Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Defeating Terror, Part 1

While some may say that the US government's War on Terror is a ruse, and you can't declare war on a tactic, the truth is this: a lot of people—terrorists—living in remote regions of Central Asia, the Middle East, and the continental United Sates, are so insanely jealous of the obscene amount of freedom we have here that they have vowed to spend their lives to destroy those very freedoms.

One example is written about by Claudia Rosett, although she has kind of a bad attitude about it. As you will be able to see after reading that, our Freedom Defenders in DC have taken a bold step toward keeping us safe from terror. Because really, if the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, and we keep removing freedoms, then they will have no reason to hate us, which means they won't need to attack us as they are now constantly doing. So, voila, we are free from terror. Thusly, freedom must be destroyed in order that we may be free. QED.

So don't complain when you can't buy 100 watt bulbs starting in January. Don't see it as an invasion of your home buy meddling bureaucrats in the indirect employ of fascist corporations which have purchased Our Dear Congress in order that their products may be purchased even though the marketplace has rejected them. See it as safety. Someone get George Bush to strut around in a flight suit so that we can recognize the fact that the mission has once again been partially accomplished.

Friday, November 25, 2011

This Is Why

When—if—parents and other responsible adults begin to fight back against paramilitary bullies like Frank Gordo, it will be things like this that cause it. Because…

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Sooner or late the cursed machine will grind to a halt.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The Yin-Yang Heart of Elspeth Gilmore

Laurence Vance just informed me (not personally, of course, but that's the great thing about the internet) about Elspeth Gilmore. He calls her "the dumbest of the 1%," referring to the now ubiquitous and probably mythical division of wealth in American society, the 99 and the 1,made popular by Occupy Wall Street. Mr Vance calls Elspeth Gilmore dumb because she apparently can't see the massive, glaring flaw in the logic she so proudly espouses in a recent commentary on NPR. Vance is correct in that the flaw is there—anyone can see that. Gilmore is begging—demanding, even—that the government help her give away more of her money. It does seem pretty dumb at first, but maybe she should get the benefit of the doubt until some further research can be done.

Here is Elspeth's plea from her sign at Occupy Wall Street: I inherited money at 21. I have had health and dental insurance my whole life. I want to live in a world where we all have enough. I have more than enough. Tax me! Rich kid for redistribution! I am the 1%. I stand with the 99%.

There are numerous questions that could be asked here, such as what health and dental insurance have to do with social justice, or what enough is, and what it is enough for. But the question I want to ask is whether or not Elspeth Gilmore is dumb. Isn't it possible that she just has a kind heart, and that when she sees a poor child with crooked teeth her heart breaks because it isn't fair for a child to go through life with crooked teeth? It could be that she is so selfless that she can't stand to see so many go without basic needs: "adequate infrastructure and roads, well-funded school systems, clean water systems, innovative transportation and health care for all." Way too nebulous, but well-intentioned, I'm sure, although I'm not sure that those are basic needs, let alone needs ("why are you crying little child?" "Because I don't have any innovative transportation!"). To provide for those needs she wants to close "loopholes for corporations" and "increase millionaire taxes." She wants to use her money to help others. How very nice of her. Her heart seems to be in the right place.

This apparent kindness is the yang side of her heart. Yang eventually turns into yin. Instead of choosing on her own how her money can help others (which is why Vance calls her dumb, in case you haven't figured it out yet), Gilmore wants her money to be forcibly removed by federal officials so they can decide how to help poor folks (note to Elspeth: shooting missiles and dropping bombs on poor people in foreign countries—which is what Uncle Sam would do with it—doesn't count as helping). It doesn't end there. She wants this choice to be made for everyone in her situation. Everyone with "more than enough" must be separated from a large portion of their wealth until they just have "enough." And then, apparently, everyone will have enough! The stupidity rears it head once again. Just in case you think the state doesn't forcibly take property, watch this hilarious video of Harry Reid in denial of that fact. So Elspeth wants people with guns to show up at the country club and threaten violence to raise a little revenue from the well-to-do. It only seems fair to her. They have more than enough!

Not realizing she can give her own money away is dumb. Not realizing that the state's only tool is violence is ignorance. Foisting this ignorance on the world in the name of fairness and equality is evil. The kindness of Elspeth's heart is also the darkness of her heart. I don't think she gets this. I can help her.

