Girlie Men

October 10, 2008

I never thought of myself as a particulary masculine man. I’m certainly not a true man’s man.

But WTF!!! is up with all the girlie men? Why are so many supposed males so disgustingly wimpy?

My former friend Sean emails me to say he doesn’t want me to contact him anymore. I have to call him now to ask him if he thinks he can deal with a crazy Jihadi Muslim trying to cut his head off with a dull, rusty scimitar when he can’t even handle his friend demanding an explanation for his wimpiness?

We really are doomed if men can’t be men with their men friends. We are doomed if supposed men complain about their men friends being too mean to them. A real man doesn’t respond to perceived meanness by whining!!! No way, no how. A real man stands up on his hind legs and contends for his faith and what he believes. He doesn’t whimper and cower and beg for mercy. If I was trying to cut his head off with my rusty, dull scimitar I’d be disgusted with the whining and whimpering. The fact that mere words cause the supposed men to start bawling makes me sick to my stomach.

James Solbakken

<><

jsolbakken@aol.com

Hey Sean!

October 4, 2008

In a message dated 10/4/2008 12:11:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JSolbakken writes:

Hey, Sean:

I’m not sorry I called you stupid. You are stupid for responding to my drop dead serious concerns about men and women and marriage with your snide, snarky, and shallow psychobabble about the way I must feel about women.

Tell me, asswipe, why Kathleen Parker and Carol Platt Lebau are concerned about what is happening to men? Do these women share a mysogynistic feeling with me? Or, are they man enough to try to deal with the facts, unlike you?

Your daughters need a father, not a metrosexual pussy retard. You should bring your brain to bear on these problems, and stop psychobabbling about them.

I’m committed to logic and rationalism, but I’m not coldly rational. I’m heatedly rational. I’m full of emotion, piss and vinegar about the crucial importance of objective truth. I’m willing to step on toes and punch faces in its defense. So don’t tempt me.

James

<><

Click here: Where have all the real men gone? – Times Online

Times Online Logo 222 x 25

Where have all the real men gone?

Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book Save the Males, in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }

Alpha Mummy blog: Does ‘up with men’ have to mean ‘down with women’?

I know. Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don’t know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!”

Actually, that’s a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed – and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.

While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids).

In the process of fashioning a more female-friendly world, we have created a culture that is hostile towards males, contemptuous of masculinity and cynical about the delightful differences that make men irresistible, especially when something goes bump in the night.

In popular culture, rare is the man portrayed as wise, strong and noble. In film and music, men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators and wife-beaters. Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools. One would assume from most depictions that the smart, decent man who cares about his family and pats the neighbour’s dog is the exception rather than the rule.

I am frankly an unlikely champion of males and that most hackneyed cliché of our times – “traditional family values”. Or rather, I’m an expert on family in the same way that the captain of the Titanic was an expert on maritime navigation.

Looking back affectionately, I like to think of home as our own little Baghdad. The bunker-buster was my mother’s death when she was 31 and I was three, whereupon my father became a serial husband, launching into the holy state of matrimony four more times throughout my childhood and early adulthood. We were dysfunctional before dysfunctional was cool.

Going against trends of the day, I was mostly an only child raised by a single father through all but one of my teen years, with mother figures in various cameo roles. I got a close-up glimpse of how the sexes trouble and fail each other and in the process developed great em-pathy for both, but especially for men.

Although my father could be difficult – I wasn’t blinded by his considerable charms – I also could see his struggle and the sorrows he suffered, especially after mother No 2 left with his youngest daughter, my little sister.

From this broad, experiential education in the ways of men and women, I reached a helpful conclusion that seems to have escaped notice by some of my fellow sisters: men are human beings, too.

Lest anyone infer that my defence of men is driven by antipathy towards women, let me take a moment to point out that I liked and/or loved all my mothers. In fact, I’m still close to all my father’s wives except the last, who is just a few years older than me and who is apparently afraid that if we make eye contact, I’ll want the silver. (I do.)

My further education in matters male transpired in the course of raising three boys, my own and two stepsons. As a result of my total immersion in male-dom, I’ve been cursed with guy vision – and it’s not looking so good out there.

At the same time that men have been ridiculed, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are increasingly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.

The exemplar of the modern male is the hairless, metrosexualised man and decorator boys who turn heter-osexual slobs into perfumed ponies. All of which is fine as long as we can dwell happily in the Kingdom of Starbucks, munching our biscotti and debating whether nature or nurture determines gender identity. But in the dangerous world in which we really live, it might be nice to have a few guys around who aren’t trying to juggle pedicures and highlights.

Men have been domesticated to within an inch of their lives, attending Lamaze classes, counting contractions, bottling expressed breast milk for midnight feedings – I expect men to start lactating before I finish this sentence – yet they are treated most unfairly in the areas of reproduction and parenting.

Legally, women hold the cards. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort – even without her husband’s consent. If she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice. Unarguably, a man should support his offspring, but by that same logic shouldn’t he have a say in whether his child is born or aborted?

Granted, many men are all too grateful for women to handle the collateral damage of poorly planned romantic interludes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many men are hurt by the presumption that their vote is irrelevant in childbearing decisions.

NOTHING quite says “Men need not apply” like a phial of mail-order sperm Continued on page 2 Continued from page 1 and a turkey-baster. In the high-tech nursery of sperm donation and self-insemination – and in the absence of shame attached to unwed motherhood – babies can now be custom-ordered without the muss and fuss of human intimacy.

It’s not fashionable to question women’s decisions, especially when it comes to childbearing, but the shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time. While we have happily retired the word “bastard” and the attendant emotional pain for mother and child, acceptance of childbearing outside marriage represents not just a huge shift in attitudes but, potentially, a restructuring of the future human family.

By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfillment, we have helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce but in which men are also superfluous.

Lots of women can, do and always will raise children without fathers, whether out of necessity, tragedy or other circumstance. But that fact can’t logically be construed to mean that children don’t need a father. The fact that some children manage with just one parent is no more an endorsement of single parenthood than driving with a flat tyre is an argument for three-wheeled cars.

For most of recorded history, human society has regarded the family, consisting of a child’s biological mother and father, to be the best arrangement for the child’s wellbeing and the loss of a parent to be the single greatest threat to that wellbeing. There’s bound to be a reason for this beyond the need for man to drag his woman around by her chignon.

Sperm-donor children are a relatively new addition to the human community and they bring new stories to the campfire. I interviewed several adults who are the products of sperm donation. Some were born to married but infertile couples. Others were born to single mothers. Some reported well-adjusted childhoods; some reported conflicting feelings of love and loss.

Overall, a common thread emerged that should put to rest any notion that fathers are not needed: even the happiest donor children expressed a profound need to know who their father is, to know that other part of themselves.

Tom Ellis, a mathematics doctoral student at Cambridge University, learnt at 21 that he and his brother were both donor-conceived. Their parents told them on the advice of a family therapist as their marriage unravelled.

At first Tom did not react, but months later he hit a wall of emotional devastation. He says he became numb, anxious and scared. He began a search for his biological father, a search that has become a crusade for identity common among sperm-donor children.

“It’s absolutely necessary that I find out who he is to have a normal existence as a human being. That’s not negotiable in any way,” Tom said. “It would be nice if he wanted to meet me, but that would be something I want rather than something needed.”

