Friday, July 30, 2004
No Hope for the Losercrats
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 30, 2004
Because of Republican successes, Democrats must now hope for catastrophes in the economy, Afghanistan, and Iraq to have a chance in the current election cycle. Democrats must secretly be rooting for al Qaeda to incite a Tet Offensive in Iraq and to slaughter thousands of Americans here at home in order to discredit Republican policies of preemptive war and treating terrorists as unlawful combatants. Meanwhile, the Democrats have to distract our attention from the booming economy that Republican economic policies induced.
The problem for the Democrats is that if their hoped for catastrophes materialize, and Bush is discredited, and Kerry is elected, then the Democrats are going to have to pick up the pieces and fix the problems. If Republican policies succeed, and America is stronger and more prosperous as a result, then there is no reason to vote for Democrats. If Republican policies fail, and America is weaker and less prosperous as a result, then there is still no reason to vote for Democrats because Democrat policies of retreat, appeasement, and deferring America’s national security to nations hostile to the U. S. will necessarily result in more horrific terrorist attacks on our home soil. If you haven’t heard by now, you should know that the Democrats have already formulated policies that will insure that terrorists will massacres tens of thousands of American citizens. Democrats have announced that they will not go to war to stop potential terrorist attacks unless and until the threat is imminent and (AND!) verifiable.
The stupidity of this position is obvious; it is an open invitation for terrorists and the nations that sponsor them to be extra sneaky in devising methods to attack the United States. From the point of view of American intelligence agencies, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was neither imminent nor verifiable. Preemptive action against the Empire of Japan in 1937-1941 would have prevented Pearl Harbor. The difference today is that the next Pearl Harbor will be New York City or Washington, D. C., the attack will be with nuclear or biological weapons, not torpedoes, and the targets will be tens of thousands of civilians, not 2,400 sailors and Marines.
Ours is an open society. We cannot close our borders. Our only hope of survival against suicidal mass murderers is to follow the Bush policy of draining the swamp, taking the war overseas to countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran that enlist, train, fund, and otherwise sponsor terrorist armies. If we don’t kill the terrorists before they get organized, they will attack us. We cannot wait for imminent and verifiable threats to materialize before we defend ourselves. Like the pacifists and appeasers of 1930’s Europe, the Democrats have retreated into a fantasy world. Meanwhile, the rest of us are still at risk.
If the Bush policies succeed, then the Democrats lose. If the Bush policies fail, then the Democrats will be left to clean up the wreckage, but because they don’t have any policies that will actually clean up the mess, they will lose again. If they lose, they lose; if they win, they lose. They are the Losercrats.
The best thing that can happen for the Democrats in this election cycle is for them to suffer a crushing defeat, and then for things to go horribly wrong for the Republicans in the next four years. This will set up Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Edwards, or some other demagogue to ride to the rescue and claim to be the Great Savior.
The terrible truth is that no matter how much you hate President Bush, the Democrats are not a feasible alternative. They have nothing to offer but slogans and fantasies of their own superiority. To evict a competent team and replace them with a gang of self-absorbed, self-important, arrogant, blame-mongering, hatemongering, crybaby ex-hippies will serve no purpose.
The Democrats have no hope of victory either against the Republicans or against the terrorists because the Democrats have no policies that actually produce the results they promise. No matter how much you hate multi-millionaires (many of whom, like Michael Moore, are Democrats), tax rate increases will stifle the economy and cost millions of jobs. No matter how much you hate Dick Cheney, deferring our national security to hostile countries like France, Russia, and Communist China will leave us vulnerable to attack. No matter how much you hate right-wing Christians, running interference for the radical homosexual lobby has the same effect as promoting their agenda, and promoting abortion as a method of birth control ensures that we will always be outnumbered, and therefore always under attack.
The stark reality is that Democrat policies weaken America and leave is vulnerable to attack by powerful enemies, and Republican policies strengthen America. The Democrats are too stupid to understand that a strong America strengthens the Democratic Party, and a weak America weakens the Democratic Party. John F. Kennedy understood this. He was the last pro-American Democrat President.
Democrats are losers because of their unyielding distrust of America, our history, our culture, and our people. They have failed over the last generation because of they distrust America, not because of Republican dirty tricks.
Of the available options, the Republicans are superior to the Democrats. Tax, health care, and education concerns don’t matter when you’re dead. Reagan was right to defeat the Soviet Union. Bush is right to defeat fascist Islam, even if it means going to war in distant, primitive lands, and trying to build self-governing countries out of tribal societies. The only other choice, the choice the Democrats prefer, is to retreat into our bunkers and endure endless attacks on our home soil.
The Democrat plan is simply too risky. Stay alive. Vote Bush in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 30, 2004
Because of Republican successes, Democrats must now hope for catastrophes in the economy, Afghanistan, and Iraq to have a chance in the current election cycle. Democrats must secretly be rooting for al Qaeda to incite a Tet Offensive in Iraq and to slaughter thousands of Americans here at home in order to discredit Republican policies of preemptive war and treating terrorists as unlawful combatants. Meanwhile, the Democrats have to distract our attention from the booming economy that Republican economic policies induced.
The problem for the Democrats is that if their hoped for catastrophes materialize, and Bush is discredited, and Kerry is elected, then the Democrats are going to have to pick up the pieces and fix the problems. If Republican policies succeed, and America is stronger and more prosperous as a result, then there is no reason to vote for Democrats. If Republican policies fail, and America is weaker and less prosperous as a result, then there is still no reason to vote for Democrats because Democrat policies of retreat, appeasement, and deferring America’s national security to nations hostile to the U. S. will necessarily result in more horrific terrorist attacks on our home soil. If you haven’t heard by now, you should know that the Democrats have already formulated policies that will insure that terrorists will massacres tens of thousands of American citizens. Democrats have announced that they will not go to war to stop potential terrorist attacks unless and until the threat is imminent and (AND!) verifiable.
