Nate's Journal

Idiot anarchists marched against the G-20 today shouting "No bailout, no capitalism." Well, I agree with half of that ... but if they're actually anarchists then they should realize that capitalism is like gravity, it doesn't go away with the dissolution of government, markets, black or otherwise, will be natural tendency of thinking humans and as long as there are elementary kids who want to barter away some undesired item on their lunch tray.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/g20_summit_protests

So they had to break out the tear gas these lefties but then we 9-12 marchers were called "an angry mob?" -- maybe there were angry moMs, but not moBs. Moms such as the 3 generations of ladies, whose youngest was about 7 y/o, that I talked with on the metro ride back. Good people.

They look a solution square in they eye, and blame it for the problem.

So why did I go to the 9-12 rally in DC?

The media is asking this question all over the place and I think I should be the subject of at least one interview since, hey, you can't get more authentic and grassroots than going by yourself can you?!?

I went because I think government is literally going insane, if I can personify a bit. Their policies and proposed laws CANNOT logically lead to their stated objectives. Some politicians don't understand logic or human nature, but most are simply corrupt. This march was the rattle, we are the snake and they have been warned.

Pain tends to create fear, and this is the beginning of all neuroses. Growth, comes from courage ... these are two simple single things, but actual enlightenment is a thousand petaled lotus displaying all the pleasant colors and textures of life simultaneously.

Beauty is found everywhere in our lives, but immaturity mistakes these individual petals for the whole flower, petals such as hedonism or success. No, we must search for that jewel in the center of the flower, the stem, the root, the source, the seed, the sower ... the creator of all things beautiful.

SUSTAINABILITY FOR RICH PEOPLE! We're over-farming our rich, and at this rate we won't grow enough new rich people to feed us when we need their money in the future!!!

I've started watching Rachel Maddow ... unlike Olbermann who I can't NOT believe is intentionally lying, she seems sincere. She did a "myths republicans believe" segment she called the "GOP miniverse." Last night and mentioned all these things that weren't supposed to be true, such as rationing.

That was the reason for my previous post, she said "there is no rationing in the bill." Which made me laugh. It's like that second step of real-world-application just went a little beyond her. Lets see the dinky plastic chair of Obamacare (or government in general) hold up when all 300million of us and the illegals try to sit down.

Another fun fact was the "illegals won't get care in this bill." Again, I had had to laugh and point out to the TV screen, no, they don't need to have that in the bill, they get covered already via emergency rooms.

I forget the rest of the "myths," but I think if anyone actually believes the plan is a good idea it's because politicians, and apparently some news people, are simply disconnected from reality.

Also, ironically, she and Bill Mahr (sp?) while discussing how the Obamacare protesters were upset for no reason somewhat accidentally talked about incrementalism and how if the objections cause them to water down what's passed they can build on it later. -- Which, I would suggest, is something the protesters fear.

Mahr also questioned where all of Obama's voters were now that their support is needed ... also an easy question for me ... they weren't interested in in anything but his skin tone.

Imagine one of those little plastic lawn chairs with cute pink flowers made for a Kindergartner's play set. Then imagine a 500 pound sumo wrestler having a seat on it. Does the man intend to have the chair collapse under him? I really don't... know. Does the government intend to ration health care? Well I suppose I don't know that either. But once the system starts to collapse, you're gonna have to do something.

... or that his country will.

Rome fell, says Gibbon, when her citizens were no longer willing to fight for her. Similarly, the self-deprecation bred by multiculturalism steals our will to claim that our culture has value, and to fight, not for hegemony by force, but for simple self-preservation, with words alone. It is the plague that weakened Athens, the religion that weakened Rome and the barbarians at our gates creating a 5th column.

Our founding fathers, men so well versed in the classics they reached back over millennia and found in the constitutions of Greek city-states and the Roman Republic the building materials for our country, have themselves been forgotten by a self-loathing, self-mutilating trend that rejects our own cultural heritage. In their wisdom they weighed all of human history and created a document greater than their personal flaws.

