I pledge allegiance to the supercomputer of the United States of Data Mining. And to the dictatorship for which it stands, one nation, under Obama, unencryptable, with tyranny and injustice for all.
(Note to readers: there are some issues with the formatting in this post. The font changes size and weather or not it is superscript. I have removed some of the many problems by looking through the html code. I don't want to continue to look to fix the rest of the problems; if I wanted to be a computer programmer, then I would be. My apologies if the poor formatting makes the text harder to read than it should be. My suggestion for prospective bloggers here.)
Many people who talk to people on the left get compared to Nazis and to Hitler. They are told repeatedly that Nazis and fascists are far-right ideologies.
In an attempt to read about Nazis I read much of the Wikipedia page on Nazism. I wanted to see if the actual policies of the Nazis would compare more to the left or right. One point I found was that Nazism is called "far-right" repeatedly throughout the page.
There isn't really a listing of specific policies, the page more describes the sorts of things favored, and opposed, by Nazis.
An interesting paragraph that describes the ideology's politics:
The German Nazi FührerAdolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name, as Hitler at the time preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".[15]
Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined
socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a
community.[15] Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism. He claimed that true socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims of Marxism,
and stated that the "Marxians have stolen the term and confused its
meaning" and "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism."[16] Nazism denounced both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism.[17] Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of a national solidarity that would transcend class differences.[18][19] Like other fascist movements, Nazism supported the outlawing of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded as a threat to national unity.[20] Instead, the state controlled and approved wage and salary levels.[20]
There are sections of the page describing the Nazis' dislike of communists and sections on their dislike of capitalists.
Part of the "anti-communist" section:
In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do
with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is
not."[146] In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".[147]
Part of the "anti-capitalist" section:
Adolf Hitler,
both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism,
arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitanrentier class.[150] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[136]
Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[150]
Hitler said in 1927, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's
capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically
weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human
being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and
performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all
conditions."[151]
One interesting thing I discovered was calling Heinrich Himmler "conservative" and later saying that he opposed too much conservatism and capitalism.
Other Nazis — especially more radical ones such as Gregor Strasser, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler — rejected Italian Fascism, accusing it of being too conservative or capitalist.[93]
So, were Nazis far -right or far-left?
The authors of this Wikepedia page want to claim that the Nazis drew their ideology from both sides. Hitler claimed that he got his ideology from both sides and that both sides are wrong.
Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[23][24] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:
Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly
insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy
necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth
is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the
Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable
cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were
able to rob the nation of its arms.[25]
Note that Hitler did not like the right because they were too nice to the Jews.
Hitler thought that Nazism was from the left and the right, moderate? Maybe we should conclude that it is the moderates in America that have ideologies most similar to the Nazis.
My conclusion is that despite repeated claims of Nazis being far right, that wasn't really the case. Here's a quote that is a fine example for showing that while Hitler favored private ownership of things, he wanted to control what the people did with the things that they privately owned.
Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it
encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted
that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather
than "parasitical".[136]
Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use;
if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could
nationalize it.[137] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[138] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.[139][140]
To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited.[141] Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed.[citation needed]
That was achieved by granting business monopoly rights to marketing
boards, to control production and prices with a quota system.[142]
If Nazis were "far-right" because they supported private ownership and then controlled what was done with the privately owned things, then who needs socialism?
It would seem to me that the Olympic events were meant as contests of people's physical ability. Competitions of physical ability are: running, jumping, swimming, shooting, wrestling, boxing.
How is it that wrestling is gone but rhythmic gymnastics is apparently a sport? What is rhythmic gymnastics? Don't tell me; I don't care.
I watched an event, or two, last summer, while in a bar with the tv on. But I don't have any interest in watching somthing with stupid events like synchronized swimming. Even things like canoeing would seem to be more about who has the best canoe, not about whoever is most able to run fast.
The above linked article mentions that wrestling may have been removed becasue a few of the countries on the committee don't wrestle well.
