Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Who Needs College Anyway?

I have to hand it to Peter Thiel – one of PayPal’s creators – for paying people to not attend college.

The education world is horrified at this slap in the face, but they would be, wouldn’t they? After all, the more people who literally buy into the idea that college is the only key to success, the more money the education world makes.

Thiel, a graduate from Stanford Law School, intends to disprove that theory through his 20 Under 20 program, which doled out $100,000 to 20 young men and women under 20 who promise to skip higher education and invest instead into the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this nation great in the past.

He believes American innovation is dying under the current status quo. And clearly, he sees how college can actually be more of a hindrance than a help.

For proof of that, look no further than all of the college graduates who entered the bleak job market under the Obama administration.

But even during better times, promoting higher education hasn’t done this nation much good in the last forty years or so. All we have to show for our pursuits are burdensome levels of debt and the ability to sound more intelligent while we delude ourselves.

One has to wonder, for instance, whether President Obama – who incidentally celebrated America’s fallen heroes on Monday by golfing – would have been elected if more high school students had jumped right into the workforce instead of first attending college.

If more of them knew what it was like to earn a real living – not one based off of Daddy’s money and government loans – and understood the burden of seeing their paychecks dwindled down by arrogant politicians for unnecessary expenditures… would so many of them have voted Democrat that November? Or any November, for that matter?

Would we have a worse-than-expected, double-dip, housing market crash if we hadn’t sat in more classrooms than we legally needed to attend, listening to professors extol socialist theories and liberal lies in everything from English class to economics?

Would we have become so weak on the international stage that foreign presses of allied countries openly wonder if – or flat out state that – we matter at all anymore?

In other words, would we be quite so foolish, quite so unthinking, quite so uninspired as too many Americans are today?

I think not. And the very successful Peter Thiel shows I’m not alone.

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Real Way to Thank Our Men and Women Who Serve

Today is Memorial Day, a time when we celebrate those who serve and have served in our military and thank them for keeping America safe from harm.

They’re off fighting battles or maintaining posts – oftentimes far away from their loved ones – in order to protect us from militant outsiders who want to destroy us. And so we thank them and commemorate them and acknowledge their bravery and their sacrifices.

But maybe it’s about time we start giving back to them by doing more than simply taking an extra day off from work and eating hamburgers and hotdogs.

Maybe, while they’re out there physically fighting to keep this nation safe against obvious dangers, we civilians should start taking the political, economic and ideological dangers the U.S. faces just as seriously.

Because they do exist. They might not manifest themselves in the form of bombs and IEDs and weapons of mass destruction most of the time. But they are just as destructive, if not more so…

While we might easily rally together against missiles slamming into our government buildings and iconic cities, too many of us barely seem to notice while similarly destructive powers euthanize our morality, patriotism and courage one drop of poison at a time.

While our troops are putting themselves in physical danger to keep us safe, we’re failing them by welcoming our enemies into our television sets, our schools and our governments at every level.

So maybe this Memorial Day, we should honor our soldiers – fallen and living – by first acknowledging the enemy within and then fighting it with every ounce of wisdom and courage and perseverance that we can muster.

After all, it would be a terrible shame for our soldiers to finally come home, only to find out that they’ve been fighting for an America not worth coming back to.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner When Baby Is Republican… and You’ll Regret It If You Try

As a strong-minded, intelligent, free-spirited – and OK, yes, stubborn – female, I take issue with Democrat’s constant harping about the GOP being the party of misogynists and repressed women.

It’s one of the dumbest stereotypes I’ve ever come across, simply because it isn’t even close to being true. Most of the Republican women I know are extremely strong people. They work hard, they expect respect and they excel in challenging careers.

Go up to New England and you’ll find a brilliant nurse who is putting herself through Yale while working weekends and summers. Her older sister is a doctor in New York City and their younger sister is working on her masters in law. All three are registered Republicans.

Another dear friend (who technically calls herself an independent even though her voting record says otherwise) teaches special education with a will and a way in New Jersey. And still another has her masters in graphic design at the tender age of 23.

Then there’s my mother, who homeschooled her four children grades K-12 while somehow still managing to maintain her sanity. And if you think that staying home with the rugrats somehow makes her a docile and submissive woman, you quite clearly have never met my mama, who is a force to be reckoned with.

Or how about Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Anne Coulter? Say what you want to about their politics, but they are anything but repressed.

So where does this notion that Republican women are browbeaten, barefoot and pregnant all the time come from? The question becomes even more laughable considering its source: the Democrat Party…

Take the recent case of MSNBC’s sophomoric Ed Schultz calling conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a slut. Twice. On air. Or the leftist ladies of the View not thinking much of it.

Now consider the case of a womanizing adulteress and possible rapist: Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Likewise, Al Gore was accused last year of sexual assault, and that entirely forgettable comedian called on her black brothers in Harlem to rape Sarah Palin during the 2008 elections. Talk about sexist and racist.

Or how about the big fuss the entire mainstream media made about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe expenses, when they certainly didn’t pick on any of the male candidates for anything so ridiculous.

Also worth mentioning:
  • Harry Reid referring to one of his fellow Democrat politicians as “hot” on live TV… Ew!
  • Playboy’s list of Conservative women worth a “hate f*ck”
  • David Letterman’s comments about Sarah Palin looking like a slutty stewardess
  • The Kennedy men. Enough said.
Don’t believe me? Do a Google search on any one of those and you’ll find easy matches.  With the piles of incriminating evidence, it’s difficult not to get the impression that liberals would actually much prefer conservative women to go back into the kitchen and bake something.

So Democrats? It’s about time you shut up and started analyzing your own shortcomings in this area instead of nagging us on ours.

How do you like that for repressed?

