Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Myrna Loy and the Metaphor of Modern Life

 Myrna Loy was a movie and television actress. Her long career spans 50 years.

In front of Venice High School, in Venice, California, there was a concrete statue of Myrna Loy. The original statue stood tall and beautiful, hair and dress flowing, her face and arm reaching up to the heavens.



That was in the past. In more modern times, the statue was replaced, then fell to the long abuses of vandalism. Loy's arms were broken, then repaired, folded in on themselves to prevent further vandalism. An iron fence was erected around the statue to help protect it.


None of which helped. In our modern society based on the selfish, "if it feels good, do it" generation, the statue continued to be vandalized until it had to be enclosed in a tighter fenced cage, completely covering the statue.


Instead of reaching up to the sky with grace and beauty, Loy's statue looked more like a prisoner, huddling in on itself, afraid to reach out for fear of getting her limbs hacked off again.

This is a metaphor for how we ourselves are trapped in a society which ideals have been vandalized and dashed to pieces in order to usher in a brave new world of atheistic nihilism. With every new attack, we as a society build higher fences, stronger bars, and enclosing cages in the vain attempt to secure ourselves from evil.

Notice how evil still persists, yet those who desire protection are the ones trapped inside cages.

Evil exists, yet the postmodern, deconstructionist culture will not or cannot accept the fact. Criminals aren't treated as criminals, but as victims—or worse—as celebrities. Compassion and feeling overwhelm modern sentiments directing the vain attempt to blame criminal behavior on a lack of money, or on poor education. We're told never to blame actions, because those are only expressions of not enough government funding, of Western imperialism, or of genetic programming.

So those who still maintain a moral system are forced into ever-tightening poses, fenced in, then left to gaze at the rest of the world from inside a prison of relative safety. We react to danger, instead of acting to prevent it.

When terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside, Americans reacted by creating the cage of the Patriot Act. What was the result? We now have given our government the power and means to enslave our "free" society in the name of "protection."

When a psychopath shoots a roomful of children, ideologues cry out, blaming the instrument of death, rather than the deranged killer behind the gun. What is the result? We see another spate of executive and legislative actions to enact gun control laws which have historically proven to hurt the innocent more than the guilty. In response, moral people have reacted, rather than acted, by buying more guns than ever, in an attempt to provide protection from ever more glorified evil.

The entertainment industry produces movies and television shows that glorify extreme violence, immorality, teen pregnancy, single parent families, homosexuality, and pornography, then claims no culpability when such behavior is not only expressed, but promoted in modern society. Moral people have no recourse but to attempt to ignore those intrusions into their lives from every venue, and find it a nearly impossible task to inoculate their children from such seductive ideals. Parents who care that their children grow up in a moral society are forced to build cages to keep out the vandals.

We, as a society, cannot long last by mimicking the depravities of the Roman Empire, then promoting them as social goods. Yet the good and decent people of America find themselves much like the statue of Myrna Loy, folding in on ourselves, until we are forced inside cages, trapped and prevented from stretching our arm up to the heavens. However, a long as the majority of good and decent people react to evil, rather than acting to prevent it, we will continue to cringe in fear in the cages we built ourselves.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Why We Must Protect Freedom of Religion in the US


There are a lot of good things about America today. Unfortunately, there are also great political and social forces attempting to destroy the very things which created our free society. The people pushing these forces ignore the foundations of our country in order to usurp power over the people, instead of upholding the one document that protects the rights of all the individuals in our country, the Constitution with its Bill of Rights.

The first protected right in the Bill of Rights is religion. Why, out of all of the rights the founders could name, would they pick the freedom of religion to stand next to free speech and the free press? What does religion have to do with preserving the United States?

Most of my students usually think the First Amendment clause about religion creates a separation of church and state. They are surprised, when they actually read the amendment in my class, to find out that it says no such thing. In fact, it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." When my students refer to the idea of the separation of church and state, they merely echo the thoughts of modern liberalism, which interprets the first clause of the amendment, while ignoring the second clause altogether.

