Proof that Democrats are insane

March 2, 2007

I don’t know if anyone actually needed confirmation that liberals are certifiable lunatics but here it is. Al Gore is now complaining that the media is too, I repeat, too unbiased. What is the issue upon which our bastion of free speech has been unduly level-headed and fair you ask? Well it is the issue that is making Al Gore the wealthy hypocrite we have all come to know and wish we didn’t. Al Gore has claimed that the media has been too unbiased on the issue of global warming. This is proof positive that no matter what the issue, no matter what the circumstances, liberals will stop at nothing but total assimilation to their batch of world view indoctrination.

This is honestly the first and only time I have heard the charge leveled that the media is too unbiased. I have to keep putting too in italics because I want you to read the exasperation that I am feeling. What is next the liberals charge that justice is too blind or or our executive branch too checked (once they are in office of course)? This absurdity would make a tiny ninja elephant slow dancing with a trumpet blush.

The issue underlying this problem is one of foundational significance. The issue is relativism. When a universal standard is not agreed upon, then all it takes is an Al Gore to think his brand of morality is intellectually and generally superior to that of the common man’s. Thus the rules do not apply, he has thankfully found out the truth for us muddle-headed bumpkins. And all the showing of both sides is just getting in the way of his agenda. Gore would like us to believe this issue is so important that it doesn’t require the regular subjection to scrutiny or other conventional means of investigating validity.

Let us be vigilant in our examination and search for truth. Expert merely means a person who has done research we should now reconnoiter. Know the spin-misters are working overtime and this is proof our world is spinning out of control.

Poor Reasoning by Any Other Name is Still Secular Humanism

February 16, 2007

The following is a collaborative project with my comrad in thought Dissident Madison. This short essay is a response to A Secular Humanist Declaration by Paul Kurtz. Madison’s essay can be viewed here. Kurtz’s original text can be viewed here.

If you tell a child consistently that 2+2=5 then he will believe it. Even if he learns the structure of mathematics he will accept this false precept because of its foundational importance in their lives. The obvious fruition of such a demented experiment would be a child who adamantly believes he can do arithmetic but whose sums are always wrong, albeit constantly wrong. Appling this to Kurtz’ A Secular Humanist Declaration, consistent inconstancy in reasoning is still falsehood. This inconsistency in reasoning is the main thing that I took from this essay and will be the only topic dealt with in this critique.

For a worldview to be complete or universal it must be expansive enough to entail all areas of life (the term universal meaning all or totality). It is obvious when a worldview is not complete because the adherents necessarily take hostage belief structures from other worldviews. The original worldview, democratic secular humanism in this case, adopts aspects of theistic morality but wraps it up in democratic secular humanism jargon

Allow me to offer an example. Kurtz says, “We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred.” (page 36) In this one sentence there are numerous inconsistencies. Kurtz is showing intolerance for intolerance (a logical fallacy) as well as hating when others hate. To truly be able to have the title of tolerant (as Kurtz and his fellow democratic secular humanist surely claim to have) one must be tolerant of intolerance as well as homogenous thought.

Another area of concern is amoral fruition of Kurtz’ reasoning. Here is a logical train of thought that I gleaned from this text. The secular humanist cannot judge the actions of anyone as right or wrong because they themselves have no standard to use as a context for such a judgment. There can be no standard context without some kind of definition of terms. And there cannot be definition without a kind of judgment. This leads us back to the beginning. Therefore a secular humanist cannot declare anything to be wrong. Yet this is exactly what Kurtz does time and time again in this essay.

An example of the above reasoning is found in this quote by Kurtz, “Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry.” (page 31) This is begging the question. Why is it wrong to violate free inquiry? Is this wrong? If so, then by imposing this universal moral code they have successfully violated it. Then Kurtz goes on to say that he believes that it is not moral to baptize infants (page 33) or that there is a general duty of public education (page 33). Kurtz simply cannot help but impose of a universal value code.

An amoral system simply cannot exist due to the fact that God does. Kurtz has shown this with much more bungling eloquence than I could. Just as the child whose sums always come out wrong because his foundations are false, so will Kurtz and his fellow democratic secular humanist always come out with counterfeit moral conclusions because of their false foundations.