Thursday, May 26, 2011

If We Only Knew What Was Coming Next…

I just began re-reading F. A. Hayek’s classic economic and political commentary, “The Road to Serfdom” for the third time. And believe me, it is well worth the read.

Writing in the 1940s during WWII, the Austrian-born England resident details the disturbing similarities he saw even back then between the ideas manifested leading up to the establishment of Nazi Germany and those he watched playing out in the U.S. and UK.

In just the first few pages of his detailed analysis, Hayek makes a jarring statement: that if we only knew what was coming next, we would do everything in our power to reverse our course… rather like the German socialists in the 1910s would have if they could only know what their efforts were paving an easy path for: the debasing of humanity and decency on every possible level.

Every time I read that line, it terrifies me. And I think it would have a similar affect on most Americans if they only read it. Unfortunately, I’m not so convinced it would move – or even surprise – President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and their ilk. Their arrogant dismissal of obvious facts, and despotic demand for control of societal elements they have no right to, serves as rather damning evidence of their well-informed intentions.

Why else would President Obama be going “under the radar” in order to destroy American’s 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? Regardless of the reasons, that kind of restriction was imposed on Germany less than two decades before Hitler took over.

The average citizen opposed to gun rights might legitimately be able to claim ignorance on the subject. But the President of the United States and members of Congress cannot if they want to simultaneously maintain any kind of credibility.

And there is even less excuse for the Obama Administration’s heavy handed – literally – use of the TSA. The Department of Justice even threatened severe retaliation against Texas if it passed a bill outlawing TSA groping.

As Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently asked – after witnessing a ridiculous scene at airport security, “Why are we patting down grandma and kids” instead of the “guy in Arabian dress who just walked right through?”

Without the right to protect ourselves, what comes next after submitting ourselves to molestation at the hands of government workers? Are we going to see restrictions on who can drive, as in Saudi Arabia? Will we be jailed for reporting government corruption, then forced to work all day and all night, and tortured if we don’t comply, as in China?

Don’t laugh too hard at those possibilities. Because the Germans never saw it coming either.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Michelle Obama Promotes Beyonce as a Role Model for a Second Time

I let our First Lady, Michelle Obama, slide when she promoted Beyonce to a bunch of school children as “one of my favorite performers on the planet” earlier this month.

That was when she so famously performed “the Dougie,” a dance craze that swept through the country thanks to the (questionable) musical and artistic talents of Cali Swag District. And honestly, she looked rather cute and happy dancing with the kids as part of her Let’s Move program to fight childhood obesity.

So I decided to just ignore the whole thing and give her a break. That time.

In regular everyday life, they say third time’s the charm. If it happens more than twice, it’s probably not a coincidence or a slip-up; it’s purposeful and quite possibly even the start of a trend.

In politics today, however, we can’t afford to give our representatives that many chances. Not with their long track record of unhealthy influences and moronic mistakes. So I’m not willing to give Mrs. Obama a third chance before I call her out for publicly praising a person who is an obvious detriment to our society.

If Beyonce Is a Role Model, It’s Not for Anything Good

Yes, I’m talking about Beyonce.

Sure, she’s gorgeous and yes, she can move with the sensuality of… well… something very sensual. I’d also go so far as to say that she has a great stage presence, obviously knows how to conduct herself in such a way as to be worth more than some small countries, and has an admirable amount of determination.

But all of that falls out the window when she sings extremely sexually provocative lyrics on the radio and gyrates with next to nothing on in her music videos, all the while making at least a decent chunk of her millions by promoting her in-your-face sexuality to children.

Yet Michelle Obama went out of her way to record nothing but praise for her at the 2011 Billboard Music Awards, where Beyonce sang her latest hit, “Run the World.” The song in question is supposedly meant to empower women by asking “Who run this mother f*cking world?” and replying with a chanted “Girls! Girls!”

As if using such uneducated language isn’t detrimental enough to young, impressionable minds, Beyonce proceeded to stride around on stage with a skimpy dress that showed almost her entire shapely legs and clung to her toned midsection in tattered strips.

Beyonce: the Same Old Chauvinism Repackaged

The fact that our female “role models” – as Michelle Obama calls Beyonce – give the same basic services of strippers in “gentleman’s” clubs indicates that women today are anything but liberated. We’re still singing the same old here’s-what-I-got-and-you-can-have-it-for-the-right-price song we’ve been performing since Eve bit into that stupid apple.

Beyonce’s sultry moves certainly garnered attention from the men in attendance… but it’s doubtful they were admiring her for much more than being ‘one fine piece of *ss.’ Certainly, the 12th grade boys I once taught in a Pennsylvania public high school didn’t have any real respect for her as they discussed exactly what they wanted to do to her.

Beyonce as a whole are packaged with sexuality, sensuality and just downright sex through and through. Another of her recent songs, “Video Phone,” promotes sexting, an epidemic among America’s youth that can lead to serious legal consequences… like charges for taking, possessing and distributing child pornography.

This is what we’re promoting to our children.

This is what we’re encouraging our society to consider laudable when it can far too easily lead to devastating consequences.

This is what Michelle Obama deems something to strive for. Which makes her anything but a role model.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

My Friend Is a Socialist

This past Friday evening, I learned something new: that regular, average, everyday American citizens admit to being socialists as if it’s simply another political party.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I know that the U.S. has its socialists. And I can name off several prominent people – starting with our current President – who are socialists, even though they won’t come right out and admit it to most people.

I can also name a few of my friends who are socialists, though they may not realize it. But I never realized that I purposely associate with people who are willing to declare such leanings in mixed political company with total innocence.

In my friend’s defense, that same evening – amid group chitchat, sharing and puzzling – she discovered my collection of conservative paraphernalia, ranging from multiple Bernard Goldberg books to the amusing guide: “How to Win a Fight against a Liberal” to “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.”

