Come for the Politics, Stay for the Pathologies

Thursday, April 28, 2011

I didn’t know Einstein, but you sir, are no Einstein. Trust me.

Well, finally.

No, not the birth certificate. MOTUS covered that. Or if you’d like a slightly more analytical take on it, James Corsi still has some issues related to twin girls born the same day. Or there’s this, if you want an analysis of the likelihood that the long form is a forgery.

But no, what I’m referring to is an explanation of why Obama is such a crappy president. And from one of the Left’s own no less, Dana Milbank.

Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals.

Feeling better now? He’s crappy because he’s the smartest guy in the room.

Of course Milbank thinks that Obama dwells in “the center-left” so you should discount the rest of his political opinions simply on that basis. He proceeds to quote Philip Tetlock, a professor of psychology with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, so you know that he’s an “integratively complex” thinker too:

Among the complex thinker’s advantages, says Tetlock, is the ability to see quickly the trade-offs among policy options, to update his beliefs after finding evidence that disproves his preconceptions, and to predict probable outcomes with accuracy. Among the disadvantages: The complex thinker can suffer from “analysis paralysis” and confusion; he can be perceived as unprincipled or disloyal to the values that elevated him to power; and he can be seen as too willing to make trade-offs.

That seems to conveniently cover all of his more obvious flaws, other than his tendency towards Marxist communism. It also sounds a lot like a legalese explanation from a Board of Directors as to why they felt it best to fire an incompetent CEO. Because when there’s a lot on the line, such as the survival of the company, nobody really gives a crap why the CEO is incompetent but they have to say something that can’t be construed as slanderous in a court of law.

As Professor Tetlock helpfully illustrates, an “integratively complex” brain, as opposed to a simpleton brain, has certain drawbacks in leadership positions:

A simple thinker such as Winston Churchill, for example, was a better answer to Adolf Hitler than the complex Neville Chamberlain. “Leaders need to be simple enough for people to relate to,” said Tetlock, “but complex enough to explain to people that they can’t have everything.” Obama was simple enough during his campaign, but, as president, became submerged in subtlety.

So in other words, when negotiating with other civilized gentlemen such as himself, Britain needed a Neville Chamberlain, but once a real threat emerged, it required a moron like Churchill.

And that’s not all that Obama’s massive intelligence has working against him: “But because Obama is unfailingly rational, opponents aren’t afraid of him doing something crazy.”

He wraps up the discussion by explaining that while complex rationality might normally be considered virtuous and advantageous, in politics they are distinct disadvantages, concluding that Obama’s best course of action at this point is to not to be rational and fully honest.”  Many conservatives may well ask if anyone will notice.

So I believe a correct summary of Milbank’s position is that Obama is too smart, and the world too dangerous right now for a man of the President’s “integrative complexity” to lead the country. We need another moron. Like Churchill. Or maybe Reagan.

Let me know if you can think of anyone that could fill that bill. But, clearly, we must fire Obama…or…his teleprompter. I’m not sure which of them, if either, is “integratively complex” but I do know this: in order to be integratively complex, you must first know something about what you are trying to complexly integrate.



I didn’t know Einstein, but you sir, are no Einstein. Trust me.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Deconstructing Obama’s Latest Campaign Speech: Market Fraud UPDATE: Doug Ross proves it

You no doubt missed President Obama’s weekly radio address last Saturday: Stopping Oil Market Fraud, Beginning a Clean Energy Future, but you should read it, because you’ll be hearing it again and again. It’s another campaign speech. It explains his administration’s energy policy in a nutshell: Bush started it, the capitalists are manipulating it and our only salvation is “green,” “renewable” energy. That will take us places we’ve never been before. WTF (Winning The Future, I mean).

Let’s deconstruct the radio address. First, we demonize the capitalist class:

On Thursday, my Attorney General also launched a task force with just one job: rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators.  We’re going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain. 

And don’t forget to demonize the producers who are using legitimate, authorized tax credits to hold costs down:

And another step we need to take is to finally end the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year.  That’s $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump.  It has to stop.

Because, naturally, if you make it more expensive for oil and gas companies to produce their product, that will ensure that consumer prices drop, right? Who writes this crap for the President? Have they ever taken Economics 101? Duh – silly me. They probably have PhDs in Economics: the “hairdressers” of the financial world.

Secondly, keep humping for “green” energy, because that’s been proven to be real efficient and cost effective:

Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, [ed. the kind that have been been proven to work] we need to invest in tomorrow’s. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long term, that’s the answer.

