Whorled View

December 1, 2008

The Dalai Lama: At odds with marriage & family

I read somethings today that the Dalai Lama said that really highlighted what a clueless mindset comes from living like a hermit-king.  I’m not quite sure why the Dalai Lama is regarded as a great sage of wisdom but I wonder if another reason the media worships him (while disparaging the original pacifist, Jesus Christ) is because of his anti-marriage and anti-family message.

The only people I know who honestly think [celibacy] is “better” than marriage because marriage involves sex, are embittered losers who have a purely self-gratifying interpretation of human sexuality.

Similarly, only self-absorbed people who are clueless about human intimacy would think that “[attachment] towards your children, towards your partner,” is “one of the obstacle or hindrance of peace of mind”.

The Dalai Lama said both of these things though … and nonetheless it seems he gets more respect and reverence today than any other religious leader dead or alive.

Now, I’ll admit when you have kids that seem to be doing everything you’ve taught them not to do, including screaming and crying over practically nothing while in your face is anything but peaceful, but “peaceful surroundings” is entirely different than “peace of mind”.

For example, the times I had the least peace of mind were times when I was most detached from commitments and relationships around me like when I was nearly 30, still single, and trying to figure out where I fit in the world.  What’s more, I’ve never felt more peace of mind than when in a committed interdependent relationship with whom I could share everything, despite the fact that I was overwhelmed with far more commitments than I’d ever had.  Peaceful surroundings is not peace of mind.

At first glance, this wouldn’t seem like an issue worth tackling: the fact that the Dalai Lama says marriages and family attachments prevent peace of mind, as I’m happy to leave people to believe anything so long as it leads them to do good (Matt 7:16), but I’m convinced this idea forwarded by the Dalai Lama is one of the most destructive ideas ever.

The mere idea that the family unit is bad, or at least the idea that it has some harmful effects for society, especially with regard to peace is ludicrous and should be loudly repudiated.

What’s even more disturbing to me is that this idea seems to be one of the fastest growing doctrines of men today.  It’s growing quickly and becoming wildly popular to deride the traditional family unit and family oriented policies.

Calling family commitments the enemy to peace of mind and contributing elements to murder and suicide (both assertions of the Dalai Lama) is remarkably clueless.  It’s akin to calling religion the root of all the atrocities of mankind.

You’ve heard that, we all have, that religion is bad because terrorists kill in the name of God, or that the “Holy Wars” were done in the name of Christianity.  The argument is so absurd as to mock reason, and yet seemingly intelligent people make it, completely disregarding the fact that murder and violence is almost unanimously condemned in all mainstream religions, and that hypocrisy is a reflection on the soul of the hypocrite, not the religion which is corrupted in the process, and that people will justify the same atrocities by any vehicle they can find be it a tradition, political philosophy, or just plain old prejudice.

Now we see those same kinds of irrational arguments being promoted by the media to disparage traditional families and traditional marriage, with the Dalai Lama as thier prophet.

November 4, 2008

I’d Celebrate More, Were It Not For Mob-Rule

Along with McCain I think our Founding Fathers also would agree that Obama is a good man and a good father, and as another human being we need not fear the man (even though I’m less than thrilled with much of his platform and his voting record – that’s beside the point).  Having an African American as president is an hallmark for equality that should be celebrated … and I’d have a much easier time doing that were it not for some elements of what Thomas Jefferson called mob-rule.

Before I go much further, I want to say that I believe it’s entirely possible that Obama would have been elected without the following elements in play and I fully support him like any president as if he would have been.  My point is, that these elements were in play, and that’s a shame.

If our founding fathers were raised in the same cultural climate as all of us they’d be thrilled with an African American winning the election, assuming democracy worked like it was supposed to.  That said, I think they’d be rolling in their graves if they saw the 3 powerful dynamics that have adversely affected the vote this year:

1) Two phrases I find disturbing are: “they [insert special interest group here] deserve it”, and “it’s about time”.

I can only hope for the sake of democracy that these phrases only are uttered in appreciation for the man that Obama is, not the office that he now holds as if he was entitled to it by virtue of his race.  I hope that every vote cast for Obama was done with complete disregard to the body he was born into.  Entitlement and preferential treatment based on someone’s color or sex in the election process seem at odds with the kind of democracy that our founding fathers envisioned.