Reading further through the titles, I heard her exclaim in a mixture of mock and genuine horror, “You have Glenn Beck!”

It was highly amusing, in large part because – despite our very obvious differences – we both genuinely care about each other and know how to have a civil disagreement. All the same, I can’t say that it doesn’t sadden me to see somebody – especially somebody I care about – subscribe to such dangerous doctrines… doctrines that have never worked out well in the long term before… not in China, not in Russia, not in Nazi Germany.

Heck, the first pilgrims to the New World tried socialism on for size, and it produced nothing but stride and failure even in such a small community. So why are we flirting with this economic, moral and morale rapist now?

Maybe it’s because that’s what we are taught K-12, and college through our doctorates. Maybe it’s because it appeals to our less impressive human tendencies, like selfishness and greed. Or maybe – as in my friend’s case – we accept it out of compassion or guilt.

Unfortunately though, in the end it really doesn’t matter how or why we decide that socialism is worth pursuing. The end result is the same, as history all but proves: America and Americans lose.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Somebody Got Spanked on National Television

President Obama got spanked on national television on Friday.

I have to admit, from my perspective – the one where I’m paying $50 to fill my 13-gallon gas tank because he wants everybody but the U.S. to be drilling for oil… where I’m soon to be paying $50 for a single light bulb because he thinks the 50 cent ones destroy the earth… where I’m labeled the enemy just because I want national security and he doesn’t… and where my rights are being trampled on a little bit more every day because he doesn’t think them worthwhile – it felt pretty darn good to see him suffer the same humiliation he constantly tries to foist on his constituents who look at life a little more logically.

So from my perspective, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu – the man who, in the nicest of terms, told Obama to stop being such an ego-tripping dictator – deserves the international community’s thanks and respect.

If you remember, Obama told Israel how he thought it should be last week. As usual, his desired outcome was logically, maturely and ethically bankrupt. Because, in order to obtain his twisted version of peace, he wanted Israel to give up its security to people who actively want it annihilated.

President Obama is arrogant enough to think that he can issue such ridiculous demands without any serious repercussions. Or as Gene Simmons, formerly of KISS, said, he “has no [expletive] idea what the world is like.”

Well, the president just got schooled by Netanyahu… to his face… on national TV. And to illustrate just how strict the lesson was, here's the transcript of his remarks, as recorded on Rush Limbaugh's website...

Benjamin Netanyahu Schools Obama on the Facts of Life

“I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible – because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.

“Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide. It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them. So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan...

“Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas… a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction. It's fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children – and Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of Bin Laden. So Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of Al-Qaeda.

“I think President Abbas has a simple choice. He has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with Hamas or makes peace with Israel – and I can only express what I said to you just now, that he hope he makes the choice: The right choice of choosing peace with Israel.

“The third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel. The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems: A Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees in roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now, tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees.

“Now 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us, and they say to Israel, "Accept the grandchildren… and the great-grandchildren of these refugees; thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state." So it's not gonna happen, everybody knows it's not gonna happen, and I think it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly: It's not gonna happen.

“Now it falls on my shoulders – as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East – to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel's security and will not jeopardize its survival.

“I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation: We don't have a lot of margin for error – and because, Mr. President, history will not give Jewish people another chance.”

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you teach an arrogant, self-interested man a lesson. Republicans, I hope you were taking notes… because there will be a test next fall.

This concludes today’s lecture.

Friday, May 20, 2011

President Obama Bravely Attacks Israel

I listened to literally three seconds of Obama’s speech yesterday. I couldn’t take anymore than that without risking either a) Going brain dead from the weighty mixture of propaganda and inaccuracies or b) screaming at my computer and foaming at the mouth.

Considering that I was at work and needed to retain some semblance of professionalism, I listened to Rush Limbaugh instead, thereby managing to maintain my sanity.

I’m sure that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wishes he could have done the same. Judging by his comments afterwards, I’m sure he had one huge headache after Obama was done talking.

Israel was under attack from multiple fronts just a few days ago. But far from condemning that anti-Semitic military action or even bothering to acknowledge it at all, Obama singled out our greatest ally in the region as the problematic one.

As Linda Chavez at the Washington Examiner acknowledges, the PotUS’s words were not those of any friend worth having:

“With this speech, Obama became the first American president to require that Israel accept its pre-1967 borders as a starting point to negotiations with the Palestinians.


“This is a dramatic departure from U.S. policy, which recognized that agreed-to final borders would be the end product of negotiations between the parties, not a precondition to starting talks. In essence, what Obama has called for is unilateral concessions from Israel without a single concrete concession from the Palestinians.”

Chavez then goes on to detail Israel’s historical right to the land in question… facts the mainstream media is usually all too happy to ignore. Clearly, President Obama has no problem rewriting the records as well.

This all begs the question of why? Why is he so set on alienating our allies while embracing our enemies?

After all, why can’t he take such tough stances on China… instead of throwing them elaborate and costly state dinners?

Or Iran… which he kowtows to, barely uttering a peep of protest as they build up dangerous nuclear capability?

Or Russia… rather than signing dangerous treaties with the clearly hostile country that’s just itching to return to its soviet days of the last century.

Only Obama knows the real reasons behind his dangerous actions. But one thing is for sure, this is not a President the United States can afford to have.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

President Obama to Propose Giving More Money to the Middle East

President Obama is inexcusably irresponsible. And so is the mainstream media.

Even the press admits that the press is pathetic.

Sid Davis, who used to work for NBC Washington, criticizes: “If you watch an Obama news conference… correspondents… [act] as if they are in the room with a monarch and they have to wait to be recognized by the president.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Haynes Johnson calls Obama-press relations “very stale, very structured, very pale.”

And NBC and ABC reporter Sander Vanocur adds: “You want to know what’s wrong with the press? The press is what’s wrong with the press.”

