helping commies get to know knives
Friday, January 30, 2004
Osama bin Texan recently attended a meeting of his local communist cell on the subject of how the dieblod voting machines are rigged and how to hack into them. Unfortunately, things did not go as planned. This is his story:
I went to the meeting, and the regular room was taken, because the largest conference room was filled with airline pilots at an FAA anti-terrorism class.
So, our communist cell had to move down the hall and later, the speaker couldn't find it and went home.
I went by the FAA thing -- it was a like a defensive driving class. The speaker was putting up a slide that said "Hi, I'm your FAA Examiner and I'm here to help you" and all the pilots were chuckling and drinking like the Organization Men that they are.
The following slides were "Be aware of your surroundings" and other "Hide under your desk from bad people" platitudes.
Right there and then, I knew, I knew that class probably took up $100,000 of my tax money, and that we got a bigger deficit, no more safety, just BS, because the real terrorists were in congress. I knew that Homeland "Security" had stolen my money. I could feel my wallet getting lighter and lighter and the pilots getting happier and happier drinking their tax money funded drinks.
Later on when I got home, I thought that there were indeed poor children that would die, because congress had stolen money from the parents of the innocent children. Money that those parents needed to buy their kids medicine. This was not a victimless crime.
Also, later on at home I thought that I could have made some signs and walked back into the room. Maybe signs like:
"If stealing from the American people to buy drinks for bullshitting pilots makes the American people more secure, then, OSAMA WAS RIGHT"
"Stealing the taxpayers money does not give the taxpayers a sense of security"
"Next time the Government raises pilot fees, crash a plane into Congress"
"Bombing assholes who meet to bullshit and steal taxpayer money is not a crime"
But I was an Organization Man at heart, and the commies won twice that day. The first time when the bureaucrats stole the money, and the second time when I chose to do nothing.
Sigh. True Sad Story.
More adventures on the internet:
Bad Commie Adventures:
Here is a Bad Commie post in the comment thread about a story that says "republicans are mad at bush for not being conservative"
First, I agree with the Marine: Ron Paul is the only honest man in congress.
Second, The fact that Dean is frothing at the mouth mad makes him uniquely qualified to be president. Just think about it - he says he loves the French - but what happens when he goes over to talk to them and they pee on him and say "Mon Dieu! What smells like cow!" ? Bye Bye France, that's what. Big hole from nuclear explosion.
Third, you all are still a bunch of cheerleading retarded pussies. W is quite a serviceable president who does exactly the right amount of foreigner killing. Like XXX says, blaming W for the people electing thieves to pass laws is a stupid ass excuse. Furthermore, there is no particular reason why W should even attempt to veto legislation passed by republican looters. It's not W's job to pass laws. If the REPUBLICAN congress wants to makes the US a communist hellhole, that is their right and responsibility. W ain't a legislator, he's an ass kicker.
Furthermore, it IS the democrats that are fiscal conservatives. They don't have the GALL to LIE to your face and say they are not going to steal your money and then STEAL IT. At least the democrats tell you what you are GETTING for your money. The hypocritical republican fascists communists JUST LIE and STEAL.
Saying the republicans "didn't mean to steal" and they are "not really republicans, but merely RINOs" is PURE idiotarianism - the thing that this web site is supposedly against.
In short, the people to blame for the looting by the republican congress are the readers of sites like this one, WHO ELECTED THE LOOTERS. How much of a moron do you have to be not to see that the hand stealing from your pocket belongs to republican legislators?
...[and later on]
Look down close to your pocket - see that big fat greasy hand reaching in ? - watch it move closer and closer to your dollar bill that you earned - now watch it grab the dollar bill - now watch the hand leave with the dollar bill - now watch the fat REPUBLICAN senator that you VOTED for walk away with the dollar bill. Now look at the talking point sign on the back of the republican saying "THEM DEMOCRATS DOG GONE STOLE YOUR MONEY BECAUSE THOSE BASTARDS WANTED TO GIVE YOU HEALTH CARE AND SOCIALISM IS BAD".
Now watch the democratic senator standing by the side of the road looking very sad because he GOT TO DO NO STEALING WHATSOEVER. That poor guy. He only wanted to steal half the money the fact republican porker was going to steal, and he was going to give you healthcare too.
I know who the commies are. Its the guys that ACTUALLY STOLE my money. The REPUBLICANS.
Posted by: Bad Commie on January 31, 2004 09:15 AM
Update: Eventually the "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler", as he calls himself, couldn't handle the truth that he was everything he pretended to be against, and decided to ban me from further comments.
This is the post that I did that broke the camel's back, so to speak:
Here is a quote from the front of this blog. Misha says:
I'd also like to run into a few of the pigs still sympathetic towards the subhuman filth inhabiting the terrortories.
But most of all, I'd absolutely LOVE to rip their throats out with my own teeth and piss in the bloody, gaping hole.
Does he sound sane to you? He just said he would murder someone in exactly the same way as a serial killer, or in exactly the same way Hitler murdered the Jews. And do you know why Misha would do this? It's because he is a subhuman nazi, that's why.
Note that Misha did not qualify his statement in any way. Even a *generous* reading of what he said would still leave his statement applicable to all people living in the territories who are not "jews", whatever that means to Misha. Basically, the serial killer Misha will kill you if you happen to live on some piece of land and you are not a "jew". Note that no Israeli supports this kind of position.
He is, of-course, doing this for religious reasons - because he worships the acts of jews religiously. I am not against jews. But he's a religious jew-loving nazi with serial killer impulses. He's a hard core republican, who acts like a fascist, who worships that acts of jews, who supports Hitler like behavior and who wants his followers to salute him with the same unthinking idiocy that Hitler's followers saluted Hitler.
Just like you people can't see that the hand in your pocket is attached to a republican, so are you also serial killer mass murderers on behalf of jews.
You wouldn't know morality if it bit you in the ass.
Posted by: Banned Bad Commie on January 31, 2004 04:28 PM
When I posted that again, using an anonymizing proxy, he started deleting his own comments, and then mine, and then he replaced the above post with posts like these two below where he felt the needs to put words in my mouth to say that I support Hitler. I don't think he needed to do that - his followers were pretty extreme anyway. Note, this is what he wants the readers of his blog to think that I said.
You're pretty despicable Misha, licking the hand of the Jew.
We national socialists will beat the shit out of you eventually, and then we'll re-open the camps and finish the job that our great leader, Adolf Hitler, started.
and another replacement:
Yes, I'm a National Socialist, and I'm PROUD of it!
The rest of you idiots are just too busy sucking the nuts of the Jew to realize that Hitler was right and that he, the greatest white man that ever lived, should have been allowed to finish his work of killing all of the subhuman bastards.
Basically, this is Godwin's law in action. He decided to call me a Nazi first, and when he could not deal with the counter comparison, he had to create fake posts pretending to be me, saying, that, it was really I that liked Hitler [the irony - did he really think this would hurt someone who actually was homocidally racist against Jews ? - LOL] - such an accusation instantly negates your credibility and destroys reasoned debate, because of "political correctness". Of-course, his advocacy of serial killer type vicious mass murder is still on his page. Evidently, he thinks his form of mass-murder is OK.
P.S. Bad Commie is not actually pro palestinian. I don't like killing anyone for any reason. Just stabbing them repeatedly is fine with me. Mostly with a pen. A really really sharp one. Shaped like a knife. STAB. Oops, Heh.
Anyway, the palestinians are basically modern day indians(like in the old west), and there are certainly better ways to deal with indians than indiscriminate mass murder.
Osama bin Texan Adventures:
After your great New York Times class reporting on the WMD's found Iraq ( http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/001151.html ), I was worried that you had given up covering the Iraq issue all together -- after all, not one mention of the Bush Administrations slow and constipated admissions that there never were WMD's in the first place.