In modern times most people seem unfazed, and even embrace entitlement as a viable reason to vote for someone based on whether they be female, a racial minority, ethnic minority, religious minority, physically handicapped, sexually-different or from any other historically disadvantaged group of people.  It almost seems that if you do not embrace entitlement as a viable reason to vote for someone then you might be called a bigot.

It wasn’t always that way.  Were our founding fathers bigots because they did not think that the body someone was born into entitled them to hold public office?  They were trying to get away from just such a thing after dealing with the British monarchy.

2) I just can not envision our founding fathers targeting transient individuals who are usually just too lazy and/or too disinterested to get registered and go to vote.  Tt seems our Founding Fathers were far more pragmatic and republican in nature than they were idealist and democratic.  The government they formed was not a pure democracy but a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Thomas Jefferson himself, along with most others of his day, called democracy “mob-rule” because he understood common man has neither the time, patience, or desire to really understand the dynamics of facilitating a free and thriving society.  They understood that the nature of politics was very complex and thereby formed a government run entirely by representation of those who have the time, patience and diligence to study and understand the issues.  I’m sure they’d expect voters to do the same and would never wholesale promote uneducated voting.

Tell me, when you vote and there are two names up there for school district administrator and you have no clue … do you guess?  Or do you leave it blank?  The more democratic thing to do is to leave it blank, yes?  Then why would you encourage someone to vote who hasn’t studied nor has any intention to study about the characters and platforms of any of the candidates but simply wants to go with the flow?  You might as well guess on those items and politicians you know nothing about … it’s the same thing.

3) Complete unmitigated and unabashed bias throughout the so-called “free” press.  If you don’t have extended cable (basic cable only gives you the major networks), you are only served by the big 3: ABC, NBC, and CBS.  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs 10 times more people (composed equally of republicans and democrats) feel those networks have been biased toward Obama than those who feel it’s been biased toward McCain.  In addition late night pundit and comedian jokes have been favoring Obama’s ticket by a factor of 7:1.

Item #3 would not be such a big issue were it not combined with item #2.  It seems Thomas Jefferson was right … and those who’ve historically pretended to champion the causes of Thomas Jefferson may have been the very same who’ve fulfilled his prediction: that all democracy at one point or another will turn into mob-rule.

Having an African American for a president is cause for celebration for the hallmark of equality it represents, but I only wish it would have happened without these dynamics.  I think it sure would have been possible, but then we’ll never know now will we?

November 3, 2008

Go ahead & insult me: Tell me to vote.

Do you go around telling your friend to take a leak or they might wet their pants?  Do you go around telling people to remember to breathe in case they might accidentally suffocate?

You don’t?  Well then please don’t tell me to vote.

Just because you auctioned off your grey matter doesn’t give them the right to sequester your vote.

As for me, and those of us who don’t have to be told to vote … we’ll make an educated decision.

I know it’s well intended, and honestly, I’ve been told to vote by some of the most wonderful, intelligent, and savvy people I know. In fact I know of no stupid people who are reminding me to vote. I also know I should take their encouragement as a compliment … obviously they think I’m going to make a wise choice or they would not want me to vote.

But I just can’t help but think that if you need to be told to vote then you don’t have a clue enough to make a wise decision who should run your government.  It’s just simple math.  Person needs convincing = can’t think for themselves = bad votes = bad results.

We might as well choose our officials with a random number generator.  That’s not democracy.  In fact, letting the most impressionable intellectual-push-overs determine election outcomes results in a huge bias toward the opinions of popular media.

So here’s my advice: stay home if you sup entirely from the boob tube and decided to vote because an actor or actress will insult you if you don’t.  If that’s the kool-aid that you drink then chances are I know who you’re voting for, and believe me … you don’t want to throw your vote away on someone of whom you really know very little.  If you’re letting someone do the thinking for you stay home.  Just because you auctioned off your grey matter doesn’t give them the right to sequester your vote.  Give them what they deserve: nothing.  Stay home.

As for me, and those of us who don’t have to be told to vote … we’ll make an educated decision.

