Socialism on the road

(Ilya Repin, “Volga Boatmen” — click on the image to enlarge)

Reading this passage:

He and three other men, so he said, were sculling a very heavily laden boat up from Maidenhead one evening, and a little above Cookham lock they noticed a fellow and a girl, walking along the towpath, both deep in an apparently interesting and absorbing conversation. They were carrying a boat-hook between them, and, attached to the boat-hook was a tow-line, which trailed behind them, its end in the water. No boat was near, no boat was in sight. There must have been a boat attached to that tow-line at some time or other, that was certain; but what had become of it, what ghastly fate had overtaken it, and those who had been left in it, was buried in mystery. Whatever the accident may have been, however, it had in no way disturbed the young lady and gentleman, who were towing. They had the boat-hook and they had the line, and that seemed to be all that they thought necessary to their work.

George was about to call out and wake them up, but, at that moment, a bright idea flashed across him, and he didn't. He got the hitcher instead, and reached over, and drew in the end of the tow-line; and they made a loop in it, and put it over their mast, and then they tidied up the sculls, and went and sat down in the stern, and lit their pipes.

And that young man and young woman towed those four hulking chaps and a heavy boat up to Marlow.

George said he never saw so much thoughtful sadness concentrated into one glance before, as when, at the lock, that young couple grasped the idea that, for the last two miles, they had been towing the wrong boat. George fancied that, if it had not been for the restraining influence of the sweet woman at his side, the young man might have given way to violent language.

The maiden was the first to recover from her surprise, and, when she did, she clasped her hands, and said, wildly:

"Oh, Henry, then WHERE is auntie?"

— has reminded me of this post by arbat:

Another study in the University of Utah: people are sat in front of a wheel and watched how they drive. Then they are given a phone and watched how their driving changes. It turns out that less than 3% drive the car as well with the phone as without.

I am not worried about the study itself, but by the conclusion that the journalists will make out of it. Or, what’s worse, the politicians cheered on by the journalists. You see, the politicians have a Pavlovian reflex in response to any “scientific” study — to ban something. The obviously idiotic reaction to this study is to ban cell phone in the cars. Completely.

Why do I consider this reflex idiotic? Well, since you’re asking — imagine that such a study were conducted not with cell phones but with radio. Or music. Or a conversation on a topic interesting to the driver.

Imagine we start measuring how a young man’s attention is decreased from having a beautiful girl next to him. Or a woman, who has a husband sitting next to her and giving her advice on how to drive. Imagine you have a child in the back who needs to be told a story. Or two kids who are trying to take the Gameboy away from each other. Or a mother-in-law?

What do you think: will these things end up being less distracting than a cell phone or more? What should we do? Ban having passengers in cars? Ban audios and CD players?

What if a problem is not in the cell phone, but in the boredom of drivers that need to find some distraction?

Or, imagine a person who needs to call somewhere. Check that his child did the homework. Or talk to a client. Or call his wife, because he forgot to tell her that tonight his friends are coming over for a game of poker. Not to call in such situations means consequences. What do you think, should we measure how much his driving skills will deteriorate?

Now, within the last year, I have rear-ended a car once, driving at a slow speed (no damage done), while stuck in traffic on Belt Parkway and looking for a ma’amor on my mp3 player.  Before that, I had almost gotten into an accident several times because of one of the reasons listed above. Also from trying to figure out where exactly my GPS was showing me to go. But never from talking on a cell phone.

The world is watching

Very good post about chillul Hashem. I wish I was as holy as the Rebbe’s melamed in cheider to walk our whenever something bad was spoken about other Jews. But I’ve seen the effects of chillul Hashem firsthand — it affected me, my friends (and former friends), and my family.

I have already expressed my frustration on the subject. Long gone are the times when Frierdiker Rebbe wrote in a letter that for a talmid chochom it is inappropriate to walk on the street, eating sunflower seeds. Today everyone dresses in a suit and wears a hat, since — hey, we are Jews! We are not supposed to dress casually, like goyim. And yet we find, strangely enough, that the people who dress in jeans and are lenient on half their mitzvos behave like mentchen, while those that are not eating strawberries for kashrus concerns and make sure their cereal is pas Yisroel behave like beheimas.