Case in point: Laura Rozen, who wrote an article on Obama’s “major address” tonight.

Her piece is wholly devoid of criticism of a tone deaf and arrogant president. That makes her – and her fellow fawners in the press – quite possibly an idiot and even more likely a traitor.

What other logical conclusion can readers reach when Rozen reports how Obama is “supposed to propose significant U.S. and international economic assistance to support fledgling Arab democracies, in particular in Egypt and Tunisia,” without once mentioning this country’s budget crisis.

Nor does she acknowledge that Egypt is no longer a reliable ally by any means. In fact, it might even become an intense enemy along the lines of Iran.

Instead she quotes multiple so-called authorities giving benign or positive commentary of the President. Her lack of proper coverage is disgraceful and downright disgusting, the very opposite of intellectualism and the very definition of subservient.

I’d say that Rozen and her affiliates should be ashamed of themselves. But that would be assuming they have any shame left, which – let’s face it – doesn’t seem likely.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Obama’s World Is One Big Mess

Once again, the latest round of news clearly shows that the election of Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm… mmm… mmm) did absolutely nothing to resolve… well… anything.

Instead of uniting the country and the world like he promised – and as far too many silly people believed – President Obama is overseeing an increasingly disenfranchised global reality. And unlike the well-meaning delusions of the last worst U.S. leader, Jimmy Carter, this time it seems much more purposeful.

How else can you explain his administration's juvenile reasoning in barring the Boston Herald from full access to his Boston fund-raiser today? White House spokesman Matt Lehrich says he “tend[s] to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters.”

And running an op-ed on Mitt Romney as “the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston… raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits.” Not that he’s purposely barring the Herald, he says.

Really? Then why mention the issue at all? Especially when this isn’t the first time the White House has tried to block what it deems to be less than fawning press…

It’s surprising then that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is threatening the U.S. with another Cold War if the two countries can’t agree on a new missile defense shield. You’d think that two dictatorial tyrants of a feather would flock together more harmoniously. But apparently not.

The same goes for America’s increasingly sour relationship with China. For proof of that, check out the latest video game from China’s Giant Network Technology Co., which pits gun-wielding players against the U.S. military… hardly the sign of one big happy family.

Oh right, and it looks like the Middle East isn’t taking Obama up on his offer of peace. Of course, people who didn’t see that one coming weren’t using their brains. Al Qaeda just nominated a new leader to take over Osama bin Laden’s vacated position.

They might want to save themselves the effort, however, as we seem pretty busy destroying ourselves, what with making white teachers read articles about their supposed inability “to teach African-American students”… doling out taxpayer-funded food stamps to millionaires… and allowing bitter leftist billionaire George Soros to control our mainstream media, from the New York Times to NBC – and USA Today, apparently, based on their blatantly biased take on requiring Americans to show ID when voting.

Maybe next time this nation votes, we should consider treating our candidates like humans instead of gods.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Light Bulbs: the Scourge of the Earth?

Remember how conservatives – concerned about their Second Amendment rights – stocked up on guns after Obama was elected in 2008? Little did they know they were accumulating the wrong thing.

Because it isn’t firearms that are the first to go under a liberal regime… It’s light bulbs.

It may be hard to think of such everyday electrics as dangerous. But they are, liberals assure us, and the ever-helpful Associated Press provides valuable information to prove them right.

After all, The technology in traditional ‘incandescent’ bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it’s used in Hasbro’s Easy-Bake Oven.”

Gasp of shock and horror! Whatever will we do? This sounds like a job for (insert jaunty theme music) the Liberal Lawmaker!!

Fortunately for us uneducated masses and “to encourage energy efficiency,” as the AP continues on ever so obligingly, “Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them.”

I can just imagine two men in jail a few years down the road, meeting for the first time. Tommy the Terror, a Mafia hit man with 23 kills to his name, lounges on his bunk as the cell doors slide shut for lockdown.

“What are you in for?” He asks his roommate.

The new guy looks up at him with a maniacal gleam in his eye and a sadistic twist of his lips. “Importing incandescent light bulbs.”

Tommy gulps and presses himself against the cell wall as far as he can. “Please, don’t hurt me,” he begs.

And then the lights go out and Tommy starts screaming.

The truth is that selling those light bulbs on the sly will probably make for good business come next January, after the ban goes into full affect… since the new models will cost $50 bucks each.

Guess what I’m going to be stockpiling come this weekend? I’d suggest you do too if you want to be able to afford other necessities next year.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Heaven Is a “Fairy Story”

Famed British Scientist Stephen Hawking believes heaven is a “fairy story.” And he has it half right.

Today’s fairy stories involve supernatural elements, a monarchy, romance, a struggle between good and evil, and – ultimately – a happily-ever-ending marriage.

Broken down into this basic formula, the Christian worldview certainly sounds like a fairytale. After all, it involves angels and demons, and a God with phenomenal abilities … all elements that we, today, do not directly and physically experience.

God does not walk among us in such a way that we can see Him, hold His hand and hear His voice. It might make things a lot easier if we could, but that isn’t how He operates right now. According to the Christian perspective, He is the author of this story we call life and we cannot control the larger picture to the extent we often try to.

That struggle to do as we wish: Therein lies the classic case of good vs. evil. Though, of course, good triumphs in the end and evil is vanquished for eternity, as the King of kings claims what is rightfully His – His bride – and leads her into eternal wedded bliss.

Seeing Is Believing… or Is It Really?

To our “rational” 21st century minds, those details sound like the makings of the next Disney movie. We want proof for everything, especially our religions. If we can’t see it, touch it, feel it or read about somebody who did, we have a hard time believing it.