Or, you can stop drinking the Koolaid and make an intelligent choice, but if you have to be told to vote I’m guessing there’s not enough time for you to do that.  It’s not too late though.  Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=msm+kool+aid

October 23, 2008

Religulous, the movie: Shifting the blame onto religion. Part 1

Bill Maher, is an HBO talk-show host (professes to be libertarian, although lately he’s just seemed anti-conservative above all else).  His new movie “Religulous”, aimed at making fun of all religion and all religious people and blaming all of society’s ills on religion, has been in the theaters for a couple weeks now.  It’s already made more money than Ben Stein’s “Expelled” has over the last 6 months.

blaming religion for societies ills obfuscates the real causes … As a result greed and selfishness goes unchecked and continues to flourish

This is becoming quite popular to blame religion for societies ills, and it’s been a favorite topic of Bill Maher, but it is at best a cheap shot, and at worst it obfuscates the real cause of societies ills: mankind’s greed and selfishness.  As a result of obfuscating efforts like this greed and selfishness goes unchecked and continues to flourish as the #1 cause of the atrocities of mankind.

Maher used to have a fairly interesting show called Politically Incorrect, an ironic title since he acted as a shill for republican-hating liberals, bashing anyone who’s views don’t agree with what the mainstream media considers “correct”.  Ironically, more and more it seems politically incorrect to go against his gay-rights, pro-marijuana, anti-religion, PETA-loving agenda.  Ironically, with respect to his hot button issues he’s about as politically correct as they come.

But ultimately he proved himself the pinnacle of politically incorrectness in 2002 when he said suicide terrorists who’d go down with a plane weren’t cowards, but that our soldiers were indeed cowards for shooting missiles from long distances.

It seems he’s gone from “Politically Incorrect” to just plain old “Incorrect” … the guests on his show lapped up his comments like they were accurate.

So he calls our soldiers cowards for valuing life, complements plane-crashing terrorists as being brave, and then claims all other religious people “have a neurological disorder.”  Honestly, I don’t know if that’s politically incorrect or just really stupid.  Financial supporters pulled their ads and he lost his show.

HBO came to his rescue with “Real Time, with Bill Maher”, same basic format, different name, and just all around less funny and more angry and biased.  He’s called a comedian, but when I watch he seems to have simply degenerated into an angry old man as Carlin did in his late years with a humorless and bitter sarcasm about anything championed by the conservative agenda.

[Maher] calls our soldiers cowards for valuing life, complements plane-crashing terrorists as being brave, and then claims all other religious people “have a neurological disorder.”

What’s more his ‘facts’ can’t be trusted.  He seriously distorts the facts to justify statements that just aren’t true.  It seems he’s gone from “Politically Incorrect” to just plain old “Incorrect”.  For proof you need go no further than where he claimed the Mormon church taught Blacks can only go to heaven as slaves.  Most ardent anti-Mormons wouldn’t even say that simply because it’s nowhere to be found in LDS theology.  This is just one small example of many misrepresentations he’s made from calling the Pope a Nazi to calling all Christians insane, but this one sticks out for me because I’m LDS.  Not surprisingly the guests on his show lapped up his comments like they were accurate, which everyone seems to foolishly do and undoubtedly will do in Religulosity.

Why does he get the gimmes and mulligans for the gaffes and misrepresentations he makes?  Where does he get his platform of legitimacy?  Doesn’t anyone remember when he said “But I’ve often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I’d be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They’re sweet. They’re loving. They’re kind, but they don’t mentally advance at all…. Dogs are like retarded children.”  When a guest said her nephew was retarded and she didn’t think of him as a dog he said, “Maybe you should.”

“Dogs are like retarded children.” When a guest said her nephew was retarded and she didn’t think of him as a dog Maher said, “Maybe you should.”

Yet reputable guests continue arrive on his show thereby giving him some form of continued legitimacy.  At least it helps me identify which politicians and pundits are filled with blind ambition and seem more interested in getting public face-time than in doing what is right and responsible.

You’d think his guests and potential guests would clue in.  Craig Ferguson had Bill Maher on his show when Bill Maher said Michael Jackson wasn’t as bad as the media was making him out to be because he wasn’t beating his victims senseless, but that the kids were simply being “gently masturbated by a pop star”.  You’d think Craig would get a clue, but as you see in the above link … Craig was there on Bill’s show a couple years later when Bill was misrepresenting LDS beliefs while Michael Steel nodded his head like it was all true.

