Have We Ever Seen Such A War Against Reality?

The bad news piles up day after day, hour after hour. This morning I read where the unemployment rate among the young is 52.8%, up from a rate in the lower 20s on average. In the face of this, two months ago the government raised the minimum wage, an act of force which always takes it toll on the least skilled and least knowledgeable the most. The young and the poor take this hit.

Rather than free the economy such that people can make agreements to work for a wage, any wage they are willing to accept, the government sees all of this as more reason to redistribute people's wealth to the poor. This is insane.

But this is not the only thing that is insane.

We have an Administration and a Congress that are hell-bent on an agenda - and it is an agenda with a poor, extremely poor, track record. Socialism, with its latest incarnation known as Progressivism, is a total failure. Government force, in fact, except to stop force initiated by someone against another's rights, is a failure as far as I can see. People will disagree with me on this, but I'm not persuaded. If something is so damn good, why does government have to hold a gun to people's heads in order to force them to it? There's something off in their argument.

Freedom provides abundance and in the process makes available the things that the poor need. (The poor is the current justification for everything.) This is the avenue to a higher standard of living for all people. But instead of recognizing this, this government is into total regression.

What happened? Did we as a culture get hung up on dealing with a flood of wealth? Was it so good that suddenly some diabolical moralistic puritanism suddenly overwhelmed us? That's how it seems.

Guilt has its power and now we are besieged with stories that the population will either be decimated by Swine Flu or too much carbon dioxide in the air. Neither of these dire predictions are going to pan out. Only an unearned guilt for being a bad generally happy, productive nation could give them any consideration.

There are many steps on the road to a successful outcome whereby society is lifted to another level. One thing is for damn sure true. It is never caused by government force.

And yet, that is what we are seeing in dump-truck loads. And that is what all the tea party fuss is really about. As another truck up-ends its bed, the government force required via taxation or regulations is just dumped on the people. We don't like it. In fact, we hate it!

Well, some seem to like it. Some think it will cause the ideal society. Some are apologists for it, desperately trying to rationalize it via non-essential reason and argument. (They don't question whether it is right or wrong, just whether we can afford it. They are like the ACORN employees up a few rungs on the intellectual scale.) And, some want to reside in the trappings of tradition, honoring "The Man who is our President" rather than really holding him accountable.

And there are those who are cynical about it or simply passive. "We are all going to die anyway and someone's going to throw dirt on our face, so why get all worked up?" Or, "I can't solve it so I'm not going to worry about it."

The unreality is everywhere. The government has exploded its spending and now it is to the point that we are not going to be able to get our production of good and services to the point where we will ever be able to pay for it. And the government doesn't even care. Geithner has talked about some other currency becoming the store of value for the world. This means to me that he and the government do not want to be held accountable to keep the currency sound. "Noooo. That would mean keeping spending in check. Can't do that. Too many mouths to feed."

Suddenly the "worker" is vaunted and the businessman, the creator of businesses and jobs which the worker works, vilified. The bigger the business the more hated the businessman. Isn't it obvious except to the willfully blind, that making it harder morally and practically for the businessman to succeed means that there will be fewer jobs? And, when we are down to street markets, do you really think that the prior laborers will produce better goods and do well rather than those with a brain and the entrepreneurial spirit? Not likely. But Michael Moore is undaunted.

And there is nothing more insane than the environmentalists. These people are the new "Christians" marching to war. "Onward 'Environ' soldiers, marching as to war." They will fight for the life of a fish any day before the life of a man. If man comes in last in this value war, then I say, "Screw the planet."

When it comes to the environment, Al Gore is head "dementia-ist." But Obama is not far behind. At the UN, he said this: "If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear." I would like to add this: "If man doesn't change his ways, man, along with every worm in the earth and bird in the air shall pass from the face of the earth forever, and ever." Here is a man with a clear case of what I call biblical insanity. (Read Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer for a much larger context for appreciating how the earth and its climate works.)

And while the politicians, Obama leader among them, castigate greed as the almighty sin, he greedily grabs political power tying everyone hand and foot - except all those who love the double standard and bask in its light. "We know better and besides, we won," they tell us. They know when its time for a person to live or die and aim to insert themselves between you and your body. Businessmen who seek to profit off this aren't really businessmen in my book. They are just the sucker fish attached to the body of the whale. We are at a low ebb on the integrity scale.

In a free country, you get narcissists. They are part of the colorful range of expression which a free country begets. The culture takes them in stride waiting for their egomania to do them in. It normally does unless they produce something of lasting value.

