Progressivsim, the destroyer of natural rights

In 1776, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.”

Thus the founders expressed natural laws, natural rights, as the foundation for American Governance.

in the early 1900s the progressives chucked out natural rights for “Scientific” government.

mind you that “science” in the late 19th century was nothing of the sort. Some guy who might or might not have actually studied something made declarations with fancy sounding words and people assumed it was science. Such things were used to justify segregation, attacks on Asians and Indians, deportment of illegals, and subjugation to the state.

If the progressives wrote the declaration of independence they would write:

“We hold these facts to be scientifically proven by the best minds of the era that not all men are equal. Some men are better suited to lead and thus by that situation are required to direct all others toward more efficient and harmonious living…”

Remembering 9/11

12 years ago we were attacked by al qaeda. It wasn’t the first time, or the last. They hit us again at Fort Hood, at Boston. They also hit London, Paris, Madrid, and places in Africa, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and all over the world.

Al qaeda is arabic for “The base” or network, group, collection. It is a network of terror cells and supporters and funders. Unlike a Bond Villain there is no al qaeda world head quarters with a huge round table filled with colorful characters all bowing down to the new Bin Laden who has a monocle and a cat.  They work through the internet and messengers.

They are a new type of army. They are a non national threat. Many people say “We can’t be at war with them, they aren’t a country.”

This is telling since countries as we know them didn’t exist until the 1790s. Before then there were kingdoms, cities, empires, but not countries.

Since 9/11/01 everyone wants to make a public display of remembering 9/11. I have met people who have lost friends and family on 9/11. But what have we done? We have tied our hands and headbutted al qaeda around. Not fighting a serious war. We are so peace oriented that we can not muster the force to destroy this little pest. The giant wont wake up.

We have anti war movements in the face of being under siege. This is how powerful we think we are, that we are immune to such threats.

We think we have brought it upon ourselves. What did we do to the Cechyian brothers who hit us at Boston? We did nothing to them other than offend their religion. What did we do to Nadal Asan? nothing but offend his religion.

What did Spain do to al qaeda, they weren’t messing around in the middle east, yet they were attacked. Or France?

To say we brought this upon ourselves is to say being who we are is offensive to some and WE should be punished for other peoples’ opinion of us. Meaning, our liberalism, women’s lib, religious toleration, open culture, those are the reasons we were attacked.  We are different from them and we are a threat to them.

Remember that instead of a stupid candle.  Remember that the threat remains undefeated.

Remember that Obama is now aiding al qaeda by attacking Bashar Al-Assad.

Red line? WTF Obama

So… Syria is falling apart and for some reason Obama wants to go in there and bomb stuff. There is al qaeda in there. There is Bashar Al-Assad who is a jerk. There are Syrian local rebels who don’t like or support either. It’s a three way war. And Obama wants to start bombing, why

Lesson learned from the war in Iraq is that the USA needs better methods if finding out who is members of terrorist networks. Have we made developments in this area? Are we not going to learn from the Iraq war?

I supported the Iraq war and still do. It was needed. the thousands of dead terrorists were well worth the cost in men and money. The liberation of the 30 million Iraqis was worth the cost, even though the birth pangs of Arab democracy are still going on. (It took the USA 200 years to figure out democracy starting in the very early 1600s with the house of Burgesses in Virginia and the General Court in Massachusetts.) The people in Iraq are learning all that in ten years, all the fighting other countries went through to develop modern democracy is accelerated in Iraq. It’s going to be bloody, and if it lasts for another decade, it will probably survive.

Are we going to invest another 800 billion over 10 years into Syria, sacrifice another 4000 soldiers? I don’t think it will come that cheaply. Mistakes from the current fronts int he War on Terror are that we don’t let our combat troops engage in real combat. We force them to endure all kinds of handicaps. The focus from DC isn’t victory, but making Arabs and Central Asians like us. We should not worry about being liked and worry more about being respected.