The stupidity of this position is obvious; it is an open invitation for terrorists and the nations that sponsor them to be extra sneaky in devising methods to attack the United States. From the point of view of American intelligence agencies, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was neither imminent nor verifiable. Preemptive action against the Empire of Japan in 1937-1941 would have prevented Pearl Harbor. The difference today is that the next Pearl Harbor will be New York City or Washington, D. C., the attack will be with nuclear or biological weapons, not torpedoes, and the targets will be tens of thousands of civilians, not 2,400 sailors and Marines.
Ours is an open society. We cannot close our borders. Our only hope of survival against suicidal mass murderers is to follow the Bush policy of draining the swamp, taking the war overseas to countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran that enlist, train, fund, and otherwise sponsor terrorist armies. If we don’t kill the terrorists before they get organized, they will attack us. We cannot wait for imminent and verifiable threats to materialize before we defend ourselves. Like the pacifists and appeasers of 1930’s Europe, the Democrats have retreated into a fantasy world. Meanwhile, the rest of us are still at risk.
If the Bush policies succeed, then the Democrats lose. If the Bush policies fail, then the Democrats will be left to clean up the wreckage, but because they don’t have any policies that will actually clean up the mess, they will lose again. If they lose, they lose; if they win, they lose. They are the Losercrats.
The best thing that can happen for the Democrats in this election cycle is for them to suffer a crushing defeat, and then for things to go horribly wrong for the Republicans in the next four years. This will set up Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Edwards, or some other demagogue to ride to the rescue and claim to be the Great Savior.
The terrible truth is that no matter how much you hate President Bush, the Democrats are not a feasible alternative. They have nothing to offer but slogans and fantasies of their own superiority. To evict a competent team and replace them with a gang of self-absorbed, self-important, arrogant, blame-mongering, hatemongering, crybaby ex-hippies will serve no purpose.
The Democrats have no hope of victory either against the Republicans or against the terrorists because the Democrats have no policies that actually produce the results they promise. No matter how much you hate multi-millionaires (many of whom, like Michael Moore, are Democrats), tax rate increases will stifle the economy and cost millions of jobs. No matter how much you hate Dick Cheney, deferring our national security to hostile countries like France, Russia, and Communist China will leave us vulnerable to attack. No matter how much you hate right-wing Christians, running interference for the radical homosexual lobby has the same effect as promoting their agenda, and promoting abortion as a method of birth control ensures that we will always be outnumbered, and therefore always under attack.
The stark reality is that Democrat policies weaken America and leave is vulnerable to attack by powerful enemies, and Republican policies strengthen America. The Democrats are too stupid to understand that a strong America strengthens the Democratic Party, and a weak America weakens the Democratic Party. John F. Kennedy understood this. He was the last pro-American Democrat President.
Democrats are losers because of their unyielding distrust of America, our history, our culture, and our people. They have failed over the last generation because of they distrust America, not because of Republican dirty tricks.
Of the available options, the Republicans are superior to the Democrats. Tax, health care, and education concerns don’t matter when you’re dead. Reagan was right to defeat the Soviet Union. Bush is right to defeat fascist Islam, even if it means going to war in distant, primitive lands, and trying to build self-governing countries out of tribal societies. The only other choice, the choice the Democrats prefer, is to retreat into our bunkers and endure endless attacks on our home soil.
The Democrat plan is simply too risky. Stay alive. Vote Bush in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Don’t Think About It
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 28, 2004
My apologies for the crudeness of this commentary, but, let’s face it, you can’t talk about men having sex with other men without being crude.
I had another disagreement with someone over an unpleasant topic. He talked about an encounter he had with his father in which his father said that when he thought about what homosexual men do*, it made him sick to his stomach. He told his father that if it made him sick to think about it, then just don’t think about it.
I was stunned by the pure arrogance of his comment. However, it’s so simple, why didn’t I think of it? Okay. Let’s put this new wisdom into practice.
If it makes Michael Moore apoplectic to think that George W. Bush will be re-elected President, then Michael Moore should just not think about it. There you go, Michael. Problem solved. Glad I could help. Go have another cheeseburger. And, as for that heart attack you’re going to have, hey, just don’t think about it.
This practice should work wonders for the frothing-at-the-mouth, mad-dog Bush haters, not to mention all the other hate-America-first lunatics. If it makes you sick to think about what an evil, malevolence, selfish, imperialist, homophobic, sexist, racist country America is, then just don’t think about it.
Come on! America-haters have been doing it for generations: Gulags in the Soviet Union, forced abortions in Communist China, two million Cambodians tortured and slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein torturing, raping, and murdering seven million Iraqis, nuclear missiles in North Korea, fascist Moslems blowing Jewish children to pieces. It’s all too ugly for the crybaby, hippie, pothead classes to think about, so they just don’t think about it. Then they scream their livers out when serious people bring up the subject. This is wrong. They shouldn’t concern themselves. If it’s too unpleasant to think about, then just don’t think about it. Why won’t these people follow their own advice? Believe me, we would all be much happier if they did.
I’m pleased to have solved this problem for the whiners, the crybabies, and the hate mongers. George W. Bush is going to be re-elected in a landslide whether any of us like it or not. (Regardless of their record, incumbents always have the advantage over challengers, even when they have sex scandals and give nuclear technology to our enemies.) If that’s too horrible to think about, then just don’t think about it.
As for me, I have had enough of the childish tantrums of the self-absorbed left. These clowns need to grow up. You can only be a teen-ager for so long.
