Six days after the Muslims attacked America on 9/11/2001, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and declared Islam a religion of peace. I could not know, at the time, that the imbecile actually believed this. By November, American forces were in Afghanistan, and I had not yet come to any conclusion.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are rather small fish, but Iran is a larger, far more dangerous, beast. So, in 2003 when G.W. Bush sent the American army into Iraq, "a thrill went up my leg". The bullshit over weapons of mass destruction always seemed like a ruse to me (there were good reasons to attack, so why the bullshit?), but you have only to look at a map to know why the thrill. Iraq is to the west of Iran, Afghanistan is to the east of Iran, and the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, putting a powerful Navy to the south of Iran.
In other words, G.W. Bush surrounded Iran on three sides, and I was sure G.W.'s real purpose was clear. I expected to wake up one morning to the news that Marines were in Qom hanging ayatollahs and the Army was sweeping up the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) across the country while special teams were dismantling Iran's nuclear facilities which, quite unlike Saddam's vaporous WMD's, have a distinctly concrete existence.
To my bitter disappointment, none of that happened because the imbecile actually believed, and may still believe for all I know, that Islam is a religion of peace. If you base your strategies on stupid ideas, you are bound to be disappointed in the outcomes. In due course, Barack Obama became president and Iran is now a global disaster waiting to happen. (Although the Iranians are not waiting for anything. They are busy bees building up their nuclear capabilities.)
Which brings us to President Donald J. Trump, who just announced a new military initiative in Afghanistan.
No words, fit for polite company, come to mind to describe sixteen years of wasted blood and treasure in a place of no strategic value to America, and Trump appears to be doubling down. Unless Afghanistan is not the point.
Of course, G.W. and Barack had smart generals, too, but they were not about listen to their generals. They had IDEAS. But, if Donald Trump is not G.W. or Barack, and if he listens to the impressive James Mattis, his defense secretary, we might just wake up one morning to the news of American Marines in Qom.
That's my Christmas wish. That's my geopolitical pipe dream.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Climate Change And The Church of Latter Day Aztecs
With all this talk of climate change, I can't get the Aztecs out of my mind. Particularly, the Aztec religion.
The central doctrine of the Aztec religions was, "Blood fed the gods and kept the sun from falling." So, to keep the sun from falling, the Aztecs killed people. Lots and lots of people. It has been asserted, for example, that at the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over four days. Other sources say, "Nah", over four days they could not have killed more than about 4,000 victims. (Oh, ok then.)
In a good year, goes one extravagant claim, the Aztecs sacrificed 250,000 people. Others say 20,000 is the more likely figure. It's all pretty extravagant to me. And to have that many people to sacrifice, every year, the Aztecs were in a state of perpetual war with their neighbors, solely for the purpose of harvesting humans for sacrifice. You can admire one of their skull racks, a "tzompantli".
So, the Aztecs believed that if they did not spill human blood, the sun would not rise. You have to meditate on this idea, for a moment. Where could such an idea possibly come from? The sun has been "rising" over the earth every day for about, oh, four billion years. Without fail. No exception. No living creature on this planet can have any personal experience of the sun not rising, or anything like that. Except, possibly, for the solar eclipse, an event that you might---might---see once in your life in the place you live. (The solar eclipse can be perceived several times a year, somewhere on earth, but in any one spot, say Mexico City, it will be perceived, on average, about once every 350 years.)
Now, think of it. Some guy sees the sun rise and set, rise and set, rise and set, every day of his life. Until, one day, for no apparent reason, unless it is the seven minutes of a solar eclipse, he is consumed by the fear that unless he starts killing people, he will never see the sun again. (Even though the seven minutes have passed and, having done nothing, he already sees the sun, again.)
Not only does Guy Zero (like "patient zero") believe this, but he has to convince his fellow citizens of this bizarre fear. Convinced, they reorganize their entire society around this fear. An entire society dedicates its physical and spiritual energies to perpetual war with their neighbors to harvest, sacrifice and, often, eat other human beings. Consumed with this effort, there is nothing left for progress, as we understand the concept.