The founders knew that giving the government the authority of religion was dangerous, and would always be abused. They also knew that to mix religion and politics would corrupt religion and its intent. Hence, the US should have no state church, but it also must keep government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, except where religion becomes destructive to other rights (such as blowing people up in the name of Allah.)

But the key here is that we must protect, and continue to protect, religion in the US in order to maintain a moral system that is different from the state. Let me repeat that. We must protect religion in order to maintain a moral system that is different from the state.

This is an important concept to remember. When Stalin took over communist Russia after the death of Lenin, one of the first things he did as the new dictator, was to kill as many priests as he could find, and to destroy the churches. Why did he do that? Because he knew that in order to control the people (i.e., to kill them and to enslave them), he could not allow a competing moral system to remain. Morality, according to Stalin, must remain the property of the state. (And by state, Stalin really meant himself.)

This is how dictatorships develop, when the state takes on the responsibility of defining morality for all of its citizens. There can be no dictatorship unless it is upheld by corrupted religion (such as France's totalitarian monarchies), or unless it is upheld by a wholly false religion (such as Hitler's parody of religion in his blood flag ritual), or unless it replaces religion with its own morality (such as all communist dictators have done).

You nor I may like a particular religion, or particular religious beliefs of certain individuals, but we must protect the free exercise of religion in this country if, for no other reason, than to prevent the state from dictating what is right and what is wrong. When the state defines morality, we, as people of a free society, will cease to be free.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Our Copy and Paste Educational System


The other day, as I was grading final papers for one of my US history classes, I came across one of the all-too-frequent essays mostly copied from sources on the internet. My class policy (mentioned in explicit detail in my syllabus) states that I give no credit for copied work, with or without quotes, with our without citations. The idea, of course, is to make my students have to process through their brains, the information they've read. I figure if they can explain what they've read, in their own words, then they'll at least have had some history stick inside of their heads.

What made the particular essay different, however, was the response I received from the student who wrote it. The student basically could not understand why she'd gotten a zero on her essay. Of course, I restated the policy in my syllabus.

Here's the scary part. The student kept up a running argument with me, trying to explain that "history was history" and that the facts don't change, so why couldn't she just use the "facts" as they were written? I explained again my plagiarism policy, but quite frankly, the student simply could not grasp the concept of writing an essay in her own words. The mentality of the copy and paste generation has finally succeeded in a devolution of student minds.

Which brings me to my point: Our K-12 educational system is failing. (Well, our universities are failing as well, but that's a different story.) When a young college student can't tell the difference, nor the importance, of using her own words in writing an essay, versus copying from the internet, we have dropped below the absurdity level.

We're spending more than ever on our schools in the US, while copy and paste students fall further behind in test scores and, more importantly, in their ability to think and to reason. Bill Gates noticed the problem in his OpEd piece in the Huffington Post:


The red line shows the increasing per pupil expenditure. The other two lines show test scores in mathematics and reading. Notice the complete lack of correlation.

We can do one of two things. We can all convert to the gospel of liberalism and delude ourselves into thinking that even more money and more government control will fix things. Or we can look at the schools as they really are, vast wastelands of ill conceived teaching methods that have failed us, our children, and the schools they purportedly are trying to improve.

It's time to let go of bankrupt liberal dogma in our educational system and to return control of the schools back to the local level. The only thing we're currently teaching students is how to regurgitate the failed doctrines of liberalism, which may be the final design of liberalized education. The rest of what students learn is only to copy and paste.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

A Parable about Air Traffic Controllers, or How Liberals Fly Without the Rules


I have a friend who is a retired air traffic controller. He worked many years, standing in a control tower, reading radar screens, and directing air traffic in order to keep hundreds of jets and planes from crashing into each other. The pilots of the aircraft trusted him to make good decisions. In fact, they trusted him with their lives as he guided them away from danger and toward a safe landing.

To help him in his job, he followed a set of rules to keep all of the aircraft safe. Foremost, he had to follow the rules to keep the aircraft separated at a safe distance, taking into account both vertical and horizontal dangers. Some dangers weren't visible, like wake turbulence and wingtip vortices, which could destabilize or flip other aircraft. Occasionally, conflict between two aircraft would occur when they got too close to each other. The rules provided a buffer zone around each aircraft to prevent immediate disaster, and the rules helped the air traffic controller guide the two aircraft back into safe distances.