I am most annoyed by the leftists’ sense of entitlement. They are entitled to be angry about things they think are important, but the rest of us should keep our mouths shut. They are entitled to have everything their way without compromise and without consideration for other people’s wants and needs. They are entitled to legitimacy, but no one else is. How can I adequately express my disgust? Let’s try, “Oh, shut up, you braying jackasses.”
The politics of the left reflects the narcissism of the people who adhere to leftist ideology: What YOU think and feel doesn’t matter; what they think is all that matters. Such is the mentality of narcissists: You are furniture, a mere thing to be moved around as suites their wishes. To them, you don’t actually have feelings; you don’t have wishes and dreams of your own. If you resist, you must be punished. Suppressing descent is central to narcissism, and it is central to leftist ideology. They simply can’t have people thinking for themselves.
But, then, maybe I shouldn’t think about it. Nope. Too late. I already did.
Some of us come from the school of “No Second Chances” (as opposed to the school of “It’s Not My Problem” or the school of “What You Think Doesn’t Matter”). We have to think about difficult problems. We have to be serious. We have to succeed. If we don’t, people suffer, and people die.
If something upsets you, then think about it. Once you start to think about it, you’ll get serious and start making rational, serious decisions.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
If you are disgusted by talk about what homosexual men actually do, then you may not want to read what follows.
* Let there be no doubt in your mind. Homosexual men can engage in perverted sexual behavior, but if you merely TALK about what they ACTUALLY DO, then you are the bad guy. It seems, in our polite society, that it is a greater sin to merely talk about evil than it is to actually commit evil. C’est la vive.
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 28, 2004
My apologies for the crudeness of this commentary, but, let’s face it, you can’t talk about men having sex with other men without being crude.
I had another disagreement with someone over an unpleasant topic. He talked about an encounter he had with his father in which his father said that when he thought about what homosexual men do*, it made him sick to his stomach. He told his father that if it made him sick to think about it, then just don’t think about it.
I was stunned by the pure arrogance of his comment. However, it’s so simple, why didn’t I think of it? Okay. Let’s put this new wisdom into practice.
If it makes Michael Moore apoplectic to think that George W. Bush will be re-elected President, then Michael Moore should just not think about it. There you go, Michael. Problem solved. Glad I could help. Go have another cheeseburger. And, as for that heart attack you’re going to have, hey, just don’t think about it.
This practice should work wonders for the frothing-at-the-mouth, mad-dog Bush haters, not to mention all the other hate-America-first lunatics. If it makes you sick to think about what an evil, malevolence, selfish, imperialist, homophobic, sexist, racist country America is, then just don’t think about it.
Come on! America-haters have been doing it for generations: Gulags in the Soviet Union, forced abortions in Communist China, two million Cambodians tortured and slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein torturing, raping, and murdering seven million Iraqis, nuclear missiles in North Korea, fascist Moslems blowing Jewish children to pieces. It’s all too ugly for the crybaby, hippie, pothead classes to think about, so they just don’t think about it. Then they scream their livers out when serious people bring up the subject. This is wrong. They shouldn’t concern themselves. If it’s too unpleasant to think about, then just don’t think about it. Why won’t these people follow their own advice? Believe me, we would all be much happier if they did.
I’m pleased to have solved this problem for the whiners, the crybabies, and the hate mongers. George W. Bush is going to be re-elected in a landslide whether any of us like it or not. (Regardless of their record, incumbents always have the advantage over challengers, even when they have sex scandals and give nuclear technology to our enemies.) If that’s too horrible to think about, then just don’t think about it.
As for me, I have had enough of the childish tantrums of the self-absorbed left. These clowns need to grow up. You can only be a teen-ager for so long.
I am most annoyed by the leftists’ sense of entitlement. They are entitled to be angry about things they think are important, but the rest of us should keep our mouths shut. They are entitled to have everything their way without compromise and without consideration for other people’s wants and needs. They are entitled to legitimacy, but no one else is. How can I adequately express my disgust? Let’s try, “Oh, shut up, you braying jackasses.”
The politics of the left reflects the narcissism of the people who adhere to leftist ideology: What YOU think and feel doesn’t matter; what they think is all that matters. Such is the mentality of narcissists: You are furniture, a mere thing to be moved around as suites their wishes. To them, you don’t actually have feelings; you don’t have wishes and dreams of your own. If you resist, you must be punished. Suppressing descent is central to narcissism, and it is central to leftist ideology. They simply can’t have people thinking for themselves.
But, then, maybe I shouldn’t think about it. Nope. Too late. I already did.
Some of us come from the school of “No Second Chances” (as opposed to the school of “It’s Not My Problem” or the school of “What You Think Doesn’t Matter”). We have to think about difficult problems. We have to be serious. We have to succeed. If we don’t, people suffer, and people die.
If something upsets you, then think about it. Once you start to think about it, you’ll get serious and start making rational, serious decisions.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
If you are disgusted by talk about what homosexual men actually do, then you may not want to read what follows.
* Let there be no doubt in your mind. Homosexual men can engage in perverted sexual behavior, but if you merely TALK about what they ACTUALLY DO, then you are the bad guy. It seems, in our polite society, that it is a greater sin to merely talk about evil than it is to actually commit evil. C’est la vive.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
The Slaves’ Revenge
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 20, 2004
In ancient times, Jews were taken into slavery by the Egyptians. The Jews eventually made their way to freedom. In Jewish law thereafter, slavery was forbidden. The enslavement of the Jews and their subsequent escape has been one of the most profound events in history.
The Jewish prohibition against slavery was inherited by a tiny faction of Jews who later evolved into the various Christian Churches. The Jewish prohibition against slavery as taught by the Christians had wide appeal throughout the Roman Empire.