If by “long term” you mean the next century. By then, assuming government doesn’t get in the way, scientists and engineers will have developed a new generation of energy sources (hydrogen cells, fusion, non-food chain bio-energy?) based on real science that will make all of our early 21st century alternative investments in WTF (winning the future) obsolete. They’re already uneconomic, so obsolescence will be a blessing.

That’s the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

Let me make sure I’ve got this straight: investing in clean renewable energy and “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” without increasing our drilling at home will help families at the pump? In what decade will that “help” arrive, Mr. President? And again I ask: who writes this crap for TOTUS/POTUS?

We can see that promise already.[ed. HOPE!] Thanks to an historic agreement we secured with all the major auto companies, we’re raising the fuel economy of cars and trucks in America, using hybrid technology and other advances.  As a result, if you buy a new car in the next few years, the better gas mileage is going to save you about $3,000 at the pump.

That claim is such unadulterated BS I barely know how to respond. First, waving a magic wand and producing an “agreement” doesn’t make it so. Especially if the technology to accomplish said noble objective doesn’t exist yet .

What we have here is a plan to increase the fuel economy of America’s cars and trucks developed by a group of government functionaries who know nothing about physics, engineering, production, manufacturing, or marketing . And this is going to save you money at the pump. Because the government said so.

So if you still have a job and can afford to buy a new car that will probably have to be a hybrid you’ll save money at the pump. But of course you can’t – afford to by a hybrid that is – even if you have a job. Because they cost too much to build. But don’t worry, we’ll get Congress to authorize subsidies on these new cars so that they will be priced artificially low and hopefully that will be enough to entice you into buying one: WTF (winning the future). And then, you’ll (maybe) save $3000 at the pump! Over the life of your car, which we’ll assume to be about 15 years. Assuming they make the unpopular cars and parts that long.  Oh and another thing; your state may come after the $3000 you saved, since they’ll be losing revenues on gas taxes.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe we need to reduce the deficit.  That’s where we agree.  The question we’re debating is how we do it.  I’ve proposed a balanced approach that cuts spending while still investing in things like education and clean energy that are so critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class.  It’s a simple idea: we need to live within our means while at the same time investing in our future.

It’s a simple idea alright, living “within our means.” The problem is the President and the Democrats don’t get it.

So if I have this right, gas prices have doubled in the past 2 years and Obama (who’s been in office for over 2 years) is looking for someone’s ass to kick?  Is there a “hold harmless” clause in Obama’s Presidential  contract with America that I’m unaware of?

Does the President think we’ve forgotten that he’s the guy who promised to make coal fired generation plants “prohibitively expensive” during his campaign? Everything he’s done with respect to energy policy since he’s taken office has been designed to make energy more expensive, not less.

Let’s look at just a few actions that can be directly accredited to President Obama that may have contributed to the increase in the price of gas at the pump.

One of his first appointees, Stephen Chu,  Secretary of Energy, told the WSJ in September of 2008 "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," which were then running between $7-8 per gallon: nearly 3 times the cost of gas in the US at the time. So far he’s doing a good job achieving his goal.

Then we have Carol Browner, Obama’s director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy who, until earlier this year, was a member of Socialists International. Not a group known for promoting the interests of any means of production let alone the energy business.

And then there is the man that Obama tried to anoint as his “Green Energy Czar, Van Jones. A man who recently summarized his energy philosophy thusly:

"We pull out of the ground death, and we burn it in our engines. And we burn death in our power plants, without ceremony," Jones said. "And then we act shocked when, having pulled death out of the ground and burned it—we act shocked when we get death from our skies in the form of global warming…”

And there’s Kenneth Salazar, appointed Secretary of the Interior by Obama, whose first official act was to cancel 77 gas and oil leases in Utah where activists (including Robert Redford, guess whose campaign he contributed to) objected to the proximity of the leaseholds to National Parks. They believed it would “mar the landscape.” Maybe we should just make the entire country a national park and be done with drilling altogether. Later, Salazar cancelled leases in Colorado and Wyoming as well.

In January of 2010 President Obama announced that the EPA  - a regulatory agency granted legislative powers by  presidential fiat - issued “rules” that required biomass fuel production to triple over the next 10 years.  So the President’s EPA czar has effectively established an energy policy for the country. We’re  to run the economy on corn and sorghum.