Modern conservatism bases its rules on the Constitution and the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. They understood as well as anyone, the dangers of government, as well as the dangers of individuals who don't follow the rules. Some dangers are immediate and obvious. Some are not visible.

Conservatives are the air traffic controllers of our day, desperately trying to enforce the rules to keep America from crashing and falling. Just as the air traffic controller believes the rules should apply to all aircraft to keep them all safe, conservatives believe the rules of the Constitution should apply to all Americans. Conservatives understand that to ignore the rules is to invite disaster.

Modern liberalism, on the other hand, bases its rules on political expediency and bankrupt socialist doctrine. Liberals believe in a "living" Constitution that can change according to the latest progressive dogmas. Liberals are like airplane pilots who ignore the control tower, thinking that every new idea is good. They fly in any direction, at any speed, and at any altitude, secure in the knowledge that they know better than some old-fashioned, outdated rules.

Occasionally,  a few pilots crash and burn, but liberals merely blame the air traffic controller for not keeping them safe. Then, they are off in another random direction, secure in their own wisdom that they are not the root cause of all the mid-air collisions.

Meanwhile, conservatives point to the rules and warn of dangers to come. Instead of heeding the warnings, liberals find new and ever shrill means to denigrate those left in the control tower.

"You don't want me to be free," they exclaim.

"You're in danger," the conservatives answer.

"You're taking away our rights," liberals shout back.

"You're destroying the rules that protect all of us," warn the conservatives.

"The rules are old-fashioned," they respond. "Start living in the 21st Century!"

"You're going to crash!" warn the conservatives.

"You're just a bunch of angry, white, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobes!" they shout, as they steer their aircraft straight into the side of a mountain.

***

Should we, as modern conservatives, just give up the fight and leave the world to liberalism? At this point, the fiery crashes seem inevitable. I've often thought to just give up and let the world burn. Yet, there is something inside me that sees that the Constitution is still worth defending, that those good, old rules still offer the best hope to all individuals. I, for one, will continue to be a voice of warning.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

School Failure: Kansas Middle School Includes Sex Poster in its Curriculum


American schools have long been in decline, pushed into oblivion by "experts" who are succeeding in creating a system so administration heavy, so full of useless testing, so full of liberal dogma, and so lacking in real information, that it seems destined to collapse under its own weight.

As a case in point, last week, parents of a Kansas middle school were shocked to discover that part of their children's "health" curriculum included a poster listing how people "express their sexual feelings." The list includes things like: saying I like you, dancing, and talking, side by side with anal sex, oral sex, and vaginal sex. (Source)

That poster is, and should be, shocking to any of the real parents who happen to be left in the world. It is the epitome of all that's wrong with modern liberal dogma. The mere idea that it is the responsibility of the schools to teach children about such things is morally bankrupt, and merely highlights the moral decline in the US.

The real troublesome problem, however, rests in the fact that this particular curriculum is now part and parcel of Common Core.

Common Core standards, which have now been adopted in 45 states and Washington D.C., includes such immoral and debasing curriculum. The "experts" have all agreed that sex education should include telling 13 year olds about various ways to have sex. Modern liberal dogma has won out—the idea that somehow telling children about explicit sex will prevent disease and pregnancy.

This is child abuse of the highest order. We now live in a society that, with one hand, will prosecute child pornographers, and with the other, will extoll the "virtues" of introducing children to pornography (as long as it's done in the "safe" environment of our all-knowing school systems).