Anyway, I'm glad to see you've chosen to return to the issue. If we establish the corrupt awarding of oil contracts as a basis for invasion, Texas could soon be under Reconstruction occupation once again !
Seriously though, after all the squealing and moaning and penny pinching and rider counting about that bus system, why no mention of the 87 Billion we got taken for in this war ? Oh wait, 87 Billion was just when they came back for the gums after stealing our teeth. The whole take was around 150 Billion. I don't think it cost Abe Lincoln that much to kick Texas's ass, so maybe it will be cheaper to liberate Texas. But hey, maybe that had something to do with the nickname "Honest".
Why is Jessica's Well so adamantly in favor of these huge government projects, and so refreshingly suspicious of the local small pork and graft ?
If inflation explodes to the point that your parents social security checks aren't enough and they have to move in with you when they are old, it won't be the fault of some bus scam. It will be because "Big Gov" W never saw a spending bill he couldn't sign.
I think Texans are pro-war because the war reminds them of a football game. They love the passion, the competition, the trash talking, etc. Well, it's time to stop putting our football tickets on the credit card, folks.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Check out the vicious stabbing that Bad Commie got for pointing out that there were thieves in congress [the shock!], and that the band of thieves currently had red shirts, I mean republicans, in charge. I feel so ostracized! Republikkklan Hitler saluters don't like me! However will I fit in? Especially with my pro crime stance.
At least Osama bin Texan comes to my defense later on in that thread:
I have to say that I agree with Bad Commie. The rest of you guys seem obsessed with some cheerleading contest. I mean, it's not a real sport, you are just yakking about who has the best one liners in the campaign. "Dean reminded me of the WWF! and my wife too, that's proof!" "No, Hitler! I lived in Europe, that's proof!" You are like Molly and the rest of the lefty cheerleaders worrying about who can come up with the best silver foot or born on third line about W.
Well, when your only defender is a known terrorist, sorry, I mean known Texan, Hmmm..... I don't like where this is going. Ignore that.
I can't believe the UnDemocratic Iowans and the New Hampshire residents wanted John Kerry to be the UN-Democratic party nominee. This is the John Kerry who is the liberal senator from Massachusetts compared to the other senator - the fat, murdering, stealing, sometimes right, always drunk Ted Kennedy. This is the gigolo John Kerry who has been sucking up to Washington special interests for the last 25 years, who threw his medals in the trash, who committed war crimes (including murder), and wouldn't know middle class or a job if it bit him in the ass. He also can't makes speeches worth shit. God, what are these people thinking nominating him? How stupid do they think the other side is? Let me tell you, the stumbling, dishonest, potty mouthed north-eastern looting elitist John Kerry is no Blair.
"(Blair) is a mixture of Harry Houdini and a greased piglet. He is barely human in his elusiveness. Nailing Blair is like trying to pin jelly to a wall."
You'll never see that said about John Kerry.
Personally, I would like to vote for the fiscal conservative republican Howard Dean. It's going to take some real convincing to get me to vote for W. Here is what real conservatives say about W and his republikkklan posse these days:
There was a time not long ago when the president could do no wrong in my eyes, a time when I was willing to write, as I did in September '02, "I have faith in President Bush." That time ended last summer, however, when I finally got fed up with his fiscally ridiculous ways. Indeed, John Kerry calls the Bush White House "reckless," and when it comes to our wallets I tend to agree. And while I never thought I'd say this, the way Bush spends -- and spends, and spends -- I'm beginning to miss Bill Clinton.
Must we go to the moon, I mean? And must it cost billions in taxpayer dollars? Can't we just build a really tall ladder instead?
Anyway, with fiscal disgruntlement in mind, I began looking over my earlier work a few months ago, hoping to justify just what it was that made me vote Republican. I soon found the truth: I was as much a partisan cheerleader as the Hollywood Lefties I claimed to despise. And at first, I confess, I thought to address this in an Orwellian way -- that is, I thought to erase the past by removing older articles from my Web site's archives. Not wanting to repeat my personal history, however, I've decided to take myself on instead. Thus, this here mea culpa.
My thoughts on my partisan past? In retrospect, it bugs me. It means I ignored the fact that Big Gov't is Big Gov't no matter the name it goes by -- GOP, DNC, or what have you. For a time there, especially when I was first getting started three years ago, I had nary a thought of my own. I was accused a time or two of receiving Republican talking points. I didn't need them. All I had to do was turn on Sean Hannity and I'd end up repeating everything he said. The closest I came to independent thinking was repeating the words of people who claimed to be independent thinkers.
Heh. Ooops, I just made fun of myself!
Wrapping up, since the last Blog had an anti McDonalds article, here is a pro McDonalds one:
Ken Payne, a management consultant who has lived and traveled in the former Soviet Union for most of the past 15 years, describes what he calls the "McDonald's effect": "Before McDonald's came to town [the first McDonald's opened in Moscow in 1990], no one contemplated clean toilets, or service with a smile. Â Now, partly because of McDonald's, people no longer tolerate filth or terrible service, and expectations in the society as a whole have been raised."
Also, Bad Commie found deep dark secret on internet.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Fellow Bad Commies! It is time for another exciting blog entry! What wonderful news of communism shall I find on the internet today?! Uhhhh, wait ..... I meant, what savage atrocious commie behavior shall I be forced to expose!
Hokay, first, this observation from the slashdot technological netherworld, [courtesy of Osama bin Texan - name in evil commie red, as usual]:
Vote Democratic, The Economy Improves Consistently
Employment (especially at smaller companies) tends to go up under Democratic administrations, as does the stock market. This trend is consistent and has been proven but the media seems to avoid this important story, instead promoting a popular myth that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats.
This myth is wrong. Democratic administrations have performed better economically since the beginning of the 20th century, often markedly so.
Possible reasons are many, perhaps increased confidence in the future under Democratic administrations for the common people, vs. increased fear while the Republicans are in power. Also, to promote growth, Democrats prefer to tax higher income people, which decreases the gap between rich and poor, while Republicans prefer to have the government go into debt, increasing the cost of capital and interest rates and making banking more profitable, but also increasing the gap between rich and poor.
Which do you prefer?
Hmmm. Commies rule the known universe or lots of money in Bad Commie pocket? Tough one. NOT!!!! STAB STAB STAB. [Also, must stab self for excessive intellectualism].
So, will Bad Commie choose capitalism, no matter how poor it makes him?
[Bad Commie stabs self - preventive maintenance stabbing before hypothetical thought experiment, in case the conclusion turns out to be pro commie].
So, is communism and mass murder good for the economy? Probably, Yes. Certainly to some degree. Bad Commie is definitely pro crime, anyway, as I've explained on numerous occasions.
I wonder what degree of looting and stealing, and by whom, would maximize the economy? Of-course, we would have to observe long and short term economical benefit for different types of population groups.
Hmmm. I'll probably need some sort of statistical model where I can vary the size of government, the degree of state and personal looting, the degree of personal capitalism and of personal communism, the degree of commie stabbing [actually, I don't think I will vary that - that setting will be set on "Extra Stab"] ? Hmmm. In any case, its obviously quite reasonable to assume that increasing communism can increase the economy for ALL groups. To see this - assume that the US had never engaged in any communism, but that we would do so on one occasion. Lets assume that that occasion was the killing and eating of Bill Gates, and the distribution of all his money. Well, Bill Gates would be shit out of luck, but everyone else would benefit. So, we are forced to conclude that communism can have a very positive effect on all groups. And we didn't even have to assume that humans were moral or good or anything, in order to prove that communism is good. Not only didn't we have to assume human being were good and moral but, quite the opposite! We got to cook and eat Bill Gates!
Hokay, thought experiment over. I'll have to stab myself to insure that I didn't learn anything.
