"My Children" is a selfish concept and needs to be destroyed.

Melissa Harris-Perry doesn't deal in logic, that much should be obvious for anyone with an honest assessment of the content put out by the news network that employes her. Her content generally tends to deal in American minority culture-worship, with a particular emphasis on an ethnocentrism of her own lineage. While the author of this blog is happy to support anyone who wishes to be proud of their own heritage and culture, he tends to draw the line when it comes to insisting that everyone join in on the rain dance and actually expecting that a few body gesticulations will affect the weather.

Ms. Harris-Perry caused an understandable uproar when she essentially implied that Americans have a self-centered view of their children as being "private property" as opposed to "public property". Naturally, asserting that parents who wish to steer the educational development of their own children are consequently treating them as property is insulting in itself. But when dealing with an entirely unqualified standard for what the alternative to this standard of private property actually is, in conjunction with suggesting we throw more money at a problem that we spent $810 billion on in 2011 (federal, state and local), things cross over from being illogical to downright absurd.

What is this illusive standard of public property that this kook MSM journalist would have us go by? The majority of the money spent on education is done locally, but every major network (including MSNBC) would have us lament the fact that the federal government isn't spending nearly enough. What resembles a community more to the average person? A small, local municipality of between 2,000-3,000 people where most either know or interact with each other? Or perhaps the whole of these United States of America with it's ballooning population of over 300 million, a massive assembling of persons that no one person could ever truly hope to comprehend on a personal level?

The truth is, no one knows, and with the short, small-minded 30 second sound bit that MSNBC has offered us, no one can actually know.

This is the sort of nonsensical news content that encourages conspiracy theories and makes people distrust both the media and the government, a lack of trust that is also lamented frequently by MSNBC's sycophant audience and their online moron equivalents who believe every word that comes out of Cenk Uygur's mouth. We spend too much on education, and on teachers' pensions for that matter, as a simple comparison with other developed nations would suggest. What America should probably consider is revamping it's antiquated, 19th century Prussian Empire approach to schooling, as well as actually developing community relations by freeing up all of the wasted federal expendatures for local use, ergo abolish the Federal Department of Education.

Alas, most Americans don't want to hear about how to actually approach fixing problems, they just want to hear a shallow, bite-size sound bit to keep them from thinking abstractly. The truth is, American education is failing because America is filled to the brim with intellectually lazy and downright stupid people. And fixing the education system will begin with the end of MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and other mind-numbing news outlets telling the country and its respective communities about how to deal with their own challenges.

P.S. - Below are some more interesting sources regarding Melissa Harris-Perry's background and behavior for inquiring minds.

1. Perry and Obama's History

2. Perry's yammering about racism and aboriton in response to criticism

3. Perry thinks Romney picking a white VP was a racist move

4. Perry calling white liberals racist for criticizing Obama



Progressive politics = a secularized cult.

 

 

Logic has many enemies in the realm of politics, some more obnoxious than others. But if one truly wants to experience the ultimate depths of 2+2=5 psychosis, one need look no further than the latest pile of rubbish on TruthOut guising as good advice. It puts itself forth as one of those asinine cliches pushed by parents to "be thankful for your vegetables, starving people would love to have them", but apply it to the all-too-pleasant task of filing our Marxist approved income taxes. Perhaps the most offensively dishonest/ignorant assertion is that these taxes allegedly go to road maintenance (that's what gas taxes pay for, see America: Freedom To Fascism on this as well as what your income taxes actually pay for), among other untrue bromides relating to civic duty.

But while this article functions as little more as an either intentional or unintentional propaganda piece to prop up a corrupt banking system and a failing monetary policy, it is instructive regarding the stealth religious traditionalism that remains embedded in the American leftist psyche, one that hearkens back to the so-called 1950 and early 1960s that they often decry in terms of established moral boundaries, but love based on an outlandishly high tax code that was just as replete with loop-holes for the so-called corporate powers to exploit, along with anyone savvy enough to figure out the code or wealthy enough to hire an accountant. These are the sorts of facts that are often either conveniently left out of the discussion by so-called passionate progressives, all in the interest of shaping the debate.

However, the most offensive aspect of this article is not the lies by omission or the condescending "I'm mommy and what I say goes, logic be damned" tone of the whole thing, but the words "I thank you that I have...a free country in which to pay taxes" that are repeated over and over like a twisted Buddhist mantra. I'm sorry, but there is nothing free about the notion of living in a country where you can be thrown in a cage and raped by violent criminals for opting out of paying for the Federal Reserve Bank's interest on its loans to our government, or even the theoretical yet fallacious notion of doing it on the grounds of wealth redistribution. For anyone who wants to be thankful for living in such a system, try doing so when staring down the barrel of an IRS agent's gun because you made a mistake while filing your 1099.