There seems to be no end to the depravities that modern liberalism will create in order to destroy education and the foundations of the family.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Ten Reasons Why Liberals Don't Make Any Sense

Ten reasons why liberals don't make any sense:

1) Liberals blame everyone but themselves when policies they created turn out to be bad.
Example: The Failure of Modern Education

2) If a policy or program is bad, liberals will always want to increase spending on it.
Example: Voting for More Money for the War on Poverty, which Started 50 Years Ago

3) Liberals believe the free market to be evil, while benefiting from it.
Example: "Avengers" Director Joss Whedon on Capitalism

4) Liberals blame others for sexism and racism, while promoting sexism and racism.
Example: The War on Conservative Women

5) The entire ideal of women's rights boils down to supporting abortions.
Example: Vermont Senators Want to Affirm Abortion as a Right

6) If liberals don't like someone's belief, they ridicule, name call, and condemn, all the while calling themselves open-minded and compassionate.
Example: Phil Robertson Speaking His Beliefs in GQ Magazine

7) Liberals consider human relationships built on immoral dogmas to serve a public good.
Example: Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy

8) Liberals will uphold their dogmas, even if they have to ignore laws to do it.
Example: Federal Agencies Ignore Court Order

9) Liberal politicians consider themselves above the law or accountability.
Example: At This Point, What Difference Does It Make?

10) Liberals think they are smarter than everyone else, because they fund research projects which prove it.
Example: A Faulty Study on Liberal Intelligence

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

The Inclusive Left


Thought I'd pass these bits of truth about the Left along:
When lefties "discuss" issues, a lot of their so-called "discussion" amounts to nothing more than rationalization about how & why some person should be excluded from further discussion. Either him, or the points he has just brought up. They truly do seem to think we become more "learned," by way of knowing less. – Morgan Freeberg
Liberals love diversity. That's why they love to punish anyone who doesn't think, act, eat, drink, drive and speak exactly like them. – Congressman Steve Stockman
I was a liberal once. I knew that liberal policy was wrong — but I also knew that conservatives were evil. Racist, sexist, uncaring, one step from Nazis. This was a religious truth to me. Well, of course it was. All leftists are taught this. That’s how the left keeps you in the fold despite the evidence of your own eyes. Leftists do to their followers what the townspeople did to Jim Carrey’s character in that movie The Truman Show. They teach them to fear and hate the unknown so much that they won’t test alternative ideas no matter how bad things get. “Life in Liberal World may be a mess, Truman,” they tell you, “but oh the horrors that wait for you out there in Conservative Land!” – Andrew Klavan

h/t John Hawkins

Sunday, January 12, 2014

A Letter to My Son - Beware as You Head Off to College


To My Son:

As you head off to college, let me pass along to you a few things that I've learned over the years as a long-time teacher. First, remember that most universities are a vast wasteland of ideas, ideals, and ideologies. Unfortunately, the faculty and the administration often preach the gospel of modern liberalism, cleverly disguised as Absolute Truth.

That is the Big Lie of today's universities: that its high priests and priestesses, its Grand Poobahs, its nabobs and khans, think that they hold the key to all truth and knowledge, merely because it is pleasing to the ear, titillating, and seductive.

Let me outline where the dangers lie:

In your economics class, you will learn that you can have something for nothing. This is a lie, perpetrated by professors to agree with current political trends. Politicians use this politically-motivated economics in order to garner votes and to gain power. These politicians are modern Robber Barons, who, instead of creating wealth, steal wealth from the people in the name of welfare, kindness, and equality. They are no better than robbers, thieves, burglars, and con men. They promise the poor that the government will take care of them as long as poor people vote for the right people. They create division and strife, dividing people between the haves and the have nots, then telling the have nots that the root of all their poverty stems from the rich stealing their birthright and their entitlements.

In your sociology class, you will learn that choices have no consequences. This is a lie, perpetrated by professors who no longer have the ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and beauty from filth. Choices always have consequences, but the sociologists are True Adepts at passing the blame from root causes to all those who disagree with them. For example, they ignore the consequences of preaching the gospel of unrestrained sexual license, preferring instead to claim any who gets AIDS or pregnant is a victim, not a perpetrator. They ignore the consequences of destroying social institutions in order to recreate the world in their own, miserable little image. They ignore the consequences of preaching the gospel of feminism, which vilifies and debases half of the population in the world. All of these dogmas can only exist by reviling non-believers or treading on those institutions which others hold sacred.

