Liberalism = Genocide

I am actually not sure why this JUST occurred to me, but I find it very fascinating that there are a bunch of people that think leftist politics are good in terms of human rights, because the track record is horrifyingly opposite. Absolutely every time that communism or its daughters or sisters have been tried has led to the theory that the common good justifies just about any possible atrocity imaginable.

How is this relevant in terms of the current home for communists (I.E. environmentalists)? Anyone who is actually a non-thinking sheep enough to think that what is really going on here is that these people care about the PLANET. Because the second sentence out of their mouths is always related to some fantasy about how there might be a blessed UTOPIA if HUMAN BEINGS ARE REMOVED FROM THE PLANET. This manifested itself as zero population growth in the sixties, the last instantiation of the attempt at communist genocide, and it is no different now. There are people who are delighted to think that perhaps one day this planet will be free from the traces of human beings, their parts or passions, and THAT EQUALS GENOCIDE OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Why people seem to be STUPID enough to want to give power to central governments to commit the kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the history of communism or its relatives, I will never understand, but it seems to be a lesson that is impossible to teach except with human misery.

Are kids shows realy for kids?

I argue that paents concentrate what's in adult programing even though ironically most kids don't get it, much less parot it. I think that some makers of kids shows and movies target crude fare for what exactly their audience gets and will repeat.

http://www.helium.com/items/1158450-are-disney-and-nickelodeon-shows-really-appropriate-for-all-ages

Kind of just like my point on Honk that the "a88" lyric is just for a cheap laugh substituting for cleverness to appeal to an age that thinks its great.

The horror of modern parenting

Helium is starting to get picky about letting people pick their own titles! I am not happy, but didn't want to save this on my computer because it would be instantly lost forever, not that it is treasure or anything.

I honestly don't know whether this is one of those things that we all say is getting worse and wasn't like that when we were young. But a terrible encounter with the product of modern parenting on my recent vacation made me think that it must be that a boundary of some kind was crossed in the way we have all been brought up. And much of the behavior of kids is eerily paralleled in the behavior of adults that don't like to get as good as they give.

On my recent trip through various hotels down the west coast I went to one of those racks of pamphlets and was looking at them. A child, a four year old blonde girl, came up to me and started aggressively bossing me around about what I was doing. At first she said, No, No! Probably she had been told not to touch the pamphlets, but probably not by her own parents.

Helium accepted this eventually, now I have to get all the personal stuff out of it eventually!

http://www.helium.com/items/1160496-parenting-bad-behavior-theory-psychology-nature-nurture

What's the harm in wrongness? This.

People often get a little defensive when they want to just believe in general theories that are very wrong. Because many of them think that there is no harm in it and they should be able to think and even argue wrong things if they want to do it and should be left alone and not made to even see how wrong they are.

Of course there are many things that serve as good candidates of things that people defend, mainly because they would like to believe them for whatever reason. They think they should be left alone with their theories, even if they are about politics or medicine or whatever that affect the rest of us. The people that point out that things other people say and think don't make sense are to be the real enemy, say they, not the people that thought the things in the first place.

Of course the first set of people, the ones who care about just whether something is right or wrong objectively, isn't making what should be just a logical argument with premeses and evidence and all of that instead about who is an enemy or who is evil and who isn't. The first set merely think that thinking something wrong is not good in and of itself and should be avoided at all costs.

But the latest Casey Anthoney child abduction (a la Susan Smith) case bolsters the others like it, and illustrates very keenly that we have an obligation toward rooting out things that aren't true from our world views no matter whether we see how they are harmfull or not.

Everyone from Scott Petersen to Susan Smith to this new one that said her daughter got abducted by some babysitter did what they did with a cover that they thought would be easily believable: people that are strangers are more likely to abduct your loved ones than you are. No one should believe, unless they believe the stranger abduction theory is stronger than it actually is, that a babysitter would want to take a kid FOREVER and not be able to hand them BACK TO THEIR PARENTS.

Babysitters pretty much are always dying to hand a kid back to their parents and wouldn't run off with it particularly if it meant not being paid for their time. That doesn't happen, except in the world that we have created with our stranger abduction theory. I remember working at CARES, a child assessment center, that there was like NEVER a stranger abduction case EVER the whole three years I worked there. It was one of five main cases but it never got its box checked. It was pretty much always the parent or at the very least the teacher. A stranger never came by the house and put the kid in the trunk. That has happened like once or twice ever in the history in this country, and albeit a horrible thing, it hasn't become a common one. Just because it has ascended to the level of public consciousness like it has doesn't make it more common.

There are some cases in the news. Of course Elizabeth Smart and that girl who had an affair with Gary Condit. Gary Condit is going to go down as the most unlucky guy in the history of the universe. Or the most stupid, or both. He was a nobod congressman from Modesto California and had to go and have an affair with some moon eyed intern, making it seem like it was obviously him because that is what one would call guilty behavior.

He probably was one of the ones that didn't do it. But it is SO RARE that nobody cared, really, he pretty much looked guilty anyway, because in a way he was. But on the whole those things are VERY RARE. Likely if there is an angry mother that lies pathologically and seems motivated to please her boyfriend and nothing else, it is likely that she will be the only one suspected in her daughter's disappearance.