Be machmir on gebrochts in you behavior first. You are here to make the world G-dly.

(And, as anyone reading my blog can see, I am all for chumras and hiddurim. One of the comments on that post said something like: “Ironically, one of these people would look at MO woman in pants and think: ‘What a shame!’” Well, it is ironic. He should be looking at himself first. But the fact that this woman is wearing pants is a shame.)

Be proud not of your ignorance

I find it annoying when people say, with hidden pride, that they don’t know Math, science, philosophy, don’t read serious literature, don’t know anything about a particular area, and therefore, they are not burdened by the problem of thinking about it, which makes their life so much simpler.

Or, equally, when people say in an off-handed manner something like “Well, I don’t know all these laws/minhogim/terms/names of holidays/have never studied Chassidus/philosophy/halacha/Kabbala/Gemara/Tanach”.

I am ok with admitting ignorance, sometimes even in a joking manner, but boasting of it is beyond me.

“I don’t do anything smart. I try to think little and know the bare minimum. In fact, a day on which I have stuck as closely as possible to my basic biological functions is a day well lived.”

Great news from the front

Such fun:

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit [rrreealllly?.. who could have guessed?..], an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession.

With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.

"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."

Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."

But the president's team circling the Sunday morning news shows was quick to note that there are signs the recession is easing despite a persistent decline in job losses in the past six months [no worries then; all signs of improving economy here].

Administration officials say they hope to see positive economic growth before the end of the year, and credit the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February with preventing recession from going into depression.

The legislation — opposed by all but three Republicans in the House and Senate — was intended to help save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs. But since that time, the jobless rate has grown to 9.5 percent, higher than the administration predicted even without a stimulus package. [But that’s not because the administration’s model of the market, its prediction abilities, presence of common sense and in general the view of the Universe the administration is living in are all shit. It’s because… err… well, it would be even worse without the stimulus package, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?]

Of course, raising new taxes and increasing minimum wage will make it more likely for new jobs to appear… Rrrrright?.. I mean, if you are a business owner, and your profit becomes even lower because you need to pay new taxes and pay more to each worker than the market (i.e., competition between businesses for workers) allows, you are not going to cut jobs; you are going to hire even more people. Yep, yep…

Also, friends, in case you were wondering, this is an image of an asshole:

July 28, 2009: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner offers a toast during a dinner after the first meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington, D.C. (Reuters)

Gotta love our President

Such a charming fellow, this guy is.



I can definitely see this guy outshining Woodrow Wilson, JFK, and Jimmy Carter in his idiocy.



Oh, wait, he didn’t know. Right...

Speaking of FAA, did you guys know that every time a plane goes down in the US, this wonderful organization receives more funding? You did? OK, just checking. Imagine that your telephone company raised its bill every time you got a dropped call. After all, the fact that you get dropped calls means that you’re not paying enough money to ensure the quality of the service. Why, it all makes sense...

On copyright Nazis

I will quote fully the newest post about copyright idiocy from Mises.org:

Another great institution is being taken down by the copyright terrorists. This one is beyond-belief hilarious/ridiculous/evil because of course we not only own the full rights. We have put the book into Creative Commons and are desperately trying to give the book away to the world.

Observe the insanity!

Dear Ludwig von Mises Institute,
We have removed your document "America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard" because our text matching system determined that it was very similar to a work that has been marked as copyrighted and not permitted on Scribd.

Like all automated matching systems, our system is not perfect and occasionally makes mistakes. If you believe that your document is not infringing, please contact us at copyright@scribd.com and we will investigate the matter.

As stated in our terms of use, repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your Scribd.com account and prohibit you from uploading material to Scribd.com in the future. To prevent us from having to take these steps, please delete from scribd.com any material you have uploaded to which you do not own the necessary rights and refrain from uploading any material you are not entitled to upload. For more information about Scribd.com's copyright policy, please read the Terms of Use located at http://www.scribd.com/terms

Sincerely,

Jason Bentley
Director of Customer Care
jason@scribd.com

I guess this means that the Mises Institute will no longer use Scribd. Who needs this nonsense? And now everyone who ever linked this, embedded it, or sent it to friends is made to look like an idiot, and all the time we wasted getting this on the scribd in the first place is completely wasted.