In the subsequent development of European cultures, the Christian prohibition against slavery spawned persistent and influential abolitionist movements. Abolitionists attacked the institution of slavery everywhere they found it, including in the New World.
The Christian prohibition against slavery took some time to attain the authority of law in the United States. In this case, we can console ourselves by understanding the full history of slavery and the foundation of the United States, and by saying, “Better late than never.”
The Jewish slaves of the Egyptian Empire never dreamed that their determination to be free would eventually result in the freedom of hundreds of thousands of slaves over thousands of years, and in an enduring commitment by all civilized people to abolish slavery in every corner of the world. The Jewish slaves have had their revenge on their former masters, and they deserve to be honored.
The Jewish prohibition against slavery was not adopted by Islam. Islam permits and even demands the enslavement of infidels. During the height of the slave trade to the New World, the leading slavers were Moslems. They rounded up black Africans to be sold to the white slave owners in North and South America.
The institutionalization of slavery by Islam is a threat to humanity, not just to the Western world. People who believe that they have a God given right to enslave other people are a danger to all of us. The war of Islam against the rest of the world will not end with the destruction of al Qaeda. Today, Moslems in Sudan are enslaving thousands of black Africans, just as Moslems enslaved black Africans three hundred years ago. They will do the same to us if we do not stop them. This is not a war that we want; it is a war that they want.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 20, 2004
In ancient times, Jews were taken into slavery by the Egyptians. The Jews eventually made their way to freedom. In Jewish law thereafter, slavery was forbidden. The enslavement of the Jews and their subsequent escape has been one of the most profound events in history.
The Jewish prohibition against slavery was inherited by a tiny faction of Jews who later evolved into the various Christian Churches. The Jewish prohibition against slavery as taught by the Christians had wide appeal throughout the Roman Empire.
In the subsequent development of European cultures, the Christian prohibition against slavery spawned persistent and influential abolitionist movements. Abolitionists attacked the institution of slavery everywhere they found it, including in the New World.
The Christian prohibition against slavery took some time to attain the authority of law in the United States. In this case, we can console ourselves by understanding the full history of slavery and the foundation of the United States, and by saying, “Better late than never.”
The Jewish slaves of the Egyptian Empire never dreamed that their determination to be free would eventually result in the freedom of hundreds of thousands of slaves over thousands of years, and in an enduring commitment by all civilized people to abolish slavery in every corner of the world. The Jewish slaves have had their revenge on their former masters, and they deserve to be honored.
The Jewish prohibition against slavery was not adopted by Islam. Islam permits and even demands the enslavement of infidels. During the height of the slave trade to the New World, the leading slavers were Moslems. They rounded up black Africans to be sold to the white slave owners in North and South America.
The institutionalization of slavery by Islam is a threat to humanity, not just to the Western world. People who believe that they have a God given right to enslave other people are a danger to all of us. The war of Islam against the rest of the world will not end with the destruction of al Qaeda. Today, Moslems in Sudan are enslaving thousands of black Africans, just as Moslems enslaved black Africans three hundred years ago. They will do the same to us if we do not stop them. This is not a war that we want; it is a war that they want.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Monday, July 19, 2004
Was Kerry Misled?
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 19, 2004
When asked why Senator John Kerry voted for the resolution to authorize war in Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said that he thought that John Kerry did so because he was “misled”. When asked if the deception was intentional, Senator Byrd said that he didn’t think so.
Several questions leap out.
1. Did Senator Kerry think that he was misled?
2. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will not be misled in the future?
3. Was Senator Kerry misled about stories of criminal conduct by American soldiers during his tour in Viet Nam?
4. Doesn’t misled mean deceived?
5. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will be able to distinguish the truth when he sees it?
6. Is Senator Kerry susceptible to being misled?
7. If so, won’t the North Koreans and the Iranians have a field day with him?
8. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will not be misled by our enemies?
9. Don’t the Democrats understand that the cost of reversing your position is that you have to admit that either you are gullible or that you are dishonest?
Kerry and the Democrats don’t understand the hole they have dug for themselves. If Kerry claims that Bush deceived him into voting for the war resolution, then what does that say about Kerry? I know what Kerry is trying to do. He’s trying to claim that his vote, which he now wishes to retract, was Bush’s fault! Amazing! That’s Kerry’s life story: Make the biggest screw-ups any person can possibly make, and then find someone to blame.
As for me, whether he is gullible, dishonest, a whiny cry-baby, or just a pointless, ugly, boring, gray-complexioned, Frankenstein-looking Kennedy wannabe, Senator Kerry cannot be trusted, period. Please, Democrats, throw this loser out, and get someone else!
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 19, 2004
When asked why Senator John Kerry voted for the resolution to authorize war in Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said that he thought that John Kerry did so because he was “misled”. When asked if the deception was intentional, Senator Byrd said that he didn’t think so.
Several questions leap out.
1. Did Senator Kerry think that he was misled?
2. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will not be misled in the future?
3. Was Senator Kerry misled about stories of criminal conduct by American soldiers during his tour in Viet Nam?
4. Doesn’t misled mean deceived?
5. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will be able to distinguish the truth when he sees it?
6. Is Senator Kerry susceptible to being misled?
7. If so, won’t the North Koreans and the Iranians have a field day with him?
8. How can we, the voters, have confidence that Senator Kerry will not be misled by our enemies?
9. Don’t the Democrats understand that the cost of reversing your position is that you have to admit that either you are gullible or that you are dishonest?