So, I guess I'll have to be poor if I want to stab commies. Oh well, as long as I have my knife and my other knife, I am happy. Back to the internet, in all its glory.
Does the fact that, during the elections, republican states are called "red states" mean that Republicans and W are a Red Commie Menace? Crap, Shit, I'm stabbing the wrong side again. Fuck. Ok, Ok, in order to get back into the stabbing groove, let's get back to the simple basics. Lets prove John Kerry is a dirty smelly hippy commie. Jonathan David Morris says:
"Iowa's a rural state," caucusgoers were expected to say. "Rural states have farms, and farms have agriculture, and John Kerry... well, John Kerry doesn't even like agriculture. Wait a minute. I live in Iowa. John Kerry doesn't like me!"
Yes, by having so much as suggested smaller government, Kerry was painted to be an uncaring, insensitive man. I suppose, by this standard, George Bush will be called the same thing unless he moves forward with his occupation of Mars. He wouldn't want to slight Martian-Americans, after all. Not in an election year.
I can't be the only one who's offended by the fact that small government's supposed to offend voters, can I?
Maybe I can. Kerry's own campaign, after all, was quick to reply to the '96 remarks that he "takes a back seat to no one" -- in the words of spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter -- when it comes to "protecting America's farmers." This time, the keyword is "protecting." The people need protection, we're told, and candidates will do anything -- from riding a bike on late night TV to dropping f-bombs in the pages of pop culture rags -- to prove they can be trusted with the job.
John Kerry says on his Web site that he's "prepared to fight with all my energy" on our behalf. Howard Dean writes on his that he has "a proven track record of... fighting the good fight." Wesley Clark, likewise, has an "ability to fight for his people." And as for Joe Lieberman, "he's continued to lead... and to fight for what's right for America" "in the Senate over the last 14 years" -- this after "fight[ing] for African-Americans' right to vote," and "fighting for the people of his state as Attorney General." I don't know about you, but that sure seems to me like a whole lot of fighting.
That's the name of the game, though. "I'm going to fight for you," they say. Well, here's a crazy idea: Don't. Let us fight for ourselves. It costs us money when you do it.
Ah, but who am I fooling? John Kerry's win proves he's a fighter. It's a shame, really. He might've had my vote.
OK, good. John Kerry is a Commie. Stab, Stab, Stab. I think I'm getting the hang of it again. Now, let's prove that the french are commies:
[France is] America minus the Declaration of Independance, minus the Constitution, minus the conquest of the West, minus the Oval office, minus the Pentagon, minus Hollywood, minus World War II, minus Vietnam, minus the Cybercoast which now stretches well beyond the Silicon Valley of its beginnings, minus Apollo and minus the Gulf War.
In France, someone convicted of embezzlement or bribery is not ostracised by his compatriots. Following the disclosures about Socialist party financing, the treasurer, Henri Emmanuelli, was sent to prison. That in no way hindered him from being re-elected to parliament when he was released. Indeed, since bribery is considered essential for lubricating a deal, corruption-busting magistrates can find themselves accused of harming French business interests.
Corruption exists in all countries, rich and poor. Does it have distinctive roots in France? According to the writer Edmonde Charles Roux, "the Mediterranean people have a conception of honesty which is peculiar to them." In the case of France there are two aspects of all this which seem to be fundamentally different from life in Britain.
The first is the attitude to money. The British have a fairly clear view (which has been called Protestant) that money is a tool. There is nothing wrong with it in itself, but there is good money, earned by hard work, and bad money gained through greed or dishonesty. At the root of the French attitude is the Catholic view that money is tainted by sin. Yet money is necessary and since corruption is only an abuse of something already sinful, it doesn't matter too much.
That historical, Catholic view, is overlaid by the Republican rejection of all things Catholic (partly because the Catholic church itself was seen as corrupt). According to Republican logic, the term "morality" smacks of the church, so calling a politician immoral is off limits because it mixes state with church, which is forbidden by law. Republicanism has also led to a conviction that the state will foot the bill - for anything. The result in France is a confused way of thinking about money, marked by suspicion and reticence when talking about it.
The second basic difference concerns the French attitude towards politicians. In France, politics is about strength and l'art de paratre. The French don't condemn their leaders' immoral actions if they are for the common good. At one of his trials former minister Bernard Tapie admitted he had committed perjury. "But I lied in good faith," he added. "Better the dishonest minister than the stupid one," says barrister Jean-Pierre Versini-Campinchi, who is defending Francois Mitterrand's son in an arms trafficking case. The French do not share the notion that a politician should, personally, set a good example.
OK, good again. french == commies. Check. I'm really good at this proving stuff. Now, let's prove that W is a commie. Molly Ivins says:
Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple," is still painfully true. Bush has simply never acknowledged that not only was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- he's been eating off it ever since. The reason there is no noblesse oblige about Dubya is because he doesn't admit to himself or anyone else that he owes his entire life to being named George W. Bush. He didn't just get a head start by being his father's son -- it remained the single most salient fact about him for most of his life. He got into Andover as a legacy. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into Harvard Business School as a courtesy (he was turned down by the University of Texas Law School). He got into the Texas Air National Guard -- and sat out Vietnam -- through Daddy's influence. (I would like to point out that that particular unit of FANGers, as regular Air Force referred to the "Fucking Air National Guard," included not only the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but some actual black members as well -- they just happened to play football for the Dallas Cowboys.) Bush was set up in the oil business by friends of his father. He went broke and was bailed out by friends of his father. He went broke again and was bailed out again by friends of his father; he went broke yet again and was bailed out by some fellow Yalies.
Hmm, OK, that was Molly Ivins. I heard she was a democrat. We have no bidness listening to democrats. Let's listen to the excellent, certified anti-intellectual Kyle Williams:
Here we are on the outset of 2004, and the hope that President Bush would wrap up his first term with a conservative agenda is rapidly fading. From the beginning of his administration with the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, and later with the Homeland Security bureaucracy and the farm bill, President Bush has abandoned his conservative base.
It seems to be common sense that you don't trade the constituency that got you elected for blood-sucking leaches in Washington. Instead of rewarding conservatives with a sensible education policy, our president rewards Ted Kennedy, a man who vehemently hates the GOP.
"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, was quoted in the Washington Times report. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."
The campaign slogan for Bush and Cheney 2004 should be: "Throwing your liberty away slower than everybody else!" That's the idea, right? Every criticism of President Bush early in his term was responded with, "Would you rather Al Gore be in office?" No, I don't want Al Gore in office.
Now, any criticism is responded with, "Would you rather Howard Dean be in office?" No, I sure wouldn't want Howard Dean or the ridiculous John Kerry in office.
Because of the GOP reneging on conservative principles, the inability for a third-party candidate to win and a Bush campaign based upon mediocrity, cynicism is going to be on the mind of many this next election cycle. And, while the administration stares into the sky, hoping to spend billions on sending men to Mars, many conservatives will be wondering why they should bother showing up this coming November.
OK, good. W == commie. Check. W is also very entertaining. He says:
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." --Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
Hmm, I wonder if Bad Commie Blog is a dark dungeon?
Wait, Fuck! No! Stabbing the wrong side again! Crap! Mother fucker! I really really suck. I must be eating too many fries. I'd better stop for today.
Remember, if you buy my Bad Commie tshirt and wear it in public, it doubles your chance of going to prison, or your money is all mine!
Also, thank you for these two blogs for blogrolling me:
I certify that they are Bad Commies!
P.S. Osama bin Texan asked me:
Does the rich, happy kulak spend a lot of time reading ? No, he goes around checking on his cows and pigs and selling things. The village commie, on the other hand, sits in the cafe reading foreign newspapers and muttering and getting angry and unhappy. If he would just go check to see how big his pigs had grown, to see that God loved him and was making him rich, he wouldn't care.