Another Obama appointee, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was delighted with the EPA’s rule issuance:

Advancing biomass and biofuel production holds the potential to create green jobs, which is one of the many ways the Obama Administration is working to rebuild and revitalize rural America,”

Isn’t it nice to see all of our federal agencies working together for a change to kill the fossil fuel industry in the US and hold America hostage to “green energy?” Energy, Agriculture, Interior and a few miscellaneous czars here and there, all working together with a single-minded purpose: getting the domestic cost of gasoline in line with what they pay in Europe, where this is considered a sweet ride:

fiat500The new Fiat 500. Sweet! Buy 2: one for you, one for your groceries.

The theory of course is that we’d all stop driving and start clamoring for more mass transportation and  “alternative” energy sources, which your government stands ready to shell money out for; even though it is technologically unsound and economically non-viable. (emphasis added)

The energy content of wind flows and sunlight is unconcentrated, (sic) which means that massive amounts of land and materials have to be employed to make renewable power even technically practical. A 1,000-megawatt gas plant needs about 10-15 acres; a 1,000-megawatt wind farm needs about 50,000 acres (78 square miles). A square meter of solar receiving capacity even in theory is only sufficient to power one 100-watt light bulb; a solar plant of only 100 megawatts would require about 1,250 acres (2 square miles).

I wonder if the greenies feel that a 100 square mile solar field or wind farm would “mar the landscape,” or is it that designation only applicable to gas and oil rigs?

Wind-Turbine-Generators--Palm-Springs--California_webWindmill farm, Palm Springs, CA.

But when you are more concerned with an ideology than the economy, nothing is too impractical to promote.

And of course, President Obama has completely shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico – for American companies only, we’re lending money to others to drill there – and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement continues to drag its feet on issuing permits. Even though daddy plugged the damn hole months ago.

So Mr. take-credit-for-all-the-good-stuff President, I think you can stop looking for someone’s ass to kick for the skyrocketing price at the pump. Not only do you deserve the credit for this  but you’ve worked pretty damn hard to ensure it happened. Take a bow. And while you’re down there, make like a Gumby and give himself a good swift kick in the hiney.


UPDATE: Doug Ross’ post provides an update on the EPA’s continued actions to ensure rising gas prices and demonstrates why the Gumby hiney maneuver is the correct action at this point:

The Environmental Protection Agency -- also known as the flat-Earth, no growth, taxpayer-funded, eco-Marxists (which is the term they prefer, I hear) -- is intentionally killing off domestic energy production. Presumably this makes good on at least one of President Obama's campaign promises -- in this case, that energy prices "will necessarily skyrocket."




You may also be interested in An Ill Wind Blowing, and Pork: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Dewey Wishes You a Happy Easter

A very joyous Easter to Christians everywhere!

Screenshot Studio capture #055

Hubble’s picture of the Rose Galaxy taken from deep space.

Non-Christians may also wish to take a moment to reflect on a religion based on the belief that “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in Jesus shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

Faith, repentance, redemption, and eternal salvation: no hate, no killing, no retribution, no subjugation of women or infidels. Sounds like a religion of peace to me.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

A Confederacy of Dunces

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."  Jonathan Swift – “Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting”

Sadhill illustrates and annotates an American Thinker post and asks if we’re doomed by a confederacy of fools: Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Term for the King of Fools?


From Lauri Regan’s AT post:

There is a wonderful quote that has been making its way around the internet over the past year. It apparently was translated from an article published in the Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung last April and reads as follows:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry     capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

The first time I saw this, the Tea Party enthusiasm was in full force and Republicans were on their way to taking back the House and gaining ground in the Senate. Optimism prevailed and the light at the end of the tunnel began to appear. But as Barack Obama announces his reelection bid and the GOP has yet to produce a strong, viable candidate for President, it would be prudent to question the present mindset of the electorate who got the country and the world into the current mess and whether it is possible that “the confederacy of fools” will elect him to a second term.

When Obama won in 2008 [...] I analyzed the various reasons that people had for voting for a person who was clearly incompetent, unprepared, unpatriotic, and basically void of any substance other than his own ego and disdain for American exceptionalism. The five categories of Obama voters included (i) individuals suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, (ii) followers with a mob mentality of assuming that if everyone liked the guy, he must be wonderful, (iii) socialists, (iv) people with racial guilt looking for a post-racial America, and (v) those suffering from simple ignorance due to a lack of intellectual curiosity to understand the man who would be king.

floating O head

Now, with over half of Obama’s term complete, the only relevant categories of Obama supporters are those falling under items (iii) and (v) — Americans who reside on the far left of the political spectrum and those who remain completely ignorant about world affairs, economics, and the person who is the current leader of the free world. The far left will continue to support and vote for Obama no matter how many flip flops he makes on closing Gitmo, military trials for terrorists, intervention in Mideast revolutions, and other policies that raise their ire.