In your history class, you will learn that Western Civilization is the greatest evil conceived of by man. This is a lie, perpetrated by professors to convert young men and women into believing that the only solution to human problems is the gospel of socialism. Your history texts no long tell us the story of true progress, freedom, and the accomplishments of human intellect. Instead they dwell on the evils of human nature to prove how Western Civilization oppresses people and destroys the earth. This is utter nonsense since such a philosophy ignores the fact that Western Civilization created the foundation of freedom that allows such idiots to preach their dogmas in the first place.

In your English class, you will learn that all ideas are equally valid. This is a lie, perpetrated by professors to teach students what to think, instead of how to think. Instead of learning to read and write, you will be forced to mimic mediocre ideals in order to please the professors. Instead of studying great literature and learning the wealth of ideas that sprang from great minds, you will be guided to accept the dogmas of socialism and multiculturalism. Instead of introducing you to uplifting and enlightening ideals, you will be subjected to the basest of human thought and depravities. You will be told pornography is art, merely because it challenges your beliefs and titillates your mind.

My son, such is the state of today's "education." It is nothing more than a celebration of the immoral, and the seductive. It produces blind lemmings who follow their false prophets over the edge and into the abyss of human depravity, stagnation, misery, and mediocrity. It is the dogma of modern liberalism that is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. It promises a utopian world, where tolerance and equality is enforced, while freedom, justice, liberty, and life are cheaply sold out.

You are better than that. I've raised you to think for yourself, to recognize evil and to seek the good. As you leave for college, stand firm in the knowledge that good ideas will always prevail over bad ones. Unlike the high priests of liberalism, you don't have to drag others down in order to feel better about yourself. Instead use your keen intellect to lift others up and to inspire them. Beware of the mire of seductive immorality that is modern education. There is a better way.

Love,
Your Father

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Gays and the Abuse of Power


We know by long and sad experience that as soon as a person gains power, that person will most likely turn around and abuse the power given him. This is especially true in today's world where there are few social constraints against the abuse of power, which stems from modern liberal dogma. Such dogma has long taught that it represents the powerless, not the powerful, while stamping out all opposition to its political goals. This double standard is especially dangerous when liberalism holds absolute political power in places like San Fransisco, or New York City, or Washington D.C.

Power is abused everywhere. We see examples of the abuse of power within marriages, where men abuse their wives, wives abuse their husbands, and parents abuse their children. We see this in businesses where managers behave like dictators because they hold control over other people's jobs. We see this in schools where students are told what to think, instead of taught how to think. We see this in street gangs, in churches, in corporations, or at the DMV.

Politicians are always susceptible to abuse power granted by the people of the US. We've seen this with Hillary Clinton, who abused her power to hide the truth behind the killings in Benghazi. We've seen this in Attorney General Eric Holder's abuse of power in sending guns illegally into Mexico, as well as in refusing to defend laws he happens to disagree with. We've seen this in Barack Obama who, having been handed power from a spineless Congress, abused his power in order to kill American citizens without due process, and to prolong wars he promised to end.

The abuse of power is not unique to political party, nor to political ideology.

We now see human nature at its worst as gays abuse the political power handed to them by spineless judges and state legislatures. Each time another state redefines the institution of marriage to include same sex couples, gay ideologues gain more power, only to abuse it.

Two examples will suffice:

Those who read or watch the news will remember the stink caused when the A&E network suspended Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame for speaking about his beliefs about homosexuals. While the executives at A&E certainly have the right to pick up or cancel any show they want to in order to try to make money, suspending Robertson for what he believes was an abuse of power. A&E execs were under pressure from gay activist groups who now use the very public media to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view. In the end, money won over power and A&E reinstated Robertson in the show.

When the movie Ender's Game came out last November, all the media surrounding its release centered, not on the movie, but on the author of the original book, Orson Scott Card. Apparently, Card had spoken about his beliefs against same sex marriage, which is a wildly unpopular view within the entertainment industry. Nearly every media outlet mentioned Card was a bigot or a homophobe. Even the actors and directors made statements against Card's beliefs. You could not read a single story about the movie without it condemning Card's beliefs.

