Tuesday, October 14, 2008

UTOPIA-LITE




(Click title above)

UTOPIA-LITE:

Phretting about Islamic Terrorism: It ain't xenophobic when it's reality based. Stay tuned.

Health Care: I want Goldilocks health care (and income distribution).

Goofballo: The biggest, dumbest thing I fault Bush and Co. for is their head in the sand failure to appreciate how the widening gulf between "haves" and "have nots" was feeding an unsustainable Ponzi situation that would eventually bring down all houses, including their own.

Goldilocks: I want enough income distribution so those who work in the factories we have left can at least afford to buy what they produce, without being made into debt slaves for the rest of their lives.
But I don't want income leveled to the point where you're just a sucker if you work.
I don't want utopia, just utopia-lite.

Kooks: It seems to me we could get closer to utopia-lite, if we quit electing kooks way out on the fringes.
So, why do we keep doing that?

Paranoia: I begin to think media, academia, and corp-atomia are under control of emerging forces, whether conscious, unconscious, or machine-like, inclined to push us towards a N.W.O. chicken farm.

******

Quote Snippets from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12dooling.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th:
NYT: The Rise of the Machines
By RICHARD DOOLING
Published: October 11, 2008

Here’s a frightening party trick that I learned from the futurist Ray Kurzweil. Read this excerpt and then I’ll tell you who wrote it:

But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions.

"... Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide."

Brace yourself. It comes from the Unabomber’s manifesto.
Yes, Theodore Kaczinski was a homicidal psychopath and a paranoid kook, but he was also a bloodhound when it came to scenting all of the horrors technology holds in store for us. Hence his mission to kill technologists before machines commenced what he believed would be their inevitable reign of terror.

....

When Treasury Secretary Paulson (looking very much like a frightened primate) came to Congress seeking an emergency loan, Senator Jon Tester of Montana, a Democrat still living on his family homestead, asked him: “I’m a dirt farmer. Why do we have one week to determine that $700 billion has to be appropriated or this country’s financial system goes down the pipes?”

“Well, sir,” Mr. Paulson could well have responded, “the computers have demanded it.”

*******

COMMENT: If we last much longer, I believe it will not be because of some socialistic or governmental savior, but because of fundamental character instilled through the years among American Independents, learned more in actual experience than in elite doublespeak for rationalizing plunder among allies. Regardless, I sorely doubt the financial power behind either Democrat or Republican politics is on the side of middle class Independents. Don't trust the ivy league hirelings for the real financial powers --- they're all twisted.

*********
.
CONSIDER:
Terror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odI4-FOtkRU

Health Care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtlTGJa_mbM

Naomi Klein (Volatility Opportunism, Shock Doctrine, Governmental Corporatism, Crony Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHMuiJwM23M

Milton Friedman (Socialism Hurts Wealth) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s

Milton Friedman (Free Enterprise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s

Milton Friedman (Purpose of Federal Reserve; Caused Great Depression): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE

Bad Fed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9YX5wOeG7g

Jim Rodgers (abolish the Fed): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwIncF3yrpQ

How to painlessly abolish The Fed): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTegmIU0uOc

End The Fed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTNaRONJGnY

Milton Friedman (to support global productivity, Fed can and should maintain a stable pricing economy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImjOwmEMgfQ

Milton Friedman (How Should Capital Be Used and By Whom): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY

One party system masquerading as two (how to control the masses) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVodI85NLMQ

Gini index (income inequality)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kwA-CwFK5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNBUzJX7uiw

George Carlin (the Real Owners): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg
George Carlin (Global Warming): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0
George Carlin (Boomers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF05oDvHPq8
Vague political talk (“change”): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4xVcko9qw
.

TASK FOR INDEPENDENTSDO NOT TRUST IVY LEAGUERS:

See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_buckley_apostacy.html
and comments thereunder!


Ivy league Republicans (George Will , David Brooks , Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker and war cheering Democrats (led by Christopher Hitchens ) are acting out against Sarah Palin. Why?

Might war-cheering Democrats, in light of the financial meltdown brought on by excessive Big Government, now long for less international activity by the U.S.? Might ivy league Republicans, ruing Big Government, now prefer that Democrats be elected to suffer blame for mismanaging any recovery? Might ivy league Republicans also fear hints of common sense in Sarah Palin, as if she may dare to question blue blood Republican rationalizations of outrageously disproportionate allocations of wealth, nearing levels of Mexico? On social issues, might blue-blood, self-ingratiating Republicans be more aligned with far left Democrats?