All this to influence a natural phenomenon over which they had no control, whatsoever. Which brings me to climate change.
The earth has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled every year for the last, oh, four billion years. No creature on earth, with a lifespan of more than a couple of years, can have any personal experience of a planet that does not warm and cool every year.
A little harder to comprehend, and yet something we understand perfectly well, is that our planet has cycled into and out of ice ages many times over the millions of years of its existence. Millions of years during which industrialization did not exist---indeed, during which human beings did not exist.
And yet, one day Al Gore is seized by the panic that if we do not completely re-organize our society the earth will---well, I'm not sure what it will do. Al used think it will get too warm, but there seems to be something wrong with that theory so we do not call it "global warming" any more. Rather, we talk of "climate change". So, Al Gore is afraid that a global climate that has been changing all his life, that has changed for millions of years will, all of sudden, do something I'm not sure what, if we don't do something, I'm not sure what.
Actually, I'm pretty sure what. Climate change appears to require of us two things: truly massive wealth transference from the First World to the Third World, and de-industrialization.
Oddly, de-industrialization has been a plan since industrialization. See "Luddite". And income distribution has been a plan since socialists first walked the earth.
In other words, it's the same old socialists and the same old luddites with their same old master plans for social engineering, this time with the excuse that you will influence a natural phenomenon over which you cannot possibly have any control, whatsoever.
Just like the Aztecs. And, just like the Aztecs, if we fall for this tripe, we will fall for some weirdo with a few men and some guns. If we are not first crushed under the weight of our own stupidity for falling for the same old hustle.
The central doctrine of the Aztec religions was, "Blood fed the gods and kept the sun from falling." So, to keep the sun from falling, the Aztecs killed people. Lots and lots of people. It has been asserted, for example, that at the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over four days. Other sources say, "Nah", over four days they could not have killed more than about 4,000 victims. (Oh, ok then.)
In a good year, goes one extravagant claim, the Aztecs sacrificed 250,000 people. Others say 20,000 is the more likely figure. It's all pretty extravagant to me. And to have that many people to sacrifice, every year, the Aztecs were in a state of perpetual war with their neighbors, solely for the purpose of harvesting humans for sacrifice. You can admire one of their skull racks, a "tzompantli".
So, the Aztecs believed that if they did not spill human blood, the sun would not rise. You have to meditate on this idea, for a moment. Where could such an idea possibly come from? The sun has been "rising" over the earth every day for about, oh, four billion years. Without fail. No exception. No living creature on this planet can have any personal experience of the sun not rising, or anything like that. Except, possibly, for the solar eclipse, an event that you might---might---see once in your life in the place you live. (The solar eclipse can be perceived several times a year, somewhere on earth, but in any one spot, say Mexico City, it will be perceived, on average, about once every 350 years.)
Now, think of it. Some guy sees the sun rise and set, rise and set, rise and set, every day of his life. Until, one day, for no apparent reason, unless it is the seven minutes of a solar eclipse, he is consumed by the fear that unless he starts killing people, he will never see the sun again. (Even though the seven minutes have passed and, having done nothing, he already sees the sun, again.)
Not only does Guy Zero (like "patient zero") believe this, but he has to convince his fellow citizens of this bizarre fear. Convinced, they reorganize their entire society around this fear. An entire society dedicates its physical and spiritual energies to perpetual war with their neighbors to harvest, sacrifice and, often, eat other human beings. Consumed with this effort, there is nothing left for progress, as we understand the concept.
All this to influence a natural phenomenon over which they had no control, whatsoever. Which brings me to climate change.
The earth has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled every year for the last, oh, four billion years. No creature on earth, with a lifespan of more than a couple of years, can have any personal experience of a planet that does not warm and cool every year.
A little harder to comprehend, and yet something we understand perfectly well, is that our planet has cycled into and out of ice ages many times over the millions of years of its existence. Millions of years during which industrialization did not exist---indeed, during which human beings did not exist.