Tom is convinced that the need to know one’s biological father is profound and that it is also every child’s right. What is clear from conversations with donor-conceived children is that a father is neither an abstract idea nor is he interchangeable with a mother.

As Tom put it: “There’s a mystery about oneself.” Knowing one’s father is apparently crucial to that mystery.

Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt. That is because a woman is perceived as just another mother, while a man is Man.

From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.

My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?

We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.

At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. They do not want to sit quietly and listen to yet more women speak soothingly of important things.

Here’s how one memorable meeting began. “Boys, thank you for taking your seats and being quiet while we explain our women’s history month project,” said Akela Sullivan in her calmest psychotherapist voice. The response to Akela Sullivan’s entreaty sounded something like the Zulu nation psyching up for the Brits.

I tried a different, somewhat more masculine approach: “Boys, get in here, sit down and shut up. Now!” And lo, they did get in there. And they did sit. And they did shut up. One boy stargazed into my face and stage-whispered: “I wish you were my mother.”

Akela Sullivan and I put our heads together, epiphanised in unison and decided that we would recruit transients from the homeless shelter if necessary to give these boys what they wanted and needed – men.

As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.

His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. I suspect they would have found coffee tins brilliantly useful as lanterns if he had suggested as much.

But, of course, boys don’t stay Cub Scouts for long. We’ve managed over the past 20 years or so to create a new generation of child-men, perpetual adolescents who see no point in growing up. By indulging every appetite instead of recognising the importance of self-control and commitment, we’ve ratified the id.

Our society’s young men encounter little resistance against continuing to celebrate juvenile pursuits, losing themselves in video games and mindless, “guy-oriented” TV fare – and casual sex.

The casual sex culture prevalent on university campuses – and even in schools – has produced fresh vocabulary to accommodate new ways of relating: “friends with benefits” and “booty call”.

FWB I get, but “booty call”? I had to ask a young friend, who explained: “Oh, that’s when a guy calls you up and just needs you to come over and have sex with him and then go home.”

Why, I asked, would a girl do such a thing? Why would she service a man for nothing – no relationship, no affection, no emotional intimacy?

She pointed out that, well, they are friends. With benefits! But no obligations! Cool. When I persisted in demanding an answer to “why”, she finally shrugged and said: “I have no idea. It’s dumb.”

Guys also have no idea why a girl would do that, but they’re not complaining – even if they’re not enjoying themselves that much, either.

Miriam Grossman, a university psychiatrist, wrote Unprotected, a book about the consequences of casual sex among students. She has treated thousands of young men and women suffering a range of physical and emotional problems related to sex, which she blames on sex education of recent years that treats sex as though it were divorced from emotional attachment and as if men and women were the same. Grossman asserts that there are a lot more victims of the hookup (casual sex) culture than of date rape.

Casual sex, besides being emotionally unrewarding, can become physically boring. Once sex is stripped of meaning, it becomes merely a mechanical exercise. Since the hookup generation is also the porn generation, many have taken their performance cues from porn flicks that are anything but sensual or caring.

Boys today are marinating in pornography and they’ll soon be having casual sex with our daughters. According to a study by the National Foundation for Educational Research issued in 2005, 12% of British males aged 13-18 avail themselves of “adult-only” websites; and American research findings are similar. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher, given the amount of porn spam that finds its way into electronic mailboxes. If the rising generation of young men have trouble viewing the opposite sex as anything but an object for sexual gratification, we can’t pretend not to understand why.

The biggest problem for both sexes – beyond the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease – is that casual sex is essentially an adversarial enterprise that pits men and women against each other. Some young women, now fully as sexually aggressive as men, have taken “liberation” to another level by acting as badly as the worst guy.

Carol Platt Liebau, the author of Prude, another book on the havoc that pervasive sex has on young people, says that when girls begin behaving more coarsely so, too, do boys.

“And now, because so many young girls have been told that it’s ‘empowering’ to pursue boys aggressively, there’s no longer any need for boys to ‘woo’ girls – or even to commit to a date,” she told me. “The girls are available [in every sense of the word] and the boys know it.”

Men, meanwhile, have feelings. Although they’re uncomfortable sorting through them – and generally won’t if no one insists – I’ve listened to enough of them to know that our hypersexualised world has left many feeling limp and vacant.

Our cultural assumption that men only want sex has been as damaging to them as to the women they target. Here is how a recent graduate summed it up to me: “Hooking up is great, but at some point you get tired of everything meaning nothing.”

Ultimately, what our oversexualised, pornified culture reveals is that we think very little of our male family members. Undergirding the culture that feminism has helped to craft is a presumption that men are without honour and integrity. What we offer men is cheap, dirty, sleazy, manipulative sensation. What we expect from them is boorish, simian behaviour that ratifies the antimale sentiment that runs through the culture.

Surely our boys – and our girls – deserve better.

As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

In the coming years we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men – and boys be boys. And we need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes.

Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less.

Saving the males – engaging their nobility and recognising their unique strengths – will ultimately benefit women and children, too. Fewer will live in poverty; fewer boys will fail in schools and wind up in jail; fewer girls will get pregnant or suffer emotional damage from too early sex with uncaring boys. Fewer young men and women will suffer loneliness and loss because they’ve grown up in a climate of sexual hostility that casts the opposite sex as either villain or victim.

Then again, maybe I’m completely wrong. Maybe males don’t need saving and women are never happier or more liberated than when dancing with a stripper pole. Maybe women should man the barricades and men should warm the milk. Maybe men are not necessary and women can manage just fine without them. Maybe human nature has been nurtured into submission and males and females are completely interchangeable.

But I don’t think so. When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.

© Kathleen Parker 2008

Extracted from Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care by Kathleen Parker, published by Random House New York

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search – find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.

Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers’

standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

http://the-acap.org/acap-enabled.phphttp://the-acap.org/acap-enabled.php

EXACT TAX SERVICE ®
James E. Solbakken:CTEC #A125347/Christine M. Solbakken CTEC #A125348
26250 Industrial Boulevard – Suite 9, Hayward CA 94545-2922
510-781-4971/ Fax 510-781-4961/ JSolbakken@aol.com/ ACIC Bond #201475

Please note electronic mail is not secure and Exact Tax Service does not accept or take responsibility for acting on time-sensitive instructions sent by email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail and attachment(s), if any, is: (i) legally protected pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., inter alia, and may contain privileged and confidential information; (ii) not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer; and (iii) only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you know or have any reason to believe that you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or duplication of this e-mail is prohibited and you are requested to immediately notify the sender by e-mail or collect telephone call. Any e-mail you send to or receive from this firm will not be privileged in the absence of an attorney-client relationship with this firm. Your receipt of this e-mail neither waives any privilege or confidence nor creates any attorney-client relationship. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed on us by IRS Circular 230, we must inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient, or anyone else, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter.

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”-Cicero

 

 


 

New MapQuest Local shows what’s happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more.

Try it out

!

