? People don't like her and they don't trust her. Obama is like a rock star. So why didn't they vote for him? Because he's been in the Senate for 3 years.

Notice no one on TV puts it like that? They talk about experience, and they ask others if they think he has enough experience, but almost no one mentions the actual facts. Which are that he's been in the Senate, dealing with national issues for only 3 years. That's a very short time and at least some Americans know that. But the media? Don't bother them with the facts.

They've got a crush on Obama. They think his words are like nector. They think he's the second coming of Jack Kennedy. Really. If the media were a teenage girl (And they are kind of close; give it a minute.) they would be on the phone right now, talking about how dreamy Obama is. They would go to sleep at night thinking about him and thinking indecent thoughts. Ok, I'll say it, if the media were a girl, they would masturbate themselves to sleep every night thinking about Obama.

How do I know this? Because they haven't questioned him at all, not really.
Notice the softball questions thrown at him.

Why is this important? Well, the media could make him president. Does anyone think he'd be doing this well if the media were skeptical of his competence. I don't think so.

Think about this. Fascinating, really. When people don't believe in God, and most Democrats don't, at least not in practice, who becomes God? There always is a God. Whatever you think has ultimate power over you and the world, is your God and whoever you trust to provide you with your world view are your priests.

So, to a large percentage of Americans, their God is a curious mixture of their
boss, science, the Fed, the news media, weather and fashion magazines; and their priesthood are scientists and tv journalists, the editor of Cosmo and meteorologists. (I guess their bible is the encyclopedia or the New York Times or something. Hard to say.)

So to a large percentage of the electorate, if the lion's share of tv journalists (I mean the non-Fox ones) say something, especially if they repeat it, must be true. Perhaps more importantly, if they never bring something up, then it must not be worth considering. Scary, huh? (If I were to start talking about the things they don't report on, but should, then well, I'd have a book, not a column. It's just too long a list.)

Soooooooooooooo what? Yeah, I got kind of carried away with idol worship explanation. What does it have to do with Obama? Well, most of media are not all that excited about Hillary. Just look at how they cover her. Trust me, if you could take an anonymous poll of on air journalists, I think you'd be shocked by the bias. I'm betting they're for Obama by a huge margin.

And since a lot of people really respect the media and listen to them, they might make Obama president.

And what if after all that, he's another Jimmy Carter? That's the ultimate nightmare,isn't it? Does anyone remember what Carter actually did. We seem to have forgotten. He allowed a tinpot, pissant little country hold our entire country hostage for over a year. That's what can happen with a liberal. They're so afraid of being the bad guy, they could err on the side of caution to the degree that they really allow us to be totally screwed over.

That's the danger. And now there really is a bad guy. For a few years after
the fall of communism, we felt secure, that there was not a credible threat to our security. That ended 7 years ago. I know conservatives know that. But liberals seem to want to bend over backward to show that they love Moslems.

But Barak Hussein Obama wouldn't do that. Would he? Who knows. The media
is so dreamy-eyed, they aren't really vetting him. They aren't skeptical
of him. They aren't really checking him out. They're giving him a free
pass. I guess that happens when you secretly want to hump somebody. You try to help them even when you shouldn't. You favor them even when your job is to
be impartial. Of course, maybe it's because a lot of the media aren't worried
about the terrorists themselves. They want to let them out of Guantanamo Bay and apologize. So maybe that's what's going on.

Whatever happened to the media? Remember when they actually did their jobs? Remember when they actually reported the news, without giving their opinion? Whatever happened to that?

By Matt Lipeles

Yay! Let's celebrate.

1. 100,000,000 dead as a direct result of Communism.
2. Literally, billions more without freedom.
3. Who knows how many trillions of money, man hours, or whatever in lost productivity, lost dreams, etc.
4. Trillions spent fighting its spread.
5. North Korea. 'nuff said.

Oh and saying it's unfair to talk about Russia and North Korea when discussing Communism is like saying it's unfair to talk about Hitler when discussing that other 20th century intellectual plague, fascism.