January 19, 2011 § Leave a comment
WE THE PEOPLE create government, or so the story goes. Ostensibly it exists to serve us, but the creature inevitably begins to behave as if it were the Creator — demanding of us our minds, our hearts, our souls, and our strength.
In its pathological mode the entity turns parasitic, then invasively malignant, engulfing all of society. It demands we identify ourselves with it; that we believe its interests are identical to our own, its life our lives, its thoughts our thoughts. It cries that to diminish its power is to diminish our own – though in fact the opposite is true.
It reacts to free thinkers and free actors as a pestilent threat to its being. It portrays itself as innocent victim of anarchists, extremists, haters, and terrorists. It sees freedom as a criminal conspiracy against itself. It attempts to inject this deranged paranoia and hatred into us, as a spider uses its venom to paralyze the prey it is about to consume.
Note: “the state” or “government” here means primarily national government, in particular the executive. We also include privileged “private” arms of government, such as the military-industrial-scientific complex; the central banking power and its kept economists; the government debt market; the too-big-to-exist banks getting bailed out left and right (and pretending to be unhappy about it); the multinational corporations; and the intelligentsia and media sycophants who derive their sense of meaning and status from proximity to power. It means centralized power and its cheerleaders, of whatever party. It is the power elite, the Superclass, the Plutonomy, the Statist Party.
Have they been busy lately. Barely had the bodies hit the ground after the Tuscon murder spree before Party propagandists were all over the media, greedily scavenging on the tragedy like a squealing, grunting pack of wild pigs at a carcass, assigning collective blame to opponents of corrupt big government; libeling any and all who oppose the elites’ open-border, cheap-people policies. « Read the rest of this entry »
January 18, 2011 § Leave a comment
SOME IRONIES, or non-ironies, in the rush to exploit the Tuscon shooting for propaganda value:
* The presumed target, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is a former Republican and a relatively conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat.
* She is a gun owner.
* She has opposed the mad open-border policy which allows uncontrolled unknown persons and Mexico’s narco-war to spill over into the U.S. unimpeded and has criticized the president’s petulant refusal to fulfill his most basic Constitutional duty.
* She has called for real bipartisan efforts to cut the size of government — including the tiny but symbolically significant step of cutting Congressional pay and staffs.
* She has supported the Truth in Spending Act, “a contract with the American people that will force Congress to live within budgetary estimates for legislation.” Her Congressional website says “the federal debt is the single biggest threat to our economy and national security.”
Let’s look at Federal District Judge John Roll – the official who was actually killed, and whom the media are doing their best to forget in what is now universally labeled the “Giffords shooting.” « Read the rest of this entry »
January 18, 2011 § 1 Comment
WHEN FALLIBLE MEN are turned into idols, expect various factions to fight over who gets to speak in “god’s” name — and control the flock.
Remember Glenn Beck and his “Restoring Honor” rally last fall, a weird collision between MLK’s “I Have a Dream” theme, and the worst sort of worshipful, flag-waving militarism? Beck even got MLK’s niece, Alveda King, to appear and speak at this bizarre event.
Well some time afterwards, I found a blog comment about this from a young, evidently “liberal”-leaning, lady. It wasn’t the militarism she objected to: her beef was that Beck and conservatives are invoking MLK and civil rights to promote the Constitutional tenets of limited government and States’ rights, which in her ideology, are bad things.
She concluded: “Tea Party activists see the federal government as a source of oppression; King and the Civil Rights Movement recognized that the source of racism and discrimination was unrestrained individuals and state governments that could only be reined in by the federal government.”
That just kinda set me off. And I had to — I mean, I was compelled to — dash off a reply. Which went something like this: « Read the rest of this entry »
January 17, 2011 § Leave a comment
It being MLK Day, I’ll venture that the libertarian Judge Nap understands the real issues in the black community better than most of the black politicians, black pundits and black blabbers who fill the media stage on days like today, proferring oratory, sanctimony and slogans but rarely solutions.
The judge invited a panel of two conservatives, one libertarian, and one token liberal — all black — for a penetrating, politically incorrect discussion of what’s holding back such a large segment of our community.
Contrary to cherished belief and wishful thinking, most of the factors have to do with interventions by government, and dependency thereon.
* Example: the ridiculous and lost “War on Drugs” that only creates a government-sponsored oligopoly for crime organizations. This gives them a huge mark-up on their product and fuels the violence, corruption, and disrespect for law that plagues cities today. It provides most of the human fodder for the prison-industrial complex — which has reinstituted slavery, and has ruined tens of millions of lives of nonviolent offenders who simply ingested, smoked, or provided to others (wisely or not) the substance of their choice.