What's the problem here? Aren't we all supposed to be oh-so-loving and accepting of gays in this Brave New World of liberalism? The problem, of course, is that gay dogma's foundation is built on the principle of the abuse of power. Their tactics are those tactics of the abuser. They know that if they attack and abuse a few, key people publicly, if they can destroy their lives or their livelihood, they can then go on to use those tactics against anyone who disagrees with them.

As the courts and state legislatures hand more and more power to those who self-identify as "gay" the group as a whole will grow in its abuse of power to force the rest of the world to accept its dogmas, or at the least, to make unbelievers quail before them in fear of retribution. Theirs are the tactics of belittlement, of name calling, of force, of threats, of the angry mob. They are heady with power without restraint.

Of course gays learned about the abuse of power, not from those whom they condemn as oppressors, but from those who lifted them up and showed them the means to power, without restraint, regardless of consequences. They learned from the liberals who consciously abused others in order to gain more power.

Power does not always lead to abuse. We only have to look at those who wrote and supported the Declaration of Independence to see that many who signed it gave up everything they had in order to uphold the ideals of life, liberty and property. Somewhere inside us all is a nobler voice, a moral voice that persuades instead of abuses, a voice that uses power to achieve, rather than to tear down. I still have hope that voice lives within the hearts of most Americans.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, Vogons, and the Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy



Yesterday, I wrote about the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. (See below.) While writing it, I was reminded of a quote from one of my favorite books, Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (It's a terrific farce and situational comedy.) The quote is about a race of space aliens, the Vogons, whose soul raison d'ĂȘtre is to be the galaxy's bureaucrats. Here's their description:

They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy - not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without an order, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. If you want to get a lift from a Vogon, forget it. They are vile and ill tempered. If you want to get a drink from a Vogon, stick your finger down his throat. If you want to annoy a vogon, feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

To anyone who has suffered at the hands of government bureaucracy, you can appreciate the truths offered in this description about those who serve as minions within the system. We've all encountered these creatures in the post office, the DMV, or the unemployment office.

This is an apt description of what most of us will have to deal with as our government takes over the regulation of all medical insurance in the US and forces us to live within its bureaucracy. It's a sad testament to the people of the US, who used to be full of industry and common sense, that we have sold ourselves to a whole new level of bureaucratic dictatorship.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

The Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy


To talk about today's topic, I have three stories:

Story 1:
Years ago, when I lived in South America, I received a package from the US that hadn't been sent in a diplomatic pouch. Instead, the package was sent through the mail and I had to pick it up at the aduana—the customs office.

Bureaucracies in many South American countries are a masterful combination of corruption and futility. In order to pick up the package, I had to pay about 10,000 pesos ($250 at the time), in addition to the thousands of pesos I paid in bribes. The package was tracked on a sheet of paper the size of a desktop calendar, and by the end, that large sheet of paper had 20 stamps, 25 signatures, and had to be filed in an oversized book that could have crushed small children. The process took about three hours.

Story 2:
When I was a graduate student at UCLA, I worked full time in the school's management library as a cataloger in order to put myself through school. The library received books and periodicals every day, and each piece had to be entered into the school library database. When I first took the job, the office where I worked was buried, floor to ceiling in uncatalogued materials. My predecessor had let the stacks of books get so backlogged, that I could not find the top of my desk, let alone get to the shelves that were supposed to hold incoming shipments. Some periodicals in the stacks were several years old. Yellowed memos of library procedures and a wide variety of junk filled the drawers of my desk.

It took me several months to catalog everything, on top of my regular workload, but I was able to clear out the entire workroom. I then discovered something interesting about my job. With the new books and periodicals that came in, I could finish all of my work in about one hour a day. Yet, if I did that, my manager would berate me for not keeping busy and for not "doing my job." I quickly learned what I call "the bureaucratic shuffle." This is the state of work where I would spend hours looking busy, shuffling from place to place in the library, while doing absolutely nothing. Using this technique, it always took me exactly eight hours every day to complete the cataloging of the books and periodicals that had arrived.

Story 3:
A few months ago, I went to the post office to retrieve a certified letter. While I didn't have to pay money to retrieve it, nor did I have to bribe anyone, I spent two hours in the post office, waiting in line, to retrieve a letter I didn't want in the first place. As I stood in line, I noticed that every single employee in the post office moved at the speed of the bureaucratic shuffle.