Oh what a lovely world the copyright police are creating for us! How much better off we are having our own "intellectual property" rammed down our own throats!

Meanwhile, copyright may be unconstitutional. But nobody cares about that particualr document anymore. Almost every single thing that the government is praised for and that it and people working for it consider its main job is unconstitutional. Constitution? Pshh...

More on copyright.

Saving the planet

I am not sure if there is a better example of a typical liberal action and its consequences than this. This even beats my car-turning example.

Meanwhile, what’s really saving our planet is its magnetic field. Where does it come from? From the liquid metallic core churning inside the planet (your car’s alternator works similarly). Why is the core churning? Because of the moon, which is exactly right distance from the earth not only to cause the tides, but to make the liquid core move.


(source)

Had there not been the moon, the magnetic field would not exist, resulting in massive solar radiation preventing all life on Earth from existing. Not only due to the damage of the radiation itself, but because the “solar wind” would destroy and “strip” the atmosphere away — as can be observed in the North, where magnetic field is weak, and the solar radiation “burns up” the atmosphere (many miles above the Earth surface), resulting in the northern lights.

Demonstration of magnetic field (and the basic principle of an electric motor, i.e., opposite of alternator):

How will we survive?

Some news are serious, some news are disturbing, some news are terrifying and bringing tears to eyes.

But after reading certain news, one starts thinking — how will the planet turn now? What will hold the Universe together?

A couple examples: one and two.

Typical leftist libertarian narishkeit

I am having increasing problems calling myself a libertarian, rather than a conservative. I agree with libertarians regarding economics and government butting out of our private affairs (which are not its business to begin with). But I find some libertarians’ pacifism annoying and distasteful. In addition, their common sense in international affairs is pretty much non-existent.

I don’t understand what’s so difficult about the idea that in order to have freedom, rights and capitalism, one sometimes needs to fight for them against those that try to take them away.

Take, for instance, Ron Paul’s statement that “invasion of Gaza” is sad news for him, since the idea of “preventive, preemptive war is spreading”. Forget about the idiocy of not understanding that sometimes you have to shoot the bastard first before he kills you (“Did you wait for the attacker to shoot first before shooting him?” — “No, why the hell would I do that?”), how is “invasion of Gaza” a preventive war?

I mean, I don’t know how to ask this question is a polite form, but — is he a moron? If somebody tells him, “Give me all your money, your car keys and your house keys”, he refuses, the bastard shoots at him, hits him in the arm, Ron Paul pulls out his gun and shoots the son of a bitch dead — he just did a preventive strike? I suppose, yes, he prevented the attacker from killing him. Is this now immoral? Has Christian idiocy spread to all layers of thinking now?

But an even better treat is this article from a web-site I normally very much respect for its views, articles, lectures and books on economics.

The main idea of the article is this: Arabs hate the State of Israel. The solution is not in a two-state solution or in a one-state solution (I suppose the idea of carpet bombing the area and kicking out the bitches or imposing military law until they learn to behave is also out of question too). The solution is to abolish the idea of a state itself!

We should pursue the dream or anarcho-capitalists and replace a central government with private companies providing law and defense as any other service (I reviewed this idea before) in the society. And since the State of Israel will be no longer there (replaced by Jews protecting themselves through private organizations), Arabs will have no State to hate — problem solved.

I am not going to argue at lenght in favor or against anarcho-capitalism here. Generally speaking, I certainly agree that private enterprise can provide any service better than the government, including law and defense, but that I do not see it possible to achieve equality of these services (necessary for a free society to exist to begin with) with anarchist system. I don’t have a problem if Bill Gates gets a better service from a hotel or a restaraunt than me. He is richer, he provides the society with services I don’t — he has better service coming. I do hope, however, that our representation in a court of law or our defense by the Army will be equal and not based on our wealth.