Kerry and the Democrats don’t understand the hole they have dug for themselves. If Kerry claims that Bush deceived him into voting for the war resolution, then what does that say about Kerry? I know what Kerry is trying to do. He’s trying to claim that his vote, which he now wishes to retract, was Bush’s fault! Amazing! That’s Kerry’s life story: Make the biggest screw-ups any person can possibly make, and then find someone to blame.
As for me, whether he is gullible, dishonest, a whiny cry-baby, or just a pointless, ugly, boring, gray-complexioned, Frankenstein-looking Kennedy wannabe, Senator Kerry cannot be trusted, period. Please, Democrats, throw this loser out, and get someone else!
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, July 16, 2004
Wealth without Knowledge
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 16, 2004
What good does it do to give people high school diplomas when they don’t know anything?
What good does it do to give people cars when they don’t know how to drive?
What good does it do to give people money when they don’t have basic money management skills?
Progressives believe that the problem with the world is that poor people don’t have enough money because they have been cheated by rich people. To solve the problem, they propose taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don’t have it. However, the progressives oppose teaching money management skills to the people who receive the free money. Why?
The problem for the progressives is that people who know how to use money to their advantage need little or no government assistance. In order for the progressive dogma to have any validity, poor people must become dependent on government assistance, in other words, the government has to come to the rescue of poor people, acting like Robin Hood, taking from the rich, and giving to the poor. If people don’t need government assistance, then the progressive dogma looses its validity.
The dilemma is obvious: To support their assertion that poor people are poor because they have been exploited (which, in progressive jargon means “cheated”), progressives must have a constant supply of poor people. If there are not enough poor people, then the progressives can’t claim that they need to fix the system.
Progressives also carry the absurd concept that people who have money should have their excess money taxed away from them because they won’t spend it properly, and that people who don’t have money should be given free money because they will spend it properly. Progressives cannot admit that the reason some people have money is precisely because they do know how to spend it properly, and the reason some people don’t have money is precisely because they don’t know how to spend it properly. Doing so would jeopardize the structural integrity of their dogma.
Karl Marx, one of the leading proponents of the take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor ideology in his time, gives us a prime example of the absurdity of the progressive dogma. At one point in his life, he was completely out of money. Actually, he was out of money a lot. The reason for that is that he only held one job in his entire life, and that job for only about a year. He spent a great deal of his time and energy sponging off his affluent mother. Once, she sent him one year’s income with specific instructions to make it last one year. Enough free money to last an entire year! What do you think the dutiful son did with the gift his loving mother gave him?
You guessed it. He blew it all in one day throwing a lavish party for his family and friends. Blew the whole wad! One year’s worth of income up in smoke so that Karl could stroke his ego in front of is friends.
Marxism preaches that each person should produce according to their abilities, and should consume only according to their needs. Karl Marx produced nothing of value in his entire life, and spent other people’s money lavishly on pointless self-indulgences. Marx was no Marxist.
To me, the point is obvious: Progressive dogma and tax policies designed to achieve social engineering are no substitute for personal responsibility, self-restraint, and knowledge of how to manage your money. Taking money away from people who create wealth and giving it to people who don’t create wealth is not a solution for easing the suffering of the poor. That can only come with greater availability of goods and services at prices people can afford.
Progressive policies interfere with people’s ability to create wealth, which ultimately harms everyone. The primary effect of progressive policies is loss of entry-level employment positions. This is much more devastating to the poor than it is to the middle and upper classes.
There are distinct personality differences between people who work hard and save their money and people who don’t work or squander the money they have. There are no tax and subsidy policies that can adequately compensate for psychological pathologies underlying aversion to work and uncontrolled spending. Government can’t stop the Karl Marx’s of the world from refusing to work, then complaining about how poor they are, then squandering the money they receive because of compulsive self-indulgence.
Having wealth without the knowledge of how to use it for your benefit, like having a car and not knowing how to drive, is just another opportunity for disaster. Teaching money management skills will do more to relieve the suffering of the poor than just giving them free money and turning them loose to fend for themselves.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 16, 2004
What good does it do to give people high school diplomas when they don’t know anything?
What good does it do to give people cars when they don’t know how to drive?
What good does it do to give people money when they don’t have basic money management skills?
Progressives believe that the problem with the world is that poor people don’t have enough money because they have been cheated by rich people. To solve the problem, they propose taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don’t have it. However, the progressives oppose teaching money management skills to the people who receive the free money. Why?
The problem for the progressives is that people who know how to use money to their advantage need little or no government assistance. In order for the progressive dogma to have any validity, poor people must become dependent on government assistance, in other words, the government has to come to the rescue of poor people, acting like Robin Hood, taking from the rich, and giving to the poor. If people don’t need government assistance, then the progressive dogma looses its validity.
The dilemma is obvious: To support their assertion that poor people are poor because they have been exploited (which, in progressive jargon means “cheated”), progressives must have a constant supply of poor people. If there are not enough poor people, then the progressives can’t claim that they need to fix the system.
Progressives also carry the absurd concept that people who have money should have their excess money taxed away from them because they won’t spend it properly, and that people who don’t have money should be given free money because they will spend it properly. Progressives cannot admit that the reason some people have money is precisely because they do know how to spend it properly, and the reason some people don’t have money is precisely because they don’t know how to spend it properly. Doing so would jeopardize the structural integrity of their dogma.
Karl Marx, one of the leading proponents of the take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor ideology in his time, gives us a prime example of the absurdity of the progressive dogma. At one point in his life, he was completely out of money. Actually, he was out of money a lot. The reason for that is that he only held one job in his entire life, and that job for only about a year. He spent a great deal of his time and energy sponging off his affluent mother. Once, she sent him one year’s income with specific instructions to make it last one year. Enough free money to last an entire year! What do you think the dutiful son did with the gift his loving mother gave him?