No Mr. Obama, the government is not us, IT IS YOU!

 

 

President Obama has been a principle offender in the fine art of the perpetual divide between logic and politics, often attaching empty catch phrases to his further encroachments on American civil and economic liberties such as "common sense", as if such a thing has applied to politics at any time in recent memory. But while surrounded by a massive gallery of gun and badge toting police officers and pontificating on his need to further crack down on our freedoms due to the recent Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama has actually sunk to a new low with regards to insulting the intelligence of any and all people living within America's borders.

 

The phrase "we are the government" is potentially true if the "we" in question is Obama himself, his allies in congress and the people who support his policies (who are less than 30% of the entire population of eligible voters in this country and just barely 50% of those who turn out). However, if the implication is that "we" includes every single person bound by the U.S. Constitution (Obama's favorite brand of toilet paper on matters of fiscal and foreign policy), then I am afraid that I have to disagree with the president. Contrary to what he says, he is not my president, nor was his predecessor George W. Bush, given that I did not vote for either one of them. More than 1 million people are disqualified from this collective given that they don't vote for either of the 2 major political parties, let alone the tens of millions who don't validate the whole political process with any participation to speak of.

 

Furthermore, this whole "trust us" attitude that Obama insist that we all follow is counter-intuitive when considering his continual reversal on campaign promise after campaign promise. But this speaks to a much deeper issue, one that any so-called "common sense" thinker should have discovered a long time ago, and that is that the government can not represent us because it is in no way accountable to us. There are too many examples in recent history of presidents and legislatures governing against the so-called "will of the people" to name them all, not the least of which being the lack of public support for staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade, let alone the secret undeclared military operations and drone strikes being waged in countries like Yemen, Pakistan and our secret arms deals with Syrian jihadists.

But perhaps the most utterly amusing and pathetically untrue part of this diatribe of the president's is the idea that because a government is elected or otherwise comes out of a given population, it is automatically accountable. Forgive the bluntness of the author of this blog, but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and a whole host of other dictators have not been foreign occupiers, but popular governing figures from their respective populations who were simply adept at silencing their opponents. Similarly, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was executed via the democratic process for simply speaking his mind. Does Barack Obama seriously expect anyone with a single iota of sense to trust in a democratic process because it is such given its extremely poor history of respecting minority and individual rights?

 

At this juncture, the American narrative has gone well beyond the realm of logical discourse, so much so that it is to the point that logic is not merely avoided, but treated with scorn. The fact that this sort of nonsense can be propagated and receive thunderous applause is indicative of a society that is all too willing to embrace tyranny simply because the tyrant tells us it's what is best for us. If America is to avoid or even survive the coming economic and civil unrest that our so-called public servants have been leading us to, it will be because the enemies of logic, both liberal and neo-conservative, are shut out of the political process completely and marginalized from any further influence on our culture.

Paul Krugman is mentally challenged.

Paul Krugman has made some of the world's most ridiculous claims regarding economics, and has rightly earned the ire of rational economists on both the Austrian School contingent, along with a number of fairly mainstream Neo-classical thinkers. We all remember a lot of his juicier assertions of recent history, such as trying to pump up the nation for another World War in order to spur economic growth, or even the outlandish scenario of an alien invasion along the lines of War Of The Worlds or Independence Day as a means of reviving a stagnant economy. (There's a whole array of idiotic ideas courtesy of the Krug-meister cataloged at Paul Krugman is an idiot.

One has to wonder if what the Nobel Committee had been smoking that fateful day when it gave Krugman the Nobel Prize for economics would spur economic growth if it were legalized, but our esteemed dunce of a village idiot would probably argue for its continued prohibition on the grounds that the money spent on enforcement would like stimulate the economy. The same could be said about the New York Times when they allowed Krugman to publish the following gem on their allegedly prestigious paper.

But perhaps most amusing of all is the prognostications that Krugman made about the Internet back in 1998, yet further accredit to the fact that MIT has a good number of bizarre ideologues with sway over the future minds of this naiton. One has to wonder how in 1998, at the height of the technological revolution, that a so-called respected economist could argue that the Internet's impact on the economy would equal that of the fax machine. Similarly, the notion that IT specialist jobs would evaporate goes beyond outlandish to downright insane given the way things had progressed since the mid 90s.

