Thursday, April 17, 2014

Salon now has third graders writing for them




Apparently with a straight face Matt Bruenig over at Salon has some profound words to share that are so abjectly stupid that I thought I was reading the Onion instead. At Salon, this is what apparently passes for journalism today. Matt Bruenig’s wrote that - wait for it - in order to make up for racial intolerance and inequality we need to take money from white people and give it to black people. I hate to break this to you Matt but this already exists today - it’s called the US tax code (more on that later). Here’s Matt in all his unbridled glory:

Even if racism were wiped out tomorrow and equal treatment became the norm, it would never cease being the case that the average white person has more wealth than the average black person. We could equalize everything else in society, and racial wealth inequality–plus all of the political power disparities that accompany such a thing–would continue into perpetuity.
Sorry Matt, I gotta stop you right there. What your are saying is that playing field were suddenly leveled (something I believe to be the case already, but let’s let him go with it) that there is an inherent bias that capital somehow will seek out whites and stay with them in perpetuity? Say what? How does that even make sense? Ok, sorry for the interruption here’s more:

Thus, those actually serious about righting the wrongs of enslavement and Jim Crow apartheid must support more drastic leveling efforts. Beefed up anti-discrimination, which is both necessary and good, will not be enough. Ideally, we could work towards reparations in the form of redistributing wealth along racial lines. With that an unlikely possibility though, we can at least think about ways to redistribute wealth more generally from those with wealth to those without it, something that would have a similar, albeit more attenuated, effect as reparations given who the wealthy and non-wealthy happen to be.
Good god, Marx and Engle couldn’t have put it any better. It’s not like we haven’t tried to do this before with varying degree of failure. From the 10’s of millions who died in the great Bolshevik experiment that dominated the last century to the watered down version we now see in the EU. But Bruenig has a better idea. This is what I love about articles like this. Bruenig makes his premise straight from the heart, no need to do any background reading to find some support for his nonsense. No, like most liberals, Matt doesn’t need to be bothered by icky facts such as this doozy:

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers
You read that right folks, for every full time taxpaying worker there are 1.7 on the dole. So when Bruenig bitches about wealth redistribution and his infantile solution is simply take from those who have (namely  whites) and give to those who don’t (presumably blacks) you have to ask just how much is too much? Now some of you may argue that getting paid a salary is not the same as wealth and I agree. But in order to obtain wealth somebody’s gotta go to work. It has to start somewhere right?

But the real point is this. While I would agree that there are disparities between the amount of wealth between races, the first thing I would do is ask why. Is it, as Bruenig suggest that capital has some sort of built in discrimination against blacks? Or, as I suspect, does it have more to do with culture? For example, 72% of black families are raised by one parent. 95% of black murders are perpetrated by another black. The black communities are a shambles (mostly due to liberals trying to help them) and almost all of them are on some sort of government assistance. Perhaps these statistics have more to do with where capital resides and less to do with skin color.

Exit hypothesis: If we could somehow wave a magic wand and redistribute wealth in the manner Bruenig suggest, how long would it take the wealth to re-accumulate to basically where it is now. My guess is that capital moves to where those who are willing to work and take risks and away from those who make bad decisions like having children before you can properly care for them and out of wedlock. Just a thought.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

As near as I can tell, in order to be a Democrat:..



You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese, North Koreans, or Iraqis 

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay/transgender is natural.

You have to be against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand, in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but pasty, loony activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Friday, April 4, 2014

This just in - Chris Matthews is still a tool



Charles Koch wrote, what I thought , was a well thought out response to Hot Rod Harry's continued assault form the Senate floor in the wall street journal this week. He lays out the case that freedom of speech is essential to a free and open governance. If you'll remember Reid's  argument from the floor of the Senate was a full throated fist in the sky diatribe of how the Koch brothers were buying America. Notwithstanding that George Soros has poured in three times the amount the Koch brothers have given in the last three election cycles.

Not to be outdone, here is Chris Matthews insinuating that Charles Koch, a captain of industry, a self made billionaire can't string two words together. His evidence? The same evidence Reid had when he said Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years.


What a tool. Is it any wonder that Hardball is consistently beat out by Greta each night by 700,000 viewers.

With him spouting crap like this it's no wonder why his show is unwatchable.

President who hates babies says they should all have a chance at happiness




I swear you cannot make this stuff up. On Tuesday, Obama said this at a Planned Parenthood gala with apparently no hint of irony (emphasis mine):

“In the United States of America, every child should have every chance in life, every chance at happiness, and every chance at success,”
Yeah, every chance as long as the child has exited the womb. This man, whose support for abortion at any time during pregnancy, has the audacity to say this with a straight face? First of all, he is the first sitting president to address this group of mass murderers, second, he touts planned parenthood’s record of giving every child a chance at life! Oh the iroonneeee.

Keep in mind that in March 2003, then-Illinois’ State Senator Obama chaired the committee that considered the Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082), which he voted to kill. And according to the National Right to Life Committee, the state legislation that Obama voted against is almost identical to the federal legislation that protects children who survive an abortion that became law in 2002.

According to Planned Parenthood’s latest report for fiscal year 2012-2013, women who aborted their unborn children at a Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinic totaled 327,166.

Well almost every child has a chance in life except of course for the over 50 million who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade that is.

How liberals can square this circle is beyond me. In the past, at least pro-abortion politicians had the sense to shy away from the issue by saying nonsense like keeping it legal, safe and rare. Now, Obama is openly cheering for the destruction of our children. Good work champ, good work indeed.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

They are going to run out of virgins

This just warms my heart. What do the Brits consider a weapon of mass destruction"? One talented soldier and ONE bullet!



Say Allah, who ordered these 432 virgins?