That brings me to car racing. I wouldn't mind watching some sort of car racing. Formula 1 sounds interesting, particularly the Monaco Gran Prix, but all of the races take place outside of the U.S. Apparently in the U.S. we have IndyCar. Things I know about IndyCar: 1.) Danica Patrick looks good. Is she a full time NASCAR driver now? Don't tell me; I don't care. If Formula 1 and IndyCar were combined, most of the races would still need to be out side of the U.S. This is good for seeing the world and getting racers from everywhere, but I doubt that maybe two races in the U.S. a year are enough to maintain our interest when we have enough disposable income to have our own whole series here.
Its too bad that I'd need to cross an ocean to watch touring car racing, that sounds better than watching fiberglass bodies on aluminum tube frames go 'round in circles.
I had a point when I started writing this, but I seem to have forgotten what it is. Ohwell.
RWC&G doesn't seem to think that Obamacare is going to be all that much fun for doctors:
Quick doctors/hospitals, who wants to get to administer
time-consuming experimental or at least palliative care to this
incurably-diseased patient on a ‘fee for health’ basis? Don’t all raise
your hands at once. Meanwhile, I sense some good business opportunities
for PR and advertising firms offering services to doctors helping them
sign up a bunch of ‘healthy’ patients that they can almost-never-see but
regularly bill for…’Dear Health Ins. Co.: I kept this 19-year-old
athletic male healthy again this week. No visits/tests/treatments. Send
me $370 please!’
I am getting more page views and lots more comment spam on this blog. I find the Blogger Captcha to be tedious and I don't like the idea of needing to sign in to comment here.
I think I may have marked a legitimate comment as spam becasue it was posted by "anonymous."
If you want to comment, then put a name, any name, in the name section for the comments.
Signing your name at the bottom of a comment that was posted by "anonymous" is more irritating than helpful.
We can all see that these two programs are stupid and we can cut that spending.
However when someone proposes cutting spending what we hear from our president, and others, is that cutting any sort of spending will result in firing teachers.
In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t
agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’
worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year.
These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military
readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, and energy, and
medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us
hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans,
business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts,
known here in Washington as the sequester, are a really bad idea.
We have a tremendous deficit and are nearing cutting something like 3% with the sequester. We are set to cut 3% and the president says that that would devastate education.
This is known as the Washington Monument Syndrome.
Responsible person: "We need to cut some from your budget."
Government employee: "We obviously can't not redecorate our offices this year. (implied) We'll need to close the Washington Monument, Yellowstone Park, and fire lots of firemen and teachers."
Take note next time you listen to your cities' or states' budget talks. Some politicians will call for spending cuts. And others will claim that that can only mean that they will need to fire policemen and teachers. They will say that there is no other way to reduce spending.
Before I explain why he is wrong I'd like to say that it is good to hear from the other side. It is good to see that someone is willing to write things that many of his readers are likely to disagree with. Its good that ROK is not an echo chamber. And I support his writing something that I disagree with. Any insults in the comments to that post show that he made his point well enough that those who insulted him had nothing productive to say.
That being said, Tuthmosis is totally wrong in his argument.
(Note that two videos were included in his post and not copied here.)
((Because I use other quotes, Tuthmosis' remarks are indented and italicized.))
It’s difficult to deny that there’s a strong conservative leaning to
the manosphere. This ranges from anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian
types on the one hand, to a much uglier streak of ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other. For our
purposes today, we’ll concern ourselves with the former category—and its
immediate ideological neighbors. Whatever the case, I can’t count the
number of times I’ve read “liberal,” “left,” or “progressive” as a pejorative in a manosphere article, tweet, or forum post.
Firstly I think that " the right" as it exists currently in America consists of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and some libertarians. If someone on the right is called one of those three names, or conservative, or a righty, then he will likely not complain.
The same is not true for those on the "left." And do note that he put the lefty names in quotes, but not "libertarian." People on the political left have wanted to have themselves called all sorts of names: liberals, progressives, lefties, socialists, communists, labor, etc.