* As Star Parker (former self-described “welfare brat”) points out, part of the problem also is the black middle class’ heavy dependence on another government gravy train: government employment. It can be tough to criticize — or even clearly see — the problem with bloated, corrupt, wealth-sucking bureaucracies when you work for one. « Read the rest of this entry »
January 12, 2011 § 1 Comment
THE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS LOBBY has been making hay, as always, out of a rare act of violence by a deranged individual.
MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell, an avowed socialist who “live[s] to the extreme left,” blames the Tuscon mass murder on Congressional Republicans who did not renew the so-called assault weapons ban in 2004. O’Donnell invited fellow gun-grabber Senator Barbara Boxer of California to screech about how guns cause murder. (Really? Ever tried asking a cop about that?)
Could be my imagination, but I thought I detected just a hint of deflation in O’Donnell’s demeanor. Perhaps this had to do with the guest who’d just appeared previous to Boxer: Gloria Waddill, a neighbor of Jared Loughner.
Waddill, a sober-sounding Latino woman, recounted (transcript) that she’d sometimes come home at night to find Loughner standing in her driveway near her pickup truck, looking spaced-out. O’Donnell asked her whether she felt scared at these times.
“No I wasn’t scared of him,” Waddill replied, “because normally, I’m already armed when I come home.”
Of course, as a professional ideologue and propagandist, O’Donnell smoothly moved on, not stopping to entertain the glaring irony in his attempt to demonize the very thing that provided Waddill peace of mind and a feeling of safety. Nor does O’Donnell bother to ask how many violent crimes haven’t occurred in Arizona because it’s one of the most well-armed States in the country.
January 7, 2011 § Leave a comment
EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED in this economic mess which is a result of rewarding gambling and getting something for nothing: We need a government program which actively promotes gambling and getting something for nothing, just to reinforce the lesson that this is how to get ahead.
Rather than really fixing the economic mess so that everyone can prosper (and keep what they honestly earn), what we need instead is happy talk — chirpy, sunshiney, rags-to-riches stories about lightning strikes of luck like the homeless alcoholic getting re-discovered and catapulted into overpaid voiceover fame. One down, only about 30 million more unemployed Americans to go.
January 5, 2011 § Leave a comment
FORMER CALL GIRL and prostitute-rights activist Tracy Quan appeared on “Freedom Watch” with the great Judge Andrew Napolitano to defend the idea of legalizing prostitution in the other 49 States. (Nevada allows and sensibly regulates the business.)
I do believe there are sensible reasons for this: not because I have, or would, patronize the services of a lady of the night, but because their business is a private act between consenting adults who want what they want, and who at the end of the day, will figure out a way to get it. Most people, our authorities included, have their plates quite full regulating their own private (and public) morality. What gives us the idea we can, or should attempt to, control others’?
As in prohibition of every other “vice” (outlawed victimless act) that people wish to engage in – such as drinking, gambling, and using street drugs – anti-prostitution laws do not eliminate prostitution but only build up around it an underground society of crime, dysfunction and disease more pernicious than the prohibited act itself.
As an aside, Quan mentioned a fact that’s obvious yet doesn’t cross the minds of most folks when thinking of these issues: that is, to many women in the sex business, their bodies are “their only resource.” Many in the trade are “proud to have an independent livelihood and are proud to stay off welfare.” If this is so, shouldn’t conservatives and moralists feel more alarmed that our system that makes some women (many of them already being single mothers, I’d guess) feel they must choose between taking welfare, and selling their wares? Shouldn’t we focus our attention on offering women – and men – expanded opportunity so few would feel forced into sex work in the first place?
Another aside: Quan pointed out “progressives” and moralists originated the current laws against prostitution. This would come as a surprise to neo-progressives of today, who suppose that progressivism is about freedom, or something like that. (Also, the confused folks who think “progressive” means opposing imperialist wars and excessive presidential power, also would be chagrined by the historical fact that their movement got the whole imperialism and unitary-executive ball rolling. But the real origins and swift degeneration of the progressive movement is a topic for another day.)
Aside #3: Judge points out men take women out to dinner, with the expectation of receiving sex, all the time — the socially sanctioned, soft form of prostitution.
Personally, I think that’s a sucker’s game. What kind of skills do you have, guys, if you have to rely on bribery to get what you want?