Hmm, Maybe Bad Commie is internet kulak? No? I didn't think so either.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Bad Commie Pathetic Attempt at Capitalism is here!
Anti Commie Tshirts! Bad Commie is Ken Lay, only with tshirts!
If you buy these anti commie tshirts, I guarantee everyone will know you are a Bad Bad Commie!
Front of tshirt:
Back of tshirt:
While you are deciding if you are going to buy 5 or 10 tshirts, and while Bad Commie is busy lying to self, here is extra special lie that makes W feel all warm and fuzzy inside:
The projected Electoral votes for the 2004 election are:
Bush 391, Dem 147, 11 blue states vs 40 red!
Gold Star from Asscraft for this one!
Speaking of liars, [or is it liars speaking?] the CATO Institute for the Promotion of Communism, uhhh, wait, no, The "CATO Institute for Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace" has carefully analyzed the State of the Union addresses of republican and democratic presidents and used fuzzy mathematics and non linear chaos theory to prove that W is 3 times less a commie that Bill Clinton:
Bush Speech to Congress Contains 11 More Initiatives Than Last Year
President proposes 31 new or expanded initiatives, Cato analysis finds
"Unfortunately, his proposal for real retirement investments may be the only thing in his program that will reduce the long-term fiscal obligations facing the federal government. Once again, the president has called for fiscal restraint while presenting a laundry list of spending programs and recommending no spending cuts. It doesn't look like there's any real intention to cut back on the fastest spending pace since the Lyndon Johnson administration.
"President Bush declared that 'the American people are using their money far better than government would have'--but in fact his administration has taken 24 percent more of our money than the Clinton administration did. The most striking hypocrisy during the evening was members of Congress giving a standing ovation when Bush called for limiting federal spending and cutting wasteful spending. Congress and the president have cooperated to produce a 24 percent increase in spending in just three years. And the president praised Congress for 'great works of compassion' in creating a huge new prescription-drug entitlement--but it's not actually compassionate to spend other people's money.
"The president called on members of Congress to renew the Patriot Act. I call on members of Congress at least to read the Patriot Act this time--and I'm confident that if they read it, they will realize that it threatens essential American freedoms and should be substantially reformed."
Oh well, I guess when W said "I am a compassionate conservative", he meant that he was going to be compassionate and give everyone a share of your money, while being conservative on letting you have gay sex with Ted Kennedy. Stupid W! Bad Pimp! How are French people all supposed to have sex with Ted Kennedy if W is against them gays?
There is "another group of Americans in need of help," the president declared. ("There always is," our Reaganite friends were thinking, or should have been thinking, if they have any principles.) This needy group is "some 600,000 inmates [who] will be released from prison" in the coming year.
Wow. There was a time, boys and girls, not so long ago, when the president was also named George Bush and no Republican politician would so much as acknowledge the possibility that an inmate should ever be released from prison. Now, a new President Bush for the New Century proposes "a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative" to address the needs of released prisoners, including the need to "get mentoring." Willie Horton, thou shouldst be on furlough at this hour!
Hmmm. Interesting. Well, to be fair, Bad Commie is solidly pro crime. I guess that would make me against reeducating bad bad mens. Oh well. Anyway, here is an excellent stabbing by capitalism magazine [but in wrong direction, as usual]:
Actually, Dean operates on the premise that capitalism has no "rules." Leftists like him, at root, portray capitalism as a chaotic, unjust political-economic system, not because it is without rules, but because it is without the rules he champions. Capitalism's "rules" are objective laws. They rest on the premise that all property is individually and privately owned by right, and on the deeper premise that men are innocent until proven guilty strictly of initiating force or fraud against other men.
This is freedom, but to Dean it equates to anarchism. That's because to power lusting Leftists, "rules" mean regulations -- which rest on the premises that individual rights are not inalienable, but can be revoked for any reason the state or "the public" deems fit, and that men are guilty until proven innocent. While Dean seeks arbitrary power to revoke a corporation's right to free speech and private property, such socialist policies run throughout his politics, from his calls for socialized health care to his professed tax hikes to redistribute wealth.
Again, this is standard Democratic politics. What's unusual and significant about Dean, however, is that he paints these policies that sacrifice individual rights to the state or "public good" as capitalism -- a position that is the essence of fascism.
Heh. Excellent. COMMIE -> STAB. Heh.
And, finally, another drive by stabbing from the always excellent FrontStab Magazine.
Monday, January 19, 2004
STAB FRENCHMAN JOHN KERRY, STAB TRIAL LAWYER JOHN EDWARDS, STAB ANGRY DWARF HOWARD DEAN, STAB HOLY COMMIE DENNIS KUCINICH, STAB STATIST COMMIE GEORGE W BUSH, STAB, STAB, STAB,
What's that, I have to write a blog entry? Oh, all right.
Given how nasty some if the bush flash links were, that I posted in the previous blogs, here is a very nice one: Time to Bomb Saddam. It makes me very happy and cheers me up every time I watch it! Give it a stab! You'll love it! This one is also pretty good, so is this one. This one is just OK.
Today, I'll start with an explanation of why sweatshops are good, in order to make sure commies don't read my blog:
Contrast those nations to the countries that have traditionally been "spared" sweatshops: the results are striking.
India, for example, has long resisted allowing itself to be "exploited" by foreign investment. It was one of the last major countries in the world to be introduced to Coca-Cola. Consequently, India festered in abject poverty for decades. India has only opened its markets to the west in the latter part of the last century and, as Norberg writes, its economy immediately showed signs of life. India's percentage of child laborers in the workforce has fallen from 35% to just 12%.
The economist and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell describes how anti-sweatshop sentiments in the 1950s hindered progress in West Africa:
Half a century ago, public opinion in Britain caused British firms in colonial West Africa to pay higher wages than local economic conditions would have warranted. Net result? Vastly more job applicants than jobs.
Not only did great numbers of frustrated Africans not get jobs. They did not get the work experience that would have allowed them to upgrade their skills and become more valuable and higher-paid workers later on.
Today, of course, western and sub-Saharan Africa are among the most destitute regions on earth. Per capita GDP there is actually lower today than it was in the 1960s.
But even within that desolation, there flicker feint glimmers of hope. Norberg writes that a few countries - Botswana, Ghana, and most notably Uganda - have liberalized their trade policies in recent years and have already seen double-digit decreases in poverty rates. One wonders what might have happened if well-intentioned public opinion in 1950s Britain could have stomached the short-term discomfort of early industrialization in Africa for the long term benefits of modernized economies. Today's Africa may have been much, much different.
Ok, now that all the commies have been chased away by the truth, we can get down to bidness.
Here is an excellent article from FrontPage Magazine by Alexis Amory describing how BBC == Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation:
Now, the BBC's heavy-handed instant self-abasement to the Islamofascists and their apologists is doubly hypocritical, because there is a British Oxford-based poet, lecturer and attention-seeker by the name of Tom Paulin who appears regularly as a panelist on the BBC.
In contrast to the mild Kilroy-Silk, Mr Paulin has indeed freely incited violence. A pick n mix selection of Paulin's comments made during an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram last April: "Brooklyn-born" Jewish settlers on the West Bank "should be shot dead"; "they are Nazis"; "I feel nothing but hatred for them". A few days after his violent views were published, Mr.Paulin's script was acted out as a Hamas Death Squad shot dead four Israeli settlers in their beds, including a five year-old girl.
I am not saying it was cause and effect. And I am not saying that Mr Paulin is anti-Semitic as opposed to anti-Israel. I am, however, saying that his words were an incontrovertible incitement to hatred and violence. Yet, while Kilroy-Silk was scraped off the air with indecent haste for an article in a British newspaper, Paulin continues his regular appearance on the BBC's The Late Review, his wrist not even lightly tapped for comments he made to an Arab newspaper. Nor does Trevor Phillips have any words of admonishment for him.