However, in the face of a dishonest and complicit mainstream media, it is up to all thinking Americans to make efforts to educate themselves, their neighbors, friends, colleagues, and family as to the dangers of four more years of Obama as President. For while the world can withstand four years of incompetence in the White House, eight years will likely result in a world forever changed, with America reduced to mediocrity and powerlessness, Islamic fundamentalism on an unimpeded rise to triumph over the West, and liberty and freedom replaced in many more parts of the world by tyranny and human rights abuses.

While many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 have woken up to the fact that it was a colossal mistake, there remain too many Americans who simply do not understand just how incompetent and ideologically driven his administration is.

[...] The U.S. electorate might want to take one more look at Obama swaggering up to the podium for his campaign and post-election speeches and question the intelligence of a man who cannot speak without a telepromptor, who refuses to disclose his college transcripts (let alone his birth certificate), who chose Cairo for his most famous reach-out to a people who hate America, and who appears to care more about enjoying the life of Riley than he does about the free world. If Obama represents the level of intelligence of the American people, then I fear our Republic will not survive the “multitude of fools” who may very well hand the prince a second term.

If we can’t get over our infatuation with the superficiality of  “celebrities” as a stand in for values, principles and depth of intellect, we are doomed. And the terrorists win.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." 

So there you have it: confirmation that Obama is definitely not a genius. He’s got the entire confederacy of dunces on his side. As we suspected all along -I just don’t see how this can possible work in our favor.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

On Limited Government: What part of “Limited” do you not Understand?

Screenshot Studio capture #045


Apparently President Obama feels that portions of the spending bill that Congress just passed are unconstitutional, since his signing statement indicated as much:

One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”…

In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.

Not that he always felt that way:

Our constitutional law teacher lectures on the constitutionality of signing statements

As Obama pointed out in his 2008 position on the issue of signing statements, he taught the Constitution for 10 years. If, during those 10 years, he was teaching those little legal beagles that it’s the job of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief to interpret the constitution, (and than act on that interpretation) it may explain a lot.

But it clearly sounded as though he understood that the President does not have the power to interpret legislation, and he even went so far as to say he absolutely wouldn’t use signage statements. Unless he has to. 

Let me be clear: it wasn’t legal when George W. Bush did it, and it isn’t legal now. Pragmatism and expediency in the interest of getting your way is illegal, immoral and dangerous to our freedom and liberty.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

UN to protect bugs’ rights: people next

big-bugs-antsPlanet of the Ants

I know it’s  “Shut Up and Sing” Wednesday, but Alec Baldwin is just going to have to wait another week for his slot on my honor role. Due to breaking news, I’ve expanded my awards selection candidate list - this week only –beyond the usual “celebrities speaking stupidly” to  include stupid international organizations chartered to:

  1. maintain international peace and security
  2. develop friendly relations among nations
  3. achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character

Yes, this week’s winner hands down is the United Nations for their upcoming proposal to give “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans. When they say “you can’t make this stuff up” this is what they’re talking about.

Here are the essentials:

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.

Complete story here.

Aside from the fact that I don’t see anywhere in the UN charter a mandate to protect cockroaches (although it does so routinely), I will say this; I do believe that in Communist Bolivia under the rule of Evo Morales that bugs, indeed, have the same rights as humans.

I have nothing else to say. Other than “congratulations” to the UN: I didn’t believe it could possibly prove itself to be more dangerously inane than it already is.  A good reminder of why we can never allow our cynicism to grow lazy. One World Order never sleeps.

Cultural side note: the last UN initiative to protect bug rights by banning DDT resulted in the humane salvation of trillions of mosquitoes, while killing, regrettably, 30 million humans.

If you were a bug, what kind of a bug would you be?


Say your prayers, mister

photos: SoothBrush

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Look Mom! No Hands!

Why do people keep writing bad things about Detroit?

Maybe it’s because of stuff like this:

Or as Fausta put it, GM: $84 billion later, and they come up with a car whose steering wheel falls off.