Last year the insurance company that we bought our dental insurance from decided not to cover orthodontia anymore. We had already agreed to the terms of contract, and we had already begun the process of installing braces. We had paid our portion of the cost. The insurance company had not paid their portion, and told the orthodontist that they didn't plan to pay it either. So we had to pay it. My wife was angry. Fortunately, Washington has an insurance commissioner's office to protect unsuspecting consumers from being victimized. This is what taxes are for, right? To pay for scads of lawyers to defend us from corrupt corporate predators, right? After weeks of waiting, an attorney from the commissioner's office informed us that the insurance company had canceled that portion of their service, and so obviously they couldn't be expected to pay for a service they didn't offer. This wise attorney also informed us that he had closed the case, which I assume is one of those extra mile services that can only be offered by a state-run institution. If it weren't for the insurance commissioner's office, we would be out $3500! Oh, wait, we were out $3500, despite all the efforts of the beneficent and magnanimous state to save us from that end. Huh. As an extra benefit, the insurance commissioner of Washington also protected us from similar dental plans because he had not personally approved them for our area of the state. You cannot imagine how protected I felt at that moment. I don't know if this is what Elspeth wants, but this is what her method would produce. Listen closely Elspeth—it was the very existence of this government agency that allowed the insurance company to act this way. Their corruption was protected by the state. It's a very simple process: the state violently takes money; the state violently entrenches agencies that promote a monopoly on services; the state violently enforces it's monopolistic policies; the state violently prevents individuals from breaking the monopoly; the state protects it's monopoly with violence. As an alternative, let's pretend there is some measure of freedom involved in the process. We buy orthodontic insurance. Our kids get braces as per the contract. So simple! Here's another one. We want to buy orthodontic insurance, or we want one of our kids to get braces. There is too much money involved. Elspeth sees this, and writes a check for the required amount. Simple yet again! No violence, no crony protectionist rackets, no fury. In the third scenario, three parties benefit. The orthodontist (or his wife) is able to continue spending large amounts of money on whatever, our kids gets straight teeth, and Elspeth feels good about using her inherited money to help the 99%. In the first scenario there is only violence.

If Elspeth Gilmore and other one-percenters really want to help the lowly ninety-nine percenters, they can start by not demanding that violence be done to us in the name of equality. We don't need more violence, we need more liberty. And people like her need more economic common sense.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Chris Sullivan on The Lesser of Two Evils

How can you not be interested in a post that features the statement, "A Vote For Jesus Is A Vote For Lucifer," really?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Keeping The World Safe From Chinese Imperialism

Hillary Clinton—everyone's second favorite Secretary of State, after Henry Kissinger—recently said, on a visit to Zambia (that's in Africa), “we don't want to see a new colonialism in Africa.” She was apparently speaking of the Chinese, because then she said that Washington was "concerned that China's foreign assistance and investment practices in Africa have not always been consistent with generally accepted international norms of transparency and good governance." I see. Chinese energy companies have been brazenly bribing African locales with new schools, roads, and other infrastructure, all in an attempt to gain access to natural resources, which it surely plans to selfishly horde. The gall.

Clearly though, the Chinese don't realize that transparency can be best learned from the government of the United States. In order to make your intentions known, the most obvious step should be a military invasion, or if that doesn't work out, then at least build a huge military base in the country next door and act belligerently until you get what you want. That would be the transparent thing to do, but no, China insists on pretending to be peaceful capitalist traders, using boosts to the local economies to make the people think it might be a good idea to do business with them. Hello Africa, these are communists! "Peaceful trade" my foot. How long can that last? 50 years? 100? And then boom! They'll communize you. Suckers.

In conclusion, Africa will be lucky if NATO, lead by the US, prevents Chinese colonization by invading as many areas as possible and building bases to prevent advancement by the Chinese. The NATO countries have historical experience in Africa anyway, so it would be a good fit. NATO countries like Portugal, Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, and the UK used to control the entire continent, so it would be perfect and fitting for them to invade, build tons of bases, and bring in hundreds of thousands of civilians from their countries to live there in order to prevent colonization. In fact, the US already has a plan for this, but they have wisely extrapolated it for the whole world. Here's a picture.

See? Divide it up into military zones, build a thousand bases, patrol the seas and skies with mighty military force, and everyone* is happy. Keeping the world safe from colonial oppressors, like usual.

*Except for the evil and oppressive Chinese imperialists, of course.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Patty Murray For The Win! Wait, Nevermind.

I just got an email from Senator Patty Murray highlighting her many legislative achievements, including Protecting America's Workers by updating the 1970 OSHA travesty, Bringing Technology to the Classroom (huzzah! Children can finally learn!), Going to Bat for Seattle Sports Fans (exactly why she was elected, by the way), and Highlighting the Unseen Human Costs of War in Afghanistan, in which the Senator emphasizes the need for these often unseen human costs to be factored in drawdown decisions… what!? Could it be?