Therefore, like Scott Petersen, if he thought that the stranger abduction theory would provide any cover for a murderous deed, then that theory itself has been an accomplice to murder and other terrible things. We never really know when that is going to happen.

So my thinking is, no matter how much it may seem that something is a good idea to believe, unless it is actually TRUE, it could be very harmful and must be stopped. It sounds a bit harsh and dramatic, but what could be worse than this latest example?

Quesstion about comparing Fiddler on the Roof versions

The new Broadway version of Fiddler on the Roof made a big deal about not having the actors do the fake Yiddish accents like the classic versions did. And actually that is a more intellectually sound way to go, as these characters are undoubtedly speaking Russian and not English with a New York Jewish nasal tone. But the play bombed. Any opinions as to whether the accent decision was a big factor? I think it was.

And why in the HECK do community theater productions insist on casting Tevye and Golde as plump, when the text specifically mentions them starving over the period of twenty five years, which I would think was enough to slightly emaciate any woman no matter how badly she wanted the lead in a musical. I stuffed myself, but admittedly part of their decision was that I was too thin. I got cast as Grandma Tzeitel, who had been dead for thirty years. Oy vey.

A BURN on Thomas More

Ok, it has been about five hundred years, and I know ALL of us are thinking the EXACT SAME THING: who in the HELL decided that Thomas More was some kind of great guy? Much less a saint or something?

Not only do I risk the wrath of the world's largest religion here, so I admittedly get some ice water in my veins as I type this, I also risk sounding like the idiot kid who points out the emperor has no clothes. This guy was one of history's most self righteous JERKS and here he has people in the twentieth century eulogizing his memory even in full presence of the terrible things he did?

I feel like this is some kind of 'Behind the Music' version of More but the evidence really speaks for itself. And not only am I doing the equivalent of posting grainy paparazzi photos of this terrible Tudor, it makes me look like some sort of meanie that should be exposing the real story behind Brittany Spears. Brittany Spears hasn't gone down in history, recent or ancient, as being some kind of 'Saint' or something, literally. This is a guy whose terrible cold-hearted grasp was only limited by his reach. In the brief period that Henry VIII decided he was deserving of the office of right hand man, the king gave him a free hand to deal with religious heretics as he saw fit.

So the end result was that this hypocrite was mincing words with the king about whether or not his royal divorce should be sanctioned to save his self righteous NECK while he was BURNING PROTESTANTS like Simon Fish, who normally gets the press of some type of composite protestant martyr (but whose story is still fairly illustrative of the types of terrible things More did).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fish

Let's see what we might be missing. What is the REAL RAP on why we all think that this cruel bigoted monster is getting an overly sanitized reputation.

I really think that this self righteous hypocrite's actual character is NOT up for debate because among other egregious crimes he goes down in history saying that the only reason that he didn't go into the clergy even though he believed it was the only worthy profession is that he didn't want to look bad for not keeping his hands off the ladies.

This is why, for a lesser sacrifice, Tom More ended up with the movie about all the stupid 'Seasons' and Cardinal Fisher ended up with only obscure but dignified martyrdom. The only thing that I can think of is that Cardinal Fisher, who was actually LESS equivocal about Henry's divorce, didn't get much sympathetic press because he actually WAS a devout Roman Catholic who had never married or fathered children despite his better religious scruples.

And thus because Margaret Roper and his other WHINY, BRATTY descendants have had five hundred years to polish this thug's memory, his reputation looks a bit brighter than poor Cardinal Fisher's whose righteous celibate lifestyle resulted in no one really giving a damn about him at all. Fisher went to the block more valiantly than More, but no kids equals nobody really cared one way or the other.

What I think is a total BURN on Thomas More, though, (HAHA, pun intended) is that he wrote a lot of his legal argument stuff about five years too early. It was right before the Gutenberg printing press (which was really responsible, more than any person could, for successfully ending the hold of Roman Catholicism), standardized English spelling for GOOD!

So even though Thomas More was like the pinnacle of enlightened humanist thinking and education at the time, via historical accident he goes down on record looking like a kindergartner that can barely read or write!

LOL... Burn on Tom More.

Starving people in Ohio and other evidence for liberalism

This is the intellectual hurdle required for believing that the United States needs a more aggressive social welfare system.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

NPR actualy ran a story that quoted ACTUAL LIVE HUMANS who were willing to go down on record with their opinion that it was the CURRENT "recession" that was responsible for their recent financial troubles as a family, even though NONE OF THEM HAVE WORKED EVER, not five years ago, not ten years ago, and not twenty years ago.

Apparently NPR's fact checkers are getting a bit lazy because it took approximately two alert readers to realize the ridiculousness of this story. Too bad about half of the U.S. population still doesn't see it. It is physically impossible to go without the basic necessities of life in the United States, the heart of cold-hearted, ignorant and unrifined capitalism, as hard as bleeding heart jounalists would try to convince you otherwise.

http://www.red-alerts.com/un-american-activities/npr-claims-lazy-morbidly-obese-cretin-starving-because-of-bad-economy/

All I can say is if you find that neither one of these links work, please GOOGLE 'starving Ohioans.'

Kudos to whoever is hiding the meat from them.