From the WSJ:

While the recall affects a relatively small number of vehicles, it is an unpleasant development for Chevrolet, which has been riding high on the success of its new small car. Chevrolet sold 50,205 Cruzes through the end of March. That’s well short of the 76,821 units Toyota sold of the Cruze’s main rival, the Corolla, but it is ahead of the 37,379 Cobalts Chevy sold in the same period. The Cruze replaced the Cobalt and is supposed to be a departure from that uninspired model. [ed. I don’t think this is what they had in mind.]

In documents filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the car maker said it traced the problem with that particular car to a case in which the wrong wheel was put in a car and replaced later in the assembly process with the correct one. But the new wheel wasn’t attached properly, the car maker says.

This sounds very much like the sloppy “craftsmanship” that drove the American auto industry to it’s knees back in the 70’s and 80’s (the last time Chrysler got a bailout). Then, supposedly, “quality” was introduced as “job one.” That, and  the introduction of new technology and metrics was said to improve the over all fit and finish of the product, bringing it in line with its foreign competitors.

As things improved, the UAW won back all the concessions they made, everyone got all fat and happy from top to bottom just in time for the next crises to erupt, causing new rounds of  cutbacks, layoffs and “concessions.” But apparently through it all, the lock-tight union rules continued to make it impossible to fire anyone for anything short of murder in the workplace (first degree). And while this recent story showcases Chrysler employees partying on their lunch break, rest assured there are similar stories at just about every assembly plant, including the GM Chevy Chevrolet (I forgot, Government Motors decided to ditch the “Chevy” designation: didn’t sound classy enough.) Cruze assembly plant.

Not the majority of employees, mind you, just the 2 percenters who enjoy a little doobie and brewski on their breaks. Exacerbated by supervisors who turn their backs on a pretty obvious situation because they’re tired of trying to deal with the union grievance process.

And let’s be clear, it only takes one doped up/juiced worker to put the wrong steering wheel on a car - and one more to replace it, but attach it incorrectly. Yep, all the expensive consulting, re-engineering and metric bullshit really pays off when you don’t bother to get rid of crappy employees. (Anyone want to take a bet on how many of the Chrysler employees busted in the lunch hour dope and booze video are still dues paying UAW workers?)

So, as I told Fausta, this is a great metaphor for both Detroit and Washington: the tires have been falling off for a few years and now the steering wheels are following suit.

But not to fear: with the government in the driver’s seat we don’t really need no stinkin’ steering wheel of our own any way.


Look Mom! No Hands!

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Ann Barnhardt, the Koran and a Reasoned Approach to Appeasing the Unappeasable


“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.” 

Winston Churchill



Ann Barnhardt has given voice to the evil whose name we dare not speak: Islam. The religion of peace. If you are one of the few people who frequent conservative blog sites who hasn’t seen the Barnhardt videos you can view them here.

Ann’s articulate and unapologetic take down of not just the religion of peace, but its politically correct apologists and appeasers has generated an enormous amount of online buzz. Much of it is resoundingly supportive: people who feel someone has finally found their voice, and given words to their frustration. Others have been dismayed by what they consider her unnecessary stridency, and fear it will be responsible for even more violence and deaths at the hands of radical Islamists (inadvertently punctuating Barnhardt’s point for her). And some, of course, who feel she is a narrow-minded, ignorant moron who should just shut up and/or suffer physical harm (likewise reinforcing her points).

Here is a synopsis of her three-pronged treatise: first, she abhors much of Islam’s circumscribed teachings which are sub-human,  perverted and would be considered criminal anywhere outside of Sharia law. Secondly, she condemns America’s  inexplicable embrace of the “religion’s” essential premises which are antithetical to freedom and democracy. And third, she finds our political leaders willingness to compromise our values and principles to accommodate this anti-American, anti-democratic “religion” despicable, cowardly and treasonous.

She focuses her attack on the appeasement mindset, as exhibited by Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation last Sunday, that serves to excuse the horrifically violent behavior of  practitioners of the religion of peace while condemning the non-violent acts (sorry, burning a Koran is not violent in any normal meaning of the term) of Terry Jones. Barnhart simply points out the supreme stupidity of such fallacious logic. She attempts to explain to the “can’t we all just get along” crowd why we can’t; why it is completely illogical to think that we can somehow appease and accommodate this bizarro, stone age political philosophy of submission, misogyny and pedophilia masquerading as religion.

You can mark me down as unequivocally in Ann’s  bacon-smeared-Koran-burning camp.  I, too, am sick to death of people who think that if we just tone down the rhetoric and are more responsive to the sensibilities of the aggrieved practitioners of the religion of peace we can keep a lid on the shenanigans of the militant Islamic fascists. If we just acquiesce a little, maybe they’ll  stop with the atrocities: like the brutal decapitations of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, to put a face on 2 of them, the car bombings, the self-immolating human firecrackers trying to down airliners and the crazy fly-boys who land jets in skyscrapers.