Pravda BBC! STAB! OK, so stabbing the BBC is like stabbing swiss cheese, why would one even bother? Everyone knows the BBC are hard core cheese eating, freedom hating, censoring communists who would immediately get crushed by capitalist media in a free market and run crying home to nana. "Good" thing their broadcasting monopoly is supported by the state, huh?
If you want real reporting you have to listen to people like this:
They called my reporting "hard-hitting," "a public service." I won 18 Emmys, and lots of other journalism awards. One year I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech "for not having an entry in this category."
Then I did a terrible thing. Instead of just applying my skepticism to business, I applied it to government and "public interest" groups. This apparently violated a religious tenet of journalism. Suddenly I was no longer "objective."
Ralph Nader said I "used to be on the cutting edge," but had become "lazy and dishonest." According to Brill's Content, "Nader was a fan during Stossel's consumer advocate days," but "now talks about him as if he'd been afflicted with a mysterious disease."
These days, I rarely get awards from my peers. Some of my ABC colleagues look away when they see me in the halls. Web sites call my reporting "hurtful, biased, absurd." "What happened to Stossel?" they ask. CNN invited me to be a guest on a journalism show; when I arrived at the studio, I discovered they'd titled it "Objectivity and Journalism #151; Does John Stossel Practice Either?" People now e-mail me, calling me "a corporate whore" and a "sellout."
Speaking of terrified commies, why are the democrats not complaining about the gross fraud and stalinism in their primary elections? Much Much worse than anything that happened in Florida:
On caucus night, the Iowa Democratic Party will release the delegate count. Here's when the party will release the raw vote count and the realigned vote count: Never. The party won't compile or even record them, except as a temporary step in most precincts so that the caucus chair can determine how many delegates each candidate gets. The party doesn't want raw votes compiled and released, because it wants the caucuses to be a collaborative activity, not a tally of individual preferences. That's all well and good, if you like the party's communitarian version of democracy. But if you want to know how many voters stood up for John Edwards, you're out of luck.
Well, we all know why the democrats don't want a fair process. Because they are GODLESS COMMIES with too much "socialist vision", that's why.
GODLESS COMMIES who:
have grandly quoted from the Book of Proverbs: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." The biblical invocation plays into the media-fed notion that great leaders succeed when they persevere according to their own lights.
But such popularized concepts of political leadership -- encouraged by countless journalists -- are long on vision and short on hearing. With apparent self-assurance, politicians often have a way of filtering out the messages they don't want to hear, even from their own supporters.
I think we need more Jacksonian doers and less Jeffersonian talkers:
One way to grasp the difference between the two schools is to see that both Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are civil libertarians, passionately attached to the Constitution and especially to the Bill of Rights, and deeply concerned to preserve the liberties of ordinary Americans. But while the Jeffersonians are most profoundly devoted to the First Amendment, protecting the freedom of speech and prohibiting a federal establishment of religion, Jacksonians see the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, as the citadel of liberty. Jeffersonians join the American Civil Liberties Union; Jacksonians join the National Rifle Association. In so doing, both are convinced that they are standing at the barricades of freedom.
And finally, here is an idiot commie from California saying Texas doesn't know how to be capitalist. That would be CALIFORNIA. CASE CLOSED.
Anyway, back to the stabbing!
COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB
P.S. Osama bin Texan [name in Evil Texan Commie Red] wanted me to include a link to some positive examples of capitalism. Here is one about Joe Martin and Sherline Products.
COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB, COMMIE -> STAB
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Why is the commie Bush causing Aliens to desert the United States in droves?
China appeals to aliens the most, due to the country's recent breakthroughs and its aspiration to become the world's leader. Aliens used to be interested in the US up until recently.
This is a damnable outrage. W has singlehandedly dramatically reduced the instances of alien anal probes in the United States. That fucker. How will the democrats get their anal probes now? I demand immediate and unconditional alien anal probes for all democrats, or I burn all the democrats in a bonfire in order to cause global warming, right this very second! This demand is non negotiable.
Speaking of people desperately needing anal probes, Dean + Iowans = entertainment:
It's not a wonderful day in the Iowa neighborhood, as LGF reports. Dale Ungerer of Hawkeye, Iowa addressed Dean with this comment:
"Please tone down the garbage, the mean mouthing, the tearing down of your neighbor and being so pompous," Ungerer told the former Vermont governor and Democratic front-runner. "You should help your neighbor and not tear him down."
Mister Dean replied, "George Bush is not my neighbor." Ungerer said, "Yes, he is." Reuters records Dean's retort:
"You sit down. You had your say. Now I'm going to have my say."
The crowd cheered and Ungerer sat.
"George Bush has done more to harm this county right here with unfunded mandates, standing up for corporations who take over the farmers' land, making it impossible for middle class people to make a real living, sending our kids to Iraq without telling us the truth first about why they went," Dean said.
"It's not the time to put up any of this 'love thy neighbor' stuff ... I love my neighbor, but I'll tell you I want THAT neighbor back in Crawford, Texas where he belongs."
Hey, you know what else I found on the internet? Check it out:
When M.J. Bonn stated that tomorrow's world will be neither socialist or capitalist, he was simply confirming the Wells' statement that his New World Order would be comprised of "Socialist Democracies". This concept becomes even more enlightening when one comes to the realization that statements made by the likes of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, et al ad nauseum, which speak of "making the world safe for democracy", developing Iraq into a "democracy", etc. makes no implication that these new "democracies" will be governed in the same manner as is the United States. In the first place, one needs to understand the definition of a democracy:
"A democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner" (16)
The United States of America is not a Democracy - it is a Representative Republic. In a Representative Republic the majority rules via its representatives, but the rights of the minority are protected by the Rule of Law. (The Rule of Law values Justice - not postmodern tolerance as the basis of moral standards.) The Representative Republic is based on the economic system of Capitalism.
At the other end of the spectrum is Communism, the system that stems from Marxist socialism. When one utilizes the Hegelian Dialectic to synthesize democracy and socialism, the resulting synthesis is exactly that which M.J. Bonn and HG Wells visualized - a Socialist Democracy. A Socialist Democracy then is a system whereby the majority rules for the equal distribution of the wealth of the nation. Why would the majority rule for socialism? Simple - in a Socialist Democracy the majority is on the government dole, and will vote to keep such a government intact. Such a government would be tyrannical, and individual liberties would be willingly sacrificed by the voting majority in order to keep the government gravy train rolling to their front door. These are the new democracies of Clinton, Gore, and Bush.
By the 1970s, things had grown progressively worse. Richard Gardner wrote in Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations:
"In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault" (11)
In 1975, the US Legislature: 32 Senators and 92 Representatives signed the "Declaration of Interdependence." This document stated:
"we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation." (12)
In 1991, President George H. Bush made the following statement in his State of the Union speech:
"...the crisis in the Persian Gulf offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge" (13)
Once the Clinton Administration controlled the Washington bureaucracy, the deteriorating situation became even more blatant. Under Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, a member if the World Federalists, made this alarming statement:
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. Maybe national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." (14)
At this point the reader needs to go back and take note of the phrases highlighted in red. First, the phrase "new world order" is generally construed by the average American as a term used by right wing fanatics who live in a constant and overwhelming fog of incurable, and ultimately fatal paranoia. However, the facts prove quite to the contrary: The use of this terminology by the afore-mentioned particular individuals (in their own words) verifies that there does exist an occultist hierarchy that is, in fact, endeavoring to build a utopian socialist society based on the antediluvian mysteries of Luciferic origin. To accuse these individuals of practicing the religion of Satanism may well be somewhat extreme, but to identify their motivations as Luciferian inspiration is certainly anything but extreme.
Pretty cool, huh? And all too true. One can only wonder if this Lucifer is also a drooling mongoloid, just like God is. Almost certainly, Almost certainly....