And yet, one day Al Gore is seized by the panic that if we do not completely re-organize our society the earth will---well, I'm not sure what it will do. Al used think it will get too warm, but there seems to be something wrong with that theory so we do not call it "global warming" any more. Rather, we talk of "climate change". So, Al Gore is afraid that a global climate that has been changing all his life, that has changed for millions of years will, all of sudden, do something I'm not sure what, if we don't do something, I'm not sure what.
Actually, I'm pretty sure what. Climate change appears to require of us two things: truly massive wealth transference from the First World to the Third World, and de-industrialization.
Oddly, de-industrialization has been a plan since industrialization. See "Luddite". And income distribution has been a plan since socialists first walked the earth.
In other words, it's the same old socialists and the same old luddites with their same old master plans for social engineering, this time with the excuse that you will influence a natural phenomenon over which you cannot possibly have any control, whatsoever.
Just like the Aztecs. And, just like the Aztecs, if we fall for this tripe, we will fall for some weirdo with a few men and some guns. If we are not first crushed under the weight of our own stupidity for falling for the same old hustle.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Evolution Is Like Pork
My thoughts on the occasion of Earth Day and the March for Science.
Why does everybody know that Jews do not eat pork, and why does anybody care? It seems to be a big deal. It did not used to be a big deal. Pork was not a big deal among the Jews in that the pig was not singled out, among all other ritually unclean animals, as being uniquely unclean. The pig, not specifically named and along with other animals, merely falls into that category of animals with a split hoof that do not chew their cud. That's it.
There is nothing special about the pig, except that for the long centuries that Jews lived among their Christian hosts in central and eastern Europe, pork was the chief distinction in the dietary habits of Christians and Jews. And people tend to notice differences, no matter how small, no matter how meaningless. And such differences, the less meaningful the better, are frequently the focal points of bigotry and violence.
So now, let's think for a moment about the debate over teaching evolution in the schools. Why do we do it? Is it because evolution is true and important? I doubt it. Taxation is true and important, and vastly more relevant to the lives of most Americans, but we don't teach that. Think of it this way, would an auto mechanic be better at his work because he was taught the theory of evolution? A tax accountant? A lawyer? Not even physicists and electrical engineers would be better at their work for knowing about evolution.
Pretty much nobody needs to know the theory of evolution, except biologists. So educators are making an awful big deal of a subject that is irrelevant to most people. They talk about the teaching of evolution as if every public school child is a budding research geneticist. This is preposterous, and it requires some thought.
One of the main arguments for the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools is that American citizens should know something about the principles of science. I agree with that, but that is an argument for a general science curriculum, not for evolution. Not even for biology. Not only does biology not need to be part of a general science curriculum, but if you are teaching biology, evolution should not be part of the biology classroom.
The study of biology does not begin with evolution. Rather, you have to explore a lot of elementary biology before you have any hope of making sense of evolution. This is quite like the teaching of the theory of relativity in physics. Physics does not begin with relativity. Rather, you have a lot of work to do in physics before you can hope to understand relativity.
Absent a good scientific foundation in physics, relativity is just catechism. And, absent a good scientific foundation in biology, evolution is just catechism. So here is the position in which we find ourselves. Educators insist on teaching a subject that is
(a) unnecessary for their stated aim (conveying the principles of scientific thinking),
(b) irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Americans, and
(c) in the wrong place in the curriculum if you do insist on teaching biology;
And they are hysterical about this. If we do not teach evolution in the schools, they say, we would descend into medievalism. Hardly, so what is really going on, here? Since the teaching of the theory of evolution does not make sense on its own terms, I feel free to speculate.
I believe that evolution is a central issue in the debate over public education because it is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists. In other words, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that conflicts with, say, the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or quantum mechanics. Christians do not object to factoring polynomials or to the double-angle formula in trigonometry. Christians have no problem with any part of the general curriculum, and with no part of the science curriculum---except the theory of evolution, a theory that is wholly irrelevant to everybody except that minuscule fraction of the world population that is occupied with research in biology.