Not only is that thinking lethally wrong, it’s delusional. It is a weasel’s gateway to hell. Appeasement of people whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to democratic principles always and necessarily creeps stealthily towards tyranny. Appeasement is not designed to mollify the likes of the Amish or the Lutherans, who are no threat, but rather it seeks to mollify the strident. Appeasement is designed for those who would do us harm and have proved themselves to be inherently dangerous, in hopes that they will take what we have to give and wander off to find a different victim.  Intimidation is their method of extortion: if they were not intimidating, e.g. the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and fundamental Islamists, there would be no reason to acquiesce to there requests.  Get it? And no, that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist.  I don’t see anyone suggesting that we need to appease Catholics. Or Jews. Or Evangelical Christians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists or even Scientologists – regardless of their skin color. None of these peaceful religious sects want to kill or maim us simply because they don’t like who we are and how we live.  And more importantly, their “religion” doesn’t instruct them to do so.

So let’s be clear: appeasement is reserved for those we consider dangerous to our way of life. In that regard alone it is the most counterintuitive strategy imaginable, as it gives more power to those who threaten us. And the greater the threat to our way of life, the larger the price of appeasement, and the more power we willingly hand over to the enemy. The appeasement route as a strategic defense is a historical, verifiable act of insanity. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows this.

Islam has launched a coordinated marketing program on par with that of  the Nazi’s, except Hitler had nowhere near as many useful idiots espousing his propaganda for him. The “religion of peace” has garnered support, deference and alms from every influential organization in this country: politicians, the MSM, academics and Hollywood. In a classic case of “who you gonna’ believe, me or your lyin’ eyes” mendacity, we have been told that violent Islamists are but a small portion of the much larger population of moderate Muslims practicing the religion of peace. Even if we were to accept that premise - which I grow less and less inclined to do as I examine their most holy book more and more - let me ask this: if the fanatical minority is so small, why is the West bending over backwards to appease all Muslims? What, other than their “religion’s” antipathy towards all things Western, makes the West feel they must be treated with far more deference than any of the established Western religions?



Peaceful Muslims demonstrating in London

Why are Muslims not working with Western nations to root out this “tiny minority?” What’s wrong with this picture? Where are all those moderate Muslims we keep hearing about? We can take their silence to be apathy at best and complicity at worst. Either way, the peaceful majority is irrelevant .

Why do we continue to co-opt our moral sensibilities to accommodate theirs? If they feel the Koran is not just a holy book, but the most holy book, why must we concede this point by physically placing it above all other books in libraries and book stores?

Will this appease our Muslim brethren? No my friend, it will not. Because the only way they will be appeased is by complete submission to Allah. Read the teachings in their most holy book for yourself.  And yet our naïve President believes that we can just sit down and reason with these people to achieve peace and harmony. His worldview lacks one vital touchstone of reality: you cannot reason with zealots. Nor can you appease them.  If you could, the conflict between Palestine and Israel would be over by now.

Let’s analyze the art of appeasement exclusively with our left brain and leave the right brain to deal with something where feelings might actually be beneficial, like deciding who to vote for on American Idol.

My first question is, “on what grounds are we to reason with people who harbor unreasonable hatred toward anyone who is not like them?” People whose most holy book instructs them to kill all infidels - that seems rather exclusionary doesn’t it? Just like racists. 

Screenshot Studio capture #007

How might one go about reasoning with racists do you suppose, in order to get them to stop lynching black people? Maybe we could all just agree that, when in public, blacks must cover themselves from head to toe in – oh, I don’t know, maybe a burka – in order not to offend the racists? Would that work? Not enough? OK, then how about if we ban them from using public water fountains and bathrooms? How’s that?

Secondly, how do you suppose we can reason with people whose religion teaches that Jews are inhuman, lower and dirtier than a dog? That almost sounds anti-Semitic. How shall we reason with anti-Semites? I suppose we could look to history for some insight into this, as this was one of the  dilemmas Chamberlain dealt with. Perhaps we could follow his lead and give them a country in exchange for leaving ours alone. Israel, perhaps?