Unfortunately the people who run the State Department seem to be xenophobic and ethnocentric. This can be exampled by Hillary Clinton’s “reset” button to Russia that didn’t have the word “reset” on it, but some other word. You’d think the State Department would have people who know Russian, our major world wide rival and number 1 diplomatic point of communication…

Many people have compared Iraq to Vietnam in order to justify an excuse to protest the war. They were absolutely wrong as tactics and methods go. But they were right as far as government operational mindset was concerned. Seeing what I just posted, the Idiots in DC have decided not to fight for victory, but for social goals. Social goals in a war. Social goals in economics, in education, in business, in legislation, in everything. The government of the USA cares too much about social alteration than management of their duties.

And all of this is connected to Obama denying that he set a “red line” on Syria. The link i posted has both videos. The Setting and the Denial. Obama is so arrogant, so protected by the media, that he believes he can just deny he did something and the public will support him. He can get away with murder because the media will deny the victim ever existed.

And he might be right…

Why Butter is not civilized

So, I am sitting here eating a late supper, eggs and buttered toast. Damn that butter makes the toast taste good.

Toast is civilized food, that is food that comes from an urban environment, again that is food from a settled population who have time to invest not only in grain farms, but ovens to bake bread. 

Butter, as some of you might know, comes from milk, usually cattle milk, and people who domesticated great beasts like cattle, camels, horses, goats, pigs, sheep, were nomadic, ie not civilized, again that is to say, did not live in cities.  It is hard to raise cattle in a city, very little for them to graze upon and the manure piles up quickly.

Dairy products were first developed by the semi nomadic pastoral peoples of the world. True many eventually settled down and adopted urban ways. Arabs are a great example, but so are Turks, Mongols (some), Huns, and others.

One story i have heard is that dairy products happened when nomadic horsemen stored milk in a leather bladder attached to the horse and as they galloped around in the heat, the milk churned into some kind of butter or yogurt. It was good, so they played around with it.  They now had an extra thing to trade with city people. Leather, meat, and now butter.

Butter is barbarian food because good “Civilized” people don’t have time to futz around touching non human boobs to extract milk….  and then churn it into butter. Well, they eventually learned. Once states expanded beyond the small hinterlands of a single city there became room for ranches. the Pastoral and Agrarian side of life was united in a new civilization type….

Am I a hypocrite?

ImageSo, a bit of background and personal Information here. I suffer from depression and a few other things and as such my pre-existing conditions make me expensive to impossible to insure.  I apply from time to time to get a lower rate because my current plan is very very expensive.

I got a letter from my insurance company telling me they will be participating in my states health care exchange system.  I don’t like single payer systems. I don’t like government (State or federal) involvement in health care because it is the prime reason my costs are so high. Government is costing me a fortune each month.  But now obamacare seems to be offering me a reduction in price. But at what cost?

A business sets a price for their good or service with 2 things in mind. Cost of production and the ability of customers to pay. There is no purpose in selling something at a price customers wont pay, nor is there any purpose in selling something at a price below cost. Business that does that goes out of business. So using that knowledge, the insurance company thinks I might cost them X amount in the future so they charge me Y per month so they can meet that X.  If Y is forced down by government rules, then X can’t be met, the insurance company goes under and I lose my insurance.

I guess we can think about it like this. Government ordered a pizza that costs twenty dollars but demands that it be priced at ten. The result is every pizza sold will cost the company ten dollars. They go away, unless the government offers them a pizza subsidy to make up the difference.  But with that subsidy comes an obligation to do as the government demands. Henry Ford noted that the government, which didn’t produce cars, was telling car makers what to do. What gives them the knowledge to set these rules for any of us.

And yet, the price reduction will save my ass in the short run, only to hurt me in the long run.  Here is how I think I justify this. The savings I achieve here can be applied to my future development making me better off in the end. But what of my insurance company? I don’t know.

All I know is obamacare and other government interference has driven up the cost of healthcare and then arbitrarily drives down the price (not the cost) making life hell for the already struggling insurance companies.