Bill Maher said Michael Jackson wasn’t as bad … that the kids were simply being “gently masturbated by a pop star”.

Get a clue, people!  There’s a pattern here of not just political incorrectness, but just plain old incorrectness on Maher’s part.  Pick up on it.

I really don’t like airing someone’s dirty laundry without a fair representation of the good that they do, but that is precisely what Maher has done with regard to religion in general, as well as with regard to religious figures.  In my next post I’ll address his actual attack on religion.

September 29, 2008

Identifying racism or sexism … A Test

“… I won’t necessarily think you’re racist or sexist, but … some of your other recipients might not be as forgiving as me.”

My last entry was critical of Obama.  I’ve been just as critical of McCain (see “McCain debates Hillary, lovingly“).  Honestly, I would be equally critical of both more often if I found an excuse to do so, but I feel compelled to help even the playing field, and unless you’ve been hiding under a rock you have to admit that the MSM has been one sided.  If, for example, Palin had said that FDR did the fireside chats by TV then NBC, CBS, and ABC would have had a field day about it, but when Biden said that exact thing last week the only place you heard about it was on Fox news – a news outlet that liberals spitefully despise because they feel it tramples on their rights to deceive distort and dissuade the public on an otherwise monopolized news market.

But I’m getting off topic.

Sexism and Racism still exists in the media … and especially in non-professional media, such as grassroots email campaigns.  There are guilty people on all sides of the fence, and I think it’s pretty despicable whenever I see it regardless of who does it.  By the same token there’s a lot of posturing by calling certain comments or positions racist or sexist, as was recently done by McCain’s Fiorina when she freaked out about the “lipstick on a pig” comment- that she acted so offended was also despicable in my opinion.  Then there’s even posturing by accusing whole parties of posturing when it was only one person, as was done by nearly all liberal leaders accusing the republican party of posturing when it was only Fiorina who was freaking out.  That, in my opinion is equally despicable.  Now I’m just waiting for someone posturing by accusing me of posturing by accusing liberals posturing about Fiorina posturing about Obama’s benign “lipstick on a pig” comment.  If you’re not thoroughly confused now … let me just say this: there’s been way too much posturing on the issue of sexism or racism if you ask me.

“If you don’t really care whether people think your racist or sexist then you might not care to do this test. Maybe you’re confident that none of the recipients would ever consider you racist or sexist. Don’t be so sure.”

The bottom line is that there needs to be some kind of simple method whereby one can easily detect and determine the level of racism or sexism in a given comment.  I think I’ve come up with such a method:  You must imagine the comment in a completely sex / race neutral setting then ask yourself “is it just as funny or does it make just as much sense as before?”  If it is just as funny and makes just as much sense then it’s neither racist nor sexist.  If however, if it seems to loose some of it’s edge then perhaps it has some sexist or racist overtones.

For example: You get an email where a photograph shows Obama and Palin photoshop’ed in, and the photo is supposed to be funny.  Now imagine that Hillary had been nominated and so she was in that picture instead of Obama.  Does the picture still make sense? Is that photoshop’ed photo just as funny, or did it totally loose it’s edge?  If it’s just as funny then congratulations … what you have there is a genuinely funny article, otherwise it’s probably just racist or sexist (or both) and if you spread it around you will offend a lot of people – don’t kid yourself.

“… let me just say this: there’s been way too much posturing on the issue of sexism or racism if you ask me.”

So what?  Well, this method could be useful if you forward a lot of political opinions or content to friends and family.  Before you forward on that cartoon see if it passes the above test.  If you don’t really care whether people think you’re racist or sexist then you might not care to do this test.  Maybe you’re confident that none of the recipients would ever consider you racist or sexist.  Don’t be so sure. Most people live by the motto “actions speak louder than words” and many think that forwarding someone else’s words makes them your words.

I won’t necessarily think you’re racist or sexist, and in fact I’m more likely to conclude that you simply didn’t think twice before sending on that email with little regard to how it might offend others.  We all do thoughtless things, and it doesn’t make you a bad person to do so, myself being the prime example as I do thoughtless things all the time … but like I said, some of your other recipients might not be as forgiving as me.

September 5, 2008

Sarah Palin’s a big meany? Yeah, right!

