Category Archive

Freedom is freedom. It confuses me how those on both sides miss that obvious point. You can’t just support the freedoms you like or all will be lost. You either support all of freedom, or you oppose all of freedom. There is no middle ground.

In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

This is something that has been bothering me for a long time. With the recent disintegration of anything that our current government could have possibly called dignity following the AIG “scandal,” which is actually more of a diversion but I digress, I can’t help but wonder: Are the people who voted for Barack Obama watching the news?

If they didn’t see Chris Dodd admit that he put the loophole into the contract that allowed the million-dollar bonuses to AIG, or Geithner admitting that he knew about the loophole before it was signed into law or Obama showing that he hadn’t read the stimulus package he signed then they have absolutely no right to vote in the next election.

Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. All this “rock the vote” crap is just utter bullshit if the people coming out to vote start paying attention a year before the election.

BECAUSE POLITICS ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION AS THE DAY OF. If you aren’t an informed voter, please understand that voting is far more irresponsible than not voting.

than seeing left-wing nutjob “we should release the Guantanamo prisoners into upstate New York” liberals like Deepak Chopra try to blast Rush Limbaugh. The article I linked to is nothing but a lot of name-calling; Chopra doesn’t touch on a single topic. He merely calls Rush morally bankrupt for caring enough about the U.S. and being so devoted in his own beliefs that he actually gets outraged when he sees what he does.

Why does this make me happy? Because people like Deepak Chopra would never engage Rush Limbaugh in a real debate. Even comments on my previous posts have one type of reply: name-calling, to both myself and Rush. To Chopra, Limbaugh’s beliefs in freedom, liberty, and individual responsibility are beyond incorrect: they are morally bankrupt. But Chopra doesn’t say it like that, because that’s crazy! Chopra instead says Rush Limbaugh is morally bankrupt, has “thrown out God,” (despite Rush frequently mentioning God on his program), and judges what is right or wrong by what pisses him off, and not the other way around. However, despite never addressing the issues, Deepak Chopra does what Ellsworth Toohey realized he should not do in the beginning of The Fountainhead. Just as Toohey refused to give Howard Roark even negative publicity, Chopra keeps Limbaugh in the spotlight that someone that is as wrong, as mean-headed, and evil as Chopra says Rush is should never have for a moment.

So keep talking. Because every time a story like that runs, another listener tunes into Rush. And even if they don’t agree with him, if they think about what he’s saying, over time, I believe they very often will end up agreeing.

If you want to listen to Rush or Glenn Beck, Indiana’s WOWO has a live internet radio stream so you can tune in wherever you are. Rush Limbaugh is on the air from 12:00-3:00PM EST.

Short answer: Because it’s subsidized, and there is an artificially created demand.

Long answer:

College is expensive for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is the State schools and Federal Aid. Private schools (the biggest offenders of huge tuition) are primarily attended by poor and extremely wealthy students because both can afford the outrageous tuition, one through the government and the other through their own deep pockets. But the middle-class kids go to their State schools because their parents have already been forced to pay some of the tuition (through taxes) and so the tuition is kept artificially low enough to go through with a minimal amount of debt.

What this means is: if your parents are relatively successful, at many private schools they (read: you) will be punished by receiving no financial aid. If they are poor, be it because of bad circumstances or true ineptitude, the government will pay their way, and if they are well-off, they can pay your way.

This article is typical of the ignorance surrounding the subject. The author even admits that she doesn’t “know much about economics,” but, regardless, calls for a cap on the price of college. As demonstrated in the 70s by the price caps during the gasoline crisis, price caps create: shortage. So maybe everyone could afford to go to college, but there wouldn’t be enough college to go around. So even if you had the money and the academics, you might not get in.

The other issue is inflated demand. With the G.I. Bill, it suddenly became important to have that degree regardless of your skills. My grandfather had worked his way up through his company with his 3.5 years of a Princeton education, but management decreed a few years after the war that his position warranted a degree. Despite having 95% of his degree and years of experience, he was demoted to a salesman’s position and struggled for the rest of his life.