I'm told that "liberal" was once the favored term for the American left. But now many prefer "progressive." What, exactly, is the difference?
Apparently some progressives don't want to be called liberals, or lefties, or socialists, or communists. And communists don't want to be called liberals...
Would someone on the left (is that a pejorative too?) explain the difference between them?
If those of us on the right only called the lot of you "progressives" would that be okay? Do you prefer another term? Once you pick your preferred term, would you mind not changing it every so often?
He has divided the right into "anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian
types" and "ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalist".
If this article was meant to promote understanding, reasonableness and avoiding pejoratives, then why the name calling?
Are there "ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalists"? There could be. I'm not aware of having ever met one, but let's assume that they are there. Is that meant to describe people who go to church and oppose gay marriage and abortion?
Not all people who go to church are ignorant of history and science, you know.
As for white nationalists... I don't think that I'm allowed to have an opinion on race; I'm a white male.
The two issues that seem to make up the social debate are abortion and gay marriage. I've tried to rationalise abortion. I've thought about it and tried to consider it from all angles. But I cannot find a way to argue that abortion is something other than murdering the most innocent people (or future people). Does that make me an ""ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?
Gays are able to live together and do what they want, and almost no one is going to bother them. I'm not sure I understand what it is that the gays want in this matter. From what I understand they want to get married and flaunt it in the faces of those who think that it is sinful.
The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of
society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the
so-called liberal (monolithic) left. The capital-L “Left,” the myth
goes, is responsible for feminism, for an activist state that unfairly
levels the playing field between men and women by force, and who enables
and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and
indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity.
The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists.
"The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of
society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the
so-called liberal (monolithic) left."
Should we pity your side for this? Many on the right would claim the opposite is true as well.
For example: every time that there is some bad market news it is blamed on the free market. And America has no free market. For starters, the U.S. Code is more than 300,000 pages of laws affecting every issue in our lives. And we have a Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed controls the money supply and interest rates. The government is setting the rules and the scoring system (money) and yet the free market gets blamed for bad economic news.
"The capital-L “Left,”"
I do hope someone on the left takes up my request ant tells me what it is that those of you on the left want to be called. Please don't change it too often once you decide.
"The capital-L “Left,” the myth
goes, is responsible for feminism,"
It is difficult to prove that the left is responsible for feminism because I don't know what it is "the left" was when feminism is founded. Because the left has not nailed down a specific term for themselves and a definition is is difficult to understand what it is that someone on the left would accept as being on the left. (This is why, I suspect, the left does not use one term for itself and why we won't see one term used to describe them all being acceptable to them. For the record, those of us "on the right" are cool with being called "on the right.")
In an attempt to show that feminism does indeed come from the left, I would ask: who do modern American feminists generally vote for: democrats (the left party) or republicans (the right party)?
NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women,
from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include
welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing,
social security and pension reform, and much more.
Does anyone on the left want to claim that the economic position for noted feminist organization NOW is anything other than lefty?
"for an activist state"
I cannot conceive of how the left could be described as anything other than advocating an activist state. Must I define each word?
Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one
who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the
federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. (Applause.) We should be able to
get that done. (Applause.)
Would someone on the left explain how advocating that the government actively interfere with employment wages is something other than activism?
" that unfairly
levels the playing field between men and women by force,"
I am really trying to be reasonable with this rebuttal. But I cannot express in words how inconceivable I find it that someone could claim that it is not the left that is responsible for feminism and leveling the gender playing field by force.
Not only do those on the left not want a single term and definition to define them, they are not willing to admit to the things that their side does.
After Tuthmosis' opening paragraph I attempted to rationalize some beliefs from some of those on the right. I accept that some on the right want to forcefully oppose gay marriage. Tuthmosis is unwilling to even admit to what the left has supported and is supporting. I attempted to rationalize my sides' faults away. He is unwilling to accept the ownership of his sides faults.
It could be because one side is creative and one side is logical. We may not think the same ways about things. It seems that the left and right are speaking different languages.
As clearly as I can: the left and feminists support each other. See: feminist orgainsations' political support for lefty candidates.