Strong egos are necessary for any forward motion of society so I'm not damning them per se. There are healthy egos and unhealthy egos. Narcissists are unhealthy egos. Commentators have been seeing Obama as a narcissist for some time. But in the UN speech he went further than before. He had to make the United States small and himself "The One" who is saving it and the world. (And if you want to get a clear picture of how full of s--t he is, he told the UN Thursday how he handled Guantanamo and today we learn he's not going to handle it.)

Obama has an agenda. Many have seen this. Now it is obvious that his agenda precludes his seeing or paying attention to reality, which is asserting itself all around him. People are protesting the dump-truck approach to instituting his agenda. His ACORNs and Czars are seen as devoid of a moral compass or outright destroyers. Do you think he will get it? I'm not sure he is capable.

We've had plenty of folly in this country, but has there been a time when it has been greater?

Is This Coronation by Global Triangulation?

Suppose you have a close relationship with a friend/spouse. Your friend/spouse does something you don't like and instead of going to them with your complaint/concern, you go to another friend and talk about them. This person agrees with your side of the story which eases your angst. You don't really resolve your difference with your friend/spouse and you don't repair your relationship.

The situation smoulders; your relationship deteriorates. You wonder why you can no longer get it up. Your interest wains; an emotional estrangement ensues. A worse case is if you used what the second friend said as backing for your position in a talk with your friend/spouse. Needless to say, your friend/spouse will get angry, feel outnumbered and violated because you blabbed about them outside the relationship. This is the phenomenon of triangulation, the use of an uninvolved outside person/group to gain power in a situation.

There are other aspects to this like asking a question of the third person that you know they will answer in a certain way and then use that differently back home in a different context.

Obama is now in the Mideast, soon to go to Europe. Already Der Spiegel, a German news magazine, ran a controversial article stating that Maliki, PM of Iraq, agrees with Obama's 16 month plan. "When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded, as written in the article, 'as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.' He then continued: 'US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.'"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

(I'm hearing now that Maliki said he was misinterpreted by Der Spiegel. This may or may not be true since the Muslim countries are known for their opaque manipulations. I'm left wondering.)

Is Obama going to Europe to get backing from a "friend" to finesse McCain? Cannot he now say (or better yet let us see for ourselves), "It's what Maliki as spokesman for the Iraqi people want so my timetable is right and your hedging on a withdrawal date regardless of your reasons is wrong?"

McCain's position as I understand it is that we have had tremendous success in Iraq. We don't want to mess it up by being hasty and opening up the situation to a reversal when it is in its closing phase. If the situation were to deteriorate we may have to go back for a third war in Iraq, the very thing that most people complained about how Bush I handled the situation.

Obama, after visiting Iraq and Jordan (he's already been to Afghanistan) heads to Europe for some "rock star" performances. 300 of the press are following his every move, beaming images and stories back to the US. Is he using this means rather than debate and dialogue with McCain and the American people to secure his coronation? I think he intends so.

Power and adulation is Obama's primary motive. Positive results in the districts he has representated are "shrimpy" at best and non-existent or negative in at least two important cases.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs regarding his association with Rezko who is now in jail in housing and http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/19/that-%e2%80%9cguy-who-lives-in-my-neighborhood%e2%80%9d-behind-the-ayers-obama-relationship/ regarding his education project.

I do not favor public housing under any circumstances as the free market is moral and it is practically superior for providing housing at all income levels. Also the same freedom provides responsible charity. The above links demonstrate the results for projects Obama put himself on the hook for. These projects are the result of an immoral ethic that pervades our society and which allows Obama to be irresponsible regarding his results. He says "I didn't know."

Further, political triangulation is a tactic from the class warfare playbook - pit one class against another, one ethnic group against another, ultimately one person against another in an ongoing group-based battle. Alinsky, his primary class warfare political tactic mentor, screams the only issue to be power, power, power, Everything I see in Obama is a match for these tactics. His campaign is certainly not about the issues. He says anything, contradicts what he's previously said or walks an oratorial tightrope in the hope to feed cake to all sides. As for me, my head is spinning; I have a headache; I don a neck brace before I watch TV (not really). The fascination with his eloquent preacherly orations have soured to grandiloquent bullshit. I don't believe any of it except that he loves adulation too much.

Just as the person in the opening scenario won't do the heavy lifting and endure the discomfort of rationally dealing with the real issues for whatever reason and opts for petty blow-offs, Obama continues to play the "I'm a star" game where "out-starring" his opponent is his answer. I find it deeply disrespectful to human being and anyone who actually cares and is interested in the workability of his ideas.

McCain is looking like a loyal friend/spouse while Obama galavants around the neighborhood looking for people who tell him he's cool.