We, their decedents, have shown our respect for this inheritance by entertaining the fantasy that somehow the world was created the day we were born and nothing before is relevant or need concern us. Thus it becomes all the more imperative that we protect our Constitution, as we could no longer create anything like it, having an intellectual class who cannot even write with internal consistency and elected representatives laughably far from having the skill to create a constitution themselves.

I think it's a curious, but common phenomena for people to hear it said that something "should" be done, for moral, ethical and religious reasons, or even reasons of basic sanity, and assume that is the same as supporting legislation to enforce said behavior.

I believe this makes it difficult for people to see reality clearly by increasing the bias in, and non-sequitur debates following, news reports. People will argue the most nonsensical things after some study, survey or new report because everyone from the news source to the news anchor, to the folks listening from their rocking chairs at the local Cracker Barrel all think that the identification of a problem requires intervention, now. For example: sharing this assumption Grandpa Jones argues that the guy who shoots people randomly was "just some crazy" so that having distanced himself from the behavior via his obvious sanity, Grandpa can keep his huntin' rifle.

Here Grandpa skips, and therefore concedes, the point that any human doing something they "shouldn't" means that we must create a new law or regulation. I don't think that position should necessarily be given up so easily, the merits or demerits of that particular example aside.

Pollution injures the ozone. Wall-street traders are making millions as the market crumbles. Rain forests are being cut down. A bazillion people don't have good health-care. You notice how hard it is to even read these statements without hearing an argument that government (aka - the great equalizer, aka - god) should intervene?

It makes for such a difficult conversation sometimes, and really, the separation of the concepts of legal obligation vs. personal obligation is, I think, fundamental to even beginning a conversation on why exactly government exists. So I contend that this may be the first place to start in leading someone through the basic arguments of libertarianism. Agree or disagree?

As I've said before, I don't believe morality and legislation create any necessary contingencies upon each other (ie. this is immoral therefore it must be illegal, or vice versa), but of course I would say they are correlated in the same way that physics doesn't dictate how a person should use an airplane but does put logical and practical constraints on the options available. (An individual doesn't murder because it is immoral AND it is also illegal because it is destructive to society. OR, one does not destroy the American social and legal system via the introduction of socialism because it hurts people and is therefore immoral AND, further, because one doesn't have the constitutional authority and it is therefore illegal.)

So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that health-care protesters are just "evil-mongers." So apparently when someone recognizes what you're doing as evil, you can get out of it by calling them an evil-monger!

In response Satan is reported to have said with a laugh and a wink "Hey, I'm gonna steal that line!!"

... but really, is it any surprise that a politician can teach the Devil a thing or two?

We are not led by democrats, because they are deaf to the voice of the people.
We are not led by republicans, because they usurp powers not granted them by the constitution.
We are not led by libertarians because they don't believe the people capable and responsible for our own lives.

Thus, there is only one option left, we are led by would-be tyrants, a word that must be remembered in it's historical context meaning "rule by the most capable." Unfortunately, we are not ruled by the capable either, because they never get anything right.

... Interestingly enough the poster I made my icon from has been getting some media attention. Of course they discount it because they suggest that Obama isn't an anarchist.

But in his book Obama talks about seeking out Marxist professors, now perhaps he didn't listen to them, like he never listened to Jeremiah Wright, or maybe he didn't agree with "everything they said" like he didn't agree with Bill Ayers or his Grandmother's racism ...

... but Marx suggested that the worker's standing up in revolt and creating anarchy would be followed by communism.

Not to mention that, like the Joker, it's never about what he shows you, it's about what the other hand is doing under the table.

You can get them at zazzle.com, just search "socialist" and you'll find several different designs and t-shirts that all look great. :) I think I'd fear for my safety wearing one of those shirts, but still, maybe you're more courageous than I.

If you just wanna look at the poster directly, you can click here:

http://www.zazzle.com/obama_joker_poster-228449420800574972

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/01/obama-joker-poster-popping-los-angeles

Where can I get one?