One can expect “difficult” questions of morality (children, animals, abortion — just to name a few) will arise.

Furthermore, anarchist society is possible only in civilizations that are ready for it and where majority of people will have necessary ethical, economic, social and political views (in societal and invidivual levels) to support such a society — otherwise, the society will spontaneously revert to a state, and not necessarily a better one. In case of Arabs, this is sure to happen. (Somebody almost accused me there of racism for stating this opinion. Well, let’s forget about Arabs and politics and look at Wikipedia. American Wikipedia is capable of producing articles with neutral point of view — at least making effort to have one. In Russian Wikipedia such thing is not even on agenda. As I pointed out, the problem is not with genetics, of course. The problem is with culture.)

You can read some of my comments there (as “CA”), but I just want to quote one comment (by Kyle):

In the case of Israel and Palestine, what does the presence or absence of states really have to do with the real problem of use of force? Let’s hypothetically eliminate the state of Israel. Now we have a large and homogeneous group of Jews who are pissed off that they see rockets flying at them from the other part of town. A bunch of them get together in the name of self-preservation and go to Gaza with the intention of apprehending or killing the culprits. The homogeneous group of Arabs on the other side are equally pissed, and do the same. The only difference between this vigilantism and the state-sanctioned brand of violence is the name.

Anarchists: what am I missing?

I said something similar a little earlier in the comments:

As long as there are Muslims in the Middle East that believe that there needs to exist a Shariat-law–based state on every land that was once under jurisdiction of Muslims (including Spain, by the way), these Muslims will support states, private organizations, alien fleets — whatever — whose goal will be establishment of such a state. And if people no longer have such view, then the problem of Arab–Israeli conflict will disappear by itself — with or without anarchy.

Finally, the idea that Arabs are opposed to specifically Jewish state (rather than just Jewish society) is absurd. Arabs are opposed not to a Jewish state per se, but to Jews controlling territory once under Muslim jurisdiction.

Muslims are happy to have Jews live under their authority, pay taxes and suffer a few pogroms once in a while. They will never, however, accept an idea of Jews controlling once-Muslim land, whether through a State and Knesset or through private Jewish law- and defense-providing organizations.

Also read this comment criticizing the idea of private defense (e.g., he discusses counter-examples of African warlords).

So, to summarize, perhaps I should start describing myself as right-wing again. The problem is: most of today’s right-wingers are actually turning into socialists. And economically, I am very much a libertarian. I suppose I’ll just have to describe myself as “anti-liberal”.

Not evidence

News from our Pakistani friends (I didn’t know, by the way, that “Paki” is a racial slur — but then again, my grandmother is not the Queen of England, thank G-d):

Pakistan’s prime minister has dismissed the significance of a dossier handed over by India about the Mumbai attacks, saying it was just information and “not evidence”.

This reminds me of talking to some of my liberal friends about proof of Judaism. After I finish explaining Kuzari Principle (which proves that the story about Sinai revelation could not be invented and sold) to them, some of my friends do not argue against the Principle itself. What they say is: “Witnesses are not evidence”. Even 3 million witnesses. At the same time. At the same place. Of some events that happened every day (except Shabbos) for forty years. Simply not evidence. Perhaps just information — but not evidence.

If presented in court, yes, my friends agree, such witnesses would be considered as evidence. Even if it would mean making a life-or-death decision. But when it comes to G-d and Judaism — simply not evidence.

I wonder how some people’s brains work. I mean, I was an atheist myself for quite some time. I wasn’t stupid and irrational though. These people say religious people are irrational (and I don’t disagree regarding quite a few “believers”). At the same time these epitomes of rationalism rely on hergesh for morality (and take immoral stance in conflicts involving self-defense against murderers), rejecting evidence, supporting government’s economic policies and electing a President.

Also they shave and don’t wear hats.

I just don’t get it.

One more grudge against liberals — hats

(I always wondered: is this a fashion, or do these guys don’t know how to pick a hat size? For some reason, Lubavitchers don’t look like a sneeze will knock off their hat.)