To a large degree, that skepticism is healthy. But – and here’s where Stephen Hawking gets it entirely wrong – we are not merely “computer[s] which will stop working when its components fail.” He himself disproves that analogy in going on to say: “I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”

Problem is, computers don’t “want.” They don’t care if they die. And they certainly have no complex moral code that causes them to dislike when other computers – halfway around the world and wholly unconnected to their continuing existence – get hurt.

But human beings do. We desire more than what our physical selves need. We crave excitement, love, power, attention and acceptance, among other entirely intangible goals. We want happy endings where good triumphs over evil and we don’t have to worry about being hurt anymore.

In accidentally debunking his own theory that we humans are so easily defined, Hawking opens up a host of questions: Why do we “want” more than immediate creature comforts? Could it be that we were made for more? That we have more in store for us than what we can immediately, physically sense?

Sure, it may sound like a fairytale. But it certainly sounds more logical than believing human beings are so finite and predictable as mere computers.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Two and a Half Years After Obama’s Election, They Still Don’t Love Us

November 5, 2008 was a day the world roared in approval and postmodern thanksgiving that finally – finally! – things were going to change.

As Obama himself said during his presidential campaign, the U.S. was going to start caring “for the sick and [giving] good jobs to the jobless,” the planet was going to heal, wars would end and America would once again be seen “as the last, best hope on earth.”

South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo called it “a great day.” “Clearly,” he said, “an Obama administration will be less ideological.”

“I really think this is going to change the world,” Akihiko Mukohama gushed in Japan.

And Jason Ge of China marveled how “America is a diverse, multicultural society where the color of your skin really does not matter” after all.

A gleeful MSNBC further reported:

“In concert halls and ballrooms, in plazas and at beach parties, people across the globe hailed Barack Obama’s election as a stroke for racial equality and voiced hopes his presidency would herald a balanced, less confrontational America.

“Throngs crowded before TVs or listened to blaring radios for the latest updates. In Sydney, Australians filled a hotel ballroom; in Rio, Brazilians parties on the beach. In the town of Obama in Japan, dancers cheered in delight when their namesake’s victory was declared.”

According to those celebratory millions, hope and change had come.

The Audacity of Thinking Hope and Change Are Ever That Easy

But fast-forward to today, when Sarah Palin’s question of “How’s that hopey-changey thing comin’ for ya?” makes much more sense than celebrating. Because far from the new world order Obama promised, the U.S. is still hated, disparaged and disliked.

Far from romancing the Muslim world, Obama has angered militant Islamists just as much as Bush ever did. Admittedly, that’s unavoidable unless we want to commit mass suicide, but our current President still promised it was possible. He shouldn’t be given a free pass just because it was a stupid guarantee in the first place.

And it was inexcusably arrogant.

No matter how much the U.S. press would like to think otherwise, it’s no big surprise that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill Obama anymore than that an Irish Muslim has been arrested for threatening to do the same now that Obama killed Osama.

Nor is it shocking that Australian press personnel are still mocking the U.S. for our military actions, calling us “secretive and shabby.” Or that even here in America, we continue to blanket ourselves in such shame over who we are and what we’ve done that we ban school children from displaying pictures of the American flag because it might offend somebody.

Obama never was the great hope that people worldwide worshipped him as. Hope and change are ever that easy.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Jill Scott and the Diverse Faces of Racism

Today’s politically culture would have us believe that only white people can really be racist. But as easy as that theory may make the problem appear, it’s overwhelmingly and inexcusably ignorant.

Jill Scott – a three-time Grammy-winning artist, writer, actress, philanthropist, mother and invitee to Michelle Obama's poetry and prose appreciation night at the White House this coming Wednesday – should be far too educated to buy into such ridiculous notions. But schooling doesn’t affect a person’s character any more than race determines their worth. If anything, sometimes it just makes it worse, as it becomes easier to argue our way out of bad behavior.

Scott, a black woman, tries to do just that in an article on interracial dating:

“My new friend… is happily married to a White woman. I admit when I saw his wedding ring, I privately hoped. But something in me just knew he didn’t marry a sister. Although my guess hit the mark, when my friend told me his wife was indeed Caucasian, I felt my spirit… [her punctuation] wince.”

She goes on to ponder:  “Did the reality of his relationship somehow diminish his soul’s credibility? The answer is not simple.” Scott proceeds to excuse her reaction as not racist because she wasn’t raised to be that way and because “African people worldwide are known to be welcoming and open-minded. We share our culture sometimes to our own peril and most of us love the very notion of love.”

Yet Scott indicts herself repeatedly even in that brief defense, making gross generalizations about “African people worldwide,” an enormously diverse group just as prone as any other race to fits of atrocities and heroics, intelligence and stupidity. That’s evident from even the most rudimentary understanding of human behavior, much less world history and events. I could produce just as many references to debunk her idea that most Africans “love the very notion of love” as I could if she was saying such silly things about whites, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics or other ethnic groups.

Equally important to note is her theory that being with a white woman might “diminish” a black man’s “soul’s credibility”… and the fact that she never dismisses the idea. Even setting aside the egotism involved in asking that question, it’s palpably racist to think that loving a person with a different skin color could have such harmful effects.

Racism Is Racism Is Racism No Matter What Other People Say and Do or Have Said and Have Done

If any white U.S. citizen made such absurdly ill-mannered comments, they would be rightfully condemned as racist. So why should Jill Scott be held to any different standards in this regard?

She argues that she and other black women who “wince” at interracial relationships deserve a pass because of the disrespect and degradation of slavery. But if past wrongs can still condemn a group generations later, then can’t I – as a white woman – claim the same right to think less of an entire group of people because of things done to me much more recently?

For example, I left my apartment to go for a walk last evening and said a polite hello to my black neighbor’s son and his black friend, only to hear the latter say, That ass is the bomb” as I walked away. Forgetting the fact that I’m a decent decade older than the little twerp – and that the phrase “the bomb” was lame enough when I was his age, much less now – that was still disrespectful.