The left is responsible for leveling the gender playing field by force. See: the lefts' support for Title IX.
"and who enables
and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and
indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity.
The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists."
Who gets the votes from short haired feminists: the righty presidential candidates (such as: W and ?) or lefty presidential candidates (such as Clinton and Obama)?
Truth be told, this isn’t entirely inaccurate. Many of the supporters of those very things describe themselves
as liberals or progressives. Historically speaking, feminism
originated—and was advanced—by members of the political left. Today’s
self-branded progressives and liberals support candidates of the
ostensibly liberal faction, the Democratic Party. Despite all that,
problems arise when you start to unpack that over-simplified
characterization.
Note that what I have written previously is an oversimplification.
Note also that he continues to avoid being willing to accept that feminism comes from the left.
Note that perhaps the most progressive U.S. president ever was a vocal supporter of woman's suffrage as it became law.
"President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill."
There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those
movements or fit those descriptions. The left is a diverse lot—one
that’s become as ideologically fragmented as the right has in recent
decades. Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of
politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than
subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right. One problem
is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally
left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been
blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points.
"There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those
movements or fit those descriptions."
Fair enough. Some on the right oppose being legally forced to fill abortion prescriptions despite their moral opposition. But they are just "ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalists", and they totally belong to the right. Whereas the unfortunate parts of the left are not really a part of the left.
"Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of
politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than
subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right."
Even if everyone on the left does not support feminism, it is a part of the left. Even though not everyone on the right supports a Christianity,church goers are a part of the right.
Even though I personally disagree with a lot of what Rick Santorum thinks, I accept that he is part of the right.
In the same manner, those of you on the left should accept feminists as being part of the left, even if you are a lefty who disagrees with feminism.
"One problem
is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally
left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been
blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points."
This is true for both sides. Accept that flawed persons on your side are on your side.
Feminists are progressives.
What’s more, many of the people conventionally lumped into the left
aren’t very “left” at all. Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of
the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party
writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any
historical or global measure. The notions of “right” and “left” have,
quite simply, steadily drifted right in the United States over the past
decades. Dwight Eisenhower, the famous example goes, couldn’t even get
nominated in the Democratic Party today, never mind his own party.
I don't care about what the global measure is.
Barack Obama has overseen the partial nationalization of our healthcare system and the nationalization of GM.
We really do seem to be talking different languages.
George W Bush is a member of the right. Despite his overspending and over-enthusiasm in federal interference in our education system he is is of the right.
Barack Obama is a member of the left. Despite Guantanamo Bay still being open, despite U.S. troops still being abroad, he is of the left.
I truly cannot conceive of how someone can claim that Obama is not a lefty. I begin to wonder if the whole post was a joke and if I am being too serious. Lots of writers sem to try this kind of joke, and I never catch it.
It is true that past republicans had political positions that are not the same as the republican party's positions today.
Short U.S. history lesson:
In the late 1800's both main political parties supported a limited federal government. My second favorite U.S. president was a democrat: Grover Cleveland.
Currently both political parties are steadfastly in support of keeping the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, at least in some form. None of these things are right, by any measure. And yet their continuance is supported by both parties.
The history lesson conclusion: both parties have often been similar and their average point has raged all across the political spectrum. But more government in the economy is always the left, and less government economically is always the right.
Wikipedia on Cleveland:
His battles for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.[1] Cleveland won praise for his honesty, independence, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism.[2] Cleveland relentlessly fought political corruption,
patronage, and bossism. Indeed, as a reformer his prestige was so
strong that the reform wing of the Republican Party, called "Mugwumps", largely bolted the GOP ticket and swung to his support in 1884.
I once heard that Grover Cleveland is Ron Paul's favorite president.