I should add that the people who care about the theory of evolution least of all, and understand it least of all, are the Leftist educators who so shrilly insist upon it. If Leftists actually understood the theory of evolution we would never hear that race is a social construct, and we would never, ever hear that gender is a social construct.
Clearly, the theory of evolution is important to the Leftists not for the science of it, but because it is a central part of their war on Christianity in particular, and on Judeo-Christian civilization in general. The theory of evolution is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists in just the way pork was the chief distinction between Christians and Jews in Medieval Europe. And, just as pork was the focus of anti-Jewish bigotry in Medieval Europe, the theory of evolution is the focus of anti-Christian bigotry in 21st century America.
And that is how evolution is like pork.
Why does everybody know that Jews do not eat pork, and why does anybody care? It seems to be a big deal. It did not used to be a big deal. Pork was not a big deal among the Jews in that the pig was not singled out, among all other ritually unclean animals, as being uniquely unclean. The pig, not specifically named and along with other animals, merely falls into that category of animals with a split hoof that do not chew their cud. That's it.
There is nothing special about the pig, except that for the long centuries that Jews lived among their Christian hosts in central and eastern Europe, pork was the chief distinction in the dietary habits of Christians and Jews. And people tend to notice differences, no matter how small, no matter how meaningless. And such differences, the less meaningful the better, are frequently the focal points of bigotry and violence.
So now, let's think for a moment about the debate over teaching evolution in the schools. Why do we do it? Is it because evolution is true and important? I doubt it. Taxation is true and important, and vastly more relevant to the lives of most Americans, but we don't teach that. Think of it this way, would an auto mechanic be better at his work because he was taught the theory of evolution? A tax accountant? A lawyer? Not even physicists and electrical engineers would be better at their work for knowing about evolution.
Pretty much nobody needs to know the theory of evolution, except biologists. So educators are making an awful big deal of a subject that is irrelevant to most people. They talk about the teaching of evolution as if every public school child is a budding research geneticist. This is preposterous, and it requires some thought.
One of the main arguments for the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools is that American citizens should know something about the principles of science. I agree with that, but that is an argument for a general science curriculum, not for evolution. Not even for biology. Not only does biology not need to be part of a general science curriculum, but if you are teaching biology, evolution should not be part of the biology classroom.
The study of biology does not begin with evolution. Rather, you have to explore a lot of elementary biology before you have any hope of making sense of evolution. This is quite like the teaching of the theory of relativity in physics. Physics does not begin with relativity. Rather, you have a lot of work to do in physics before you can hope to understand relativity.
Absent a good scientific foundation in physics, relativity is just catechism. And, absent a good scientific foundation in biology, evolution is just catechism. So here is the position in which we find ourselves. Educators insist on teaching a subject that is
(a) unnecessary for their stated aim (conveying the principles of scientific thinking),
(b) irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Americans, and
(c) in the wrong place in the curriculum if you do insist on teaching biology;
And they are hysterical about this. If we do not teach evolution in the schools, they say, we would descend into medievalism. Hardly, so what is really going on, here? Since the teaching of the theory of evolution does not make sense on its own terms, I feel free to speculate.
I believe that evolution is a central issue in the debate over public education because it is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists. In other words, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that conflicts with, say, the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or quantum mechanics. Christians do not object to factoring polynomials or to the double-angle formula in trigonometry. Christians have no problem with any part of the general curriculum, and with no part of the science curriculum---except the theory of evolution, a theory that is wholly irrelevant to everybody except that minuscule fraction of the world population that is occupied with research in biology.
I should add that the people who care about the theory of evolution least of all, and understand it least of all, are the Leftist educators who so shrilly insist upon it. If Leftists actually understood the theory of evolution we would never hear that race is a social construct, and we would never, ever hear that gender is a social construct.
Clearly, the theory of evolution is important to the Leftists not for the science of it, but because it is a central part of their war on Christianity in particular, and on Judeo-Christian civilization in general. The theory of evolution is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists in just the way pork was the chief distinction between Christians and Jews in Medieval Europe. And, just as pork was the focus of anti-Jewish bigotry in Medieval Europe, the theory of evolution is the focus of anti-Christian bigotry in 21st century America.