Minimum thought in minimum wage

February 12, 2007

I have learned something from the last post. Unless you have a famous name or at least some credentials don’t be quite so verbose. I suppose that family will always read what is written because of that esoteric bond which transcends even boredom apparently, but for those of you (if you exist) who read this and aren’t in my family, you are in luck. This post will be more to the point. But it is me, so take this last statement with a grain of salt.

I enjoy quotes so I will begin this post with one coming from that “wise sage” Kongfuzi, known to us as Confucius.

“Learning without thought is useless. Thought without learning is dangerous.” ~Confucius

As of February 1, 2007 the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed both the house and the senate and will move to committee to hammer out the different forms of this bill and will then be sent to the President for his signature or veto…oh that he would veto. If the presidents golf score were as good as his veto record (in Bush’s six years he has vetoed but one bill, a bill the would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research) I’d say he was in the wrong profession, but I digress.

This Minimum Wage Act will effectively raise the national minimum wage to 7.25$ an hour. Hooray! More money for everyone right? When I was a child and heard about the national debt I always would wonder why the government didn’t just print a 100 billion dollar bill (wow, that size debt seems trivial now). This was before I new that for money to be worth anything there has to be something backing it. That used to be gold now it is the strength of the US economy (which seems precariously like circular reasoning to me). In short the first law of thermodynamics applies here, you can’t get something for nothing.

Here is the skinny on minimum wage. When an employer is forced to pay a higher wage, that money comes from somewhere. There are several options for the employer to consider. First he could reduce the hours of the employees. This could potentially lead to lower wages for the employees (depending on the cut in hours) or it could lead to an inadequately staffed facility. The poor customer service will certainly lead to a drop in business. Option two; the employer could raise his prices. If this is done to a point that the employer has out priced the market then his competitive edge will be lost as will his business. The third option is that the employer will lay off unskilled, expendable workers. The very people that are supposed to benefit from the legislation. This third option is what inevitably happens and will happen once The Minimum Wage Act is passed.

Now this is the kind of irony that I have come to expect from the Imprudent. Those they profess to care about and help, the disenfranchised, the little guys, they inevitably end up hurting the most. Minimum wage is analogous to affirmative action in the sense that it might have been necessary for a time but that time is certainly over.

The beauty of our market economy is that we sell everything, including ourselves. If one desires to get a job and make a living then he must learn a skill and then enter the market. If his skill is viable then he will inevitably find his niche. This is called responsibility, sounds scary I know.

Of Liberality and Parsimony

February 5, 2007

For, if one wishes to maintain the name of liberal among men, it is necessary that one not omit any quality of sumptuousness–to such an extent, that a prince so disposed will consume all his faculties in such-like work, and he will be finally necessitated, in his wish to maintain the name of liberal, to burden the people extra-ordinarily, to become exacting, and do all those things that can be done to get money. This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects and, as he becomes poor, none of them will respect him; in such a mode that, having harmed the many with this his liberality, and rewarded the few, he will feel every mischance which first arises and he will be endangered by every danger which appears. Coming to know this and wishing to draw back, he then immediately incurs the infamy of stinginess.

~Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

This exert from Machiavelli is a poignant look into the inherent fallacy of the liberal movement (I say movement because what is currently and politically known as liberal is a far cry from what liberal meant 150 years ago…more on that later). Machiavelli understood that taken to its end the desire to please everyone with generosity and freehandedness will only lead to the “infamy of stinginess.” This being the positive end of the spectrum, the negative end of this manner of governing is the total and complete financial and moral collapse of a society.

Machiavelli in this piece is speaking of liberality in the sense of generosity, not the modern political counterpart to the conservative. Yet his observations ring as clear in this context as it did in 1513 when it was written. The modern liberal in attempt to pander to a particular voting block uses the substance-less platform of, “Vote for me good citizen for I will make all of your wildest dreams come true. What is that you like, candy you say? Well lucky for you my passion is giving candy, lovers of candy!” Initially the candy aficionado will love this candidate until the candy runs out; and it always runs out.