Another Cleveland quote:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and
I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government
ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in
no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent
tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty
should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson
should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the
government, the government should not support the people. The
friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to
relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly
and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the
expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens
the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the
indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which
strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.[96]
Would the democrats nominate him today? (Off topic: if you want to start a blog, use wordpress. Changing the size of the font in this line is not worth the 10 minutes it would take for me to do so. I can make it smaller, or much too big, but not the same size as the other text, without re-copy and pasting the quote repeatedly and typing and retyping that line repeatedly.)
A quote from Grover Cleveland that says that both democrats and republicans opposed a national income tax, at that time:
Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government
have by repeated and authoritative declarations condemned the condition
of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary
revenue, and have in the most solemn manner promised its correction; and
neither as citizens nor partisans are our countrymen in a mood to
condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.
He veto'd bills because they weren't, then, the job of the government.
Yet, the average man (and member of manosphere) has, would, and will
benefit from wide array of the progressive politics of an activist
state. I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water
regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.” Regulation,
of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed
throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have
prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have
set America irretrievably back in recent years. The cynical tactic of
dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to
fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,”
has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the
state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever
is currently running it.
Lots of problems with this paragraph. But it is good to see that he admits that, at least, many regulations that interfere with our lives come from the left. We are getting closer to a definition of the left.
"I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water
regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”"
Economist Walter Williams would refer to someone who says this as a "bad economist" because only the seen has been observed not the unseen.
What was the unseen cost of making seatbelts mandatory? We don't know because the answer is unseen. What advancements in car safety have we missed out on because seatbelt laws have prevented advancements in car safety? We'll never know. Car companies were forced to install them and we are forced to wear them.
Note that that is more government interference in our lives and Tuthmosis admits that, at least, this part of more government is of the left.
More government = more left
He puts the invisible hand of the free market in quotes and writes it in such a way as to be dismissive of the idea.
Let's expand on his seatbelt thought. What he is saying is that without government laws (which come from the left) no car company would bother with car safety. He is saying that when if cars were all very dangerous, then people would not choose to buy the cars that are safer.
He's saying that the government knows what the best car safety technology is. And they will require car companies to implement those technologies because those lefty politicians care about safety and the big bad car companies don't care about making its customers happy by making cars that are safe. (Note: barring government interference, private companies make money by providing customers with things that the customers want to buy. Customers are not fans of buying things that they don't like.)
What Tuthmosis is saying is that politicians, particularly lefty politicians, know more about car safety, food processing, and water than do the people who make cars, butcher meat, and drill water wells.
What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians know more about the aspects of your life than you do.
What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians, like the one in the following video, should be encouraged to interfere more in the way that you, and everyone else, conducts our lives and does our jobs.
(Do note that Hank Johnson is a democrat, and a lefty, progressive, liberal politician.)
Tuthmosis says that that politician knows more about car safety than does car manufacturers and car buyers.
Tuthmosis says that Rep. Hank knows more about preparing the food you eat than the people who grow it and the people who eat it do.
Tuthmosis says that Rep. Johnson knows more about water clarity than the scientists who test it and the people who drink it.
Tuthmosis says that this liberal, progressive should interfere more with your life, because he knows more about how to run your life than you do.
Watch it again and understand that this is the sort of person who Tuthmosis would like to see make more safety laws that affect your life:
"Regulation,
of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed
throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have
prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have
set America irretrievably back in recent years."
He is blaming our current crisis on deregulation and the free market.
I shall try to explain this slowly:
We, in America, do not have a free market.
We do have a Federal Reserve.
The U.S. Federal Reserve determines how much our money is worth.
The value of money affects every business decision made in our so called "free market."
The Federal Reserve determines the interest rate.
The Fed's interest rate is a number that is the measurement by which all companies compare their own rates of interest.
Businesses' financial data is written in words whose value were determined by the Fed (money).
Note also that there is not an aspect of your life that does not have a matching federal law. With "free markets" like this, who needs communism?
"The cynical tactic of
dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to
fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,”
has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the
state."
Pick anything that the government does that you think that it does well and I will prove otherwise.
The last time someone challenged me on the subject of government competance, she suggested that the government runs our roads.