EXACT TAX SERVICE ®
James E. Solbakken:CTEC #A125347/Christine M. Solbakken CTEC #A125348
26250 Industrial Boulevard – Suite 9, Hayward CA 94545-2922
510-781-4971/ Fax 510-781-4961/ JSolbakken@aol.com/ ACIC Bond #201475

Please note electronic mail is not secure and Exact Tax Service does not accept or take responsibility for acting on time-sensitive instructions sent by email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail and attachment(s), if any, is: (i) legally protected pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., inter alia, and may contain privileged and confidential information; (ii) not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer; and (iii) only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you know or have any reason to believe that you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or duplication of this e-mail is prohibited and you are requested to immediately notify the sender by e-mail or collect telephone call. Any e-mail you send to or receive from this firm will not be privileged in the absence of an attorney-client relationship with this firm. Your receipt of this e-mail neither waives any privilege or confidence nor creates any attorney-client relationship. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed on us by IRS Circular 230, we must inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient, or anyone else, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter.

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”-Cicero

 

 

 


 

New MapQuest Local shows what’s happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more.

 

Try it out!
—————–
Forwarded Message:

Subj:

 

Check out Where have all the real men gone? – Times Online

 

Date:

 

10/4/2008 12:11:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time

 

From:

 

 

JSolbakken

To:

 

 

Shazam1935

BCC:

 

 

JSolbakken, Citybaby007

 

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Click here: Where have all the real men gone? – Times Online

      Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.&&Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

      Times Online Logo 222 x 25

          Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

          • From The Sunday Times

            August 3, 2008

          Where have all the real men gone?

          Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book Save the Males, in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society

          div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }

           

           

          Alpha Mummy blog: Does ‘up with men’ have to mean ‘down with women’?I know. Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don’t know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!”

          Actually, that’s a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed – and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.

          While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids).

          In the process of fashioning a more female-friendly world, we have created a culture that is hostile towards males, contemptuous of masculinity and cynical about the delightful differences that make men irresistible, especially when something goes bump in the night.

          In popular culture, rare is the man portrayed as wise, strong and noble. In film and music, men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators and wife-beaters. Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools. One would assume from most depictions that the smart, decent man who cares about his family and pats the neighbour’s dog is the exception rather than the rule.

          I am frankly an unlikely champion of males and that most hackneyed cliché of our times – “traditional family values”. Or rather, I’m an expert on family in the same way that the captain of the Titanic was an expert on maritime navigation.

          Looking back affectionately, I like to think of home as our own little Baghdad. The bunker-buster was my mother’s death when she was 31 and I was three, whereupon my father became a serial husband, launching into the holy state of matrimony four more times throughout my childhood and early adulthood. We were dysfunctional before dysfunctional was cool.

          Going against trends of the day, I was mostly an only child raised by a single father through all but one of my teen years, with mother figures in various cameo roles. I got a close-up glimpse of how the sexes trouble and fail each other and in the process developed great em-pathy for both, but especially for men.

          Although my father could be difficult – I wasn’t blinded by his considerable charms – I also could see his struggle and the sorrows he suffered, especially after mother No 2 left with his youngest daughter, my little sister.

          From this broad, experiential education in the ways of men and women, I reached a helpful conclusion that seems to have escaped notice by some of my fellow sisters: men are human beings, too.

          Lest anyone infer that my defence of men is driven by antipathy towards women, let me take a moment to point out that I liked and/or loved all my mothers. In fact, I’m still close to all my father’s wives except the last, who is just a few years older than me and who is apparently afraid that if we make eye contact, I’ll want the silver. (I do.)

          My further education in matters male transpired in the course of raising three boys, my own and two stepsons. As a result of my total immersion in male-dom, I’ve been cursed with guy vision – and it’s not looking so good out there.

          At the same time that men have been ridiculed, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are increasingly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.

          The exemplar of the modern male is the hairless, metrosexualised man and decorator boys who turn heter-osexual slobs into perfumed ponies. All of which is fine as long as we can dwell happily in the Kingdom of Starbucks, munching our biscotti and debating whether nature or nurture determines gender identity. But in the dangerous world in which we really live, it might be nice to have a few guys around who aren’t trying to juggle pedicures and highlights.

          Men have been domesticated to within an inch of their lives, attending Lamaze classes, counting contractions, bottling expressed breast milk for midnight feedings – I expect men to start lactating before I finish this sentence – yet they are treated most unfairly in the areas of reproduction and parenting.

          Legally, women hold the cards. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort – even without her husband’s consent. If she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice. Unarguably, a man should support his offspring, but by that same logic shouldn’t he have a say in whether his child is born or aborted?

          Granted, many men are all too grateful for women to handle the collateral damage of poorly planned romantic interludes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many men are hurt by the presumption that their vote is irrelevant in childbearing decisions.

          NOTHING quite says “Men need not apply” like a phial of mail-order sperm Continued on page 2 Continued from page 1 and a turkey-baster. In the high-tech nursery of sperm donation and self-insemination – and in the absence of shame attached to unwed motherhood – babies can now be custom-ordered without the muss and fuss of human intimacy.

          It’s not fashionable to question women’s decisions, especially when it comes to childbearing, but the shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time. While we have happily retired the word “bastard” and the attendant emotional pain for mother and child, acceptance of childbearing outside marriage represents not just a huge shift in attitudes but, potentially, a restructuring of the future human family.

          By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfillment, we have helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce but in which men are also superfluous.

          Lots of women can, do and always will raise children without fathers, whether out of necessity, tragedy or other circumstance. But that fact can’t logically be construed to mean that children don’t need a father. The fact that some children manage with just one parent is no more an endorsement of single parenthood than driving with a flat tyre is an argument for three-wheeled cars.

          For most of recorded history, human society has regarded the family, consisting of a child’s biological mother and father, to be the best arrangement for the child’s wellbeing and the loss of a parent to be the single greatest threat to that wellbeing. There’s bound to be a reason for this beyond the need for man to drag his woman around by her chignon.

          Sperm-donor children are a relatively new addition to the human community and they bring new stories to the campfire. I interviewed several adults who are the products of sperm donation. Some were born to married but infertile couples. Others were born to single mothers. Some reported well-adjusted childhoods; some reported conflicting feelings of love and loss.

          Overall, a common thread emerged that should put to rest any notion that fathers are not needed: even the happiest donor children expressed a profound need to know who their father is, to know that other part of themselves.

          Tom Ellis, a mathematics doctoral student at Cambridge University, learnt at 21 that he and his brother were both donor-conceived. Their parents told them on the advice of a family therapist as their marriage unravelled.

          At first Tom did not react, but months later he hit a wall of emotional devastation. He says he became numb, anxious and scared. He began a search for his biological father, a search that has become a crusade for identity common among sperm-donor children.

          “It’s absolutely necessary that I find out who he is to have a normal existence as a human being. That’s not negotiable in any way,” Tom said. “It would be nice if he wanted to meet me, but that would be something I want rather than something needed.”

          Tom is convinced that the need to know one’s biological father is profound and that it is also every child’s right. What is clear from conversations with donor-conceived children is that a father is neither an abstract idea nor is he interchangeable with a mother.

          As Tom put it: “There’s a mystery about oneself.” Knowing one’s father is apparently crucial to that mystery.

          Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt. That is because a woman is perceived as just another mother, while a man is Man.

          From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.

          My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?

          We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.

          At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. They do not want to sit quietly and listen to yet more women speak soothingly of important things.

          Here’s how one memorable meeting began. “Boys, thank you for taking your seats and being quiet while we explain our women’s history month project,” said Akela Sullivan in her calmest psychotherapist voice. The response to Akela Sullivan’s entreaty sounded something like the Zulu nation psyching up for the Brits.