At this point, you may be in awe from Bad Commie's shock and awe campaign of truth. Well, I'm about to carpet bomb you, dear reader. Reading the article below will make you run crying home to mommy while sucking your thumb:
BuzzFlash: Many Democrats, many Progressives, Independents, Greens -- whatever differences there are among them -- pride themselves on being committed to ideas, and are, as you point out, contemptuous of the notion that people would vote on an image and an identity -- even, in the case of Schwarzenegger, outweighing the value of voting on specific ideas. Is there a basic conundrum for Democrats because they believe ideas should trump identity? And, therefore, since they think you should win on the issues, they're in a sort of cul de sac because they're so contemptuous of putting people out there who can win on identity and character?
George Lakoff: The issues are not the ideas. Democrats and liberals in general don't support their intellectuals, for example. They assume that the issues are about self-interest, and that there can be group self-interest. There are interest groups -- ethnic groups and so on. But that's not how people vote. People vote on their morality and their identity. Occasionally they vote on their self-interest when it's important, but mostly they vote for what they believe in and who they are. That's something that Democrats don't understand. And they haven't been attentive enough to ideas and to understanding how the mind works. They focus instead on self-interest and issues, issue by issue. As long as they go issue by issue, they're going to lose.
Man, there's some serious communism on that page. I was so disturbed, that I needed this Lakoff propagandist stabbed immediately. As usual, the best place to find a drive by stabbing is in amazon reader reviews of books. Here is a doozy:
Anatomy of political pathology, November 25, 2003
Reviewer: A reader from Galt's Gulch
Lakoff is a well-known cognitive scientist who has made some important contributions to that field. He has extended the linguistic research of Noam Chomsky beyond where even Chomsky thought it could go. Lakoff has shown how our neurological structure determines how we think and use language.
And like Chomsky, Lakoff thinks that he has something worth saying when it comes to politics. Again, like Chomsky, Lakoff is a man of the moonbat left, who thinks that politics is a grand Manichaean struggle, or perhaps a battle between the "more evolved" and the "less evolved": Cro Magnon vs. Neanderthal. There is a ring of truth and historical inevitability behind every conclusion. Religiosity without religion.
But, this isn't even the worst part of the book. Lakoff frames the difference between the left and the right as a choice between a feminine, "nurturant", well-meaning totalitarianism and that of a masculine, "strict", uncaring totalitarianism. Sounds like an unattractive choice, eh? I'd say that most people would choose the former, if these were the only choices.
But, the very idea of government-as-parent, known as paternalism or maternalism, is a pathology. As adults capable of governing ourselves, why should we need parents or minders?
The fatherly totalitarianism Lakoff imagines as "conservative" bears no relation to conservative philosophy. Modern American conservatism is classical liberalism with a dash of Edmund Burke.
Burke said that we should "conserve the forms", meaning that we should honor and conserve the institutions (community, church, family, etc) that make us a society. This is meant as a hedge against the radicalism of classical liberalism, which seeks to free all people from the shackles of feudalism and feudalistic thinking. Conservatism is a philosophy of liberty within a moral framework. Burke said, "when we forget the laws of the heart, the laws go on the books". Unfortunately, this is true, just look at our history for confirmation.
Lakoff's description of motherly totalitarianism paints hardcore socialism in a very favorable light. I do not doubt for a moment that Lakoff, like others on the left, is earnest and honorable. But the excesses of that philosophy resulted in the slaughter of 80-100 million people in the 20th century. The motherly face put on socialist totalitarianism, whether the Year Zero of Pol Pot or the enforced famines of Stalin, does not excuse its vices or its unintended consequences.
Conservatives explicitly reject the idea of utopia, no matter how attractive it is. They spend a lot of time worrying about unintended consequences. They aren't in search of a mommy or a daddy. They want government to help them as citizens. And they believe that the way a government helps a free people is by staying small.
If people want government to be their parent, they are in dire need of help, and would do us all a favor by staying away from the voting booth.
Since you've read this far, I assume you have an open mind. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to conservatism. But do yourself a favor and move beyond the rhetoric that we hear on political talk shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. Think about the source of your ideas: what is the pedigree of your ideas? What do you stand for, and why?
If you are really interested in answering these questions, then you will avoid the bestseller list tripe, whether Franken or Moore, Coulter or Hannity. Read the classics. Know what Burke and Nietzsche and Marx and Locke and Montesquieu really said. Don't let anyone interpret them for you.
Try "Confessions of a Bohemian Tory", by Russell Kirk, or "Anarchy, State, Utopia" by Robert Nozick, or "Modernity on Endless Trial", by Leszek Kolakowski. You'll be glad you did. You don't have to agree with them.
The above Lakoff crap was courtesy of leftiefilter, btw.
Wheew. After reading the above articles, you can be sure I'm not going to be asking myself penetrating questions about why commies need stabbing. NO QUESTIONS. JUST THE KNIFE. STAB STAB STAB.
Remember readers, when respect and compassion are lost, and revenge is required, an eye for eye is never enough.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Why does the country of the poofy haired leader have excellent entertainment like this, which even Soviet Texas can not match?
Pyongyang sights teeter between the comic and the sinister. The Mangyongdae Fun Fair features a grenade-throwing ground and machine-gun stalls.
Is there a reason we can't have stuff like this in Texas? Maybe a wetback tossing contest? Or possibly a contest to see who can beat canadian frostbacks the most viciously? Or maybe we can set mexicans on fire and race them? Crap, I think I crossed the line there. [Memo to self: need to drink more to take away the pain of communism]
I got another question; why are the fucking environmentalists killing animals which capitalists are taking care of? Do they think capitalists are not allowed to be nice to animals? This story makes me livid. I'm going to kick in the teeth of the next environmentalist I see. Fortunately for the grass eating scum, in Texas, I might not see one for a while. Good.
Here is very funny article about republicans, or maybe democrats. I can't tell difference. Anyway, was so funny I beat my monkey. Now it write Shakespeare faster.
Here is excellent explanation of monkey beating, sorry I mean democracy, by an Australian [link via Tim Blair]:
A couple of years back, American voters accidentally elected a man who believed police officers deserved to be killed and who supported wife abuse.
When asked how he'd made it to the New Hampshire House of Representatives without his extremist views becoming known, the Honorable Tom Alciere said: "Nobody asked."
Perhaps this explains how Arnold Schwarzenegger ended up at the helm of the Californian economy and why the US itself is now led by a man who has gone on the record complaining that "down in Washington they're playing with social security like it's some kind of government program".
Nice Doggie has excellent report on UN diplobabble here.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
The creative efforts of the nation are targeted and focused on taking away the bananas from the lovable chimp in the white house. The creative efforts have been focused and distilled into this great selective truth.
Almost as great as this one, which I posted a link to previously.
This chimp has a lot of bananas. And he's big and mean:
Congress, the group of looters that is actually responsible for stealing the money of all the US citizens, is busy looting the nation while being happy that the contra-looters (i.e. those looters currently not in power - democrats) are focused on the figurehead. Of-course, the president only has the power to set the agenda - to stimulate discussion - not to steal any money. If the discussion that is being stimulated is among hard core criminal looters - i.e. congress - then it is no wonder that the result of that discussion is more looting. Another point on the subtleties of two party looting - if one party controls Senate/House + the presidency, then the party that is not in control are basically homeless bums standing drunk on a street corner yelling "Jesus is Lord" and "Will work for food". The republicans do not involve the democrats in anything or let them go to any meetings. So the democrats are free to blame the republicans for the sky being blue, since the democrats themselves can not be said to be in any way responsible or related to the government of the nation. Basically, the opinions of the democrat party about America are like the opinions of France about America. You can be sure that if we actually let any of these looters in, they would immediately fuck things up. Well, fuck things up worse than the current situation, that is. And I say "worse" because its a demonstrated fact that congress does not know how to unpass and repeal laws. "Looting orders" is another word for the paper that congress produces.