She seems to think that the 40,000 deaths that occur on U.S. roads each year is an acceptable good number, and an example of how well the government does things.
"This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever
is currently running it."
Name something specific that you think that the government does well.
I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and
that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it
increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These
are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded
policies in recent decades. Some of these, as we all know, were passed
by members of the Democratic Party—like Bill Clinton—who few in the
intellectual left would regard as true progressives.
Funny that he should pick General Electric as his example of a bad company. Guess who is best buds with GE's CEO and appointed him to the position of "President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness"? You'll never guess. :)
What's wrong with stuff made in China, or Indian customer service reps? You wouldn't be a racist like those mean righties would you?
People in India and China make stuff and Americans are free to design that stuff. Who would you rather be: a low skilled laborer, or a product designer? Guess which country has more of the latter?
I don't like how much W spent and I don't like Romney's political policies but they are, mostly, from the right.
Obama and Clinton are the two most recent lefty presidents; they just are.
Anyway that you look at it, nationalizing GM and our healthcare is lefty politics. It is now, and is has always been so.
Whether you agree with my politics, or I yours, is immaterial. But, to the degree that, as members of the manosphere, we’re all participating in a form of “politics,” we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left. If Red Pill Philosophy
is the latest version of manospheric thought, and that branch is to
mature into a legitimate and intelligent movement—carrying the mantle of
a forceful and articulate response to feminism into mainstream
credibility—it will only do so by virtue of operating a big tent.
All should be invited to take the "red pill," and lefty politics should be understood. But lefty politics is bad, it is wrong, and we should stop supporting it.
Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little
more than another tin-foil-hat, reactionary movement from the extreme
right. We’re doomed to a collapse under the weight of our own
intellectual incoherence, exclusiveness, or oversimplified talking
points. Earlier ideologies from the manosphere already carry the burden
of being branded as inactive complainers or deluded bigots, by none
other than men predisposed to sympathize with their general world-view.
"Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little
more than another tin-foil-hat,"
Translation: We should move our politics to the left because those stupid righties belive in UFOs.
In an unrelated note Dennis Kucinich (D) (another person who Tuthmisis thinks should do more to interfere with your life) has seen a UFO.
At a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007, NBC's Tim Russert cited a passage from a book by Shirley MacLaine in which the author writes that Kucinich had seen a UFO from her home in Washington State. Russert asked if MacLaine's assertion was true. Kucinich confirmed and emphasized that he merely meant he had seen an unidentified flying object, just as former US president Jimmy Carter has.[75] Russert then cited a statistic that 14% of Americans say they have witnessed a UFO.
Who is calling who "bigots"?
Who is dismissing who with terms like tin-foil-hat and "ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?
The left, in other words, isn’t an enemy of the manosphere. Segments
of it are, just like segments of the right are. Like attractive girls
who push back against fat acceptance,
refuse to wear pajamas in public, scorn effeminate men, and take pride
in their own femininity, members of the manospheric left are invaluable
allies in a war of complicated allegiances. What’s more, the left offers
us a set of intellectual tools to build out our beliefs—on matters such
as gender and masculinity—into a coherent ideology. Just like the
libertarian impulse offers a powerful set of ideas—self-determination,
accountability, and suspicion of institutional might—the left offers us
protection from the worst abuses of capital, the perils of an
impoverished rabble with nothing to lose, and threats to our fair shot in the marketplace. It’s time to drop the dubious catch-all that liberals-are-to-blame. The left has long—and to a certain degree fairly—been stereotyped for
the worst of its members: concave-chested, bearded, skinny-jeans
wearing, bike-riding, vegan-food eating weaksters and their
skrillex-cut, tatted-up, female-bodied girlfriends. But the left is much
more than that. It’s filled with tough, old-school, manly cats with the
balls to stand up to corporate abuse, foreign threats, and, nowadays,
the corrosive delusions of feminism.
The more people learn about the "red pill" the better.
But where politics is concerned, liberals are a problem. The things that are advocated by the left have caused the deaths of more people than any other man-caused calamity ever.