Back in the day, all Americans wore hats.

Well, really back in the day, all Americans wore wigs, but even within the first post-Revolution generation, people realized that wigs are gay, so everyone just started wearing hats.

Until that moron got elected. I am talking about the “Don’t ask what your country can do for you, but just bend over and do your slave duty humbly and quietly” moron who almost caused Third World War (and eventually had to bend over in front of the Soviet Corn Head himself), couldn’t kick a small island’s butt, was a total international and domestic failure (as all Democrats) — and was the first President not to wear a hat.

Since the liberals starting from the idiotic history professor Woody turned this country towards socialism and the job of a President into that of a national icon and a nanny, everyone followed K’s suite — people stopped wearing hats.

Then, the “Broadback Mountain” contributed. Nowadays, wearing hats is not only old-fashioned but also gay. The only way you can pull off wearing a hat now is by being an Orthodox Jew or from Eastern Europe — thankfully, I am both.



But it still bothers me. Liberals ruin everything. Some people say we need to act against global warming. Some people say we need to act against increasing entropy in the Universe. I propose a new slogan: “Stop the liberals from destroying our civilization.” Or just “Stop the liberals”. How’s that for a bumper sticker (their favorite argument style, by the way)?

* * *

A liberal being assassinated by a Communist. How’s that for an irony?

Are you pro-Palestinian?

Do you care about the lives of Arabs living in Gaza? In that case, you may find this interesting.

Liberal feedforward cycle of stupidity — take two (Israel)

Following the theme of cycles of stupidity. Noah Pollack writes about liberals stuck in the cease-fire ideology cycle:

The Israeli writer David Grossman has an op-ed that appears in both today’s New York Times and Guardian. Grossman says that “the most important lesson we must learn” from the Lebanon war in 2006 is that every military offensive should be halted after a few days to allow a cease-fire, so that the enemy can pause to take the measure of Israel’s destructive capabilities, and — for Grossman, this is really the more important point — Israel can restrain itself “[a]gainst the deadly logic of military power and the dynamic of escalation.”

It is interesting that cycle-of-violence fetishists, who are absolutely certain that military action is part of the problem, do not recognize the problem of the cycle of cease-fires. There is an opportunity right now to deal a crippling blow to Hamas, and it will require ground combat, more air strikes, and the maintenance of the IDF’s violence of action. There is indeed a cycle between Israel and its enemies, but the problem is not the cycle of violence. The problem is that every time the IDF is poised to strike a decisive blow against the enemy, the David Grossmans of the world emerge to plead for restraint exactly at the moment when restraint is the last thing that should be considered.

The best analogy to date is that of a doctor treating a cancer patient with half-measures (e.g., 75% of recommended radiation doze), never completing the job and having to come back to treat the tumor that returned, r”l. (All the while moaning and groaning about the damage the treatment does to so many living, “peaceful bystander” cells.)

Idiocy of liberalism on the march

The price of pacifism

Hindus are pacifists. They don’t believe in harming other life forms, including chickens, cows or Islamic terrorists. PowerLine blog reports:

"I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." ...

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point of having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

[...]

I wondered earlier today how a mere ten terrorists could bring a city of 19 million to a standstill. Here in the U.S., I don't think it would happen. I think we have armed security guards who know how to use their weapons, supplemented by an unknown number of private citizens who are armed and capable of returning fire. The Indian experience shows it is vitally important that this continue to be the case. This is a matter of culture as much as, or more than, a matter of laws.

More about Indians’ shlemazelkeit in “India’s Test”.

Pacifism, tendency to take it slow, phlegmatism and general mellow nature are OK, but not in times of crisis. If they want to stay ahead with their fights with Muslim animals, Indians need to wake up a little. Be non-aggressive towards cows and chickens. Please kill terrorists. And more quickly than in 12 hours. CrownHeights.info reports:

Israeli counterterrorism experts are critical of how Indian security forces handled last week's terror attacks in Mumbai, especially their raid on the local Chabad center, Nariman House.