Next – and this one might be a bit sticky - how best to reason with members of the religion of peace who believe women can legally be raped and beaten? You might think we  would have gotten some direction in this regard from N.O.W., but so far, nothing. They must be conducting research to determine if it’s a hate crime.  So again, let me ask: how shall we reason with people who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death for the alleged sin of adultery? (I say “alleged” because apparently this maneuver is also used on occasion to get rid of one wife too many, in order to make way for a new one, but that’s an entirely different issue, covered under “sharia law”) Since this practice sounds like misogyny, let’s see if we can determine a way to reason with and appease misogynists. How would free, independent women meet them half way on this? How about if we agree that all non-Muslim women will wear burka’s on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the most holy season of Ramadan, when they will wear them 7 days a week? Does that work for you? Not enough? OK, they can’t drive cars or go to school either. Is that adequate?


And now, about that Koran burning thing: Is it really such a big deal if we all just agree that it should be illegal to burn the most holy Koran? And as long as we’re writing a new law anyway, there are some of the practitioners of the religion of peace who would like to have us include the requirement that everyone purchase a Koran, and keep it in their home at all times. Up high. Above any and all other books you may also have in your home. Is that Ok? Oh, and come to think of it, there are a few books that they would like to ban from being kept in the home along with the most holy Koran. Specifically, the Bible. Any problem with that? Besides, I think that restriction might already be included somewhere in the 2000 plus pages of ObamaCare legislation, or the gazillion pages of ObamaCare implementation regulations.

Oh, one last thing that our friends, the practitioners of the religion of peace want to include in that ban on Koran burning  legislation: now that you all have a Koran on the top shelf in your house. They want you to read it. Five times a day, and twice more on Fridays. You’ll know exactly when, since the Civil Defense System has recently been upgraded as part of our “Investing in America’s Infrastructure” program for “Winning the Future.”  It will now be used to issue the daily Call to Prayer, “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.” WTF, indeed.

H/T: RBJ thanks for the photos

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Birthers, Chicken Bones and Sedition: News from Park City, Utah

20110401__0city_GALLERYNot your average liberal Park City resident

Are you tired of escalating fuel prices because Obama  opposes oil drilling anywhere, is threatening a carbon tax, shelved off shore drilling permits,  and is dragging his heels on shale oil and gas drilling?

Worried about food prices escalating out of control because of this country’s insane commitment to “green” “sustainable” energy that has resulted in subsidies  for the production of ethanol made out of the corn that ought to be fed to cattle, pigs, chickens and other high protein foodstuff?

Sick to death with the Washington budget dance between the party of “yes, yes YES!” and the party of No, not today, but maybe next week; and the threatened (“oh, I’m scared now!”) government shutdown?

If the ineptitude of this administration’s handling of foreign affairs, led by the Hen Hawk Troika, is causing daily acid reflux,  you’re tired of illegal court intervention in the legislative process in, of all places, Wisconsin, and the strident self-righteousness of public sector union leaves you with numbness in your left arm…allow me to share a little mountain town news that is a lot more fun, and only tangentially political.

Here in Park City, UT (population circa 8000, 2000 Hispanic) where we’ll be for another month, the local news is always vastly more entertaining than the national or international. 

Before I begin there are some local demographic issues you should be aware of. For starters, despite Utah’s reputation as the reddest of red states with it’s predominantly Mormon population, Salt Lake City proper, 30 miles westbound and down the mountain, has succumbed to the same disease as every other large city that has both a University and a growing number of “underprivileged” residents (many “living in the shadows” i.e. illegals): it is a bastion of liberalism. It has a liberal Democratic mayor, a predominantly liberal Democratic City Council and a young population whose political priorities start with being green and end with gay rights. But by comparison it too is a conservative enclave; Park City being just a notch to the left of Southern California – from which many of it’s current residents have relocated.

So it was rather surprising to see the gentleman pictured above on Main Street in “downtown” Park City.  The story in the Park Record begins “The Donald would get at least one vote in Park City if he were to mount a White House campaign.” And possibly that would be the only vote he’d get, still it’s nice to see a little “diversity” in Park City.

Robert Novak, a Deer Valley resident (where the people with really BIG bucks live) is the one-man-band beating the drum for the Donald. Novak says he identifies with the Tea Party, and will be supporting Trump Mondays through Fridays on Main Street for the foreseeable future. It could get lonely out there.

Novak said most of the responses he’s gotten (so far) have been positive, with the exception of one person who yelled "go back to Cuba, you commie." No other clue regarding the background, political philosophy or IQ of that individual, although it’s fairly safe to say that he was educated in the public school system and knows nuthin’ about nuthin’. And isn’t ashamed to prove it.