This is a picture of congress interacting with the American public:
A picture of congress at work (note the poster):
Meanwhile, while congress is busy doing its usual equivalent of the "good cop, bad cop" routine - "good looter, bad looter", things like this are happening:
Iraqi Submarine Prowling Lake Michigan
Belgium Destroyed By Rogue Asteroid
I wonder if the NYT ever asks congress to prove that its looting is good? I know the NYT asks conservative political think tanks (Like the "Work for Food" Societies) to prove that their contributions are useful.
Here is a very interesting thread asking if the person that first self identified himself a communist was "really" a communist. This is like asking the first guy who beat the crap out of his neighbors and called himself King if he was "really" a King. I believe we should be stabbing, not asking.
Here is an interesting quote about the next wannabe figurehead:
Dean, in contrast, wants Democrats to stop being so defensive but doesn't want to confront the reasons why they might have been put on the defensive in the first place. We've forgotten about that. It was so long ago! But was it just a lack of fighting spirit that rocked the party back into minority status--or was it excessive, dogmatic loyalty to the very Democratic interest groups Dean has spent the past year sucking up to? Teachers' unions whose elaborate job protections for the semi-competent have turned suburban schools into swamps of mediocrity and inner city schools into nightmares. Industrial unions such as the UAW--whose detailed local work rules help guarantee that Detroit now builds essentially no cars that Howard Dean's Honda/Volvo/VW-driving supporters might actually want to buy. Affirmative action pressure groups whose efforts guarantee that competent professionals of color must carry around for life the stigma of having received special preferences. Bilingual educators promoting what is by now a proven means of holding Latino students back. Housing lobbyists whopromote "house the poorest first" rules that turn HUD projects into community-destroying hellholes. A senior lobby that has prevented adjustment of Social Security benefits--including "means-testing" the benefits of the rich--until it may be too late.
Dean campaigns to "Defeat the Special Interests," but as far as I can tell he has nothing to say to these special interests that they don't want to hear. He's even dropped Clinton's main positive-yet-biting theme, a constant rhetorical emphasis on work--which implicitly excludes people who don't work (as it rejects antipoverty welfare programs that undermine the value of work). Dean doesn't talk much about work; he talks blandly about "America's families." His vision of the "new Social Contract" is long on benefits and short on responsibilities, The main responsibility he cites is a vague "responsibility to particpate in our country's civic life," which seems to include a "voluntary," unenforceable, thousand-points-of-light-like "ethic of service." Hey, I'm comfortable with that! If it's voluntary then it's not really part of a contract, is it? Clinton's work requirement, in contrast, had some consequences. If you didn't work you were only going to get two years of welfare, and you weren't going to get the Earned Income Tax Credit that became the government's main anti-poverty program.
I think it will always be a mystery to hard working stabbers such as myself why someone would want to be in charge of a gang of muggers known as "the state". I hope you enjoy your gold statues, Mr Dean.
I have to end with this piece of humor. It's a man in a muslim newspaper complaining that the western world has "Funny Ideas About What Makes a Woman Happy".
Monday, January 05, 2004
Today, using my new tool of objectivist philosophy, I will objectively consider the individual looters that make up the democrat and republican gangs of mass murdering Hitler saluting thugs. Modernly known as the democrat and republican political parties.
What are commies as a group?
The political methods of the commie:
Commies are a group of people who rob other people, usually successful people. Commies force as many people as they can to work in extreme or partial slavery for the "common good". The "common commie good" is always arbitrarily defined and constantly changed by 1-10 head thugs in charge of the gang. Sometimes the people they rob are stupid rich, sometimes they are accidental rich, sometimes they rob dirt poor people, sometimes they directly steal and rob the very inventors of the "good" themselves. The common goal is robbery for some "common commie good". The concept of the "common commie good" is usually explained by loud repetition of some meaningless platitude asserting that people in a feudal dictatorship are better off than people under capitalism. The common good always involves a extraordinarily lavish lifestyle for the leaders of the gang. Lots of times, the chief thugs (i.e the thugs that are the best backstabbers) use some kind of rhetorical rationalization to perform a mass scale robbery, when they really just wanted to double their own salary. The scale of the robbery is usually a cover for the fact that it was done only to benefit the interests of the leaders.
If you have two groups of opposing looters, the groups always pick some meaningless secondary robbery to accuse the other looters of. After a propaganda war is fought, and the proper number of people are brainwashed, a compromise occurs with both sides engaging in celebratory mass looting. Often, the chief thugs pick figureheads who are "crusaders against the system". Everyone delights in watching the nominal figureheads make speeches like this when they are in charge:
To reform government, we must rethink government. The need for reform is urgent. The General Accounting Office (GAO) high-risk list identifies areas throughout the federal government that are most vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. Ten years ago, the GAO found eight such areas. Today it lists 22. Perhaps as significant, government programs too often deliver inadequate service at excessive cost. New programs are frequently created with little review or assessment of the already-existing programs to address the same perceived problem. Over time, numerous programs with overlapping missions and competing agendas grow up alongside one another, wasting money and baffling citizens.
Though reform is badly needed, the obstacles are daunting as previous generations of would be reformers have repeatedly discovered. The work of reform is continually overwhelmed by the constant multiplication of hopeful new government programs, each of whose authors is certain that this particular idea will avoid the managerial problems to which all previous government programs have succumbed. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the media have all shown far greater interest in the launch of new initiatives than in following up to see if anything useful ever occurred.
So while the government needs to reform its operations, how it goes about its business and how it treats the people it serves, it also needs to rethink its purpose, how it defines what business is and what services it should provide.
The President's vision for government reform is guided by three principles. Government should be:
Citizen-centered, not bureaucracy-centered;
Market-based, actively promoting rather than stifling innovation through competition.
The President has called for a government that is active but limited, that focuses on priorities and does them well. That same spirit should be brought to the work of reform. Rather than pursue an array of management initiatives, we have elected to identify the government's most glaring problems, and solve them. The President's Management Agenda is a starting point for management reform.
This, of-course, is an example of an excellent figurehead doing his best to convince the looters that they can loot more money by robbing less. The public is happy that such a great leader is in charge, and the looters are happy because they have good cover for their robbery. Out of the current democratic presidential candidates - only one - Denis Kucinich - says he would cut a big branch - any big branch of the looters. Denis wants to cut the Pentagon by 15%. The rest want the looting to continue in various proportions. The looting is targeted at the wealth of their opponents in the competition for the title of chief looter.
Our congresslooters thank God daily for the good cover that Bush provides while rolling around in their looted wealth.
The congresslooters have even laughingly redefined looting as wealth creation:
For the first time ever in the history of economic thinking, economists - that is, American economists - are claiming that growing asset prices represent fully valid wealth creation. In 1996, an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Securities: The New Wealth Machine" effectively explained that the financial markets have become the most powerful generator of wealth.
The financial damage of the commie:
In terms of economics, communism - robbery at the point of a gun - can not improve the average wealth of a man - ever. Although a poor man may celebrate the accidental largesse of a rich looter, the poor man can never maximize his own wealth in the presence of robbery. As soon as the poor man earns money, it is immediately collectivized from him. Therefore a poor man can not maximize his own wealth unless he can keep the fruits of his labor. Let us consider the total amount of money looted vs the total amount of money distributed after looting. Since the process of redistribution is always inefficient and wealth destroying, the amount of total money in the presence of looting must always be less than the amount of money in a capitalist society. Therefore, the average of income of man is always lowered by looting. However, the median income may be raised by looting, just like it can be raised even further by decreasing looting. Hmmmm.