While acknowledging that Israel has never experienced a coordinated attack of such scope, the Israelis said the Indians failed to contain the attacks and raided Nariman House too lackadaisically.

Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Tzur, a former commander of the police's counterterror unit Yamam, who now runs a security consulting firm, acknowledged that when terrorists attack more than seven sites simultaneously, “it's very hard to handle.” However, he said, this difficulty was compounded by the lack of prior intelligence, “which is the colossal failure in this story. This was an organization in which dozens of people were surely involved.”

“To the Indians' credit, they were determined and sought contact [with the enemy] all the time,” Tzur continued, adding that a terrorist takeover of a hotel is “the nightmare of every counterterrorism unit,” because it is hard to effectively “cleanse” so large a site.

However, he said, this excuse did not apply to the much smaller Nariman House. The 12-hour battle to liberate the building was “unreasonable,” he said, because “there's no chance in the world that captives will survive an incident that doesn't end within minutes of the break-in.”

The Indians, he added, apparently assumed the hostages had already been killed.

Col. (res.) Lior Lotan, formerly a senior officer in the army's elite Sayeret Matkal unit, said the Indians had operated as if there were no hostages.

“When you're rescuing captives, you enter fast, with maximum force, and try to reach the hostages as quickly as possible, even at the price of casualties,” he said. “Here, they operated much more cautiously.”

Television pictures from Nariman House also raised questions about the professionalism of the Indian forces. For instance, it is not clear why the area was not cleared of bystanders, or why the comparatively risky option of a helicopter-borne assault was chosen.

Moreover, the explosion that blew in the ground-floor door occurred before soldiers landed on the rooftop, whereas for maximum effect, they should have occurred simultaneously, the Israelis said.

Faithful idiots and ungrateful brats

This article states: “To imagine that the nation would entrust the most powerful job on Earth to a young black-skinned man with a Kenyan father, a Muslim heritage, and a name that sounds like it comes off a terrorist watch list — that was an act of supreme faith.”

First, no need to overstate the obvious: Obama support has turned into a form of a cult (you thought Onion was joking, huh?) — except that in cults, leaders take money from the followers; here, followers ask leaders to take others’ money. Second, add to that a list of racist, terrorist, and mafia friends, no experience, liberal-college–textbook view of the world and a plan of how to ruin the country through socialism (not a well thought-out one, if that’s any consolation), and an act of supreme faith turns into an act of supreme stupidity. Which faith not based on any reason most often is.

(As a side note, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb states in his audio lecture on Oral Torah, the term “faith” got into our vocabulary from Christianity, but it does not mean the same thing when we say it. In Christianity it means irrational and baseless belief based on emotions, superstition or ungrounded intuition. In, lehavdil, Judaism, it means reasonable trust.

It’s not unreasonable to trust a good source that’s proved its own validity and trustworthiness, or if the evidence lends greater support to trust than to doubt. It is unreasonable to “just believe” — and it is ridiculous to say that “just believing” is more praiseworthy than believing with rational basis. If you think about it, says Rabbi Gottlieb, people who have the most respect in Judaism, like Avraham and Moses, like tzaddikim of all the generations, believed in G-d based on direct evidence of Divine revelation. And, in case of Avraham and many others, based on rational argument. If faith is greater than reason, as Christians believe, then agnostics of all sorts are holier than those tzaddikim who experienced G-dliness directly? What sort of nonsense is that?)

So, ironically, after calling Bush and his supporters stupid for eight years, liberals committed an even greater act of stupidity. Which some observers start to come in terms with. Now that we elected a president through an affirmative-action type of logic, some people start appreciating Bush more. The realization that journalists behaved disgracefully throughout the years of Bush presidency (perhaps even more than is natural for them) begins to dawn. As well as the fact that people who claim that we have it bad are idiots. David Letterman, quoted by Circus Tent, discusses how amidst greatest prosperity (geographic and historical), Americans, coached by the media, still complain — about the fact of how good life is, apparently. Reality is always stranger than any Onion video or article. Especially, liberal reality.

I started thinking, “What are we so unhappy about?”