I love watching the ridiculous nature of the MSM (mainstream media) when they pull their keystone-cops routine, just like they’ve been doing with Sarah Palin lately.  I really do.  Sometimes I can’t decide which is funnier … David Letterman (who mirrors MSM political leanings) while he’s trying to be funny, or the MSM while they’re trying not to be funny.

Never is this more apparent than when things don’t go their way.  When things don’t go their way the double standard they set up is hilarious.  Maybe it’s just because I listen to NPR and watch non-Fox channels but I can’t tell you how many times over the last 24 hours I heard pundits disparage Palin for having remarks that were “belittling” to Obama.

Oh No!  Horrors!  She made Obama seem less than what he thinks he is (that is the definition of belittling incidentally)!  She might have hurt his feelings!  Surely he can’t defend himself so that was dirty pool.  Shame, Palin!  For shame!  As a side note: I seem to remember the MSM saying similar things about Romney for attacking his opponents records .. but in the end the MSM got their favorite Republican candidate: McCain, who’s ironically more likely to beat their favorite candidate than Romney was likely to do.

Of course, belittling the opposition is a VP candidate’s main job, and it always has been – it’s called “Good Cop” vs “Bad Cop” and it leaves McCain the role of playing good cop.  Palin was dutifully playing her part … and she did so with amazing alacrity.

Incidentally McCain played the “good cop” very well tonight in dealing with multiple hecklers.  It’s funny how democrats try to crash republican assemblies, but republicans never do the same to democrat assemblies – but again I’m getting off topic.

Yes, there’s hypocrisy in the MSM … feigning shock that she’d desecrate their idol, Obama.  What I found even more humorous though is the MSM was then so foolish as to prove her belittling attitude by showing a snippet where she mocks Obama for saying that small-town people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”.

Okay.  All right.  So … apparently it’s okay for Obama to self-righteously belittle half the people in the US  by making a mockery of their faith and their right to personal defense, but Palin “belittled” Obama!  How could she!

What’s even funnier is all the so-called feminists who’ve ever since have been saying the most sexist remarks about Palin imaginable … claiming that either her kids will get the short end of the stick (ha! as if they really care), or the nation will get the short end of the stick.  Meanwhile I’m sure her husband’s thinking “what am I … chopped liver ?” – can’t he take care of the kids … or is not able, being a man and all – what a sexist assumption!   But the most ironic things is nobody on the left has stopped to ask “Why doesn’t anyone say that about any of the men running for office”?

I mean, aren’t liberal democrats supposed to be the last bastion of equal rights?  Aren’t they the ones who pretend to champion the idea that men should be held to the same familial standards as women (a perspective I actually agree with)?  So why would they say that about Palin, but not Obama.  You know … he has young kids too.

And are they so dense as to think that her kids will sit in squalor without any assistance from Federal staff or more importantly without love and affection from a father who’s been an excellent Mr. Mom for these last few years.  I’m guessing those kids will be doted on no less than were the Bush’s kids, the Clinton’s kids, or any other White House kids.  Sarah Palin’s kids will in many if not most cases receive just as much guidance and care from their father as the others received from their non-political parent.  Hey, wait a minute … Chelsea didn’t even have a non-political parent.  Amazing she hasn’t turned out to be some kind of axe-murderer.

Which brings up the other hilarious point.  I loved watching David Letterman last night – being his funniest (maybe “funny” is too flattering of a word … he was more like “ludicrous”) when he was trying to be his most serious.  You had to watch it to see just how clueless he was.  The audience was shocked really at what he said … his guest, Dr. Phil was a deer-in-the-headlights.  Both Letterman and Dr Phil commented on how silent the audience suddenly was, after which Letterman quickly realized he was way off base from all of his viewers.

I don’t remember Letterman’s exact words but in summary, Letterman was very harshly criticizing Palin for letting her daughter get pregnant.  That’s right folks … it was Sarah Palin’s fault her daughter got pregnant according to Letterman (apparently her husband is off the hook even though he’s been playing Mr Mom – but then I already mentioned the sexist views of the hypocritical left so let’s not delve further into that).  Essentially Lettermen went on to suggest that only an idiot would send their 16 yr old daughter out on a date without a condom (although not in so many words).

Now I’ve seen Letterman say dumb things before where he’s revealed too much about his ridiculous ideas, but even I was a little surprised at these comments, but what’s more I was really dismayed by Dr. Phil’s response.