I don’t know how to figure this one out…

Left hypocrisy

ImageFor eight years liberals were butt-hurt over losing 3 elections, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They lost and lost and lost. They said and did horrible things because they hated the man who denied them access to power. They told lies, supported terrorists, defended horrible things, and promoted treason and murder because they were sore losers. This Picture to the right is of a war protest where-in lefty protesters have Bush, Rice, and Bin Laden masks. No one cried racism with the Condi Rice mask. No one cried bigotry with the Arab mask.

Bush was openly compared to a monkey, a chimp, and Hitler.

Amazing news today. The man who wore an Obama mask during a rodeo clown event in the state fair in Missouri was banned for a lifetime from the state fair. The outrage that this man dare mock the messiah, a state that isn’t even that blue, more of a purple state. Obama won it in 2008 but lost it in 2012. They banned a guy for entertaining the crowd and exercising his first amendment rights.

I posted the above picture as evidence that masks of presidents have happened before. Liberals used them constantly. When their tactics are used against them those tactics become unspeakable. This is beyond hypocrisy its cry baby shit.

Anachronism in movies

I watched Braveheart and Man in the Iron Mask over the last few days and A few things bothered me. A lot of talk of nationalism in time periods that predate nationalism. Talk of a “free” Scottish nation and “I will do what is best for France”. In the time periods discussed in these movies there were kingdoms, not countries. Before that there had been abstractions like cities and empires, but not what we in the modern time would call a country, a group of people who share common traits, ideals, geographic location, history, etc. It was all about the King and what lands he controlled.

Maybe the writers were using modern terms to make the stories more understandable?

maybe they were just being lazy?

does anyone care?

Service with a smile?

What is the purpose of a job? To get shit done. Not a paycheck, not a vacation, not health insurance, to get shit done! Many people forget that is why they are at work. The payment is the reason people accept jobs, but the reason for the job is something needs to be done.

More and more people seem to think a job is a right and service doesn’t matter. People forget that some one has to pay them, so they have to justify that payment. Most people I see working seem to want to screw around rather than do the job the best they can.



People are really having problems. They don’t think. Thinking is hard. So they don’t do it. Some one tells them something and if they trust that person, or think it sounds about right, many people accept it as gospel without any secondary thought.  I watched this happen while taking classes. People around me just accepted the professors mistakes as truth.

Too bad I felt that I would disrupt class to point out the errors. I doubt they would take my word over the professors anyway.


Abuse of science

ImageI was in a chat room late last night and I encountered a poorly educated person talking about all these things “science says”. This also reminded me of something I had read about the 1920s. Science says this, science teaches that. Bunk. Science is not alive, it doesn’t do anything. Science is a tool. It is one tool among many for discovery of information. 

First, science is not all the shit we know. Many people assume that learning about cells or clouds or computers or other shit is science, it’s just learning shit we know. In that way it’s no different than learning history, math, or language arts.  Science is a process, a series of steps that follow a general flow. Ask a question, think about possible answers (called hypothesis) do some testing and review the hypothesis to see if it still fits, if it is still valid. Do this over and over until your hypothesis can not be disproven. Then you combine several hypotheses into a general theory which explains how something works.

Important here is people don’t know what a theory is. As I just explained, its an explanation for how something works. “Oh, that’s just a theory” is a frustrating statement because it seems to assume that a well thought out and tested set of rules is some how easy to discard. Well, In our world idiots ignore reality and pretend their delusions are real. “it’s just a theory” is like being dismissive and saying “it’s just a bunch of observed facts that are shown to apply in this case.”

The thing about this is science doesn’t make the discovery here, the scientist does. The person applying science. Not all people who discover things use science. The ancients didn’t. The greeks and romans and ancient chinese didn’t.  I have not studied all the ancient thinkers, just a handful of the big names, and from what I have learned, they did not use science. Aristotle didn’t, Ptolemy didn’t, Archimedes didn’t. While they learned things, they discovered things, they did not use the method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and repeating. They just measured things and said it was so. Rarely did they apply what they learned to other areas or used other information in their areas.

At best they could be thought of as proto-scientific.

Thomas Edison wasn’t a scientist, he was an Inventor. Different thing. He didn’t discover the world and how it worked, he built things. I hope that clears that up.