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?
B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state.
F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.

They complain about the President who tried to protect our country with our own armed forces (consisting of people who signed up for the job). They want a change — a change towards what? Russia? North Korea? France? How about a change back to what this country was supposed to be originally, and what made it what it is today — “a land of the free”?

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank G-d several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

A good read.

Not that I don’t believe that Bush, his administration and the Republicans made mistakes. First, many of their actions were very socialist in themselves. Saying that Republican party strayed from its path would be a massive understatement. Second, they made a mistake of seeking compromises (trying to play both camps) and pursuing a strategy of half-measures. (Let’s invade a country… but with not enough forces. Yeah. That will be a nice compromise between “hawks” and “pigeons”.)

Third, and most importantly, they forgot that they are dealing with a herd of people with intellectual habits of a four-year-old: responding best to attractive imagery and thinking in a knee-jerk fashion. All things need to be explained slowly and in a fool-proof way, knowing, beforehand, that left media will distort everything.

The war in Iraq is the best example. Most people today have an erroneous idea why we went there in the first place (because we knew about WMD? Wrong! To get control over oil? Wrong!), what justification was provided for it, and why we had to do it. Why? Because it was not explained to them properly, like you would explain something to a child, step-by-step, slowly, with visual imagery, preparing him for the propaganda that his teacher in school will try to fill his mind with.

Is Obama a Marxist?

If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.
— Aristotle

As we all know, Obama is not a Marxist. Joe Biden said as much. Local Conservative radio host said as much, and even called the question ridiculous.

Well, let’s hear some of Obama’s views (as of 2001) on redistribution of wealth, limitations (too many) that Founding Fathers placed on the government and allowances (not enough) that Constitution gives it, inadequacy of court system in redistribution, which has to be the goal of the legislative branch.



As I said before, I am not too worried about him being elected. The fact that a new Jimmy Carter–Woodrow Wilson–FDR–JFK (taking some of the worst things from each of them... and everything from Jimmy Carter) will be in office in and of itself does not concern me. What does concern me is that so many people want to elect him, that people are completely uneducated in many core issues (and do not want to be educated), that they cannot think straight and intelligently, without being carried away and directed by emotions, that they are easily swayed by propaganda and consider anyone actually applying critical thinking immoral. I am worried about increasing entropy of intelligence.

Briefly about history of spreading-the-wealth philosophy in the US and its dangers.

So why hasn't the majority in America helped itself to more of the minority's wealth, as Aristotle and our Founders feared? Partly because the protections for individual property erected by the Founders have worked.

Obviously, Obama (in the above audio) will have you believe that not enough efforts have been made to free the government from the limitations placed on it by the Founding Fathers. Not enough steps have been made to make this country Marxist... err... full of economic justice and equality.

“Bail out people, not banks!”

One of my colleagues said the same thing. Highly intelligent guy, by the way (no joking).

I have another idea: instead of giving easy mortgages to people with bad credit history — and when they can’t pay, bailing them out, as suggested — just give them taxpayers’ money to begin with, directly. Save a lot of hustle. Better yet: not the money of all tax payers, but just the rich people’s taxes. Actually, why stop at mortgages? Give the poor people credit cards, and send the bills to the rich folks. And anytime one of the poor people makes a mistake which costs him money, a rich person will pay for it. Yeah… Take from the rich and give to the poor… Hmm… Why did nobody ever think of that, huh?

And… and… why stop at money? Let’s equalize people’s opportunities and luxuries in all areas: let’s take over-privileged pretty people who got “pretty” genes from their parents (and thus are able to have sex a lot) and force them to have sex with under-privileged ugly people who didn’t get such good genes from their parents, affecting their opportunity to get ahead in life laid.
(Analogy suggested by arbat.)



Liberals should make the guy in pink sunglasses one of their spokespersons. A scientific Marxist, no less.