So was the time a black guy followed me for blocks, calling out sexually inappropriate things and actually making me fear for my safety. I even had a black man try to rufie me in a club once.

To those still desperately trying to excuse racism, let me strip off the shiny gloss: That would have been rape… just as horrible an act as what too many slave owners did to too many slave women. Inconvenient skin color doesn’t disguise that harsh reality.

With that said, I’ve also had white men make me wish I owned a snarling Doberman Pinscher. And there are plenty of white and black women who are equally adept at various forms of intimidatation as well.

In short: People are people, which means they can be dreadful no matter their ethnic background. It’s high time for us to realize that despite our obvious differences, we’re all human and all capable of the same emotions and actions.

That means that blacks can be racist too. And it means that, no matter her excuses, Jill Scott is just that.

Cop “Killing” Rappers, the TSA – Again! – and a Tax on Parents with Obese Kids

This is one of those news days where everything is capturing my attention. So this is going to be one of those blog days where I just give you the rundown in as sarcastic a form as I can muster (which is pretty sarcastic, especially on a beautiful, blue-skied day when I would much rather be outside than sitting at my work desk)…

Let’s start in New Jersey, my birth state, where oversensitive cops are making a mountain out of a molehill. Sure Michelle Obama personally invited a rapper – who wrote about burning George W. Bush and shooting police officers – to her poetry gala. But that’s just art, right? And anyway, I’m sure he wasn’t condoning shooting black cops, so it’s all OK.

Now step sideways to Illinois, where state Senator Shane Cultra has proposed marvelous government intervention into child obesity: Tax their parents even further. Presumably, with less money, those families would be able to starve their kids into a more acceptable size, ensuring fewer problems for Obama’s healthcare mandates. Even better, this bright idea came from a Republican, showing that any mind can be turned into mush, even if it’s followed by “an itty bitty” R, as Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown might say.

But move over Illinois, because California might have a better solution. Just tell those children that if they work out enough, they have a shot at making $100,000-plus per year as lifeguards in Orange County! After all, nothing is too good for our public employees.

For example, look at the U.S.’s number one public employee, President Obama, who went down to Texas on Tuesday to praise his own ever-laudable efforts and trash his childish “enemies,” as he once called anybody who believed in national security:

“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.”

And then with his signature brand of maturity, he said: “Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll want alligators” in it.

Oh, to have that level of class and grace! We mere mortals can only dream.

President Obama is also hard at work on another international relationship by asking the Muslim world – yet again – to usher in an age of peace and brotherly love… after he went and shot Osama bin Laden, a man some of them revere, in the head.

I’m sure this time will work. After Obama speaks, we won’t have any more incidences of Yemeni men trying to infiltrate San-Francisco-bound cockpits while yelling, “God is Great.”

Of that recent episode, all I have to say is “Thank heavens!” that the TSA was hard at work feeling up babies’ diapers. Otherwise, things might have gotten ugly.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Jan Brewer: Conservative Super Star

I’ll admit it openly and freely: I have a conservative crush on Governor Jan Brewer.

In my mind, she’s right up there with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, and Congressman Alan West, also of Florida and a retired U.S. Lt. Colonel.

These people have the spunk and principles the Republican Party so desperately needs. Take Jan Brewer’s continuing fight against illegal immigration, for instance…

Because it neighbors Mexico, Arizona struggles under the costly weight of illegal immigration. Not that you would know that from listening to President Obama, who repeatedly maligned her for trying to enforce federal laws last year. Yet Brewer remains undeterred and is now taking that battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While that legal process drags out, she and her state are taking further steps to protect themselves from the threat Obama should be – but isn’t – handling.

Even the Associated Press admits: “The nearly 2000-mile U.S.-Mexico border already has about 650 miles of fence of one type or another, nearly half of it in Arizona. The state’s 376-mile border is the busiest gateway for both illegal immigrants and marijuana smuggling.”

In other words, what exists now isn’t working.

So Brewer set things in motion to set up a better wall, authorizing the creation of a website to take in public for donations for the effort. Considering the support she got last time she tangled with the Obama administration, I expect her to do just as well in this effort.

One giant indication that Brewer not only means business but gets things done is this: Liberals in Pima County, a southern section of the state, want to secede and start their own, 51st state.

Enough said.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Women Can Be Idiots

Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing on us…

I consider myself quite the cynic, so it’s not exactly a good sign when even I get surprised by humanity’s destructive depravity. But apparently, my suspicious imagination is limited, since I never would have thought of SlutWalks.

What are SlutWalks, you ask? They’re an example of just how stupid my gender can be and a larger picture of how far people in general will go to excuse their bad behavior.

Overall, I am proud of being female. It’s what God made me and it means something special: a complicated mixture of good and bad; excitement and solemnity; crazy, lighthearted fun and responsibility that I wouldn’t trade even if I could. But there are too many women out there who refuse to accept reality… as evidenced by the SlutWalks.

These Walks started after a Toronto police officer advised a group of students to protect themselves from rapists by not dressing like “sluts.” And now, women – and men. There’s a shocker – all around the world are taking to the streets…

In defense of sluts.

Stupid Beyond Imagination

Was the cop right in implying that rape victims are “asking for it?” Of course not! When men really want to behave like selfish, sadistic animals, they do, regardless of whether their victims are wearing bikinis or burkas. And as the physically weaker sex, females aren’t always well equipped to defend ourselves.

Yet foolishly, western women have an invincibility mentality, where we convince ourselves that we can shove our sexuality in everybody’s faces without risking any negative consequences.

In a perfect world, that might be true.