And that is how evolution is like pork.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
The Chemical Weapons of Bashar al Assad
We read in the NY Times that the Obamarrhoids are starting to think that maybe, just maybe, they were deluded in thinking that Barack Obama sweet talked chemical weapons out of the hands of Bashar al Assad. Let's think about this.
Bashar al Assad did not decide one day to attack "his" people. Possibly, the initial unrest in 2011 was agitation for civil rights, but that unrest was quickly appropriated by Sunni fighters and converted into a jihad against the Alawites.
Bashar al Assad is the leader of the Alawites. Contrary to popular belief in the West, Alawites are not a denomination of Shia Islam. They may have started that way in the 9th century, but their syncretistic faith, that includes a strong resemblance to the triune god of the Christians, puts them beyond the pale in the eyes of mainstream Islam.
Depending on their mood, Muslims view Alawites either as heretics or apostates. Either quality is perilous for the Alawites. Historically the Alawites were severly oppressed and very poor. Only by the machinations of the colonial French did the Alawites become a military elite and, after colonialism, a ruling elite. And that is intolerable to the Muslims.
If al Assad loses the fight, there will be a genocide of the Alawites, that is why he will do anything to win. There is no atrocity he will not commit. He will fight to the death. He will make a pact with the Devil, if he has to. Making deals with Russians and Iranians was a no brainer for him.
Into this grisly scenario enters Barack H. Obama with a fetish for chemical weapons. Barack wanted al Assad to give up one important weapon in exchange for...what? Was Barack going to send in the Marines to protect the Alawites? Was he going to give aerial support (as the Russians ultimately did)? Was there going to be an endless stream of military supplies and financial support? What, exactly, was Barack offering, beyond words on paper?
Bashar al Assad was bargaining for the salvation of his people, and the unserious Barack Obama was talking shit. And today, the Obamarrhoids are scratching their...heads...and starting to think that maybe, just maybe, that deal they thought they had with al Assad did not go quite like they thought it went.
It is hard to fathom just what kind of a nitwit you would have to be to think that Bashar al Assad would gamble the safety of his people on the empty assurances of a transparent poseur. This is what I thought in 2014 when the oafish John Kerry said, "...we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out", and today the NY Times admits it.
Bashar al Assad did not decide one day to attack "his" people. Possibly, the initial unrest in 2011 was agitation for civil rights, but that unrest was quickly appropriated by Sunni fighters and converted into a jihad against the Alawites.
Bashar al Assad is the leader of the Alawites. Contrary to popular belief in the West, Alawites are not a denomination of Shia Islam. They may have started that way in the 9th century, but their syncretistic faith, that includes a strong resemblance to the triune god of the Christians, puts them beyond the pale in the eyes of mainstream Islam.
Depending on their mood, Muslims view Alawites either as heretics or apostates. Either quality is perilous for the Alawites. Historically the Alawites were severly oppressed and very poor. Only by the machinations of the colonial French did the Alawites become a military elite and, after colonialism, a ruling elite. And that is intolerable to the Muslims.
If al Assad loses the fight, there will be a genocide of the Alawites, that is why he will do anything to win. There is no atrocity he will not commit. He will fight to the death. He will make a pact with the Devil, if he has to. Making deals with Russians and Iranians was a no brainer for him.
Into this grisly scenario enters Barack H. Obama with a fetish for chemical weapons. Barack wanted al Assad to give up one important weapon in exchange for...what? Was Barack going to send in the Marines to protect the Alawites? Was he going to give aerial support (as the Russians ultimately did)? Was there going to be an endless stream of military supplies and financial support? What, exactly, was Barack offering, beyond words on paper?
Bashar al Assad was bargaining for the salvation of his people, and the unserious Barack Obama was talking shit. And today, the Obamarrhoids are scratching their...heads...and starting to think that maybe, just maybe, that deal they thought they had with al Assad did not go quite like they thought it went.