If you can make it through that awake, she was referring to the unseen human costs as it applies to Americans. And here I thought she was calling for an end to the needless and destructive occupation of a foreign country which has resulted in the (unseen) deaths of thousands of unwilling noncombatants, sometimes referred to as "collateral damage." That'll teach me to be optimistic.

Well, since we're on the subject, here's a video of some collateral damage.

Turns out "collateral damage" is actual people. Maybe if the Senator saw some of these unseen costs she'd be less of a lickspittle (see 0:05 to 0:12 in the video) to the murderous fiends who direct those heroic drone attacks.

Astonishingly, there are some Americans who wish this kind of destruction on their own country. One of them is an Elected-American, Congressperson Dana Rohrabacher of California, who recently hinted that Iraq should start thinking about paying the US back for the generosity it has shown over the last decade. The real kicker comes when he says, "We could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs." See? He wants the Iraqi army—and maybe the Afghans too—to invade us, traipse around the country kicking in doors, confiscate weapons, execute disobedient mundanes, and generally assault the entire population while destroying the economy and pulverizing whatever infrastructure they come across. And then, of course, stage a mock trial and execute the president, and then install a puppet government that will do whatever needs to be done to make sure their bribes keep coming. I'm not sure why Dana thinks "we" could use that kind of care. Maybe it's because he's a jackass.

Michael Rozeff sees this kind of delusion as an insight into the mentality of the DC parasite class. While he does an excellent analysis on the meaning of the jackass Rohrabacher's statements, he doesn't go so far as to say that people like the jackass should, at a minimum, be handed over to the very people he demands payment from to collect from them personally, like I would have said. He would need to take beatings or personal checks in lieu of cash.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011


Normally I hate compromise. It reveals a lack of principle on the part of the compromiser, and it earns a healthy disrespect. But, as with everything, there are exceptions, and I've been thinking about this for a while and have decided that I'm willing to give some ground on an important issue.

In 1947 the Department of Defense was created to replace the Department of War and the Department of the Navy. I've been of the opinion that it should go back to War, if not Offense, but I realize that probably isn't going to happen. I can see how it would diminish the effectiveness of tricking the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" crowd into thinking that there is any actual national defense going on, so I have an idea. I'm willing to allow DoD to keep it's current name, but with one minor adjustment. It should be the Department of "Defense" instead. It still sounds the same, but reflects reality in a much more accurate manner. I'll try it out. In a recent report from the Department of "Defense," blah blah blah. I think it works.

Other executive departments that are named in such a way as to cause uproarious laughter due to the disparity of their name and their actual function:

Health and Human Services
Housing and Urban Development
Homeland Security

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Surprising Pro-Liberty Votes. Maybe.

Twenty-three United States Senators voted against extending the non-eternal provisions of the contemptible and misleadingly named Patriot Act of 2001. The most vocal of the opponents had to have been Rand Paul, which is no surprise since Ron Paul has been the lone voice against the act from the beginning. The surprise—at least to the casual political observer—is that only four of the twenty-three dissenting votes were Republicans. Why would nineteen Democrats—you know, the ones who hate freedom and constantly try to control everyone's life from birth to death and beyond, according to conservative estimates—vote against something that allows spying on Americans who haven't committed any crime? Why vote against Big Brother when Big Brother is your goal?

The bigger surprise, at least to me, was that both Senators from Washington, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, were in that group of nineteen naysayers. The two Senators are both documentable "liberals," or in other words, not "conservatives," so it stands to reason, or so I assumed, that both would be on board with permitting the state to surveil, harass, and intimidate any person, anywhere, with no due process, on any grounds. Someone who stands by the selfgenerated right of the state to determine what kind of food you should eat, what types of light bulbs you should be permitted to have in your home, what type of business you should be able to operate, what kind of car you can drive and how far you should be able to drive it, how much of your money should go to the government, and which tools you should be allowed to defend yourself with, surely wouldn't mind a few wiretaps here and there. Just applying whatever logic got you to the conclusion that the state knows best would, or should, help you reach the conclusion that the Patriot Act and all of it's tenticular provisions are OK, and we can all trust the government to do the right thing and only watch terrorists. Something in the provisions must have rubbed these two the wrong way to make them vote against their own power.

I can only think of two reasons: civil rights and republicans. It could be that, even though both Senators voted for the original Patriot Act*, they have come to the realization that the act has been ineffectual in figthing terrorism, and the ramifications have been detrimental to society in general, and have been the greatest factor in creating an embryonic paranoid police state full of tasers and check points. It could be that they care somewhat about civil rights, even though they haven't seemed to see their way to caring about other things that libertarian-minded people care about. Yet. The other possibility is that House Republicans were the driving force behind getting the bill to the Senate (because Republicans care about freedom, and protecting Americans from terrorism, and also, they want to win the War on Terror, or course), and anything the Republicans want, the Democrats don't want. Petty partisanship, in short.