Then again, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t be that stupid or inconsiderate of other people’s sensibilities either… People wouldn’t die from sexually transmitted diseases… Children wouldn’t start having sex well before they’re emotionally or even physically ready to bear the consequences (all because a society of self-proclaimed sluts told them it was the In thing to do)… Feelings wouldn’t get hurt, lives wouldn’t be shattered and there would be no marred psyches because of somebody else’s actions.

But this is reality. And it isn’t a perfect world. So there are consequences to actions. There are bad people out there and there are ways to make it easier to avoid them.

And, contrary to what today’s great “thinkers” say, celebrating sluts is not one of them.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Jon Stewart, Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi Weigh in on Obama and Osama

Liberals very rarely turn on their own, so it can be a heart attack-inducing shock when they actually do. With that said, if you suffer from a weak constitution, consider yourself duly warned: The following information could be fatal…

Jon Stewart is an obviously biased liberal, as evidenced by his co-orchestration of last year’s “Rally to Restore Sanity,” which mocked Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor,” the Tea Party and general concern for the U.S.’s kamikaze-style fiscal policies.

While the also liberal Wikipedia describes Stewart as “an American political satirist, writer, television host, actor, media critic and stand up comedian… widely known as host of The Daily Show, a satirical news program that airs on Comedy Central,” that’s an extremely rose-colored perspective.

It’s much more accurate to describe Stewart as a liberal comedian who panders to the idiot youth of the left, a group of people who largely can’t be bothered to formulate an intelligent opinion on their own.

With that said, Stewart can be very funny. Not all the time, mind you, but I have chuckled at his sarcastic commentary before, even when it mocks my beliefs. And anybody who saw him host the 78th Academy Awards ceremony had to admit that he knocked it out of the park! (Unless, of course, they’re George Clooney.)

But again, he’s a leftist and largely makes a living mocking conservatism. So when he delivers a minutes-long satirical rant (as opposed to his occasional snark) against Obama for not releasing the pictures of Osama, it comes as a pleasant – and in this case, highly amusing! – surprise. If you need a laugh or two, I highly recommend you watch the clip.

Michael Moore Goes Conservative on the Piers Morgan Show on CNN

Now moving on to Michael Moore, who hates Bush, conservatives and fat, white, old men, which is kinda funny considering that he is a fat, white, old man.

And yet even Moore said: “They didn’t kill him because there was some kind of firefight… They went there with the intention to kill him. That’s an execution or assassination… I’m glad he’s gone. But… we’ve lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I’m just an old-school American who believes in our American judicial system, something that separates us from… other countries where we say everybody has their day in court no matter… what piece of scum they are, they have a right to a trial.”

Is it just me or does Michael Moore almost sound like a Tea Partier with his solemn salute to “old-school America” and American exceptionalism? Clearly, Obama is confusing his core base to the point where – in broken disillusion with their alleged Messiah – they’re staggering to the right like the bloodied and bruised survivors of a bombing raid, finally forced to abandon their delusions for a harsh reality.

Nancy Pelosi Speaks up about Obama’s Role in Osama bin Laden’s Death

And then there’s Nancy Pelosi…

Just kidding!

Of course she didn’t say anything negative about the president! She’s never stayed steadfast on a single issue in her life, save maybe women’s so-called rights to slaughter their unborn children. (How nice.)

So while the then-Speaker of the House said back in September 2007 that capturing Osama bin Laden “tomorrow… is [still] five years too late,” in an effort to further discredit President George W. Bush, she praised Obama to high heaven On Monday for the “historic” death of the terrorist leader, “the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida.”

Gotta give Pelosi props for steadfastly sticking with her talking points in the face of dignity, truth and the good of the American people she claims to represent.

And hey, two wake-up calls out of three ain’t bad, right? You certainly won’t find me complaining.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Trying to Clinically Solve Evil Is a Noble and Typically Pointless Liberal Exercise

The problem with some liberals is that they honestly believe what they say.

Tragically, that probably includes Mike Malloy, a radio talk show host who recently asked: “So when does Seal Unit 6… drop on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more… innocent death than bin Laden.”

That level of cultish fanaticism towards an idea – one so far removed from the facts as to necessitate the comparison of a mass murderer to a U.S. president who authorized a country’s liberation from a revolting dictator who stooped so low as to employ a MINISTER OF RAPE AND TORTURE – is incomprehensibly insane.

And if you listen to Malloy espousing the idea, he truly seems to believe it.

The same goes for Simon Baron-Cohen, a liberal who grew up to stories his Jewish father told him about the Nazis inhuman conduct against their victims. Now a Cambridge University professor and a world-renowned expert in developmental psychopathology, he is trying to find a solution to reprehensible acts of violence.

From all appearances, he appears wholly devoted to that pursuit. But while laudable, his efforts are a complete waste of time because of his faulty premises…

Baron-Cohen, basing his theories on decades of research, says there are multiple parts of the brain that make up the “empathy circuit.” When people intentionally hurt others, that simply indicates faulty wiring up there.

Yet he also believes in “keep[ing] an open mind. I would never want to say a person is beyond help. Empathy is a skill like any other human skill – and if you get a chance to practice, you can get better at it.”

Maybe. But that seems like a hopelessly naïve theory (and certainly an unscientific one to propose a total lack of exceptions to a rule governing such a diverse group of subjects).

Does he really think that every one of those Nazis his father told him about went home after work and beat their spouses? Or how about the Roman soldiers who hung captives up on crosses to die slowly from exposure, thirst and excruciatingly slow suffocation… None of them ever cared when their children got splinters in their fingers?

In other words, a subject can have empathy towards one person and none for another. Vanquishing evil by redefining it as a biological and/or educational problem it is as silly as merely frowning on the use of certain words to eliminate racism or sexism.