It is hard to fathom just what kind of a nitwit you would have to be to think that Bashar al Assad would gamble the safety of his people on the empty assurances of a transparent poseur. This is what I thought in 2014 when the oafish John Kerry said, "...we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out", and today the NY Times admits it.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
The Paradox of Socialism
For a long time, I had been contemplating a long essay on the paradox of socialism. And then, it came to me.
Like the Laws of Thermodynamics, capitalism is difficult to understand but it is always true and you can see it working.
Like the idea of the flat earth, socialism is easy to understand but it is not true and you can see it failing.
Over and over, people choose that which is easy to understand and they reject the plain evidence of their "lying eyes".
Socialism is a testament to the power of propaganda and ideology over reality.
The real mystery is how a market-based liberal democracy arose in the first place. That it lasted this long is astonishing. How much longer? I am not optimistic. It's not even that capitalists are bad at propaganda while socialists are very good at it. Capitalists aren't even fighting the propaganda war. They seem to think that only facts and logic are required.
They could not be more wrong.
Like the Laws of Thermodynamics, capitalism is difficult to understand but it is always true and you can see it working.
Like the idea of the flat earth, socialism is easy to understand but it is not true and you can see it failing.
Over and over, people choose that which is easy to understand and they reject the plain evidence of their "lying eyes".
Socialism is a testament to the power of propaganda and ideology over reality.
The real mystery is how a market-based liberal democracy arose in the first place. That it lasted this long is astonishing. How much longer? I am not optimistic. It's not even that capitalists are bad at propaganda while socialists are very good at it. Capitalists aren't even fighting the propaganda war. They seem to think that only facts and logic are required.
They could not be more wrong.
The New York Times to The Defense
This is how the "New York Times" runs interference for communism. Hugo Chavez was not a "leftist populist", whatever that is. He was a plain vanilla, garden variety communist, like Bernie Sanders.
Chavez admired the murderer Che Guevara, he believed "the military should act in the interests of the working classes when the ruling classes were perceived as corrupt" (the ruling classes are always "perceived" corrupt, unless they are communists), and he founded the "Fifth Republic Movement" political party which merged with the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela", which Chavez also led. Hugo Chavez was friends with Fidel Castro and other communists in Latin America, and he despised Augusto Pinochet and the United States.
Finally, consider what Chavez actually did while in power. He nationalized "key" industries and created "participatory democratic Communal Councils". Oh, what's that? Participatory democratic Communal Councils are soviets. Soviets, or workers councils, are just good, old fashion Trotskyism.
Honestly, you really don't have to go through the weeds of socialist theory, and the historical record on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. All you have to know is that Venezuela, one of the world's largest exporters of oil, suffers from chronic shortages of gasoline and electric power, in addition to shortages of all other kinds, like food and medicine. Shortages are the hallmark of socialism. Socialism fabricates shortages.
Of course, other political economies can suffer shortages from time to time. Shortages can arise naturally from floods, droughts, earthquakes, pestilence, or whatever "acts of god". There was, for example, the famous Irish potato famine, caused by the potato blight. Only socialist countries manufacture shortages.
For example, between 1958 and 1962, about 50 MILLION Chinese STARVED TO DEATH in the greatest MAN MADE famine known to history. No drought, no flood, no earthquake, no pestilence, no infestations, nothing. They died of socialism. Starting in the late 19th century, colonial Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Robert Mugabe transformed post-colonial Rhodesia into communist Zimbabwe and turned a "breadbasket into a basket case". One could go on. And on, and on, and on.
Socialism manufactures shortages from the large and consequential, like shortages of food and medicines, to the sort of minor shortages that just grind down your will to live, like shortages of fresh fruit, toilet paper, sugar, soap, etc.
Any time you hear of shortages, absent some "act of god" the most reasonable assumption is that socialism is at work. For a domestic example, there was no housing shortage in New York City or any other major American city, until price controls were imposed on rents. Today, New Yorkers have the pleasure of paying inflated prices for inferior housing, if they can find housing. This is the inevitable result of price controls, a standard socialist practice.
When Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1999, I predicted shortages. Of course, I did not know exactly when or exactly how, but I knew shortages were coming. And so it is. Venezuela was no paradise before Hugo Chavez, and the people were desperate to improve their lives. Too bad for them, they got communism, instead.
The New York Times knows all this. So, why do they try to misdirect their readers ("Oh, look! A leftist populist!")? Because, dear reader, they are communists. They will misdirect you on Venezuela and they will misdirect you on Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and on any other person and on any other subject to further the cause of the Revolution.
For the New York Times as for every communist revolutionary, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution."
Chavez admired the murderer Che Guevara, he believed "the military should act in the interests of the working classes when the ruling classes were perceived as corrupt" (the ruling classes are always "perceived" corrupt, unless they are communists), and he founded the "Fifth Republic Movement" political party which merged with the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela", which Chavez also led. Hugo Chavez was friends with Fidel Castro and other communists in Latin America, and he despised Augusto Pinochet and the United States.
Finally, consider what Chavez actually did while in power. He nationalized "key" industries and created "participatory democratic Communal Councils". Oh, what's that? Participatory democratic Communal Councils are soviets. Soviets, or workers councils, are just good, old fashion Trotskyism.
Honestly, you really don't have to go through the weeds of socialist theory, and the historical record on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. All you have to know is that Venezuela, one of the world's largest exporters of oil, suffers from chronic shortages of gasoline and electric power, in addition to shortages of all other kinds, like food and medicine. Shortages are the hallmark of socialism. Socialism fabricates shortages.
Of course, other political economies can suffer shortages from time to time. Shortages can arise naturally from floods, droughts, earthquakes, pestilence, or whatever "acts of god". There was, for example, the famous Irish potato famine, caused by the potato blight. Only socialist countries manufacture shortages.
For example, between 1958 and 1962, about 50 MILLION Chinese STARVED TO DEATH in the greatest MAN MADE famine known to history. No drought, no flood, no earthquake, no pestilence, no infestations, nothing. They died of socialism. Starting in the late 19th century, colonial Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Robert Mugabe transformed post-colonial Rhodesia into communist Zimbabwe and turned a "breadbasket into a basket case". One could go on. And on, and on, and on.
Socialism manufactures shortages from the large and consequential, like shortages of food and medicines, to the sort of minor shortages that just grind down your will to live, like shortages of fresh fruit, toilet paper, sugar, soap, etc.
Any time you hear of shortages, absent some "act of god" the most reasonable assumption is that socialism is at work. For a domestic example, there was no housing shortage in New York City or any other major American city, until price controls were imposed on rents. Today, New Yorkers have the pleasure of paying inflated prices for inferior housing, if they can find housing. This is the inevitable result of price controls, a standard socialist practice.
When Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1999, I predicted shortages. Of course, I did not know exactly when or exactly how, but I knew shortages were coming. And so it is. Venezuela was no paradise before Hugo Chavez, and the people were desperate to improve their lives. Too bad for them, they got communism, instead.
The New York Times knows all this. So, why do they try to misdirect their readers ("Oh, look! A leftist populist!")? Because, dear reader, they are communists. They will misdirect you on Venezuela and they will misdirect you on Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and on any other person and on any other subject to further the cause of the Revolution.
For the New York Times as for every communist revolutionary, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution."
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Donald Trump: A Man For Our Times
If you can get past the snark, the insufferable Paul Krugman is, unbeknownst to himself, actually groping his way to an important point, even if he never gets there: it is depressingly clear the Republicans are "A Party Not Ready to Govern". Why?
Consider Obamacare. For seven years the Republicans have been chanting "repeal and replace." So how, exactly, should they go about doing that?
I imagine that early on they would have formed a working group. That group would have consulted with think tanks, economists, lawyers, and actuaries. Seven years is enough time to put together a serious plan. Likely, they would have written pro-forma legislation. And, over seven years, Republican leadership would have had time to educate, inform, cajole, and sometimes threaten their membership to get on board with the plan, for when the time came.
Amazingly, they did none of that, and that requires---nay, demands---an explanation. I, of course, have no such explanation, but I do have an hypothesis. To paraphrase The Three Stooges, "Hypothesis means I'm guessing and I have a college degree."