You guessed it. He blew it all in one day throwing a lavish party for his family and friends. Blew the whole wad! One year’s worth of income up in smoke so that Karl could stroke his ego in front of is friends.
Marxism preaches that each person should produce according to their abilities, and should consume only according to their needs. Karl Marx produced nothing of value in his entire life, and spent other people’s money lavishly on pointless self-indulgences. Marx was no Marxist.
To me, the point is obvious: Progressive dogma and tax policies designed to achieve social engineering are no substitute for personal responsibility, self-restraint, and knowledge of how to manage your money. Taking money away from people who create wealth and giving it to people who don’t create wealth is not a solution for easing the suffering of the poor. That can only come with greater availability of goods and services at prices people can afford.
Progressive policies interfere with people’s ability to create wealth, which ultimately harms everyone. The primary effect of progressive policies is loss of entry-level employment positions. This is much more devastating to the poor than it is to the middle and upper classes.
There are distinct personality differences between people who work hard and save their money and people who don’t work or squander the money they have. There are no tax and subsidy policies that can adequately compensate for psychological pathologies underlying aversion to work and uncontrolled spending. Government can’t stop the Karl Marx’s of the world from refusing to work, then complaining about how poor they are, then squandering the money they receive because of compulsive self-indulgence.
Having wealth without the knowledge of how to use it for your benefit, like having a car and not knowing how to drive, is just another opportunity for disaster. Teaching money management skills will do more to relieve the suffering of the poor than just giving them free money and turning them loose to fend for themselves.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Fatalistic Apathy
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 15, 2004
Under the title “Churchillian Observations”, The Big Trunk at Powerline posted the following quote from Winston Churchill’s The River War in 1899:
Altogether, Churchill’s observations give you something to think about. What I thought about was the term “fatalistic apathy”.
From what I have seen, fatalistic apathy perfectly describes the outlook of the Left in general, the Democratic Party in particular, teen-agers, and Moslems. The results, as Churchill notes, are “[I]mprovident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property”, as well as a degraded life deprived of grace and refinement, dignity and sanctity.
Fatalistic apathy seems to describe the pervasive gloom many teen-agers feel in modern American society. This seems to result from a sense of always being defeated or thwarted despite their best efforts, despite following the rules, despite being honest and good tempered, and despite doing things the way they were told they should do them. Many black Americans and other minorities have the same feeling. They feel that, from their experiences, the only thing that matters is the color of your skin.
I can understand how socialism, communism, and Islam could engender such feelings. In all of these systems, there is no hope of individual liberty, no hope of individual initiative, no hope of discovering a new and better way of doing things. No matter what you do, you can’t make a difference. There is no hope.
Adherents to these systems must submit to totalitarian authority. They must deny their own nature, their own feelings, wants, and needs. They must submit totally to direction from higher authority, even when they know that authority is wrong. In this relationship, they are defeated simply by being a party to the system.
Socialism, communism, and Islam all promise the same thing: Utopia. All you have to do to achieve Utopia is give up your freedom, your God given right to make decisions for yourself. All you have to do is surrender yourself totally to the system.
The problem ought to be obvious. Having surrendered your right and ability to make decisions for yourself, how can you decide whether you are happy with the system or not? Or does it even matter? You will be happy because you have been ordered to be happy. If you aren’t happy, you’re not following orders.
That pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it? Either you make decisions for yourself, for better or for worse, or you follow orders, get in line, do as you’re told, hurry up and wait.
What about American teen-agers raised in affluent suburbs? Why are they afflicted with fatalistic apathy?
I think this is the case because, in their relationship with their parents, they always lose. No matter what they do, their parents find a way to defeat them. The parents treat the relationship as a contest, and are determined to win no matter what. If the child does a behavior, he is criticized. If he does the opposite, he is criticized. If he does nothing, he is criticized. If he rebels, he is criticized. No matter what he does, the only message he gets is that he is wrong and his parents are right. Most of all, no matter what he does, he can’t make a difference.
In the movie “Da Wiz”, the scarecrow sings a song that pretty well sums up the situation. He says, “You can’t win, chil’. You can’t break even. And you can’t get out of the game.”
The contrary of fatalistic apathy is optimistic determination, a firm belief that you can change the old order, either by revolution or by evolution, and that you don’t have to accept things the way they are. Optimistic determination is the spark that lights revolutions, and the flame that keeps revolutions from degenerating into tyrannies.
The first rule of evolution is “adapt or die”. Societies evolve. Societies that don’t evolve, as Churchill comments about Moslem societies, become retrograde, improvident, slovenly, sluggish, insecure, degraded, and undignified. (Sounds like portions of American society). They become decadent.
The first rule of successful adaptation is “no limits”. Self-limiting societies--like Moslem societies, and like socialist and communist societies--deprive themselves and their people of the knowledge necessary to evolve. Islam may have been the dominant social system one thousand years ago. However, Islam and all other societies were irrevocably changed by the invention of gunpowder weapons. Throw in steel, the automobile, and computers, and ancient societies cannot withstand external influences, for better or for worse.
Societies and nations that adopt the “adapt or die” and “no limits” models of social, economic, and technological evolution will innovate, improve, and eventually dominate all other societies and nations.
Optimism, even unreasonable optimism, and a willingness to discard obsolete practices bring accomplishment. Innovations in technology, economics, music, and science have all resulted from discarding obsolete practices.
The fatalistic apathy of American teen-agers and of Moslems is understandable. However, once you grow up and take control of your life, there is no more reason to feel that way. The only thing I can conclude about socialists, communists, and the Democratic Party is that they just haven’t grown up and taken control of their own lives. They think like angry teen-agers.