If so, consider:
1) Is the threat of Islamofascist pursuit of nuclear dissemination substantial? If so, compare the costs of retreat.
2) Are ivy leaguers conditioned to “justify” their hiring out to help in the farming of all other Americans, as if we should be reduced to be satisfied with chicken feed? If so, why?

Bottom Line: Look behind the words of “elites;” consider who and what they have been conditioned to work for and stand for; do not just assume their “educations” are grounded in fellow-empathy or in good judgment derivative of actual experience. Do not just assume their words are grounded in wisdom as opposed to shallow opportunism -- no matter what their political stripes!

.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

CIVIL ROW AT HOME — TWO AMERICAS:

Snippets from http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/10/14/there_are_two_irreconcilable_americas:
There Are Two Irreconcilable Americas
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
by Dennis Prager

....

The left wants America not only to have a secular government, but to have a secular society. The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been -- a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government (that is not indifferent to religion). These opposing visions explain, for example, their opposite views concerning nondenominational prayer in school.

The left prefers to identify as citizens of the world. The left fears nationalism in general (this has been true for the European left since World War I), and since the 1960s, the American left has come to fear American nationalism in particular. On the other side, the right identifies first as citizens of America.

The left therefore regards the notion of American exceptionalism as chauvinism; the United Nations and world opinion are regarded as better arbiters of what is good than is America. The right has a low opinion of the U.N.'s moral compass and of world opinion, both of which it sees as having a much poorer record of stopping genocide and other evils than America has.

....

The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. This is what propels the left to advocate laws that would force employers to pay women the same wages they pay men not only for the same job but for "comparable" jobs (as if that is objectively ascertainable). The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality.

The left wants a world -- and therefore an America -- devoid of nuclear weapons. The right wants America to have the best nuclear weapons. The right trusts American might more than universal disarmament.

The left wants to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples for the first time in history. The right wants gays to have equal rights, but to keep marriage defined as man-woman. This, too, constitutes an irreconcilable divide.

For these and other reasons, calls for a unity among Americans that transcends left and right are either naive or disingenuous. America will be united only when one of them prevails over the other. The left knows this. Most on the right do not.


****

MULTICULTURALISM:

Snippets from http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on:

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

....

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

Anonymous said...

Comment from http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/1/219528.html:

mneelt: "It doesn't surprise me. The left has been working diligently toward the destruction of the U.S. as a free nation for generations."

Dlanor – Response: It's not just the left. We have been ruled by the political fringes, and they are each an arm of the same beast, just camouflaged behind different sock puppets worn on each hand. The left puppet of the beast claims, in pretense, to want international socialism, while the right puppet abhors it. But both puppets are camouflaging a beast that is farming the rest of us.

Our farmed leftists must learn that socialism is based primarily on a lie.
Our farmed rightists must learn that allowing too great a gulf between haves and have nots undermines democracy.

Independents, able and willing to advocate the truth, have a heavy rock to push. Yet, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."

Anonymous said...

Snippet from http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081015152055.72llwkbo&show_article=1:

For Iran's supreme leader, the crisis particularly signifies the superiority of the Islamic republic's political structure, which combines elements of democracy with those of a theocracy.

Khamenei hailed the "victory of the Islamic revolution" in the face of Marxist and liberal ideologies. "Now there is no sign of Marxism in the world and even liberalism is declining," the all powerful leader said.

The Iranian regime deems the concepts of democracy and human rights as "imperialist" tools to dominate other nations.

The Islamic republic thus defends its electoral practice of vetting candidates running for public office according to their religious adherence and its judicial system, which resorts to the death penalty for serious crimes more than any country in the world except for China.

Anonymous said...

WORK-A-PHOBIA: Socialism tends to be a lie, promised most to those derelicts among the multitudes who suffer debilitation from work-a-phobia, to trick them into voting into power such thugs as will not easily ever be voted out. Of course, once thugs are in power, there becomes little to incentive anyone to resist siren calls of work-a-phobia.

Anonymous said...

Spanish Doctrine On Peace:
See http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/does-spain-foreshadow-obamas-america/:

What is the Spanish defense minister defending? The answer: Probably defending what could be called the Zapatero Doctrine, which, based on almost five years of political rhetoric, can be said to rest on three main post-modern “principles”:

1) There is no type of threat that can ever justify the use of force; 2) militaries should be converted into humanitarian organizations used for civil protection rather than for the defense of sovereignty; and 3) there is no other source of legitimacy for the use of force apart from the United Nations, and if that body cannot reach consensus, it is better not to act than to act unilaterally.