The Point
Government programs, entitlements, and agencies always create bureaucracies. That is the one consistent fact of every government ever created throughout all of history. The larger and more intrusive the government, the larger the bureaucracies it creates. Alexander's empire fell under the weight of its bureaucracies. The Roman empire fell under the weight of its bureaucracies.

Bureaucracies are unfeeling, uncaring, unyielding, unbending entities that slow down production, waste money, and annoy the heck out of most people who have to deal with them in order to get something they want. They suck time and money from the economy like a Miele S 7580 Premium Class upright vacuum picking up dryer lint from a tile floor.

In short, bureaucracies always create waste, cost more, and produce less than private industry or the free market.

This is one main reason why the US cannot sustain the massive government buildup we've created since Johnson's "Great Society." With each new government program, the bureaucracy that it creates sucks more money from the economy and, over the long run, always creates poorer quality service than what the private sector can provide. It also inevitably becomes a corrupt institution. Obamacare is no exception. The bureaucracies that it creates will stifle the free market, drive up costs, and produce mediocre services at best, seriously crappy services at the worst. And, in the end, it will become merely another corrupt government bureaucracy.

This is call the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. We who are enslaved by bureaucracies cannot turn to government to help. Government is the source of the problem. We cannot turn to Congress to help. Once the bureaucracy is built Congress has little will or incentive to disassemble it. We cannot fight the system, as there is no single entity in a bureaucracy to attack and "fix." We cannot complain to anyone for the problems we experience within this dictatorship. All complaints are handled at the speed of the bureaucratic shuffle.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Liberals Do It Because They Can


In the movie Jurassic Park (the first one), Jeff Goldblum's character, Ian Malcolm, says the following when referring to the creation of dinosaurs from ancient DNA:
Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.
I find the same argument compelling with reference to most liberal dogma, disguised as "progressive." For example, gays are so intent on radically changing the definition of marriage to force the world into their own image, that they neglect to ask themselves if they should do such a thing. All societies throughout history have developed the institutions of marriage and families based on male and female relationships. What will the experiment of same sex marriage do, when added into society?

No one knows, really. Same sex marriage certainly won't eat the tourists, as the dinosaurs do in Jurassic Park. And it won't cause an immediate collapse of civilization as we know it. But I suspect that it has and will continue to deteriorate the institution of marriage, to continue to neuter male and female relationships, and to help destroy families.

Why would this be the conclusion? It is because the ideal of same sex marriage is based on immoral dogma that upholds an argument based on false premises. The biggest false premise is that same sex marriage is somehow or another related to the American ideal of equality. It can only appeal to equal protection by ignoring the basic social and biological reasons marriage occurs in society.

But none of that matters to liberals, who are so preoccupied with whether or not they could change marriage, that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Seven False Premises of Liberal Dogma


Arguments are like trees. The roots of all arguments are its premises. The trunk is the conclusion, which stems from the roots, or premises. The branches and leaves are axioms, all of which rely completely on the roots and trunk.

Without good roots, the tree fails and dies. It doesn't matter how large the tree is, how many branches it has, or how pretty its leaves are, if the roots are bad, the tree cannot survive. Modern liberalism is such a tree, set on roots that are bad, which cannot support the monstrous tree of liberal dogma.

Most modern liberal arguments seem to be axiomatic, supported by branches and leaves that are assumed to be true. Arguing with liberals is like chasing a squirrel among the leaves and branches. As soon as you cut off some leaves at one side, the squirrel dodges to another branch, content in its knowledge that all the branches with uphold it. However, liberals never bother to look at the source of their arguments—to the roots.

It is at the roots of liberal arguments that we find the problems with the trunk and with the branches. In plain words, liberal arguments are based on false premises. If the premises are bad, then we cannot accept the conclusions, no matter how good they may make us feel. Here's a list of false premises on which modern liberal arguments rest.

