Republican Hypocrisy

Last week was definitely a show of Republican hypocrisy on parade. After Obama proposed opening up trade with Cuba, the Republicans were out in force denouncing him. Why? What possible problem is there with trading with Cuba? I don't like their government either, but wouldn't trade help to correct that? Capitalism works political wonders. It worked with Russia. It would work with China if the neocons hadn't turned it into their personal slave labor camp. So why are they so set on not having any relations with Cuba? We trade with countries that are worse. Are the republicans still so upset about things that happened 50 years ago? Or are they afraid of losing Florida if they don't support the Cuban exile community?

Obama the Masterful

Did anyone notice the brilliance of Obama's immigration reform policy? It was a masterpiece of community activism.

He let some immigrants stay on humanitarian grounds. It's a very grey area. Of course the fallout and noise has already started.

Meanwhile, in all the confusion, while everyone is focusing on Pedro the lawn guy, no one is mentioning the expansion of skilled worker visas, which will decimate what remains of the middle class in this country. It's like watching a magician at work. I thought Clinton was good, but he's nothing compared to Obama. Of course, he's helped by the IQ of the average voter.

Hurray for Communism

While looking through old Soviet propaganda posters, I couldn't help thinking what a wonderful world it would be if only they could be brought to fruition. Of course, everyone with a brain realizes that the problem with communism is the fact that the reality never syncs up with the ideals. The harder people try to get them to sync up, the nastier things become. Why will they never sync up? In a few words, an exploitative upper class and the people of Walmart. Would communism work if we could get rid of these two classes?

The interesting point is, how thoroughly the exploitive upper classes use the people of Walmart to keep the middle class in check, as well as how the people of Walmart support the exploitive upper classes in order to keep the middle classes down.

What would happen if there were middle class revolution. One that disenfranchised both the political elites and the people of Walmart? Why hasn't one started? Communism sought to give the workers control over their lives instead of the moneyed elites, who they saw as leeches on the body politic. The difference today is that there are leeches on both ends of the economic spectrum. You have to hand it to the politicians, by doing this, they have effectively steered the frame of reference to economic class and away from leeches. Forget the reality that was communism, and look to the ideal. The productive classes free from the leech class. Wouldn't it be glorious?

Communist Ideals

I came across a Soviet propaganda poster from the 1020's the other day. It said: "If you want more, you must produce more. If you want to produce more, you must learn more."

When will the American left embrace Communism?

Inferior Cultures

It's time to face an unwanted fact. The Europeans did not walk over the indigenous races when they met them because they had "guns". The Europeans walked over the indigenous peoples because they had a superior culture. I'm not saying the other cultures had nothing to offer. But in the Darwinian world of people versus people, white Europeans won without much of a contest, all because of their superior culture.

This should be kept in mind as we watch Western Europe and America losing their identity to hordes of immigrants from third world countries. They aren't the problem. The deterioration of Western culture is.

Useless Men

What good are men? Do they have any valid use? I know what the feminists think, but who really cares? They're just the flip side of Saudi clerics, and their views on reality are just as valid. I'm talking about what use men serve in society.

For a reproduction point of view, you don't need that many men. If you discount child rearing and assume a benevolent state will do that, and assume a woman will nurse her children, you're looking at a life disruption of 2 years. For a man, you're looking at a life disruption of 20 minutes, at least if you discount all the nagging. You just don't need that many men versus women to keep up the population.

Everyone starts out as a woman. The male part comes later. So why did nature decide on a 50/50 (sort of) ratio? What do men do? They hunt. They defend against enemies both human and animal. They explore and thus expand the breeding grounds/resource areas (sorry gals, you suck at this). All of these were just as important to the race as making babies until a very short time ago. About 150 years ago, all these areas where men excel became sort of irrelevant. The world was much less violent, food was plentiful, and there wasn't much left to explore. Isn't it interesting that this is when women's lib gained a foothold, even though there were plenty of strong women earlier in history. Women's lib started when men were no longer necessary.