It's actually hilarious that Krugman uses titles for his inane predictions like "Why Most Economists Are Wrong", because he has been wrong on just about everything since becoming a player on the economic stage. Yet, much like his MIT compatriot Noam Chomsky, thousands of brainless fools swallow everything this buffoon vomits out without even seeking a second opinion from another thinker in the same economic school, let alone trying on a different school of thought. The author of this blog does not seek to tell people HOW to think, but when it comes to issues where others are affected, is it too much to ask for people TO think before putting all their cards down on one guy's opinion?

Anne Coulter's problem with reality.

Anne Coulter has never really been one for logic, primarily because it tends not to sell well with the target audiences of the drivel she normally tries to pass off as non-fiction. Her arguments tend to be saturated with so much hyperbole that they don't even resemble the things that she claims to be parodying, moreover the so-called "conservative" principles that she claims to stand for are anything but, unless one associates the term with "big government". But more importantly, she has been a consistent champion of losers of late, throwing the closest thing to an endorsement during the 2008 election to Hillary Clinton over McCain, and insisting that all Republicans coalesce behind Romney since so-called rising start turned New Jersey liberal Chris Christie was not running.

In keeping with her obviously ineffective methods and inability to find a decent face to put in front of her warped police-state ideology, the author of this blog wishes to thank her for boldly condemning Senator Rand Paul's potential run for president in 2016 in her usual idiotic form. Not only has she mercifully disassociated herself from arguably the only decent presidential candidate coming down the pike, but has also managed to bring Sean Hannity (of all people) all the closer to actually moderating his normally over-zealous War on Terror views. Granted, Hannity is more of a GOP creature than an ideologue of any level of consistency, but the fact that he has done a complete 180 on Paul the younger (compared to his vicious assaults on Ron Paul from 2 years ago) definitely opens up some potential for Rand's primary prospects.

Nevertheless, it is important to point out the problems with Anne Coulter's hyperbolic assertions regarding Rand Paul. The fact that he has argued for lighter sentences for non-violent crimes such as marijuana use and possession does not necessarily mean that he is pro-drug use, nor does his ideas for reforming America's immigration policy amount to Amnesty (this would imply that he would grant every undocumented person in this country instant citizenship, no questions asked). Similarly, when considering that Rand Paul and the Libertarian movement have spoke at length regarding such issues as foreign policy, civil liberties, gun ownership, monetary policy and the gargantuan debt that continues to rise despite disingenuous rhetoric about budget cuts by both Dems. and the GOP alike (baseline cuts are not cuts, a cut is when the actual amount of spending decreases).

Anyway, for those not bereft of the basic principle that 2+2=4, Coulter's idiocy in this is immediately obvious. But for all of the moronic people who insist that what Lindsey Graham and John McCain say is always true regardless of the facts, watch the video below and tell me who you find yourself agreeing with, Coulter or Hannity? This is one of those rare occasions where your normal inclination towards just backing the Republican won't help you make a decision and you'll actually have to dust off that section of your brain normally reserved for critical thinking. Though for me, every event is a chance to exercise my ability to determine the nuances and finer points of both the small and larger picture.

Lies, Damned Lies, and American Gun Violence Statistics.

When inquiring about a political issue with an eye for logic, the first step is always detaching oneself from any emotional attachment to said subject. Gun control is perhaps the most emotionally charged of subjects, even when not dealing with some recent mass shooting that has tempers flaring and every righteous crusader armoring up to retake Jerusalem, thus the needed effort to being unmoved by the inevitable theatrics is quite daunting, and all the more valuable is the prize for persevering. But there is a more tragic victim to the inane squabbles that this issue brings about than that of one's right to an adequate self-defense, and that is man's respect for the art of statistics. I prefer to think that Mark Twain intended to point out that statistics, being as useful as they are, reflect the most heinous of dishonesty when manipulated for less than noble ends, but sadly most seem to take his famous quote of "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" more by their letter than their spirit.

The author of this post naturally makes no secret of his views that a well-armed society is also a polite society, but this does not mean that there isn't some merit to certain objections made by the other side of the issue. Those reasonable people who support limiting guns to law abiding citizens by supporting criminal background checks do make a valid point (though unfortunately a good number of these people support violent criminals being able to vote, which is equally as dangerous as arming them in my opinion), and provided that their endgame is to concentrate on the truly criminal crowd (denying someone arms for smoking pot in their 20s is not criminal by the standards of any rational person, despite what Uncle Sam might say to the contrary) rather than seek to obfuscate standards that would lead to mass deprivation of arms to the public. Similarly, mandatory safety courses also make sense, though mandatory gun ownership in conjunction with this would make greater sense and deprive America of its greatest contributor to mass shootings, the gun-free zone.