There was none.  I kept waiting for it but nothing happened.  I kept expecting Dr. Phil to at least fix things a little.  Dr. Phil is generally pretty straight forward even as a guest and will try to nicely shed some healthy balance in such situations like gently mentioning that perhaps not everyone shares Letterman’s wacky views, but Dr. Phil did nothing of the sort.  Instead they both quickly changed the topic and thereby perpetuated a myth that only idiots believe that morality is more important than birth control, and that a baby born into a very loving home where the mother is only 17 is a horrible horrible thing that should be avoided … perhaps aborted at all costs, even if the father is a good reliable kid who loves the daughter and wants to make it right.

So by-in-large I found the MSM responses to Palin hilarious – with a few moments of disgust here and there where I saw the ugly little underbelly and bizarre beliefs that underlie those responses.  It has been overall, delightful to see the MSM squirm and I’m giddy about seeing more throughout the next 60 days … hopefully longer (like 4 years).  Just think … the first woman in an Executive Office will not be of the MSM ilk.  Palin has made McCain a real contender, and in a very real way she is even more capable than their own glorious Obama.  It’s making the MSM and their pundits run around like a bunch of decapitated chickens and I couldn’t be more tickled.

I only wish this show would have started sooner.

July 14, 2008

9 Troops Killed – How many soldiers is that?!

Check out the definition of a Troop:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/troop

Notice something strange?  With 14 possible definitions, every single definition indicates that a troop is more than one person.  So how many people died when 9 troops are killed?  Well, let see if the minimum for a troop is 2 soldiers (and more likely 4 to 50), then with 9 troops killed that’s at least 18 soldiers, or more likely 36 to 450 soldiers … right?

WRONG.

Apparently when you’re the one who gets to create the news you can redefine words at your whim and fancy to mislead, confuse, and persuade.  In this case, whenever the mainstream media talks about “troops” being killed, it seems that according to the media a troop is one soldier.  That’s right.  One soldier.  So apparently if you’re in the news corp you can refer to Private Smith as Troop Smith (kind of like Trooper Smith except that “Trooper” sounds like only one person, and that’s not really what the media is going for).  Now, Troop Smith, is in my meager understanding a Troop of multiple Smiths, but then I’m just a regular guy who just reads dictionaries.  What do I know?  I’m not the all-knowing media.

Also when you own the media you’re allowed to ignore existing and more suitable words that the ones you redefine or make up, especially if they don’t serve your purpose.  You can, for example, ignore the word “Soldier” which, like “Trooper”, sounds like only one person.  That’s not good if you want 9 Soldiers to sound like even more than what they already are.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong – but 9 soldier deaths (as horrible as they are), is mathematically far far less than 18 soldier deaths , or (what fits the definition more closely) anywhere from 36 to 450 soldier deaths, which has a lot of shock value.

Just something to think about next time you read X-many troops killed.  Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media.  Instead, just get out your dictionary and a pen and write in there after definition number 14:

15) troop – what the msm likes to call one soldier when they want the number to sound really large.

June 24, 2008

Apology to those who were offended

I removed my post about my criticism of Carlin from yesterday because I’ve since come to realize many people saw him as family and are in pain or feel a sense of loss with his death. I was wrong to reason that there’s been and will be so many platitudes and pandering this week and next that my little pip-squeak contrarian view was okay to voice at this time.  I was wrong and I’m sorry.

January 30, 2008

2008 Election: High School Antics Galore

It seems to get worse every day, but this last week takes the cake.  I was watching CBS World News last night like I always do (I like Charlie, even if he is dumber than a box of rocks, and even if he defers to the conniving Stephanopolis for political opinion).  They had a 5 minute segment on whether Obama “snubbed” Clinton, with pictures and everything as she reached out to shake Kennedy’s hand while Obama was looking the other way.

5 minutes!   Of course, the story was centered on Hillary being offended, and Obama saying it was nothing (while, interestingly, never admitting that it was unintentional).

Then there was the Caroline Kennedy endorsement … why?  Because she said her teenage daughter thought it would be cool if he won.   The press is now making a big deal about “Camelot courting Obama”.   Camelot?  More like Cram-a-lot.  I think I’m going to be sick.