….

Spanish (and by extension European) pacifism has little to do with a genuine desire for world peace. Instead, it is the populist ideology of weak leaders who lack firm convictions and are interested only in staying in power. But by ignoring the time-tested Roman adage that “if you want peace, prepare for war,” they are making the world even more dangerous than it already is.

Will Americans allow Obama to lead them down the same path?

Anonymous said...

THE BIGGEST THREAT:

Snippets from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14brooks.html?em:

“It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state.”

******

PERSONAL COMMENTS: Close, but no cigar. The biggest threat to a healthy economy is the threat to healthy, competitive markets. But, markets cannot be competitive when they are ruled by grossly disproportionate powers, such as undemocratic, ungovernable, international cabals of pirates of opportunity, skilled in blowing and bursting financial bubbles to their own advantage and amusement.

Government imposed socialistic financial equality among individuals is torture to individual initiative, dignity, and freedom. But, government induced competitiveness for thwarting or compensating for monopolistic behavior among grossly unequal markets is vital to individual initiative, dignity, and freedom.

Government cannot perform such a role when its physical and financial boundaries are become permeable at will, by aliens, saboteurs, and financial pirates.

******

“But the larger principle is over the nature of America’s political system. Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.”

******

Compare http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14krugman.html?em.


*******

PERSONAL COMMENTS:

America has elites, intelligentsia, corporate managers, legislators, and international financial pirates to thank for years of what military sergeants aptly call PPPP (piss poor prior planning), in respect of obliviousness to the:
1) need, in a dangerous world, to preserve American boundaries (physical, financial, cultural, moral);
2) effects of social mistrust and breach of good faith brought on by demise of decent moral values and basic respect for law and Constitution;
3) corruption brought on by media and academia conditioning towards mistaken definitions of intelligence and morality and towards misplaced priorities and values (gay military, gay marriage, forcible unionization, rap noise, victim pimping, Bush derangement syndrome, America bashing, Europe envy, rights entitlements, etc.);
4) need to nurture viable markets and a viable middle class;
5) effects of loss of jobs and productive capacity for durable goods; and
6) effects on environment.

In short, Americans have foolishly placed grossly disproportionate faith in elites, as opposed to fundamental American values and common sense.

Anonymous said...

Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/a_damned_defeat.html:

RE: "There is no secret any longer about the ideology of these people, or about their close alliances with Islamic radicals, destructive Leftist billionaires and Saudi influence buyers."

Yes, we should now know enough to apprehend that the coming consolidation of governmental control will be a rape of American style freedom.

It is tragic that a majority of women, Jews, and Catholics swooned for this. It is reprehensible and scurrilous that a majority of journalists, academics, and wall street players furtively abetted. But, at least the masks are now off (and also off the Republican Bluebloods), so we know who are sheep and who are corrupt opportunists.

Knowledge is power. Now we must marshal and use it.

******

Legalize and regulate pot. Leave regulation of abortion up to the States. A federal candidate ought not be pro-choice or pro-life, but pro-Constitution. Judeo-Christian traditions and values should be relatively unhindered and respected, but not enforced as such by secular authority. For goodness sakes, don't mess with marriage.

Bluebloods only show their ignorant asses when they hold their noses around moral believers. We can go into the wilderness for awhile and emerge stronger, without Blueblood ninnies (who stand in fear that Palin's cajones are bigger than theirs).

We are going to have to get strong enough to reassert adult supervision and, when needed, to get back in the faces of socialist-moral-anarchist-mental-adolescents (aka, "smama's," or "faux elites"). Put "return to sender" on their dead fish.

******

See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_and_the_classless.html:


I can see rewarding voluntary public service with college assistance incentives. I do not see the point of taxing folks like myself to guarantee 4 years of college for every derelict. For many people (like a lot of Democrats), formal education beyond high school just avails them with educations that are too much for their intellects. That, and more time to sponge off the State while making contacts with community organizing rabble-rousers. Take these folks' dead fish and send it "return to sender." My goodness, isn't it time yet for these 40 some year old's to G-R-O-W U-P!?

Anonymous said...

From http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/12/11/think_globally;_act_globally:
Maybe, but if we get too many "global" crises happening at once, the clamor for a one-world government to bring order, even at the expense of liberty, may be too strong for some politicians to resist.
So, yes, I'm starting to believe in the possibility of one-world government and it should be vigorously opposed if America, as we know it, is to be preserved.