However, most sycophant politicians on the left side of the so-called gun debate in America don't stop at making these reasonable suggestions in hopes of curtailing violent criminal activity. On a daily basis many are treated to a deluge of extremely irrational appeals to emotion in the name of stopping gun violence, as typified by 2 particularly odious persons in Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer. Considering that the states represented by these two offer up a massive chunk of those several thousand gun murders per year statistic that is often dishonestly contrasted with other countries with smaller and less heterogeneous populations, one might be inclined to inquire as to how much their proposed national policies have worked within their own states, particularly compared to less "progressive" parts of the country where these statistics tend to be lower.

But regardless of dishonesty on the part of a few key players on one side of the issue vs. the other, what is more perplexing is the odd fixation that guns have garnered, most particularly so-called "assault weapons", which account for far fewer deaths than the preferred hand gun of one type or another. Rather than dealing with other factors pertaining to motive and opportunity for each unfortunate case of murder, the discourse is usually limited to the means. What, pray tell, makes a gun death more horrible and contemptible than the massive knife violence problem in the UK, or even the too numerous to fathom statistics regarding vehicular death via negligence? My dispassion not withstanding, but if one were concerned only with violence or death, greater emphasis on driving courses and stricter standards for licensing would seem a more logical issue. But alas, there is no logic in politics.

By using simple deductive logic regarding American politics, one has to conclude that when statistics are abused in the name of promoting something that is also referred to as "common sense", red flags and suspicions of dishonest intent should arise. If the sheer number of gun related deaths is so unacceptable and must be redressed, what about those gun deaths that are perpetrated by Uncle Sam in the name of bringing democracy to the world? Granted, most opponents of gun control were big supporters of the War on Terror, but the pro-gun control crowd backing the Democratic Party are largely indifferent to this issue when it's one of their own pushing the button. Then again, the left's fetishism for Obama and its consequential toleration of his murderous drone policy in the Middle-East may suggest that blowing people up is noble, while putting a bullet in them is reprehensible (again, no logic in politics).

Ultimately, this is an issue like all others, it is only as good as the people who argue the prevailing points. And given that even in the height of grief and outrage over the unfortunate Sandy Hook tragedy one side failed miserably in getting their point across, a reasoning mind would rightly conclude that there must be a fatal flaw in their outlook that continues to stymie their efforts, and that is that their opponents have the stronger argument. With the endless monetary war chest and the bully pulpit at his disposal, Obama could theoretically run circles around the NRA and GOA. Then again, such an extended endeavor might take him away from his endless vacation binges. If the gun control debate is to have a reasonable conclusion, it needs reasonable people, ergo ones that respect the field of statistics enough not to misuse it for short-sighted political causes.

P.S. - Nothing cures irrationality like dispassionate research, and below are some good links to start with.

http://endthegunfreezones.com/murder-in-california-does-gun-availability-cause-high-murder-rates/

http://themoralpatriot.blogspot.com/2012/12/chicago-gun-free-zone-hits-record.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/lott3.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/dishonesty-gun-control

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dianne_feinstein_dishonest_fundraising_and_gun_control.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/19/sen-chuck-schumer-says-the-nra-is-an-extreme-fringe-group/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/12/Report-Youth-Six-Times-More-Likely-Attacked-With-Knife-Than-Gun

Noam Chomsky and the Death of Concision.

Perhaps one of the easiest ways to declare oneself as a radical is to challenge the perceived cliches rampant in a prevailing narrative, preferably in a manner that gives some semblance of art and intrigue. The author of this blog considers himself a radical insofar as the first standard is concerned, though he would like to leave it up to others as to how artful and intriguing the execution comes across. But contrary to what some might guess, the established narrative regarding the American political dialectic is not a uniform juggernaut that can be assaulted with a lone sling and stone, but a dense and confounded spiderweb that may appear as a uniform pattern from afar, but in actuality an elaborate system of points and counterpoints that somehow manage to land us right back where we started every time.