Like most of us, I suspect the Republicans are surprised to even be in power. But even if they did not expect to be in power, they should have had blueprints for their idea of the ideal health care system. In this way, they would have had some plan of action for influencing the development of Obamacare.
The Republicans have nothing. Krugman implies they have nothing because they are idiots. He writes, "they have no idea how to turn their slogans into actual legislation, because they've never bothered to understand how anything important works."
That is just a stupid remark. I think the Republicans do not have a plan of action on health care because they never intended to repeal and replace Obamacare. I think they like Obamacare just fine. In the matter of health care, the Republicans and the Democrats are as one.
Does that seem unlikely? It should not. We have exactly the same thing regarding immigration. Year after year, at least since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the American people wanted the borders controlled and immigration reduced. Year after year the Republicans would promise. And, year after year, nothing would get done. At some point, you have to conclude that the Republicans are happy with things just the way they are---just as happy as the Democrats. As with Obamacare so with open borders, the Republicans and the Democrats are as one.
Oh, you still don't believe me? Then take it from "Jeb!" Bush,
Consider Obamacare. For seven years the Republicans have been chanting "repeal and replace." So how, exactly, should they go about doing that?
I imagine that early on they would have formed a working group. That group would have consulted with think tanks, economists, lawyers, and actuaries. Seven years is enough time to put together a serious plan. Likely, they would have written pro-forma legislation. And, over seven years, Republican leadership would have had time to educate, inform, cajole, and sometimes threaten their membership to get on board with the plan, for when the time came.
Amazingly, they did none of that, and that requires---nay, demands---an explanation. I, of course, have no such explanation, but I do have an hypothesis. To paraphrase The Three Stooges, "Hypothesis means I'm guessing and I have a college degree."
Like most of us, I suspect the Republicans are surprised to even be in power. But even if they did not expect to be in power, they should have had blueprints for their idea of the ideal health care system. In this way, they would have had some plan of action for influencing the development of Obamacare.
The Republicans have nothing. Krugman implies they have nothing because they are idiots. He writes, "they have no idea how to turn their slogans into actual legislation, because they've never bothered to understand how anything important works."
That is just a stupid remark. I think the Republicans do not have a plan of action on health care because they never intended to repeal and replace Obamacare. I think they like Obamacare just fine. In the matter of health care, the Republicans and the Democrats are as one.
Does that seem unlikely? It should not. We have exactly the same thing regarding immigration. Year after year, at least since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the American people wanted the borders controlled and immigration reduced. Year after year the Republicans would promise. And, year after year, nothing would get done. At some point, you have to conclude that the Republicans are happy with things just the way they are---just as happy as the Democrats. As with Obamacare so with open borders, the Republicans and the Democrats are as one.
Oh, you still don't believe me? Then take it from "Jeb!" Bush,
many who illegally come to the United States do so out of an "act of love"
Don't you just want to punch him in the mouth? I think a lot of Americans finally caught on to the evident fact that there is no important difference between Republicans and Democrats, and that is why Donald Trump swept the field during the Republican primary elections.
Furthermore, this explains why so many Republicans share "Trump derangement syndrome" with Democrats. They like things just the way they are, and they hate Donald Trump for upsetting the apple cart. The election of Donald Trump is as much a defeat for the Republicans as for the Democrats.
The failure of the recent effort to repeal and replace Obamacare merely confirms my conviction that Donald Trump is "A man for our times." We have an apple cart that needs overturning in the worst way, somebody has to do it, and it looks more and more like Trump is our guy.
Furthermore, this explains why so many Republicans share "Trump derangement syndrome" with Democrats. They like things just the way they are, and they hate Donald Trump for upsetting the apple cart. The election of Donald Trump is as much a defeat for the Republicans as for the Democrats.
The failure of the recent effort to repeal and replace Obamacare merely confirms my conviction that Donald Trump is "A man for our times." We have an apple cart that needs overturning in the worst way, somebody has to do it, and it looks more and more like Trump is our guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)