1) Western Civilization is evil because it is oppressive.
This is a fallacy of over-generalization. Because some individuals in the past oppressed others, liberals take this as firm proof that the system is bad and corrupt. Here's an example: Modern history texts drive home the point that slavery was evil. We all get that and agree that, yes, slavery was evil. But the texts then go on to teach that slavery was an inevitable by-product of Western Civilization. This is patently false. In fact, slavery has existed in all ages and among all peoples. Slavery still exists today in the United States. Western Civilization didn't create slavery, evil people did. In fact, it took the philosophy of Western Civilization to give us reasons to reject slavery as an immoral institution.

Western Civilization isn't oppressive but is, in fact, liberating.

2) The free market is evil because it is oppressive.
This premise also overgeneralizes and blames abuse within the system on individuals who don't follow the principles of the free market. It was Karl Marx who made the word "capitalism" a dirty word among Europeans and Americans. Following his bankrupt ideas, other socialists used his words and techniques to break down the free market in order to exercise control over peoples' money and lives. Yet, real oppression stems from the abuse of power, from those who limit the market, from those who direct it, from those who takes its wealth away and uses it to gain even more power—you know, like what the US government does to its citizens.

3) Equality is measured in outcomes instead of opportunities.
The US was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity. At the heart of socialism is the concept of equality of outcomes. This is the idea that, somehow, government can force people into being equal economically and socially, and yet still remain a benign government. Besides being oblivious to human nature, what this dogma really does is to pretend that once everyone is exactly equal in terms of money and social class, then the world will be a better place. The ideal is ludicrous, but liberals believe it as reality. We only have to read a blunt history of Stalin to understand how silly an idea this really is. If you don't have a biography of Stalin handy, I recommend this movie on YouTube.

4) Government can and should interfere with the development of society in order to ensure equality.
Again, there's a vast divide between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. For further reading, try George Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984. For a more scholarly approach to the dangers of government interference, see F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism.

5) The US was founded on the principle of separation of church and state.
This is not an accurate reading of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, but has, unfortunately, become the common interpretation of the 1st Amendment in the court system. Most liberals forget that, besides a clause that prevents Congress from establishing a state religion, there is also a free exercise clause. In fact, religion is the very first thing protected in the Bill of Rights. Rather than denying rights to the religious, the US was founded on protecting those rights. Modern liberals would like to see limits on religion, for precisely the reason the Founding Fathers protected it. Religion creates beliefs that compete with government, and therefore limits it.

6) Government is essentially a good institution, which purpose is to protect equal rights.
There are two fallacies here. First, that government is inherently good is adequately proven false through the inductive reasoning of history. History mostly shows us governments always abuse power. Most liberals tend to think that since they live a free society, that it was the government that created it. Rather the opposite is true. Radicals, also known as the Founding Fathers, denied the very idea that government would work for the public good and did everything in their power to keep our republic from ever gaining too much power. Even so, most were pessimistic about the future of the US. Hence, when Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the Constitutional Convention had created he replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Second, the idea that it is government's responsibility to protect equal rights goes back to the problem of the definition of equality: equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes.

7) Liberalism can create a perfect society.
Recently, I had a conversation with a liberal woman who said she wished that I would die so that my "oppressive" ideals would die out. Then, and only then, would the world become a perfect place for her and her kind to live in. The liberal dogma of creating a utopian society stems from Marx, who stole the ideal from Aristotle. Most people don't realize that the term "Utopia" comes from Thomas More's book written during the time of King Henry VIII. More's title can be translated as "no place" and More makes fun of the utopian concept in his own book. Again, history has many examples of utopian societies that have failed. Why do they self-destruct? Because they all deny the one thing that we cannot seem to overcome, human nature.

Humans are imperfect, and it is hubris of the highest order to think that imperfect humans can create a perfect society. For example, President Obama has tried to create a society in his own image. Yet, in order to do so, he has lied so many times his speeches should be pinned to a revolving door. How could such a man with such little regard for his subjects Americans, with all of his many imperfections, ever be considered a leader who would create a perfect utopia? And what about the guy who came before Obama? Liberals are quick to point out how imperfect a man George W. Bush was. What about the next one to come along? Will that one be perfect?

The concept and the premise of the argument, are ludicrous.