Either way, voting against this heinous incursion into our natural rights was a good thing. To paraphrase Pavlov, any behavior that is reinforced is likely to be repeated. It might be a good idea to contact Senators Cantwell and Murray—despite the odds against them actually reading an email—to let them know we appreciate their respect for civil rights, and hope to see more votes n the future against travesties of justice like the Patriot Act, and more votes for liberty.

*Did you know that USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act? These government folks are clever.

Monday, May 2, 2011


So Osama is dead. Supposedly. I'm not sure why anyone would take DC's word for it, since nothing resembling truth ever comes from that wretched hive of scum and villainy, but they say he is. Nice to know that "justice" has been done, and that the American variety of justice is now slimmed down and more efficient than ever, having been completely stripped of due process, fair trials, and innocent-until-proven-guilty tradition. And it's about time too! That stuff is just for the Soft On Crime types.

Anyway, if Osama is really dead, and they really ditched the body in the ocean in one of the most asinine and ridiculous moves in the history of executive assassinations, then it's only bad news for the rest of us. A foreign military, combined with a team from the elected dictator's private army, went into another country, unannounced and uninvited, raided a residence, killed several people, and then left a wrecked helicopter for the host* nation to clean up. Nice. I'm trying to imagine the righteous indignation of Ann Coulter or Michele Bachmann (if she could find a way to form coherent sentences) on hearing news of the death of a notorious Mexican drug lord at the hands of Mexican Special Ops. In Nebraska. Somehow I don't think everyone would be happy with uninvited foreign military operations in America. So along with bad PR (and honestly,who really cares about PR anyway? Can't we just let the brilliance of Hollywood be our ambassador to the world?), Pakistan has a serious grudge against us—which they probably already had, and for good reason—and the rest of the world knows that "we" (not me, really) will come barging in anytime, anyplace, with the gift of democracy or maybe with teams of assassins, and along with that a bunch of people will have a solid and rational reason to believe that the United States loves to kill muslims and then desecrate their bodies. As if they didn't have enough reason to believe that, but hey, slow learners over there I guess.

All of this, plus American citizens have been revealed as a gaggle of chanting dunces, prone to gathering spontaneously in order to celebrate the assassination of some hobgoblin or other, not to mention that it took the self-proclaimed bestest military ever in the world multiple trillions of dollars that don't exist and innumerable lives (that just happened to be in the way) to find and kill one guy. And some of his family. "We" lose.

But if none of that is true, it's a whole different story. Or at least a similar but different story, because now the world—which is full of muslims, who are, obviously, just waiting for any opportunity to explode in a fiery ball of primitive rage and force their brutal religion of violence and oppression on the grand civilizations of The West, obviously—knows, or thinks it knows, what the elected officials of the United States would do in that situation. So if the whole thing is a lie, it's a really stupid lie. Burial at sea? If you wanted to raise suspicions there is no better way to do it. If it's a lie, latent terrorists are still mad because they think all of that stuff happened. "We" lose again, for mostly the same reasons, plus being uncreative liars.

If neither of those is true—maybe he's been dead for years, maybe he's still alive somewhere—then the whole thing is a surreal circus event, inadvertently revealing how deeply the tentacles of an unspeakable parasite have entrenched themselves in everything, from an unthinking, collaborative network of media prostitutes, to the psyche of the people who call themselves Americans. Bin Laden, if he's still alive, continues to bask in the glory of his victory over the greatest and best freest country in the world. He laughs every time a TSA goon sticks their hands down your pants, smiles every time the border patrol searches a car at a check point nowhere near any border, and claims victory every time our wise leaders in congress borrow another trillion dollars from our great-grandchildren to spend on technology that was cutting edge ten years ago. Every time some moron claims we have to give up our freedoms in order to protect freedom, bin Laden puts another mark in his win column, two if that moron happens to be the president. If neither story is true, we live in a world where no lie is off limits, because the liars know that we'll believe anything we're told, and we'll endure any abuse to be safe from whatever it is the liars tell us is dangerous. If the raid and assassination are a complete fabrication, then we are obviously the gullible Eloi the Morlocks assumed we are. In which case, "we" lose.

*Do I mean "host" like the host of a party, or "host" like the host of a parasite? I don't know, maybe both. Pick whichever one you like better.