"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?