This is Government playing with the market, as always, for the worse. Ever wondered what happened to Apprenticeships? College happened. Why would your future employer train you from your high school degree, despite it being more pertinent and efficient in many cases, when the government is already forcing him to pay for your college degree (through taxes)? The answer is: he won’t. And there’s no degree at the end of an apprenticeship, again driving up the demand (and therefore cost) of college.

Furthermore, the public schools herald the importance of college from elementary school onward. Many students come out with the impression that if he/she does not attend a four year university he/she will be a failure. Many of these students have no place at an institution of higher education, and non-practical and non-technical skills are, for the most part, a waste. The vast majority of journalism, film, art, and English majors to name a few are merely filling seats and driving up the cost of school for the Engineering and Science majors. But sadly, this has created a marketplace where even an irrelevant degree will help one find an employer, as many jobs list “a college degree” as a requirement, and many students with degrees like communications and philosophy will find jobs completely unrelated to their field and still be paid better than those who have not been to college.

This isn’t because they are more marketable in any way, it is merely because the market has been flooded with them, and the jobs they gain will hardly be enough of an improvement to pay off their loans if they are middle-income students. Frankly, the whole institution is a scam for many students.

But why do the public schools herald the importance of a college education? The government hands out aid because with each aid package, the politician who supported creating it gains another vote. You wouldn’t vote away your financial aid, would you? And the public school teachers tout the importance of education, especially public education, because their very jobs are at stake. I have been taught since the seventh or eighth grade that public schooling was essentially the most important innovation for civilization since the wheel. But it doesn’t make sense to teach that education is vitally important until 12th grade and then truly optional. No, the more education you can get the better.

In fact, you’re entitled to education, so the “better off” should pay the way of the “less well off,” despite the fact that private grants pay for the truly talented students.

And so every shmuck goes to college and as such “higher education” has degraded into frat parties, communications majors, and a “priceless college experience” that has little or nothing to do with what the student will be doing for the rest of his or her life in many cases.

Every person that goes to college who does not belong there drives up the cost and drives down the value of the degree that the rest are working so hard to earn.

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919

If you haven’t seen it, don’t even talk to me.

[edit]

So I decided this needed some explanation after I got the first reply down there. Rush Limbaugh spoke to CPAC and it was aired on FOX a few days ago. His speech is about an hour long, and simply incredible to listen to. It is probably the first description of Conservatism that wasn’t defensive and a contrived response to the attacks of liberals that I have ever seen. He makes the likes of McCain with his talk of “reaching accross the aisle” look like squirming, sniveling little rodents. (Oh please like us, Democrats, please like us)

His talk about the “orgasmic” response to bipartisanship in the media is probably one of the best parts, and with that in mind, if you look for the speech on CNN you get this wonderful coverage:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/03/01/nr.limbaugh.cpac.speech.cnn

The woman in this video talks about how Republicans are trying to become “more diverse” and the fellow she’s interviewing even gives her the pleasure of doing this. I remind the viewer that the Republicans were the abolitionist party, and that the reason that many minorities flock to the Democrat party is because of a promise of handouts. This coverage, if you can call it that, is simply the most obviously biased thing I’ve watched in ages. But of course, if you hadn’t seen the video, you wouldn’t know how untruthful it is to even call the talking point “coverage.”

A good snippet. Part 8 of 10. And with the exception of the fellow who replied while this post was short: This blog is officially ad hominem free. If you don’t have a real argument, please refrain from posting your comments.

The U.S. of A. was founded with an idea.

First: a short history lesson. John Locke said that God gave Man three rights. These are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away. These are rights: Life, Liberty, and Property.

Our forefathers changed it a bit: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How often have we heard it? An American Patriot should be able to put each of his or her own political views into one or more of these categories. One thing that’s interesting, is that usually Life encompasses Liberty, which encompasses a the Pursuit of Happiness, meaning if the first is lost so is the second, and if the second is lost so is the third, but if the third is lost the second isn’t.