I also liked how the brown-haired girl explained that the life in the Soviet Union was overall much better than in capitalist countries. That’s why so many poor people immigrated into the Soviet Union from capitalist countries, not vice versa. Yes, there were some people who decided to leave the Soviet Union and China and head for US, UK, Germany, Israel — but they were clearly masochists. Or very stupid and uneducated — whoever heard, for example, of Russian or Chinese scientists, writers, artists, programmers, or business people immigrating to capitalist countries?

By the way: Stalin’s murder of ~50 million people was apparently during the war on industrialization. Funny, I thought Stalin did all the purges trying to convert Russia’s economy from agrarian to industrialized as quickly as possible. It must have been the other way around!

Another woman: “I’ve been to Cuba several times, and I see… you know, there are not luxuries, but people have food! They have education!” Holly shit! Why didn’t I know about this? I am moving to Cuba right away. I mean, here I am, sitting in the US, with all my luxuries but no food or education. Especially since, as it turns out, people in Cuba “are free to speak out” about how conditions are so good. Everyone has food, clothes, place to live, a chair to sit on. I bet, they are also free to criticize capitalism.

An overheard conversation

“Be vigilant!”

Something I accidentally overheard:

Apparently, the economy is “collapsing” because of “that fucking war”, which Bush just “had to stick his nose in”. (I am not even sure what that means. We started the war — for a particular reason. We “stuck our nose” in it in the same way that a surgeon sticks his nose in a cancerous mole.) But of course, all this time, rich people were getting richer (this is what the war was really all about, apparently), having vacations on their yachts.

The rich people are not paying for the war, however. Look at your tax return: that’s who is paying (obviously, when liberal president comes to power, the taxes will be lower — right?).

The result of all this is that we should start learning Chinese (I kid you not — he said that). We may need it very soon.

(So, let’s see: the economic crisis on the real estate market was caused by Republicans starting a war in Iraq, not by Democrats forcing companies to encourage people borrow money when there was a good chance those people couldn’t repay it. Yes, this makes sense...)

First of all, my question is: are they stupid or are they ignorant?

Second, this is amongst two people working in an academic institution, one of them directly involved in science process, the other — circumstantially. What the hell happens to critical thinking when these people step out of a lab or a lecture room? If somebody presented a scientific idea like this, these same people would tear him apart, systematically, piece-by-piece showing how he is full of crap.

I don’t have a problem with stupidity amongst “the masses”. I have a problem, when stupid masses rule. The reason why American electoral system is representative is that the Founding Fathers were suspicious of masses’ ability to make long-ranging intelligent decisions (plus, federalism). When you allow uneducated, uncritical, emotional masses rule, you get the Soviet Union (read Bulgakov, for example). Unfortunately, this is what we are getting in this election. Stupid masses (↔ media) → president. I don’t care about the political aspect of it so much. I care about the increasing entropy of intelligence around me.

Political motives for not raping

The height of liberal thought: why are cases of Israeili soldiers raping Palestinian women less numerous? Hebrew U. study finds: because of dehumanization of the Palestinians in the eyes of Israelis. So, not raping your enemy’s women is a sign of racism now.

Aруц Шева пишет — учитывая, что Палестинцы всегда обвиняют Израильтян в том, что мы насилуем их женщин, как же мы теперь выстоим против двойного обвинения — в том, что мы их еще и не насилуем? И они правы. Я так думаю, можно ждать появления плакатов — «Сионисты хотят поработить нас, захватить нашу землю, и побрезговать нашими женщинами!»

[Arutz Sheva writes: considering that Palestinians always accuse Israelis that we rape their women, how will we now withstand a double accusation — that we also do not rape them? And they are right. I think we are safe to expect posters saying: “Zionists want to enslave us, capture our land and ignore our women!”]

— arbat

One of the comments said: “One cannot even joke about something like this. The article itself is the best self-parody.”

Then, when people tell me that academic environment fries your brains instead of making them better, what can I say? That it’s only among humanities and social sciences? (By the way, Dr. Harl is a conservative and a supporter of Israel.) Most people in the science departments are liberals too.

* * *

By the way, the Hebrew U. professor (the author of the study) was arrested for “suspected rape and sexual abuse of his students”. At least he is not a hypocrite (or racist) — he practiced what he believed in.