          I tried a different, somewhat more masculine approach: “Boys, get in here, sit down and shut up. Now!” And lo, they did get in there. And they did sit. And they did shut up. One boy stargazed into my face and stage-whispered: “I wish you were my mother.”

          Akela Sullivan and I put our heads together, epiphanised in unison and decided that we would recruit transients from the homeless shelter if necessary to give these boys what they wanted and needed – men.

          As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.

          His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. I suspect they would have found coffee tins brilliantly useful as lanterns if he had suggested as much.

          But, of course, boys don’t stay Cub Scouts for long. We’ve managed over the past 20 years or so to create a new generation of child-men, perpetual adolescents who see no point in growing up. By indulging every appetite instead of recognising the importance of self-control and commitment, we’ve ratified the id.

          Our society’s young men encounter little resistance against continuing to celebrate juvenile pursuits, losing themselves in video games and mindless, “guy-oriented” TV fare – and casual sex.

          The casual sex culture prevalent on university campuses – and even in schools – has produced fresh vocabulary to accommodate new ways of relating: “friends with benefits” and “booty call”.

          FWB I get, but “booty call”? I had to ask a young friend, who explained: “Oh, that’s when a guy calls you up and just needs you to come over and have sex with him and then go home.”

          Why, I asked, would a girl do such a thing? Why would she service a man for nothing – no relationship, no affection, no emotional intimacy?

          She pointed out that, well, they are friends. With benefits! But no obligations! Cool. When I persisted in demanding an answer to “why”, she finally shrugged and said: “I have no idea. It’s dumb.”

          Guys also have no idea why a girl would do that, but they’re not complaining – even if they’re not enjoying themselves that much, either.

          Miriam Grossman, a university psychiatrist, wrote Unprotected, a book about the consequences of casual sex among students. She has treated thousands of young men and women suffering a range of physical and emotional problems related to sex, which she blames on sex education of recent years that treats sex as though it were divorced from emotional attachment and as if men and women were the same. Grossman asserts that there are a lot more victims of the hookup (casual sex) culture than of date rape.

          Casual sex, besides being emotionally unrewarding, can become physically boring. Once sex is stripped of meaning, it becomes merely a mechanical exercise. Since the hookup generation is also the porn generation, many have taken their performance cues from porn flicks that are anything but sensual or caring.

          Boys today are marinating in pornography and they’ll soon be having casual sex with our daughters. According to a study by the National Foundation for Educational Research issued in 2005, 12% of British males aged 13-18 avail themselves of “adult-only” websites; and American research findings are similar. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher, given the amount of porn spam that finds its way into electronic mailboxes. If the rising generation of young men have trouble viewing the opposite sex as anything but an object for sexual gratification, we can’t pretend not to understand why.

          The biggest problem for both sexes – beyond the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease – is that casual sex is essentially an adversarial enterprise that pits men and women against each other. Some young women, now fully as sexually aggressive as men, have taken “liberation” to another level by acting as badly as the worst guy.

          Carol Platt Liebau, the author of Prude, another book on the havoc that pervasive sex has on young people, says that when girls begin behaving more coarsely so, too, do boys.

          “And now, because so many young girls have been told that it’s ‘empowering’ to pursue boys aggressively, there’s no longer any need for boys to ‘woo’ girls – or even to commit to a date,” she told me. “The girls are available [in every sense of the word] and the boys know it.”

          Men, meanwhile, have feelings. Although they’re uncomfortable sorting through them – and generally won’t if no one insists – I’ve listened to enough of them to know that our hypersexualised world has left many feeling limp and vacant.

          Our cultural assumption that men only want sex has been as damaging to them as to the women they target. Here is how a recent graduate summed it up to me: “Hooking up is great, but at some point you get tired of everything meaning nothing.”

          Ultimately, what our oversexualised, pornified culture reveals is that we think very little of our male family members. Undergirding the culture that feminism has helped to craft is a presumption that men are without honour and integrity. What we offer men is cheap, dirty, sleazy, manipulative sensation. What we expect from them is boorish, simian behaviour that ratifies the antimale sentiment that runs through the culture.

          Surely our boys – and our girls – deserve better.

          As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

          In the coming years we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men – and boys be boys. And we need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes.

          Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less.

          Saving the males – engaging their nobility and recognising their unique strengths – will ultimately benefit women and children, too. Fewer will live in poverty; fewer boys will fail in schools and wind up in jail; fewer girls will get pregnant or suffer emotional damage from too early sex with uncaring boys. Fewer young men and women will suffer loneliness and loss because they’ve grown up in a climate of sexual hostility that casts the opposite sex as either villain or victim.

          Then again, maybe I’m completely wrong. Maybe males don’t need saving and women are never happier or more liberated than when dancing with a stripper pole. Maybe women should man the barricades and men should warm the milk. Maybe men are not necessary and women can manage just fine without them. Maybe human nature has been nurtured into submission and males and females are completely interchangeable.

          But I don’t think so. When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.

          © Kathleen Parker 2008

          Extracted from Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care by Kathleen Parker, published by Random House New York

           

           

          Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search – find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

          This service is provided on Times Newspapers’

           

           

          “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”-Cicero

           

           

           


           

           

          Dear Sean

          October 1, 2008
          Dear Sean:
           
          I didn’t get a chance to discuss this when I saw you at the Worldliness Cosmology conference, but I have come to a bedrock conclusion about where Christian Marriage is at.
           
          I have no problem with the Lord’s commandment that, if I marry, I am bound to love my wife as Christ loved His church, and gave Himself for it, even laying down His life for it.
           
          I especially like Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”
           
          Those that fear God submit to what is right, and do not insist on narrow ideas of “authority.”
           
          But, don’t you see that it is crazy to imagine that I will receive respect from a modern American woman? Much less “obedience?” God says do it, but women have no use for God’s commandments, obviously.
           
          So what use can I have for any people who have no use for God’s commandments?
           
          There is nothing in the law that supports even my equal rights in modern civil “marriage,” much less even allows for my authority as head of the marriage as a Christian husband. Husbands do not have a legal leg to stand on, and, I submit, this is the real reason marriage is all but kaput, and that women have come unglued, emotionally unhinged, and impossible for any self-respecting man to tolerate.
           
          Women wonder where all the real men are. The real men, with real brains, are getting on with their lives as best they can. We are not male black widow spiders. We are willing to take a reasonable risk, but not an un-biblical risk. Paul says, as I quote below, that we don’t have to; we have discretion in these matters, to a certain extent.
           
          I’m willing, at least in theory, to accept my responsibility as a Christian husband in marriage; I’m a stupid retard if I expect that women are ready to accept their responsibility as a Christian wife.
           
          I’m a stupid retard, for sure, but not stupid or retarded enough to entertain the level of delusion necessary to accept the absurdity of post-modern civil “marriage.”
           
          Now, I double-friggin’ dare you to refute my argument with facts and logic.
           