Who are the righty, or "ahistorical,
quasi-scientific white-nationalist" com parables to the lefty Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, etc.?
We still exist. And there are more of us than you realize.
I'm glad that someone from the left was willing to write about politics in a way that is different from much of his audience.
Where politics is concerned, we've tried liberalism (as its known in America today) and it has led to death.
I picked a chapter at random from my forthcoming deer hunting book to give you a feel for it. I'll post other chapters in the future, but here is a chapter on hunting property neighbor relations.
I should have probably waited until I proofread this again, but I want to get the whole rough draft written before I start on the proofreading and finding a proofreader.
Hunting Property Neighbor Relations
The very first
thing you will want to do with your new property is to put “no trespassing”
signs up, and maybe a gate, or fence, along a side, or two.
Buy
shiny new, durable, “no trespassing” signs and surround your property with them.Know that the only thing worse than not
having the signs is having worn out signs.Surrounding your property with new signs shows that you are at your
property often and that you would notice trespassers.
Sometimes
properties have old roads, or trails leaning into them.Block off roads that you don’t want to use
with logs or fences.Some deer may
travel down those roads, but you should block the road at your property line so
that it is not too easy for someone to trespass.
You
do not want to travel all over your property or have roads all over.But you will need, at least, one entrance
road.That road should have a gate that
looks solid and maintained.
Like new
signs, a solid gate shows that you are serious about not wanting trespassers to
enter your property.And no gate, or an
old worn out one, shows that you probably don’t visit often, and probably
wouldn’t notice trespassers.
If
you add a gate over the main entrance, make it a really big one so that you can
get big tractors in someday.You may
hire loggers or someone to spread lime on your food plots and you won’t want to
tear down your gate so that they can get in.I have two 12 foot gates, making a 24 foot opening, so that loggers,
tractors and anything else that I may want has no trouble entering.
You
will also want to get to know your neighbors.Having a good relationship with your neighbors will make owning a
hunting property much more enjoyable.
An
early conversation with your neighbors should include the following statement
from you:
“If
you hit a deer and it runs onto my land, just go get it.”
Your
neighbor will most likely respond the same way.Wounded deer running onto neighboring properties has been known to
strain relationships.In many states you
are legally allowed to trespass in order to collect a dear that you have shot.But it is always better for you to talk to
your neighbors before that happens.
Your
neighbors are probably unlikely to give you trespassing problems if you have
friendly relations with them.
When
you have some need to walk on their property instead of yours, then consider if
you would mind if you were the landowner and they were the one considering
walking on your property.If you would
mind, if you were in their place, then don’t do it.
You
may want to take note of when your neighbors are around.If you are trailing a deer, or need help
dragging one out, then having friends nearby is good.You should be willing to help with their deer
too.Compliment their deer and be
pleasant.It is much better to have
friendly neighbor relations, than it is to have unfriendly relations.
You’ll
have neighbors who have different hunting goals than you do.This may be frustrating when you let bucks go
and your neighbor shoots all that he can.There is not much you can do, or should do, to move his opinion to where
yours is.You might explain that you are
letting the small bucks go because they won’t get big if you shoot them when
they are small.Bringing the point up
repeatedly may annoy your neighbor to the point that he wants to shoot lots of
small bucks just out of spite. Showing this neighbor the deer or pictures of the deer that you shoot will be more effective in convincing someone to let small bucks go.
Don’t
get too frustrated with a neighbor who shoots small bucks.Its his property and he can do what he
likes.And the distance between a
property that is filled with big bucks and one that lacks deer may not be
far.
A
few years ago a neighbor shot a buck fawn which ran 150 yards off of his
property and fell right underneath my treestand.I reverse trailed the blood trail to find the
hunters and found them coming for the deer.They had only seen a handful of deer, of any size, during the few days prior
and I had let several medium sized bucks go, not 200 yards from where they were
hunting on that very morning.Despite
the fact that we share a property line, they who shoot lots of does and small
bucks see a few small deer, and I have had opportunities at lots of bucks.