So what to do with the men? Feminists want to remove the maleness from them. A quick look around will show that this only leads to total societal breakdown. Society has reached a point where we need to make a transition as drastic as the one we made when we went from hunter/gatherers to farmers/factory workers. It looks like interesting times until society figures out a new paradigm that makes use of both sexes to their fullest extent given the current technology. The race that figures it out first owns the planet, the others take the place of the natives that the Europeans met during their colonization periods.

Impending Apocalypse

I've come to the conclusion that one of the signs of the coming apocalypse is the different sized USB connectors that I've been seeing recently.

USB is great, USB was universal. Even the small USB connectors that appeared awhile ago weren't bad. There was just one size to deal with. Now every portable device I buy seems to come with a proprietary USB cable. No society that would do such a thing can last long.

Guns and Sex

Guns and Sex. Two topics that are guaranteed to raise ratings at the box office. Two things that people find of such interest that human culture seems insanely preoccupied with them.

Isn't it strange then that the left wants to teach responsible use of sex while totally banning guns, except for government use, while the right wants to teach the responsible use of guns while banning sex outside of marriage. This despite the evidence that neither approach seems to work well, while those cultures that have banned both have become irrelevant. At the same time those cultures that have taught both, such as the Victorian,  have flourished. Don't tell me that the Victorians had prohibitions against sex. That was only in the context of marriage. There were plenty of brothels available.

It leaves one wondering about the control issues of both sides, as well as the similarities between marriage and government.

Liberal

Your hardcore liberal is someone who denies that genetics has any part in explaining human capacity, yet insists on owning a purebred dog, because they are superior to mutts.

Birthers

You have to admire the Obama camp on this one. It's been brilliantly played.

Obama isn't eligible to be president. It's a simple fact. His father was a British citizen, that makes him ineligible. His mother got Indonesian citizenship for him. That makes him ineligible. Technicalities, yes, but there nonetheless.

Granted, since they are technicalities, Obama could probably have done some sort of work around, but that would have cost time, money, and votes. So what happens.........

The fundamentalist right wing claims Obama is born in Kenya, Obama obfuscates to ridiculous levels, the "Birthers", taking the bait, pursue to ridiculous levels. So now, no one can point to the actual facts of Obama's ineligibility without the cry of "Birther", which renders everything they say null and void.

You have to ask, is the fundamentalist right actively working for the DNC or are they just that stupid?

United Nations

Why in the name of all that's Holy do liberals support the United Nations. Just look at the name, United Nations. It doesn't support people, or moral principles of government, it supports nations. It doesn't matter whether it's Sweden or North Korea. The nation is what is important. How can anyone who doesn't believe in the divine right of kings want anything to do with them?

Of course, dealing with nations makes it a lot easier for the multinationals to work deals, but I thought all good liberals hated multinationals. I guess they're just that stupid.

Ray Rice

What's the big deal? His fiancee spits on him (assault) and he knocks her out (assault). If the roles had been reversed, everyone would be saying that he deserved it. As it is, I keep hearing about how you should never hit a woman (even if she is committing assault).

If you believe that, you either believe that you can't hit a woman because she's inferior to a man and needs protection, that you can't hit a woman because a man is so lowly that to question her would destroy the social order, or you are incapable of coherent thoughts, in which case your thoughts and words have no value.

Salvage Goods

Why is it that women think they can party with the cool kids until the wrinkles appear, and then find a nice guy who they can settle for. A nice guy who won't only pay for her mistakes but put up with constant comparisons with her past life. It boggles the mind.

Naval Ensign?

I hear a lot of people in the conspiracy community comment about the American flag flown in courtrooms. How it's gold fringe indicates that it's a naval flag and thereby contravenes the Constitution. A lot of these same people fly the "so called" Confederate flag. "So called", because it was never the flag of the Confederacy. It was the naval flag of the Confederacy. That's just strange.

Marx

To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Famous words of Marx, and not bad words to live by (as long as the "from each" doesn't include all the productive abilities of a person, which is no different than slavery).