          James
          <><
           
          Ephesian 5:33
           
          20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
          21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
          22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
          23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
          24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
          25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
          26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
          27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
          28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
          29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
          30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
          31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
          32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
          33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
           
           
          I Peter 3:1-7
           
          1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
          2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
          3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
          4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
          5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
          6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
          7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
           
           
          I Corinthians 7:1-24
           
          1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
          2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
          3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
          4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
          5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
          6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
          7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
          8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
          9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
          10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
          11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
          12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
          13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
          14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
          15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
          16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
          17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
          18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
          19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
          20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
          21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
          22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
          23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
          24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
           

          Gouge Pricing

          September 30, 2008

           

          Click here: Legalize Price Gouging! by Johnny Kramer
           
           
          If price controls were possible, they would be the standard policy everywhere. The simple fact is, price controls lead to NO SUPPLY WHATSOEVER!!! As we see in those states that had their gasoline supplies disrupted. Their anti-price-gouging laws prevented prices from going up to reflect the new supply reality.
           
          Any dipshit knows innately that if the supply of something goes down, and everything else stays the same, (ceteris paribus), the price of that something must go up. If you don’t let the price go up, you don’t just get less of it, you get NONE OF IT!!!
           
          The related fact, that people think of this market process as “price gouging,” proves categorically that people got excrement for brains.
           
          People think they have a choice about whether they want a “market” system. Too stupid they are to understand that economics is like the laws of physics. People ignore them at their own peril, and pay a great price when they disdain them.
           
          James
          <><
           

          Legalize Price Gouging!

          by Johnny Kramer
          by Johnny Kramer


          DIGG THIS

          Hurricanes Gustav and Ike have caused severe gasoline shortages throughout the southeastern U.S., especially in Georgia and the Carolinas. The hurricanes disrupted the two major pipelines feeding the southeast from the Gulf of Mexico, Colonial and Plantation, temporarily knocking out up to 60% of the Gulf of Mexico’s oil production.

          The southeast is still – two weeks after Ike made landfall, and about a month after the arrival of Gustav – facing rampant gasoline shortages, which analysts expect to last at least another couple of weeks.

          According to the Washington Post, half of the gas stations in Atlanta were closed last week; most that were open had hour-long lines of about 60 cars waiting for fuel. Typical of government, the Atlanta city government barred the public from two stations, to ensure that city vehicles would have plenty of fuel.

          The Post story also reports that drivers in Charlotte faced similar conditions, with numerous closed stations and hour-long lines of about 60 cars at each of those still open.

          Numerous anecdotal stories have also surfaced in the past week of people being stranded in their cars after running out of gas while waiting in line to refuel, and of others being forced to leave their cars at home, to instead take public transportation, walk, or ride a bike due to the fuel shortage.

          Predictably, the parasites have responded to the crisis by denouncing the market function they refer to as “price gouging.”

          An MNSBC story about the aftermath of Ike reported that President Bush “said the hurricane’s toll on refineries and pipelines is creating ‘an upward pressure on price’ for people at the gas pump.

          “The president also said, though, that people should not be subjected to price gouging. The federal government is working with state leaders to monitor whether consumers are being charged unfairly high prices during the disruption in the energy supply.”

          Likewise, North Carolina governor Mike Easley released the following statement:

          “As a result of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, oil refineries in Texas and Louisiana have temporarily interrupted some gasoline supplies to the pipelines that serve North Carolina. Therefore, there may be temporary limitations on our gas supply. However, wholesale gas prices are up less than 20 cents a gallon over the last few days. Therefore, consumers should not see prices rise substantially more than this rise in the wholesale price.

          “Today I have declared a state of abnormal market disruption under North Carolina law and charged the Attorney General with enforcing the price gouging statute. This statute prohibits the charging of prices that are unreasonably excessive under the circumstances.

          “We know that there will be some supply disruption, but we do not yet know the extent. Past events of this kind have lasted only a short time. I urge motorists to reasonably conserve gasoline until the situation is clearer. “

          North Carolina’s NBC affiliate, WITN, reported, along with providing the text of the “North Carolina Price Gouging Statute” and a link to a “price gouging complaint form” so viewers can report to the state the identity of anyone they catch trying to alleviate the shortage by raising their prices, “The North Carolina Attorney General’s office says they are getting complaints of gasoline price gouging.

          “But the state’s price gouging law doesn’t become effective until the governor declares a state of emergency, which has not happened.

          “Attorney General Roy Cooper today urged the governor to make that happen. ‘People are understandably frustrated that already high gas prices are rising so quickly. I urge the governor to trigger the price gouging law and we stand ready to take consumer complaints. I encourage gas stations to avoid panic price increases and consumers to avoid panic fill-ups.’”

          Not to be outdone, Georgia governor Sonny Purdue invoked his state’s price gouging statute; Atlanta’s WSB-TV reported him as saying, “’The threat of Hurricane Ike has disrupted the production of distribution of gasoline, which will have an effect on prices.

          “’However, we expect the prices that Georgians pay at the pump to be in line with the prices retailers are paying. We will not tolerate retailers taking advantage of Georgians during a time of emergency,’ he added.”

          Then the story continues, without the slightest acknowledgment of even the possibility of a causal relationship, “Consumers told WSB-TV Saturday that many convenience store chains are running out of all or some gas grades.

          “Georgia’s price gouging statute prevents retailers from selling goods or services at an unreasonable or egregious price.”

          Elsewhere, in a testament to the success of public schooling in America, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, “More than 1,400 drivers have complained to the state about gas gouging in the past two weeks, and the state has subpoenaed sales records from 130 stations to determine if they illegally jacked up prices.

          “It will take several weeks to determine whether stations were illegally gouging consumers.

          “‘We have enough questions about this – 130 – that we’re asking them for information,’ said Bill Cloud of the Office of Consumer Affairs. ‘When they send us that data, we may say, ‘Well that’s not price gouging,’ and that would be the end of that.

          “‘But if we look at some of the data and it looks a little hinky to us, we’re obviously going to pursue it as a case.’

          “While gas stations are allowed to raise their prices as the price of gasoline goes up, they have to keep the same profit margin they had when the governor activated the law, Cloud said.

          “The state had one report Tuesday that an Acworth station was charging $8.82 a gallon, but that report hasn’t been verified, Cloud said.

          “However, state officials are getting fewer complaints about gas gouging than they did after Hurricane Katrina three years ago.

          “‘I think part of that may well be that the stations are much more attuned to the price gouging laws than they were before Katrina,’ Cloud said. ‘It sunk in with enough people that we don’t go away on this.’”

          According to the story, the state government of Georgia shook down gas stations and hotels for $180,000 in the wake of Katrina; as we can see, they’re looking to do it again.

          And, in an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Chris Clark, Executive Director of the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, and Carol Crouch, Director of the Environmental Protection Division at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the pair praised the Georgia state government’s response, including that “Gov. Perdue activated Georgia’s price-gouging statute to protect consumers from unlawful increases in gas prices and other products.”

          Then, after lauding the government for forcibly stopping the market from producing the one thing – pricing information – that would have caused most people to voluntarily conserve gasoline during the shortage, they concluded their editorial – without the faintest hint of irony – by writing, “Until the refineries and pipelines that Georgia relies on for fuel return to normal operations, we ask Georgians to continue to do their part to conserve fuel by reducing unnecessary travel, carpooling and using mass transit, telecommuting, driving a little slower, and refueling only when low on gas.”

          The Invisible Hand

          The irony is that so-called “price gouging” is nothing but the market at work. When supply falls relative to demand, the price of that good or service climbs as a signal to consumers about the new reality. If there’s a panic among buyers, causing demand to rise as supply falls, then the price rises still further. On the whole, those higher prices cause people to voluntarily ration their consumption, because they can’t afford to use as much as they did before. The higher prices also alert businesspeople to the shortage, which signals producers to produce more, and retailers who already have more than enough supply in their region to send some of it into the shortage region, so they can earn higher profits than they could at home by helping to relieve the shortage elsewhere.