The amount of looting going on in the United States is the greatest in known history, making the United States the most communist country ever. In particular the State of Texas has richly deserved its title as Soviet Texas. Communism (i.e. looting and slavery) is virtually an American Disease at this point:
Thousands of the richest, most leisured people in the history of civilization have become self-absorbed, ungracious, and completely divorced from the natural world - the age-old horrific realities of dearth, plague, hunger, rapine, or conquest.
As I have said many times, if democrats and republicans walk, talk and plead for their life like commies - they are commies.
COMMIE -> STAB
STAB STAB STAB
Here is more about communism for the museum of communism.
And for the idiots that agree with me, here is the Pravda:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy - the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
I just finished reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Here is an expansion of the review I posted on Amazon:
At 1100 small print pages, this book is way too long for people who do not seek enlightenment and the improvement of their own lives. People like elitist condescending professors who deny reality while existing on the public dole. People like that will never be able to finish this book, to pierce the veil of their own ignorance and to see the horror of their own lives full of "worship of the zero" and of looting.
For those common people of action and of deeds of renown seeking self understanding - this book provides a glorious shining arrow of direction and a guide to the proper behavior of men in the face of socialism. The book provides the reader purpose, ambition and hope via the shining light of reason based on objective reality. It lights a bright light on the best of man and woman and sweeps away the deadly shadows of collectivism (fascism + socialism). Collectivism which is practiced eagerly by the republican and democratic collectivist gangs of looters and perpetrators of oppression we have running our affairs today.
I have read the book and then read the criticisms of the one star reviewers and their words are ignorant. They speak of the common good and of logic. They speak of people that are motivated by too few things. Neither one of those criticisms of the book (but really of themselves and their own shortcomings) is accurate. Ayn Rand shows that they know very little of morality, reason and self interest and that it is their methods that hurt the common good and lead to savagery and fear. They see the words in the book but can not understand the reality of their own lives. Their minds can not comprehend their own venality. Ayn Rand, oppressed by the Soviet "People's Revolution" at the turn of the century which looted her family's pharmacy, knows all too well the evils of collectivist nazi thugs who can produce nothing and have only the force of the gun with which to create the glories of life and civilization.
This book has aged extremely well. There are a lot of delicious highly relevant gems. For example, when the society of the looters has descended into anarchy, she writes "'California's blown to pieces', he reported in the evening. There is a civil war going on there - if that's what it is, which nobody seems to be sure of. They've declared that they are seceding from the union, but nobody knows who's now in power. There's armed fighting all over the state between a 'People's party' led by Ma Chambers and her soybean cult of orient-admirers - and something called 'Back to God' led by some former oil field owners".
My friends - this is the democarts and republicans as exist today. Ayn Rand has deduced the future brilliantly. This book was written in 1957. 1957!
Here is an overview of objectivism:
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
You can't eat your cake and have it, too.
Man is an end in himself.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Also, I highly recommend going to the amazon review page and reading all the "one star" reviews. The unstabbed commies pleading for their lives are very enlightening.
This book made me think of a lot of interesting things. One of the things is that the so-called "robber barons" or industrialists (and their modern day equivalents like Bill Gates) are always the target of greed and envy - in fact, far more greed and envy and sabotage than they themselves ever engaged in. Here is an absolutely wonderful article about the robber barons.
Next time, I'll try to apply what I learned about objectivism to the two party system of looting we have in power.
Thursday, January 01, 2004
The result of the core achievements of Western civilization has been an increase in freedom, wealth, health, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in the history of the world. The achievements were greatest in the country where the principles of reason and rights were implemented most consistently -- the United States of America. In contrast, it was precisely in those Eastern and African countries which did not embrace reason, rights, and technology where people suffered (and still suffer) most from both natural and man-made disasters (famine, poverty, illness, dictatorship) and where life-expectancy was (and is) lowest. It is said that primitives live in harmony with nature, but in reality they are simply victims of the vicissitudes of nature -- if some dictator does not kill them first.
The second error commonly committed vis a vis communism is that it's somehow a "noble ideal" that was just executed really, really, poorly. Yep, every single time it was ever tried. Leaving aside the whole battered-wife syndrome evident in this attitude among the apologists ("Maybe next time he won't beat me, nor shoot countless political prisoners!"), there's the basic fact that communism is not a fundamentally noble ideal. It's a profoundly evil and bad ideal that is poorly grasped by more than a few. For starters, there's the whole idea that there's no ownership, or that the state owns everything in lieu of private ownership: there's a fundamental contradiction to human liberty right there. But if you're a truly committed leftist, you may not see that, so let's move on to a more basic evil at communism's root: communism, like Nazism, the Klan, and Islamism, denies the fundamental equality of all people. All these justly reviled ideologies have in common the characteristic of determining morality according to the interests of an arbitrarily-defined subset of humanity. Therefore, any horror is morally justifiable if perpetrated on behalf of the Aryans, whites, Ummah, or proletariat. Get it? This is basic Marx, folks -- the compulsion to turn the wheel of history via the material dialectic -- and it's the justification for concepts like "revolutionary justice," "revolutionary morality," et al. Like all such beliefs, it's a recipe for genocide -- and lo, genocide was done. It's no accident that the greatest mass murderers of human history were mostly communists: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il. Communism a noble ideal? Hardly. Communism is murderous racism based on junk economic theory. So my second command is to cut the crap about communism -- it's evil, and awful, and if you think a welfare state and statism are swell, quit deluding yourself that this is the same wondrous foundation as communism. Unless you believe in dullwitted theories of eternal class emnities, it's not.
As Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out, what distinguishes the U.S. (and Britain) is not that they engaged in slavery which is as old as the human race, but that they were the first cultures to fight to abolish it, not only on their own soil but throughout the world. Now if only the shining lights of the left will ask who will answer for the 100 million dead in the great socialist 'experiments' of the 20th century.
Usually activists have neither practical experience nor economic literacy, so they go around blithely creating huge costs for those who have to work for a living and those who employ them. Not only businesses but Californians as a whole end up paying a staggering price so that a relative handful of people who are a drain on society can feel superior to those who contribute to it.
Of course the people who thought up and passed these laws and are now trying to more vigorously enforce them probably aren't mini-Hitlers or Stalins-in-training, they are merely miserable bureaucrats trying to come up with nice sounding ways to extract money from us to bribe us so that we don't fire them. Not only won't they be able to steal our money, but they'll get fired to boot as long as we refuse to be fleeced any longer.
You say we [reporters] are distracting from the business of government. Well, I hope so. Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby. -- P. J. O'Rourke
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there is nothing in the mall and if you don't go there they shoot you." - P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"The people who believe that, as a result of industrial development, life is about to become a hell, or may be one already, are guilty, at least, of sloppy pronouncements. On page 8 of Earth in the Balance, Al Gore claims that his study of the arms race gave him "a deeper appreciation for the most horrifying fact in all our lives: civilization is now capable of destroying itself." In the first place, the most horrifying fact in many of our lives is that our ex-spouse has gotten ahold of our ATM card. And civilization has always been able to destroy itself. The Greeks of ancient Athens, who had a civilization remarkable for lack of technological progress during its period of greatest knowledge and power, managed to destroy them fine." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"When government does, occasionally, work, it works in an elitist fashion. That is, government is most easily manipulated by people who have money and power already. This is why government benefits usually go to people who don't need benefits from government. Government may make some environmental improvements, but these will be improvements for rich bird-watchers. And no one in government will remember that when poor people go bird-watching they do it at Kentucky Fried Chicken." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"I was talking to a Brit about land mines. The Brit was trying to tell me that land mines should be banned. I told him that the US was making mobile landmines, that would chase you around and catch and then explode. Then I explained to the Brit that the robots would say "give us a hug" and have big arms to hug you with. The Brit was laughing until I described the robot as an electronic palestinian - then he said I was disgusting" -- Osama bin Texan