Then there’s the big deal the MSM is making about Romney being such a big meany to everyone.  I can’t turn on the TV (which has been far more focused on this than written news) without hearing Romney with his millions is a big meany to Huckabee, he’s a big meany to McCain, and he’s a big meany to Giuliani.  NEWS FLASH: It’s politics and the door swings both ways.  While the other candidates pretend to have fragile ego’s that get hurt when someone brings up their political record, I’m grateful that somebody is pointing out what the MSM is helping the other candidates bury.

Here’s a fun experiment you can try on your own.: Tonight, tomorrow, whenever, I don’t care because it happens almost every night right now, watch CBS Evening News and wait until they get to the political commentary by Stephanopolis.  Everytime he’ll mention the criticisms leveled against Romney, but not mention Romney’s response, and then he’ll throw in his own 2 cents about how the public as a whole consistently thinks Romney lacks character and integrity.  Then he’ll either: 1) not mention the exact criticism leveled against Romney’s competition (whoever it might be at the time), or spend more time on how unfair Romney’s attack was giving far more time to the response of Romney’s allegations than the allegations themselves.

It’d be hilarious really if it wasn’t such an egregious abuse of the their media monopoly, but that’s not what really bugs me.  It’s that nothing is about the issues anymore.  It’s all devolved into a high-school-ish popularity contest surrounding the idea of who is nicest and most deserving, not who’s best for the job.  I hated that part of high school, but people like me aren’t in charge of the media so we put up with it.  What else can you do when you’re surrounded by full grown adolescents who own the airwaves?

November 12, 2007

Al Gore says something really stupid again

He won the popular vote for President of the United States. He jumped on the green energy bandwagon. For those two things I applaud him.

Everything else he’s done reminds me what an incredible stroke of luck it was that he lost the electoral vote. I posted earlier about how awful of a job I thought he did on the “Inconvenient Truth”, and I suggested similar programs that were far better on a number of levels – although even they were seriously flawed. His moaning throughout the program about how unfairly he was treated and about how little data convinced him of global warming were tedious at best, and the treatment of any of the data he presented was excruciating from a statistical standpoint. The worst part of it was his solution to the problem (use less electricity and spend money on technologies that were entirely unlikely to help), which was the equivalent of stopping a fire hydrant with a stick of bubble gum. Besides, you cannot begin to legislate that. Neither can you force China to do that. The solution should have been this: we need tons of cheap clean energy and we need it fast, and stop investing in technology that has no chance of being competitive with coal.

Nothing else will work. Gore seems oblivious on this point.

Does such a ridiculous remark have anything to do with the fact that he runs a Venture Capitalist firm that invests largely in these inferior “competitive” technologies?

So what now did he recently say that filled me with disgust? What proved his underlying blind ignorance to institute “fairness” at the expense of achieving the ultimate goal? It was simply this: When an Ausra executive said that their Solar Thermal technology would produce electricity so cheap as to “thrash” all the other alternatives, Gore reprimanded him for “assassinating” the competition. You can read about it here at the end of this fortune magazine article from November 12th. Be sure to read also the blindedly ignorant opinion of the author of the article, gushing over Gore like he was a rock-star who could do no wrong.

Excuse me?! Why is Gore being overly protective of less efficient, more expensive, and slower to market technologies?! Can you say “biased”? Can you say “self-serving”? Does such a ridiculous remark have anything to do with the fact that he runs a Venture Capitalist firm that invests largely in these inferior “competitive” technologies?

… when someone says something extremely stupid that also reveals their true motives it’s time to call a spade a spade …

If Gore was truly interested in saving the planet, then he would have said something smart like “Wonderful! Let the competition begin!”. And that, my friends, is why we are in the current mess that we are in. Solar Thermal has been capable of providing us with near grid-cost energy for a dozen years while people like Gore have insisted that all the DOE funds go to more expensive and less efficient, and less eco-friendly projects.

Am I the only one that sees a conflict of interest in making a Eco-Venture-Capitalist-Advisor into the Czar of environmentally friendly technologies? Are people really so stupid as to think such a person could be objective? And journalists … when someone says something extremely stupid as well as revealing of their true motives it’s time to call a spade a spade instead of praising the person for senselessly sticking to their rusty and hypocritical guns.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.