          The Visible Glove

          But when prices are forced to remain at pre-crisis levels, it produces the perverse incentive for the first people in line to take more than they would if the prices were higher, leaving less for the next people. Equally perversely, such measures also eliminate the incentive for businesses from outside the crisis area with surplus supplies to come in to alleviate the shortage, because there are no extra profits to be earned for doing so.

          We’re seeing exactly this scenario play out now in the southeast. There could be plenty of gasoline available for $5, $7, $10, or whatever price per gallon would create equilibrium between present supply and demand. If that natural market process were allowed to occur, consumers could choose to do without gas for a while if they felt the price wasn’t worth it to them – or they could choose to still buy all they want – if they’re willing to pay the higher prices. Instead, the government has kept prices at unrealistic, pre-crisis levels, and the result is that consumers are forced to do without gas because there’s none to buy at the artificially low prices.

          Further, price controls are also an affront to property rights, which are the foundation of civilization. Any property owner has every right – if not every obligation – to attain the best possible price for his property. By what right does an unaffected third party presume to forcibly interfere?

          Further still, notice the inherent arbitrariness in the wording of these statutes, using terms like “unfair,” “unreasonable,” and “excessive.” Charges on such vague terms are probably difficult to disprove, which must make it easy for governments to shake down businesses for “price gouging” fines – which is likely no small part of why such statutes were enacted in the first place.

          Ignorance or Malice?

          It’s possible that some of these politicians and bureaucrats mean well, and really are so ignorant that they truly think anti-“gouging” laws really help regular people. If so, this is another argument against political power, because such people should not be able to force the consequences of their economic ignorance at gunpoint onto thousands or millions of people. Contrast this situation with the market, where people generally aren’t hired for influential positions for which they’re unqualified; when they are, neither they, nor their employers, can force anyone to associate with them; and companies that make a habit of hiring such people usually go bankrupt.

          But a cynic can’t help but wonder if most of these people really are that ignorant, or if they’re conscious of the fact that their policies are hurting average people, but proceed anyway for some self-interested reason. Maybe they’re what Butler Shaffer describes as “people pushers,” people who have totalitarian, control freak personalities they desire to indulge at the expense of others. Or maybe they’re somehow gaining financially or advancing their careers by such actions. Or, again, maybe they just found another easy way to raise money, by fining businesses for invented crimes.

          If nothing else, anyone in government who understands the real function and value of “gouging” certainly has no incentive to admit it; if they acknowledge that the voluntary exchanges of individuals known as the market rations scarce resources as well as possible, and alleviates shortages as quickly and easily as possible, and that people don’t need to be “protected” from high prices, because they can decide perfectly well on their own whether to buy something – and, if so, how much, then how do the parasites justify their jobs, salaries, and the coercive power they presume to hold over others?

          They can’t, and therein lies a message for members of the parasitical political class regarding anti-“gouging” laws, no matter their motivation behind enacting such impediments to trade.

          For the well-meaning: blocking pricing information from adjusting to fluctuations in supply and demand will accomplish the opposite of what you’re trying to do; rather than preventing people from being “exploited” and “gouged,” you’re exacerbating shortages and extending them for the longest possible period, ensuring that people can’t find for any price the things they need to endure a crisis.

          For the sociopaths: there’s a growing remnant who are wise to your “public servant” charade, and we don’t appreciate having our standard of living eroded so that you can play petty dictator, enrich yourself, pay off political debts, or chase whatever other self-interested motivation you’re trying to catch.

          Legalize Freedom

          Regardless of the motivations behind such laws, the only way to ensure that people can get what they need before, during, and immediately after a crisis is simple and clear: repeal them all. Legalize price gouging!

          September 30, 2008

          Johnny Kramer [send him mail] holds a BA in journalism from Wichita State University. He is one of the authors and editors of the first-ever biography of Ron Paul, Ron Paul: a Life of Ideas. For more information on his work, or to hire him as a writer, editor, or to speak at your next event, please visit his website.

          Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

          Geert Wilders

          September 30, 2008

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022867.php

          It turns out my joke about Vladimir Putin declaring himself Tsar of all the Russians, and Emperor of Europe, might have been prescient.

          I’d rather live under the Putin the Gangster than the Imam Gangsters. Muslim tyranny has more rude attitude than any other tyranny I’ve ever read or heard about. Islam is even more rude and nasty than Nazism and Communism, which is saying a lot.

          The only thing that would ruin my plan is for Putin to turn out to be a Muslim himself. Those Muslim bastards are very sneaky, and are consummate liars and camoflage artists.

          September 28, 2008

          America as the last man standing

          GeertWilders.jpg

          “In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?”

          Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem (which I hope to be attending).

          The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

          Dear friends,Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

          It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

          I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

          My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

          First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

          The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

          But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

          There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

           

          Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

          Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

          Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

          Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

          Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

          Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

          Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

          Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

          The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

          The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

          Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

          This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

          Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

          I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

          Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

          A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

          Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

          Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

          The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

          Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

          It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

          This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

          If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

          Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

          Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

          Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

          This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

          This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

          This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

          Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

          This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

          These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

          “Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

           

          Posted at September 28, 2008 7:51 AM

          Timeless Quotes

          September 29, 2008

           

          >>>”Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” (Adolf Hitler)<<<

          >>>”Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” (Josef Stalin)<<<

          Don’t assume that when someone quotes guys like Stalin and Hitler, that they are agreeing with them. Sometimes it should be self-evident that the purpose in quoting them is to make a point in opposition to their ideologies. Like, duh!!!

          2 Cents Worth

          “We enter into a covenant that we shall build a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity- a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.”
          (Nelson Mandela: Inaugural Address, May 10, 1994)

          In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. (Mark Twain)

          “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Ed Burke)

          “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress. (Frederick Douglas)

          “In political speculations ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. Society practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.” (John Stuart Mill)

          “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” (Barry Goldwater)

          “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” (Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

          “Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” (Josef Stalin)

          “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” (Arthur Schopenhauer)

          If you will not fight for your rights when you can easily win without bloodshed — if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly — then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.
          There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. -(Winston Churchill)

          “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” (Adolf Hitler)

          “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.” (Ayn Rand)

          Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! (Benjamin Franklin)

          “Civility in the face of evil is no virtue; rage in the face of nihilism is no vice.” (Lindsay Perigo)

          “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” (Samuel Adams)

          Definition of Political Correctness: A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical socialist minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous SABC and other non-enquiring media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. (Unknown)

          ‘To know the truth when it is not fashionable is hard. To tell the truth when it is illegal is even harder.’ (Anonymous)

          ‘The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question.’ (Sir Stanley Unwin)

          Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lie
          But rather mourn the apathetic throng
          The cowed and the meek
          Who see the world’s great anguish and its wrong
          And dare not speak. (Ralph Chaplin)

          There’s a Madness to Their Method

          September 28, 2008

          I’ve been saying the Liberal Demonic Rats and the Liberal Republiscumbags like Incurious George W Monkey-Bush have been screwing us on purpose since about 1968.

          Most people couldn’t understand what I was talking about, because, I suppose, they have shit for brains, and their heads were up their ass.

          Now, at long last, it appears God is trying to help me get my point across by making it so obvious that only those who consciously support the evil can deny what it is doing.