Case and point in this regard is famed Linguist and political radical Noam Chomsky, or at least the latter title is attributed to him by both the Mainstream Media and his legions of hipster cult followers. At first glance, what is viewed is an astute yet unconventional thinker challenging norms of thought and discourse, challenging the brutish politicians to justify their inane failures with regards to government policy. Indeed, Chomsky has spoken at length regarding the problem of concision in the media in his writings, as showcased in a soon-to-be-popular video with Ron Paul supporters on YouTube, by virtue of it being featured on www.dailypaul.com.

However, with the advent of the internet, the narrative is shifting a bit toward a less shallow and sound-byte driven affair into one where Chomsky's often verbose revelations of political corruption are now being subjected to the closer scrutiny that he complained about in his earlier years. Unfortunately, for a mind not prone to latch onto just any alternative voice without assessing a greater scope of its ramifications, this advent does not serve him as well as one would think. Instead of being vindicated as a long-standing dissident who has now gotten his chance at enlightening the masses, what is revealed is an elaborate game of wordplay (in keeping with his expertise in language) to put the political discourse in a box that is about as restraining and limited as the one presented on the idiot box.

Much of this began to come to light when dissidents demanding answers regarding the less than adequate investigation of the 9/11 attacks and the enshrining of preemptive war and found a Noam Chomsky who was parroting the same nonsense one might hear on Fox News. He wrote in response to the question regarding CIA support for Osama Bin Laden as saying "CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate) or the Taliban (also not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant." If one assumes Bin Laden to have been the head of the organization that murdered more than 3,000 Americans, this author would argue that any support that this nation's government agencies are quite relevant.

Interestingly enough, Chomsky has made it a regular practice of playing interference for the CIA, claiming it to be little more than a scapegoat agency for abuse of executive power. In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky writes "There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the C.I.A. is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., along with mostly just a collection of information". Would anyone be curious as to why a tenured professor at a prestigious institute has no knowledge regarding Operation Mockingbird, MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip, or any number of other CIA experiments and yet this information is readily available via declassified government documents?

Are these views regarding clandestine activity really in keeping with a so-called radical? Similarly, would it come across as rational that a man who decries so-called government abuse also thinks that only government officials should be allowed firearms? According to this esteemed thinker in his book "Secrets, Lies, and Democracy", professor Chomsky obfuscates with the best of them, "It’s pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting." In a parallel universe where tyrants such as Mao, Stalin and Hitler were not proponents of exclusive rights to weapons by government thugs, this mode of thinking might appear unconventional, but in reality it is little more than classical Fabian Socialism with a wordier exterior and an American PHD. Similarly, one can't help but be astounded that an alleged great mind cannot grasp the notion that words have a clear and specific meaning, particularly when spelled out in such a declarative way in the words of "shall not be infringed".

The rabbit-hole naturally goes a good bit deeper regarding Chomsky, though in the interest of brevity this will suffice for this excursion. However, one thing is quite clear from the limited information presented here, and that is that the underlying message of this so-called radical is one that is all too conventional, and one that has misdirected a great multitude of would-be radicals into regurgitating modified versions of existing cliches in the present political discourse. There is nothing substantially different between what Chomsky writes in his books and what is preached by the mainstream Democratic Party, and any dissent on his part with belligerent policies initiated by the Obama administration is, at best, hypocritical. Chomsky complains about not being invited onto Nightline during his formative years as a radical, but this eventuality appears to be less an issue of substance and more one of style, assuming that Chomsky is really deemed an outsider by the MSM, which wouldn't be logical, but as this newly born blog states so plainly, there is no logic in politics.

For further reading on Chomsky's oddly conventional yet confused rhetoric:

1. An in-depth analysis of Chomsky's many contradictory statements on a whole host of issues. Some may not like the conspiracy theory tilt of the article, but the facts are well documented.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml

2. An article critical of Chomsky's blind support of Israel, in direct contradiction to his opposition to American foreign policy that is heavily the product of AIPAC lobbyists and the governing Likud Party.

http://www.marwenmedia.com/articles_images/ChomskyADeceiver.html

3. Chomsky finds himself in agreement on Obama with Sarah Palin, despite having told his readers to vote for him over McCain in 2008.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/noam-chomsky-sarah-palin-was-right

4. A long diatribe by Chomsky slamming Obama that, while appearing admirable given Obama's heavily tyrannical policies, showcases the MIT professor to be slower on the uptake the so-called conspiracy theory types that he derided during both the Bush administration and the lead up to Obama's election.

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/noam-chomsky-blasts-obama-he-has-no-moral-center/