But that wasn’t the only news in town, this week, as evidenced by the weekly Police Blotter that details everything from lost wallets to roaming livestock.

But the biggest story by far last week was related to the finding of dead chicken parts strewn along a major Park City thoroughfare. In Detroit, this is  considered littering, as dead chicken parts there are generally accompanied by cardboard cartons from KFC or Popeye’s. But here in Park City, which enjoys neither franchise, dead chickens found along the streets tends to indicate something a bit more… uh, spiritual:

Ryan said investigators suspect the remains had been there since the mid-December discovery of other carcasses that an expert said were likely left by adherents of the Santeria faith…

An expert in ritual crimes and the occult said in December the earlier discoveries were telltale evidence of people practicing Santeria, a blend of ancient African religion and Catholicism brought to the New World in the slave trade.

Santeria adherents sacrifice animals in honor of Santerian gods and then leave the carcasses close to transportation corridors like pathways, railroad tracks and streams in honor of the means slaves used to move about. Sometimes pieces of cloth are tied to the carcasses, a symbol that the followers were honoring more than one god with the sacrifice.

Hmmm.  Santeria; practiced primarily in Haiti, Guatemala and Granny Robinson’s room in the White House. Park City 2010 census results: Hispanics 25% of the approximately 8,100 residents. 19% foreign born (16% Latin America). Chicken bones? Nope, I don’t see any dots. Do you?

santeria guatemala

Santeria is one of several African diasporic religions that developed in the new world; strange amalgamations of African paganism and Christianity. Santeria, along with Voodoo, Hoodoo and Rastifari are Christian based syncretic religions from Latin America  while the Nation of Islam is a Muslim based American syncretic religion. (note: NOI now refers to Louis Farrakhan's splinter group from the original NOI - which now calls itself the American Society of Muslims. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center calls Louis’ NOI a “hate group.”).

All syncretic religions are an attempt to meld and reconcile different, often oppositional, principles, practices, or beliefs. By doing so the sect creates an artificial but “inclusive” approach to other faiths. And that’s why diversity and inclusion are so wonderful: it allows me to subvert my belief system in order to accommodate yours. Even when they are diametrically opposed.

But back to the Santeria revival in the mountains of Park City. I’ve done a little research and found that, while most religions imposed a cease and desist order on such ritual sacrifice over a millennium ago,  many of the Christian syncretic religions still practice such ritual killings. More importantly, the Supreme Court of the US ruled in 1993 that such activities are protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

So here are my take-aways from the chicken incident: first, Park City residents better get used to fowl carcasses strewn around town as we’ve obviously embraced the diversity of the Latin American-African-diaspora syncretic religion of Santeria. And since it’s considered bad form to ask people about their citizenship status, let alone their religion, these practitioners of the religion of chicken pieces could be anyone: your neighbor or co-worker, your fast food server, your housekeeper, or your gardener. And since I’m not knowledgeable in all Santeria rites,  I’d suggest you not let your small dogs or cats out unattended, just in case it  includes other ritual animal executions.  It would be a good idea to keep an eye on your larger dogs too, as they’re likely to be attracted to the vermin infested chicken carcasses left around town emitting all sorts of aromas irresistible to canines. Let’s be careful out there.


Secondly, since the Supreme Court decision has made it clear that practices associated with the beliefs of recognized religions (other than Christianity and in certain cases Judaism) are protected under our Constitution, I believe we have a quandary. The Islamic Fascist arm of the Religion of Peace firmly believes that Mohammad has commanded them to practice jihad against Jews, Christians and all other infidels who refuse to convert to their religion of peace  - which, to be clear, involves killing said non-believers.

Talk about being hoisted by your own petard.

So here’s my suggestion: we remove the religious designation and non-profit status from all mosques preaching and/or practicing Sharia law and/or jihad, and/or sending funds to others who practice Sharia law and/or jihad. Then we reclassify these groups for what they actually are: extremist political organizations committed to the takeover and transformation of all governments to Sharia law by any means possible. A political philosophy of blood lust and power. Not unlike Hitler and Stalin.

Perhaps the non-jihadist, non-sharia law Islamists, who we are told make up the vast majority of the practitioners of the religion of peace, might want to change the name of their religion of peace, something that doesn’t conjure up so many images of sedition.  And since they’ll be picking a new name for  their religion, perhaps they’d like to name it after one of their prophets who wasn’t a misogynist pedophile.

Just a suggestion.