Humans are consumers. In order to maintain our core body temperature of roughly 98 degrees Fahrenheit we must daily consume thousands of calories. We produce from the land and take from the animals to provide for our shelter and clothing. Humans, through our ingenuity, were able to tend the land and produce an excess of food stuffs. We then were able to store this material or trade it for other goods. This lead to the specialization of labor. Now humans are consuming products solely for entertainment and enjoyment. The point being this. Once I eat, I am only satisfied for a short time. I do not buy one shirt for the rest of my life, clothes wear and thus we procure new ones. I will always have need. Entropy is the word to describe this state of constant denigration. There then is always the need to replenish what has run down. Two examples will better illustrate this point, one parental the other from a children’s story.

No good parent gives their child everything they want. This is not, shocking as it may seem, because the parent does not love their child. Quite the contrary, the parent withholds certain things (even if the child really wants it) because they love their child. The problem is that children, in all their beautiful honesty and sincerity, do not know what is best for themselves. A child might adamantly desire to eat double fudge brownies for every meal but I think the Surgeon General would back me up in saying this could be devastating to that child’s health. The responsibility of the parent then is to have the foresight to see what will help and hurt the child and apply this benevolent governance until the child is capable of making this determination for themselves.

The second illustration comes from the childrens book, If You Give A Mouse A Cookie by Laura Joffe Numeroff. The conclusion to this statement is, as everyone knows, “he will ask for a glass of milk.” This trend continues until all has been given, to the point of exhaustion of resources and yet more is still desired. This is a defining characteristics of living organisms especially humans. Want is never satisfied. Yet a liberal will try to meet every single want with some new legislation or department or otherwise handout.

Thus when liberals make it their aim to gain the name of “generous” and “humane” through legislation that merely bestows on an individual or group those things which should be earned, they are starting a cycle that can only end in moral and financial bankruptcy.

Here in lies the problem with modern liberals. No matter how much their surface magnanimity is trumpeted as helping, it never is. What it creates is a dependant person with an entitlement complex. As G Gordon Liddy anecdotally said, “A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.”

The travesty is that these bunglers on the left have taken hostage the title of liberal and run so far from its classical base as to be its antithesis. Classical liberalism is founded on lassiez-faire market principles. Major tenents include constitutional limits on government and individual freedom. Classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill championed the “invisible hand” that would operate in an free market to benefit society.

It seems to me if I were to ask a modern liberal (the imprudent I’ll call them) to finish the old adage, “If you give a man a fish…” the imprudent would heartily answer, “If you give a man a fish he will gladly vote for you in the upcoming election.” Why don’t we start teaching people to fish? My only guess is that fishing takes too much time, practice and skill whereas most would rather be killing brain cells TiVoing Sex In The City and drowning themselves in can beer. They would simply rather have someone deliver a fish sandwich that they could pay for with a government check and not tip.

In order to offer real assistance to the downtroden and disenfranchised we must not indulge their every want. We, the people with foresight and the constitution to administer what that foresight would dictate, have the responsibility to stand firm, to critically analyse and to withhold if need be. If nothing else stands out let this be the thing, THE NEED BE.

As Jeremiah 17.9 says, “The heart is more decietful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” So when we hear of legislation that tickles our heart strings and liberals shout that it is only fair at the top of their lungs, beware. Their thinking leads to dire straights for all. For instance the recent attempt at increasing the minimum wage…well actually I prefer to dine on only one can of worms at a time. However, this issue has my cross-hairs on it and will be dealt with in a subsequent post.

The Plunge

January 28, 2007

This is the first installment of my band-waggon influenced attempt at a blog. I have high hopes that this endeavour will not go the way of the Do-Do as many of my like minded literary forays have. I think that this is because as an American, highly influence by the likes of the Duke John Wayne, Dirty Hairy, and Rambo I find that my opinions seems more often than not to have been shot from the hip. When the mind is triggered by an errant comment or perhaps incited by a T.V. program it is easy to create fast and hard opinions dropping the .45 caliber shell casings of my arguments by the bucket load. This is more my way. I realize that this way has its place and can be done by some who have more accurate aim and vision than I.

Now I will tread into world of snipers. The written word should be treated as such; carefully planned and well thought out. The target should have been selected well in advance, its movements tracked and timed. The environment is taken into account and all variables are realized. Their is no chance of ambush for the sniper, he is the ambush. Then and only then the sniper takes his careful aim and takes down the chosen victim with no collateral damage. This will be my goal no collateral damage. If you are not offended by what is written then you are not the target. If you are, then check your paradigm for a bullet hole.