I posted a response to a libertarian who believes in global warming and wonders why other libertarians don't, this is basically what I said:


There is a philosophic predisposition people likely fall victim to despite which side you come down on. Consider, those who tend toward belief in Protagoras and Nietzsche are going to grant man a natural god-like status and believe him capable of being even the accidental "destroyer of worlds." These people are also going to be prone to believe those powers can be put toward the creation of utopia.

But you're a rare bird ... because the libertarian tendency is away from that.

Those who are either religious and believe in a metaphysical strength that is greater than man, or are simply skeptical of human capacity based on the LIBRARIES of books recording our perpetual un-evolving arrogance and stupidity.

Of the two groups, I fall slightly into the first metaphysical group but firmly into the second group that tends to assume non-experimental non-demonstrable "science" is a game for fools.

Scientific "consensus" means nothing to me because consensus doesn't dictate objective reality. Consensus was that the world was flat and that gravity didn't bend light ... that the planet was cooling - consensus changes. And, if you get nothing else from me I hope you hear this:

EVERY GENERATION BELIEVES THEIR SCIENTISTS ARE OMNISCIENT.

And each is badly mistaken.

To go back to Nietzsche ... scientists have become the substitute since the death of God. Pathetic really, the way we worship at the alter of "expertise." IF there were omniscient experts, then they of course should rule as dictators, assuming they were also omni-compassionate, omni-moral and infallible (in action as well as knowledge) ... but that's another augment.

Further, I must add, that the farther I've gone along in education, the more Ph.D.s I've talked to, the more tunnel-visioned anti-practical academics I read, the more pedestrian seem those intellects honored with the highest degrees.

Everyone is dumber en mass ... put a lot of arrogant like-minded people together in a room and they're of COURSE going to think they have the ability and responsibility to "save the world" from SOMETHING. It's human nature. (I'm reminded of the great quote by Adam Smith "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public." Of course sometimes they don't realize they're "conspiring AGAINST" and think rather they "conspire FOR" the public good.)


As for the actual arguments ... I don't feel like researching this subject again, so if you argue these points, I really won't care, or respond, at all ... but ...

Common sense asks: How can it be warmING if it's not warmER? And who the heck says stasis is a good thing?

Isn't 1998 still "the hottest" (excluding the research that suggests 1932 was hotter of course) ... I understand '02 is pretty high up there, but either way that's 6 to 10 years of it NOT being hotter than previous years. That's, by definition, not warmING EVEN THOUGH every year has seen increased CO2 output. But all I need is to say "this year was colder" and logically global warming IS disproven.

And screw the accounting tricks of the "new averages" are higher than the old, that excludes considerations of degrees of freedom, small sample sizes and what particularly IS warming, not to mention challenges of comparing averages.

Losing positions always run from debate ... and folks like Lord Moncton have been TRYING AND TRYING to debate this stuff for YEARS. But no, apparently "the debate is over." Yeah, did I show up late and miss it? Cause I don't remember ever hearing anyone debate it!?!

'sides, MIT climatology department doesn't believe it, so it's not like I'm alone "on the fringe."

As for scientists ... as a counselor I suggest people can convince themselves of anything given the proper internal motivations: god complexes, grant money, prestige OH, and the threat of retaliation. Just look at Freeman Dyson, he questioned the science and in response they immediately question his sanity.

Further on the sociological side ... look at NASA.

Two shuttle disasters that were caused by the EXACT same thing ... the suppression of people who were lower on the food chain giving warnings because the people at the top were arrogant and supposed they knew more.

Considering the second disaster, there was a guy toward the bottom of middle-management who sent a request of a US spy satellite to take a shot of the bottom of Columbia where the foam struck and some know-it-all lady with a bunch of degrees at the top rescinded the order.

They tend to forget a patent clerk overturned the greatest minds in the world just "fooling around" in his part time.

So managers are derided for not producing anything and are considered less-than the workers who are the real creators of things. Well, will some lefty who says this tell me what the heck government is other than useless upper management?

They go to their fancy parties and tell the poor to eat cake. (And for the etymology of the phrase "let them eat cake," think burned leftover bread caked on the side of the oven.)

"Where else but in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich deformed white woman?"

Will your health-care plan work as well as your stimulus plan?