The Bush administration, like the Reagan administration, is optimistically determined to introduce optimistic determination to parts of the world that have known only fatalistic apathy for generations--places like Boston, Los Angeles, and New York City. Vote the future. Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 15, 2004
Under the title “Churchillian Observations”, The Big Trunk at Powerline posted the following quote from Winston Churchill’s The River War in 1899:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.A votary is a zealous worshipper. Moribund means past its prime. Europe is in greater danger than ever.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Altogether, Churchill’s observations give you something to think about. What I thought about was the term “fatalistic apathy”.
From what I have seen, fatalistic apathy perfectly describes the outlook of the Left in general, the Democratic Party in particular, teen-agers, and Moslems. The results, as Churchill notes, are “[I]mprovident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property”, as well as a degraded life deprived of grace and refinement, dignity and sanctity.
Fatalistic apathy seems to describe the pervasive gloom many teen-agers feel in modern American society. This seems to result from a sense of always being defeated or thwarted despite their best efforts, despite following the rules, despite being honest and good tempered, and despite doing things the way they were told they should do them. Many black Americans and other minorities have the same feeling. They feel that, from their experiences, the only thing that matters is the color of your skin.
I can understand how socialism, communism, and Islam could engender such feelings. In all of these systems, there is no hope of individual liberty, no hope of individual initiative, no hope of discovering a new and better way of doing things. No matter what you do, you can’t make a difference. There is no hope.
Adherents to these systems must submit to totalitarian authority. They must deny their own nature, their own feelings, wants, and needs. They must submit totally to direction from higher authority, even when they know that authority is wrong. In this relationship, they are defeated simply by being a party to the system.
Socialism, communism, and Islam all promise the same thing: Utopia. All you have to do to achieve Utopia is give up your freedom, your God given right to make decisions for yourself. All you have to do is surrender yourself totally to the system.
The problem ought to be obvious. Having surrendered your right and ability to make decisions for yourself, how can you decide whether you are happy with the system or not? Or does it even matter? You will be happy because you have been ordered to be happy. If you aren’t happy, you’re not following orders.
That pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it? Either you make decisions for yourself, for better or for worse, or you follow orders, get in line, do as you’re told, hurry up and wait.
What about American teen-agers raised in affluent suburbs? Why are they afflicted with fatalistic apathy?
I think this is the case because, in their relationship with their parents, they always lose. No matter what they do, their parents find a way to defeat them. The parents treat the relationship as a contest, and are determined to win no matter what. If the child does a behavior, he is criticized. If he does the opposite, he is criticized. If he does nothing, he is criticized. If he rebels, he is criticized. No matter what he does, the only message he gets is that he is wrong and his parents are right. Most of all, no matter what he does, he can’t make a difference.
In the movie “Da Wiz”, the scarecrow sings a song that pretty well sums up the situation. He says, “You can’t win, chil’. You can’t break even. And you can’t get out of the game.”
The contrary of fatalistic apathy is optimistic determination, a firm belief that you can change the old order, either by revolution or by evolution, and that you don’t have to accept things the way they are. Optimistic determination is the spark that lights revolutions, and the flame that keeps revolutions from degenerating into tyrannies.
The first rule of evolution is “adapt or die”. Societies evolve. Societies that don’t evolve, as Churchill comments about Moslem societies, become retrograde, improvident, slovenly, sluggish, insecure, degraded, and undignified. (Sounds like portions of American society). They become decadent.
The first rule of successful adaptation is “no limits”. Self-limiting societies--like Moslem societies, and like socialist and communist societies--deprive themselves and their people of the knowledge necessary to evolve. Islam may have been the dominant social system one thousand years ago. However, Islam and all other societies were irrevocably changed by the invention of gunpowder weapons. Throw in steel, the automobile, and computers, and ancient societies cannot withstand external influences, for better or for worse.
Societies and nations that adopt the “adapt or die” and “no limits” models of social, economic, and technological evolution will innovate, improve, and eventually dominate all other societies and nations.
Optimism, even unreasonable optimism, and a willingness to discard obsolete practices bring accomplishment. Innovations in technology, economics, music, and science have all resulted from discarding obsolete practices.
The fatalistic apathy of American teen-agers and of Moslems is understandable. However, once you grow up and take control of your life, there is no more reason to feel that way. The only thing I can conclude about socialists, communists, and the Democratic Party is that they just haven’t grown up and taken control of their own lives. They think like angry teen-agers.
The Bush administration, like the Reagan administration, is optimistically determined to introduce optimistic determination to parts of the world that have known only fatalistic apathy for generations--places like Boston, Los Angeles, and New York City. Vote the future. Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Misdiagnosing ADD
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 13, 2004
I’m no psychologist, and I’m not the brightest bulb on the chandelier, but, something occurred to me.
According to Alison Armstrong, men are capable only of single focus. That means that they can only put their attention on one subject at a time. If you try to shift their attention away from what they are doing, men have a very hard time understanding what you are talking about, and almost no ability to remember what you said. I have experienced this myself, and I tell people that they will have to wait a minute until I am done. I can hear the words they are saying, but I can’t make sense of them.
Most women don’t understand this, and therefore think there is something wrong with men. Men are different, not wrong.
The majority of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) cases are boys. Boys, like men, are capable only of single focus.
Has is been the case for over three decades that boys are being diagnosed with ADD when all that is wrong with them is that they are just normal boys?
Something to think about.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 13, 2004
I’m no psychologist, and I’m not the brightest bulb on the chandelier, but, something occurred to me.
According to Alison Armstrong, men are capable only of single focus. That means that they can only put their attention on one subject at a time. If you try to shift their attention away from what they are doing, men have a very hard time understanding what you are talking about, and almost no ability to remember what you said. I have experienced this myself, and I tell people that they will have to wait a minute until I am done. I can hear the words they are saying, but I can’t make sense of them.