In the end, evil exists not due to a lack of education and proper biology, but because we live in a fallen world that is prone to sin and selfishness. And unless everybody everywhere decides to fight that nature everyday, evil isn’t going away anytime soon.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Osama bin Laden’s Death Is Turning from a Major Victory into an Embarrassing Headache for President Obama

The stories about Osama bin Laden’s death – or alleged death, according to some within the United States and abroad – is getting more and more confusing by the day.

On the one hand, some amount of clashing details as the story circulates makes sense. This did happen half way across the world, after all. And most of those people relating information to the public were not actually there to see the killing firsthand.

But even so, the multitude of completely contradictory information is becoming overwhelming and even downright embarrassing.

Take for example, stories that:

With all of that conflicting data, no wonder White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had to admit he was “getting confused” as well.

And even beyond the plethora of claims surrounding bin Laden’s death, there are other embarrassments coming out, including the mission’s apparently offensive code name of Geronimo, former President George W. Bush’s refusal to attend a commemorative ceremony at Ground Zero, and the fact that waterboarding – a policy that Obama trashed his predecessor on – was instrumental in locating bin Laden in the first place.

Whatever you think of Obama’s capabilities, you have to at least give him this: Nobody knows how to screw up a victory as elaborately as he does.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Obama Supporters Need to Take It Down a Few Notches before They Make Fools of Themselves (Oh, wait…)

Not surprisingly, everybody is still abuzz about Osama bin Laden.

For some conservatives, his death indicates a sure win for Obama in 2012. At the risk of mocking my own compatriots, I have four words for that opinion: “It’s the economy, stupid.” And I'm not the only person to think so.

Other conservatives are convinced Osama isn’t really dead. While I think that would be an exceedingly foolish move for the U.S., even under this overconfident administration, I understand the doubts. After all, why get rid of the body so mysteriously and so quickly?

Regardless, while the political right is vacillating between despondency and skepticism, the liberal left is overjoyed that their man, Obama, finally got it right. For once.

Take one of my friend’s Facebook status: “I wonder if Obama called Bush and was like, ‘Hey, where’d you put that Mission Accomplished banner?’”

Knowing the immaturity of the current president, he might very well have done just that. But that’s beside the point, considering how exceedingly silly that status is…

This May or May Not Be Obama’s “Mission Accomplished,” Depending on How You Look at It

First of all, Bush was referring to Iraq, not Osama bin Laden, when he spoke beside that now infamous banner. Despite popular thought to the contrary, there is a difference, as Bush, Cheney and Condaleeza Rice all stressed at the time and since.

Second off, as one of her other Facebook friends pointed out, implying that the death of Osama bin Laden is indicative of the end of a war is dangerously shortsighted. And isn’t that what got Bush in trouble in the first place: claiming that it was over when it wasn’t?

And let’s face it: It more than likely isn’t over. It would be nice if it was but reality is usually not that euphoric, especially not when dealing with deranged mass-murderers.

For instance, Omar bin Laden – the son of the now deceased terrorist – said back in 2010 that should his father be killed, things could get much worse for the U.S. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, warns that al Qaeda hid a nuclear bomb somewhere in Europe to set off if its leader was captured.

Even if that’s just mere bravado, the Taliban is already vowing to retaliate for bin Laden’s death, and Muslim clerics say that the terrorist’s burial at sea was grossly disrespectful and therefore could spark further attacks.

Looks like Obama’s idiot attempt at courtesy failed miserably. No big surprise there.

Unlike liberals, I am not going to wish that something bad happens in order to validate my vote in the presidential elections. In fact, I find that kind of thinking particularly sick and twisted.

But I’m not ready yet to throw a party yet either. And I think the U.S. and the western world should hold off on the celebrations for a little while as well if we know what’s good for us.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama Bin Laden’s Death Does Not Signify the End for Us… Only an End

So Osama Bin Laden is dead.

As the nation celebrates this momentous news, I can’t help but feel sobered. While I’m in no way sad to be rid of such a vile, reprehensible creature, I can’t help but think past the immediate triumph and resolution of the moment to consider what it really means.

From one of these angles, we need to recognize that a man is dead. The taking of a life, even when necessary, is never a small matter. And, at the risk of sounding flippant, I somehow doubt he found his afterlife virgins ready to wait on him hand and foot.

Meanwhile, from a military aspect, Osama’s death will probably set off a firestorm of retaliatory measures from his faithful following. Hamas has already condemned U.S. military actions “as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood,” particularly that of an “Arab holy warrior.”

One message on a Jihadist forum reads, “Oh Americans… it is still legal for us to cut your necks.” And Omar Bakri, a Lebanese Sunni cleric, boasts that the terrorist’s “martyrdom will give momentum to a large generation of believers and jihadists. Al Qaeda is not a political party… [It] does not end with the death of a leader.”

Still others, such as Iranian shopkeeper Ali Asghar Sedaghat, refuse to think he’s gone at all: “Are we sure that he has been killed? Or is it another game of the Americans?”

I am in no way trying to belittle the courage or proficiency of the U.S. military, and I sincerely thank them and their allies for all they’ve done and are continuing to do. I believe they did what was necessary, putting themselves in harm’s way in order to do so. And I am glad that the world is now plagued with one less heinous person.

But even from a political standpoint, America needs to keep its eyes open. This nation still has a leader who – at best – thinks that logic and kind words can turn aside maniacal hatred. The Obama administration, when asked how Osama bin Laden’s body was going to be handled, was quick to assure that handling the body “in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition” is something they “take very seriously, and so, therefore, this is being handled in an appropriate manner.”

With – sincerely – no disrespect meant, I have to ask why we’re going out of the way to give his remains religious respect, considering the absolute lack of respect he went out of his way to give us. And yet we’re going to take the time and effort to dispose of him on his terms instead of our own?

That makes even less sense than $4-plus per gallon gas, or giving small reptiles precedence over economically hurting Americans.