It
may get annoying when your neighbor shoots a buck, but you just have to accept
it and congratulate him.
Some
neighbors can be jerks and there isn’t much you can do about it.By try not to intentionally antagonize
them.When you talk to them try doing so
like you do with family members who, perhaps, have a different political
persuasion.Be polite, but try to avoid
the things that don’t need to be discussed.
The
biggest problem that you are likely to have is your neighbors putting up their
treestands right next to your property line.There is not much you can do about this, unless they trespass.You may want to place a “no trespassing” sign
in front of their stand, if they get too close.Or you may prefer to put a Quality Deer Management Association sing
there instead.A sign that says “QDMA is
practiced here” is much less confrontational than a sign that says “no
trespassing.”
Sometimes
you’ll need to put your stand near a neighbor’s property.It’s a good idea to put these stands up so
that they clearly face away from the neighbor’s property.Sometimes you need to be near the line, but
try not to look like you are hunting over their land.
If
you are reasonable with your neighbors, then they will most likely be
reasonable as well.Having people nearby
who can help move deer, or tow your truck out can be valuable to have.Think of the golden rule and you shouldn’t
have many neighbor problems.
A democratic senator has been accused of enjoying the company of underage prostitutes. Is the media covering that story or talking about how much water was drunk by a republican senator?
Americans were killed in September last year. How often was that mentioned by the media?
Hundreds have been killed thanks to Fast & Furious. How often has that been in the news?
With the obvious political bias of the media, and the ability to call things like Rathergate, "false but accurate," what makes you think that we are getting all the news there is?
There could be a concentration camp in this country. Maybe if there is we will hear about it, maybe we won't. Do you think that the media would report anything of the sort if it had a direct link to our President?
If our President shot a republican, would the media claim that the president should be removed from office, or would they claim that the republican had it coming?
It is more fun to get your news through twitter in any case.
You ever try a pink golf ball, Wally? Why, the wind shear alone on a
pink golf ball can take the head off a 90-pound midget at over 300
yards.
full movie:
The Kid (after more than an hour of movie time not saying anything): A '56 Chevy Belair could kick a '48 Buick Roadmaster's ass any day, at least in a first quarter mile that is.
Buddy: You come all this way out saying squat and now you're trying to tell me
that a '56 Chevy could beat a '48 Buick in a dead quarter mile? I liked you better when you weren't saying squat kid...
I'm up to 20,000 words in my forthcoming deer hunting book and I have just begun the equipment descriptions and recommendations.
I have a question that I would like my readers' advice on.
My introduction ends, currently, as follows:
Some people criticize
hunters for being bloodthirsty, or whatever.I am not writing this book to explain why I hunt or the morals for doing
so.Thing are born, they live, and they
die.This happens regardless of whether
or not we hunt.If things did not die,
then there would be no room for new things.Killing a deer with a quick shot is much more humane that the many other
ways that deer die.Wolves may start to
eat a deer before it is totally dead, and they’ll kill it by biting it.I’d rather get shot than killed by
wolves.Some animals kill by biting
their victim and then waiting until its wound becomes so infected that it
dies.Deer also get hit by cars, and some
limp off or die a slow death by having all of their organs crushed.
Someone that criticizes
hunting and eats meat is a hypocrite.Someone who criticizes hunting and wears leather is a hypocrite.Someone who criticizes hunting and uses bug
spray or mouse traps is a hypocrite.Someone
who criticizes hunting and eats dead plants is a hypocrite.
I have no time
for those who criticize hunting.There
is almost no other point in human history that they would have survived without
hunting and killing or having someone else do their hunting and killing for
them.
That’s enough of
that.On to how to shoot as many of the
biggest bucks that you can.
I think that this subject needs to be mentioned, at least. But it is a bit of a downer. And I don't like the idea of containing sad, annoying, or otherwise unhappy crap in my book.
My question is: should I include the above passage in my introduction, or elsewhere, should I leave it out, or should I improve it or change it?
Any advice would be appreciated.
Let me know if you have any deer hunting related questions that you want to have for sure answered in my book.