          I hope.

          James

          <><

           
          Return to the Article
           

          September 28, 2008

          Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

          By James Simpson

          America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

          Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.

           

          Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

           

          But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

           

          The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

           

          In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

           

          Why?

           

          One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

           

          I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

           

          The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

           

          The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

           

          Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

           

          “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

           

          Newsmax rounds out the picture:

           

          Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

           

          In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

           

          By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

           

          No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

           

          1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
          2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
          3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

           

          Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”

           

          According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad“:

           

          The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.  

           

          The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

           

          Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

           

          Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

           

          The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”

           

          ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

           

          In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke — like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” and ACORN went nationwide.

           

          Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

           

          Voting

           

          On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

           

          ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

           

          • 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
          • 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
          • 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

           

          In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

           

          ACORN’s website brags: “Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.” Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

           

          Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:

           

          By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

           

          Illegal Immigration

           

          As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

           

          The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

           

          Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

           

          His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”

           

          ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

           

          Mortgage Crisis

           

          And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago.  It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”

           

          ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

           

          In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

           

          In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

           

          ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining.  Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

           

          As a New York Post article describes it:

           

          A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
          Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

           

          Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

           

          Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

           

          The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

           

          Investor’s Business Daily added:

           

          The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

           

          Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

           

          And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

           

          Even now, unbelievably — on the brink of national disaster — Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

           

          This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

           

          Enter Barack Obama

           

          In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

          Cloward Piven Strategy

          The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

          Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist.
          They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

           

          Saul Alinsky

           

          Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.

           

          Bill Ayers

           

          Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:

           

          “…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”

           

          Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

           

          Carl Davidson and the New Party

           

          We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”

           

          George Soros

           

          The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.

           

          ACORN

           

          Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:

           

          I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. – Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

           

          In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

           

          It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

           

          I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?

           

          As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns — both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

           

          Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”

           

          In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

           

          In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

           

          His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

           

          Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:

           

          An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

           

          Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.

           

          Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.

           

          As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

           

          Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

           

          Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

           

          God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

          Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences..

          Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html at September 28, 2008 – 05:18:44 PM EDT

          Shocking Discovery!!! No Free Lunch!!!

          September 28, 2008

          Nobody could have seen this coming, unless they had a brain in their head.

          This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
          To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=76302

          Sunday, September 28, 2008



          Soviet-style collapse
          in America’s future?

          Exclusive: Henry Lamb traces meltdown
          to U.N. treaty affirming ‘right’ to housing


          Posted: September 27, 2008
          1:00 am Eastern

           

          By Henry Lamb


           

          The meltdown in the financial markets has caused the finger of blame to spin like a weathervane in a hurricane. The underlying cause of the debacle, however, has been largely ignored. Driven by “progressive” Democrats and Republicans, the cause is the relentless shift from a free market economy to a socialist economy.

          Until the Roosevelt era, the responsibility and privilege of having a home was left solely to the individual. Few people realize that Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) was created in 1938 by FDR, to provide a federal guarantee for home loans extended by local banks.

          Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) was created in 1970, during Nixon’s reign. Both were designed to buy mortgages from local lenders as a way to insure an adequate supply of money for local lenders. These “secondary” mortgages were packaged into “bundles” of securities that were traded among an array of financial institutions.

          During the 1960s, the United Nations produced the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article V(e)(iii) proclaimed that all people had a “right” to housing. Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations supported the treaty, but it was not ratified until the Clinton administration, Nov. 20, 1994. No one noticed or connected the dots to the emerging socialist, communitarian concept called “sustainable development.” Grass-roots organizations across the nation were deeply involved in preventing ratification of another U.N. treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was also under consideration at the time.

          (Column continues below)

           

          To meet its obligations under the U.N.’s Racial Discrimination Treaty, the Clinton administration instructed Fannie Mae to expand loans to low-income borrowers, according to Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman. Thus, the “sub-prime” market was born, and government guaranteed-loans were extended to millions of families who could not qualify for a mortgage in a free market economy, but easily qualified under the new socialist scheme.

          In 2005, Republican senators saw the danger and tried to reform these institutions with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act (S.190), but Democrats blocked the bill.

          Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were institutions that were neither purely socialist, nor purely free market – a blend that is best described as communitarian, in that they allowed private investors to buy and hold shares in the corporations, but were also guaranteed by the federal government. That is, until recently, when the federal government took over both institutions. Now, the federal government essentially owns all those properties – a result that is as socialist as had the government nationalized those properties by force.

          AIG, the international insurance giant, and other Wall Street and international financial institutions bought the bundles of mortgage securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offered. Everybody involved made a ton of money, and housing for low-income families expanded exponentially – just as the Treaty on Racial Discrimination and the proponents of sustainable development had predicted. With all the new loans being made, the home building industry flourished, the real estate industry flourished, all industries related to housing flourished – until the market became saturated.

          Home values stopped rising. Housing inventories began to rise. Home values began to decline. Foreclosures began to rise. Homebuilding slowed, housing-related industries began to lay off workers. Energy prices began to rise. Paychecks fell short of family needs. Foreclosures skyrocketed. Suddenly, there was little or no value in the bundles of security Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had packaged. Financial institutions found themselves in possession of massive “assets” that had no value. Creak, crumble, crash! The financial markets came tumbling down.

          The piper must be paid. The question is whether to do it now – and let the chips fall where they may, or, to kick the can down the road and pay the piper later. The answer, of course, is to kick the can into the next generation, with another leap toward socialism. The bailout plan – whatever the particulars – is nothing short of a government takeover of the financial industry. The next president will have to sort it out and build the road toward future recovery or final disaster.

          Barack Obama’s incessant drumbeat about the failure of the economic policies of the last eight years is either gross ignorance or, more likely, political blame shifting. The cause of the current meltdown is clearly the Democrat’s insistence upon giving federally guaranteed mortgages to people who could not afford them. Even now, Democrats insist, not on the minimum government involvement possible, but on adding all sorts of give-away ornaments on the bailout Christmas tree. Obama is also promising to take over the energy industry, the health industry, and to give tax credits and even refunds to some people with money he shamelessly takes from others. This is redistribution of wealth – pure socialism.

          McCain may be only marginally better, but any deterrent to the Democrats’ determined transformation of America to unabashed socialism should be welcomed. Despite the U.N.’s declaration to the contrary, no person has a “right” to housing. If Democrats prevail and continue their pursuit of the U.N’.s goal of universal socialism, America can expect to experience the same total collapse experienced by the Soviet Union.

          Ultimately, the piper must be paid.

          Red Friggin’ Slave Masters

          September 28, 2008
          Peter Hitchens Reports From Africa, where Red Friggin’ China has found the resources that it needs to take over the whole friggin’ world.
          Red Frigin' China

          Red Frigin

          I think I am probably going to die any minute now. An inflamed, deceived mob of about 50 desperate men are crowding round the car, some trying to turn it over, others beating at it with large rocks, all yelling insults and curses.

          They have just started to smash the windows. Next, they will pull us out and, well, let’s not think about that …

          I am trying not to meet their eyes, but they are staring at me and my companions with rage and hatred such as I haven’t seen in a human face before. Those companions, Barbara Jones and Richard van Ryneveld, are – like me – quite helpless in the back seats.

          If we get out, we will certainly be beaten to death. If we stay where we are, we will probably be beaten to death.