Most women don’t understand this, and therefore think there is something wrong with men. Men are different, not wrong.
The majority of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) cases are boys. Boys, like men, are capable only of single focus.
Has is been the case for over three decades that boys are being diagnosed with ADD when all that is wrong with them is that they are just normal boys?
Something to think about.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, July 09, 2004
Connecting the Dolts
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 9, 2004
Clifford May has a fine article at Townhall.com showing a clear connection between Michael Moore and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Have a look at it, then finish reading this.
All done? Now, let’s connect the dolts.
1. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization connected to Syria and Iran. All three are bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States.
2. Michael Moore is connected to Hezbollah through his business dealings and his ideological support for their goals.
3. The Democratic Party leadership is connected to Michael Moore through their open and vocal support of his loathing for President Bush and his support of terrorist objectives.
Conclusion: The Democratic Party leaders are connected to Iran and Syria, both enemies of the Unites States, through their connections to Michael Moore and his connections to Hezbollah. Any questions?
What’s that? I’m making the same mistake as Michael Moore in connecting the dots? No. Not really. Many of Moore’s assertions turned out to be false, for example, he asserted that Saudi Arabia supported the U. S. invasion of Afghanistan, when in fact Saudi Arabia sternly opposed it, even evicting some U. S. troops from Arabia. My assertions are true; therefore, my conclusion is correct.
I stand by my conclusion that the Democratic Party shares one fundamental position with Syria and Iran: the defeat of the United States and Israel.
Also, Clifford May quotes Moore as saying, “...the simple math to me is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Now I have to ask, if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Cuba, would we bomb Bolivia?”
This question suggests that Michael Moore is possibly the stupidest person on the face of the Earth. A better question might be, “Mr. Moore, is it possible for you to have your head any farther up your humungous ass?” Do you really want hopelessly stupid people--not to mention friends of terrorist organizations and enemy nations--like Michael Moore and like the leadership of the Democratic Party in charge of your security?
I have to mention this because it really torques me. I’m not sure what reaction you will have to this quote from Clifford May’s article...
However, in the above case, the Democrats would insist on suing the theatre owner for negligence. Why do jackasses like Moore and the leadership of the Democratic Party demand accountability from private parties for accidents, but never, never, never hold terrorists accountable for their cruelty and slaughter? Could it be that they agree with the terrorists? I think they do. In fact, I know they do.
I have said for many years that as currently constituted and operated, under the leadership of the campus communists and the Soviet sympathizers of the 1960’s, the Democratic Party is an enemy of the United States. The evidence that is currently available is sufficient to convince me that my conclusion is correct. As if it is necessary, when more evidence becomes available, I will post it here.
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
July 9, 2004
Clifford May has a fine article at Townhall.com showing a clear connection between Michael Moore and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Have a look at it, then finish reading this.
All done? Now, let’s connect the dolts.
1. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization connected to Syria and Iran. All three are bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States.
2. Michael Moore is connected to Hezbollah through his business dealings and his ideological support for their goals.
3. The Democratic Party leadership is connected to Michael Moore through their open and vocal support of his loathing for President Bush and his support of terrorist objectives.
Conclusion: The Democratic Party leaders are connected to Iran and Syria, both enemies of the Unites States, through their connections to Michael Moore and his connections to Hezbollah. Any questions?
What’s that? I’m making the same mistake as Michael Moore in connecting the dots? No. Not really. Many of Moore’s assertions turned out to be false, for example, he asserted that Saudi Arabia supported the U. S. invasion of Afghanistan, when in fact Saudi Arabia sternly opposed it, even evicting some U. S. troops from Arabia. My assertions are true; therefore, my conclusion is correct.
I stand by my conclusion that the Democratic Party shares one fundamental position with Syria and Iran: the defeat of the United States and Israel.
Also, Clifford May quotes Moore as saying, “...the simple math to me is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Now I have to ask, if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Cuba, would we bomb Bolivia?”
This question suggests that Michael Moore is possibly the stupidest person on the face of the Earth. A better question might be, “Mr. Moore, is it possible for you to have your head any farther up your humungous ass?” Do you really want hopelessly stupid people--not to mention friends of terrorist organizations and enemy nations--like Michael Moore and like the leadership of the Democratic Party in charge of your security?
I have to mention this because it really torques me. I’m not sure what reaction you will have to this quote from Clifford May’s article...
Mr. Moore's perspective on 9/11 might be described as middle-of-the-road -- if that road runs through downtown Damascus. “Three thousand Americans were killed,” he notes. “There's 290 million Americans, all right? The chance of any of us dying in a terrorist incident is very, very, very small.”...but I wanted to throw up. This is the logic of the terrorists. Never mind that they don’t have the right to kill me and you, your life obviously doesn’t mean a damned thing to Michael Moore. So, if you’re watching his movie and the theater burns down and kills you and your family, it seems reasonable to presume that he would be okay with that as long has you paid for your ticket. After all, what are the chances?
However, in the above case, the Democrats would insist on suing the theatre owner for negligence. Why do jackasses like Moore and the leadership of the Democratic Party demand accountability from private parties for accidents, but never, never, never hold terrorists accountable for their cruelty and slaughter? Could it be that they agree with the terrorists? I think they do. In fact, I know they do.
I have said for many years that as currently constituted and operated, under the leadership of the campus communists and the Soviet sympathizers of the 1960’s, the Democratic Party is an enemy of the United States. The evidence that is currently available is sufficient to convince me that my conclusion is correct. As if it is necessary, when more evidence becomes available, I will post it here.
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