A Venn diagram would be very boring:

Let’s do the run-down:

• Abortion :
  • If you’re pro-life: You believe in a right to life of the child.
  • If you’re pro-choice: You, believing that the embryo is not yet a life, are protecting the mother’s right to liberty.
• Gun Rights:
  • If you’re pro-gun: You believe that you have the right to protect your right to life.
  • If you’re anti-gun: You believe that the guns, in the hands of criminals, are infringing on your right to life.
• Drug Rights:
  • If you want drug legalization: You believe that the laws are infringing on your right to liberty.
  • If you want drug prohibition: You believe that other people doing drugs can possibly infringe on your right to life, and that the Government’s job is to protect the citizen’s right to life, even if the citizen is being protected from his or her own actions.
• Taxes:
  • If you want low taxes (and little Governmental interference/programs as such): You believe taxes and government programs infringe on your right to a pursuit of happiness, and that private enterprise can help the unfortunate better than Government.
  • If you want high taxes: You believe that the Government is more capable of helping those that have had their right to a pursuit of happiness taken away by unfair circumstances than private enterprises. You believe that this is worth your sacrifice.

These are just four examples. Obviously you can go on for awhile like this, and some of these are easier to do than others, but it’s important to classify why you believe in what you do, and to constantly be thinking about your beliefs.

If you aren’t examining, judging, re-evaluating, and overlooking your own beliefs you might start to take things for granted, and to “feel” your beliefs instead of reasoning through them. And that’s dangerous. Because then you make irrational decisions and your beliefs will start to contradict.

Ever met someone who is pro-choice (and believes the unborn child is a life) and against the death penalty? Or someone who is pro-life and for the death penalty? Me too. Those people confuse me.

But remember this:

If you lose your right to life, you lose everything.

If you lose your liberty, you lose your pursuit of happiness.

And if you lose your pursuit of happiness, what else is there to live for?

Oh this is exciting. In my stumbles, I ran onto a blatantly Communist blog: www.resistmuch.com. The post on the link is a post about “charitable shoplifting.” I read the post, thinking of an old friend of mine who’d tried to explain why he’d stolen some chocolate from a drugstore (that eventually went out of business, ironically) to me using some of the same rationalizations.

I was a little perturbed, and posted a civil comment.

You do realize you’re hurting the people you intend to help? By stealing, these corporations are forced to raise prices (to cover increased costs) and the poor can no longer afford the food, or they have to cut costs elsewhere (such as laying people off) and no “developing” economy in the world does anything ecologically because they can’t afford it, and you’re just helping to put us in the same bracket!
Learn some economics.

OK, so the last line might have been a little rough. I apologize. But I decided to sign my name w/ a link to this blog. And look at this! The last two posts have responses from the writer herself. Look, I was even so kind as to link to her blog on mine up above, and all I got was name-calling and, in my post “Really Obnoxious” exactly the kind of arrogant behavior I was upset about and trying to call attention to.

Beautiful. I’m so flattered. Thank you, Cecil. :)

A wild boar, for those unfamiliar, is this:

From Wikipedia

You can’t really tell from the picture, but these suckers are big. The variety found where I’m from, the Russian boar, is usually around 600lbs. These were introduced into the wild some time ago where I’m from, and the locals find sport in hunting them. The trouble with hunting a boar is that they are big, their hides are tough, and frankly, they will maul you if you give them any reason to. Think a bear is mean? Try pissing off a boar. And if you don’t shoot them with a big enough gun, or you miss their vitals (mainly that tiny brain), they are going to charge, and you better hope you can get that second shot off or get up that tree real quick. I personally know guys who have sat in trees for hours looking down at a pissed board that they shot and failed to carry the gun up the tree with them.

Part of hunting boars comes in simply bringing a big enough gun. Which brings me to my real point. If you’re going to protect yourself on the streets, why are we expected to arm ourselves with nonlethal weapons such as a taser or pepper spray? The “good” pepper spray that police use isn’t even available to civilians, so you’re left with literally pepper water to protect yourself from a potential rapist. If you arm yourself with a pistol you aren’t just going to anger the boar, so to speak.

And if you don’t agree, before you get all upset about shooting the rapist, I just want to know: in this situation, why is everyone so fast to come to defend the well being of the rapist?

QED.