The problem is, welfare payments go way beyond needs. When welfare people can afford the latest in pimp mobiles and consumer electronics, while buying steak in Wal Mart, that goes way beyond need. Meanwhile, they apparently have no abilities to contribute to society, since they aren't required to do any work for this largess.

Why can't American liberals move to the right and embrace the teachings of Marx?

Strong Women

Why is it that people in Western Society are clueless on the difference between a strong confident woman and a total bitch. They also seem to be clueless on the difference between strong confident men and testosterone controlled jerks. Then they wonder why bad behavior rules.

Academic Capitalists

Anyone who has spent any time in higher education recognizes the socialist, and sometimes even communist, tendencies of a large portion of the faculty. Yet at the same time, a large proportion of these faculty members have no problems giving grades, which they see as indicators of ability and effort.

So, as long as they are in charge of distributing the rewards, they believe in capitalism, but as soon as the rewards fall out of their personal control, capitalism suddenly becomes evil.

Secular Humanism

Has anyone else noticed that the periods of the greatest stability and societal happiness (the Golden Age of Greece, the Height of Rome, the Renaissance, Victorian England, post war America) tend to come about during those brief periods when a secular humanist perspective is allowed to run freely over the moral foundation that was previously established by a religion?

Brief, because secular humanists refuse to acknowledge the good that the religious foundation (and therefore the collective wisdom of human history) provides and the religious view everyone but themselves as the mouthpiece of Satan.

Why is the Conservative Right so set against abortion?

I've never been able to figure out why the Conservative Right is so set against abortion. We're talking about a group that complains about the high birth rates of certain groups of people and then tries to limit an option that, by and large, only lowers the birthrates of these groups. That seems kind of self-defeating.

Plus there's the fact that it costs elections. There are plenty of middle of the road people that would accept Tea Party views of economic policy if they didn't feel they had to accept the Fundamentalist views on morality that go along with it. Tea Party people, I know you're about the economics, but until you realize that you've allowed people of Fundamentalist morality to become associated with you in the public mind and fix that, you're dead in the water.

Of course, abortion wouldn't be as much of an issue if the government would fully subsidize contraception. Imagine, contraception for free, on demand, and not just condoms, I'm talking everything, including surgeries. Yes, it costs money, but a lot less then welfare checks for the resultant children would and the cost of abortion clinics. Of course the Conservative Right wouldn't go for it. Only abstinence is viable. Isn't that pushing your morality on other people? Isn't that what they keep claiming the Progressives are doing?

Cattle

"No one loves cattle as much as Burger King." - Antagonist from Dr. Who television series

For some reason, when I heard that line, I couldn't help thinking about all the concern that politicians express towards their constituents. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's a liberal democrat expressing concern for the Obama phone lady, or a conservative republican expressing concern for Jebus and guns, the same level of concern is apparent. I don't mind the politicians acting like this. It's what they do. My complaint is that the cattle are so damned loyal to the farmer.

The politics of Star Trek

I was having a conversation with a liberal and fellow Star Trek fan the other day. The point of their argument was that the Federation had a great political system, no money, everyone trying to achieve their full potential, and a social safety net for everyone. Since I enjoy pointing out gaps in logic I responded that there were no, or at least very few, people of Wal Mart in the Star Trek universe. Did they put them in reeducation camps, or kill them all during the Eugenics Wars? Where are they?

Personally, I like the political structure of the Federation. As conservative as I am, I'd gladly side with their socialistic approach, if I knew that the vast majority of people were working and contributing towards the same societal goals as myself. But then there are those people of Wal Mart. A Star Trek type of society cannot exist while there are so many parasites within it. It can never be anything more than a third world country.

Here we have the difference between liberals and myself, even though our ideals are basically the same. Liberals tend to believe that education and money can fix the people of Wal Mart. Fifty years of social experimentation have proven that idea wrong. The people of Wal Mart, for the most part, are what they are. Until the problem of what to do with them can be addressed, I prefer my societies a bit more Darwinian.