          Our two African companions have – crazily in our view – got out of the car to try to reason with the crowd. It is clear to us that you might as well preach non-violence to a tornado.

          At last, after what must have been about 40 seconds but that felt like half an hour, one of the pair saw sense, leapt back into the car and reversed wildly down the rocky, dusty path – leaving his friend behind.

          By the grace of God we did not slither into the ditch, roll over or burst a tyre. Through the dust we churned up as we fled, we could see our would-be killers running with appalling speed to catch up. There was just time to make a crazy two-point turn which allowed us to go forwards and so out-distance them.

          We had pretty much abandoned our other guide to whatever his fate might be (this was surprisingly easy to justify to myself at the time) when we saw that he had broken free and was running with Olympic swiftness, just ahead of pursuers half hidden by the dust.

          We flung open a rear door so he could scramble in and, engine grinding, we veered off, bouncing painfully over the ruts and rocks.

          We feared there would be another barricade to stop our escape, and it would all begin again. But there wasn’t, and we eventually realised we had got away, even the man whose idiocy nearly got us killed.

          He told us it was us they wanted, not him, or he would never have escaped. We ought to be dead. We are not. It is an interesting feeling, not wholly unpleasant.

          Why did they want to kill us? What was the reason for their fury? They thought that if I reported on their way of life they might lose their livings.

          Livings? Dyings, more likely.

          A Chinese supervisor cajoles local workers as they dig a trench in Kabwe, Zambia

          Peking power: A Chinese supervisor cajoles local workers as they dig a trench in Kabwe, Zambia

           

          These poor, hopeless, angry people exist by grubbing for scraps of cobalt and copper ore in the filth and dust of abandoned copper mines in Congo, sinking perilous 80ft shafts by hand, washing their finds in cholera-infected streams full of human filth, then pushing enormous two-hundredweight loads uphill on ancient bicycles to the nearby town of Likasi where middlemen buy them to sell on, mainly to Chinese businessmen hungry for these vital metals.

          To see them, as they plod miserably past, is to be reminded of pictures of unemployed miners in Thirties Britain, stumbling home in the drizzle with sacks of coal scraps gleaned from spoil heaps.

          Except that here the unsparing heat makes the labour five times as hard, and the conditions of work and life are worse by far than any known in England since the 18th Century.

          Many perish as their primitive mines collapse on them, or are horribly injured without hope of medical treatment. Many are little more than children. On a good day they may earn $3, which just supports a meagre existence in diseased, malarial slums.

          We had been earlier to this awful pit, which looked like a penal colony in an ancient slave empire.

          Defeated, bowed figures toiled endlessly in dozens of hand-dug pits. Their faces, when visible, were blank and without hope.

          We had been turned away by a fat, corrupt policeman who pretended our papers weren’t in order, but who was really taking instructions from a dead-eyed, one-eared gangmaster who sat next to him.

          By the time we returned with more official permits, the gangmasters had readied the ambush.

          The diggers feared – and their evil, sinister bosses had worked hard on that fear – that if people like me publicised their filthy way of life, then the mine might be closed and the $3 a day might be taken away.

          I can give you no better explanation in miniature of the wicked thing that I believe is now happening in Africa.

          Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on: copper for electric and telephone cables, cobalt for mobile phones and jet engines – the basic raw materials of modern life.

          It is crude rapacity, but to Africans and many of their leaders it is better than the alternative, which is slow starvation.

          Congolese risk their lives digging through mountains of mining waste looking for scraps of metal ore

          The Congolese risk their lives digging through mountains of mining waste looking for scraps of metal ore

           

          It is my view – and not just because I was so nearly killed – that China’s cynical new version of imperialism in Africa is a wicked enterprise.

          China offers both rulers and the ruled in Africa the simple, squalid advantages of shameless exploitation.

          For the governments, there are gargantuan loans, promises of new roads, railways, hospitals and schools – in return for giving Peking a free and tax-free run at Africa’s rich resources of oil, minerals and metals.

          For the people, there are these wretched leavings, which, miserable as they are, must be better than the near-starvation they otherwise face.

          Persuasive academics advised me before I set off on this journey that China’s scramble for Africa had much to be said for it. They pointed out China needs African markets for its goods, and has an interest in real economic advance in that broken continent.

          For once, they argued, a foreign intervention in Africa might work precisely because it is so cynical and self-interested. They said Western aid, with all its conditions, did little to create real advances in Africa, laughing as they declared: ‘The only country that ever got rich through donations is the Vatican.’

          Why get so het up about African corruption anyway? Is it really so much worse than corruption in Russia or India?

          Is it really our business to try to act as missionaries of purity? Isn’t what we call ‘corruption’ another name for what Africans view as looking after their families?

          And what about China herself? Despite the country’s convulsive growth and new wealth, it still suffers gravely from poverty and backwardness, as I have seen for myself in its dingy sweatshops, the primitive electricity-free villages of Canton, the dark and squalid mining city of Datong and the cave-dwelling settlements that still rely on wells for their water.

          After the murderous disaster of Mao, and the long chaos that went before, China longs above all for stable prosperity. And, as one genial and open-minded Chinese businessman said to me in Congo as we sat over a beer in the decayed colonial majesty of Lubumbashi’s Belgian-built Park Hotel: ‘Africa is China’s last hope.’

          I find this argument quite appealing, in theory. Britain’s own adventures in Africa were not specially benevolent, although many decent men did what they could to enforce fairness and justice amid the bigotry and exploitation.

          Chinese building workers in Zambia

          Taking over: Chinese building workers in Zambia

           

          It is noticeable that in much former British territory we have left behind plenty of good things and habits that are absent in the lands once ruled by rival empires.

          Even so, with Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Uganda on our conscience, who are we to lecture others?

          I chose to look at China’s intervention in two countries, Zambia and the ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo’, because they lie side by side; because one was once British and the other Belgian.

          Also, in Zambia’s imperfect but functioning democracy, there is actual opposition to the Chinese presence, while in the despotic Congo, opposition to President Joseph Kabila is unwise, to put it mildly.

          Congo is barely a state at all, and still hosts plenty of fighting not all that far from here.

          Statues and images of Joseph’s murdered father Laurent are everywhere in an obvious attempt to create a cult of personality on which stability may one day be based. Portraits of Joseph himself scowl from every wall.

          I have decided not to name most of the people who spoke to me, even though some of them gave me permission to do so, because I am not sure they know just how much of a risk they may be running by criticising the Chinese in Africa.

          I know from personal experience with Chinese authority that Peking regards anything short of deep respect as insulting, and it does not forget a slight.

          I also know that this over-sensitive vigilance is present in Africa.

          The Mail on Sunday team was reported to the authorities in Zambia’s Copper Belt by Chinese managers who had seen us taking photographs of a graveyard at Chambishi where 54 victims of a disaster in a Chinese-run explosives factory are buried. Within an hour, local ‘security’ officials were buzzing round us trying to find out what we were up to.

          This is why I have some time for the Zambian opposition politician Michael Sata, known as ‘King Cobra’ because of his fearless combative nature (but also, say his opponents, because he is so slippery).

          Sata has challenged China’s plans to invest in Zambia, and is publicly suspicious of them. At elections two years ago, the Chinese were widely believed to have privately threatened to pull out of the country if he won, and to have helped the government parties win.

          Peking regards Zambia as a great prize, alongside its other favoured nations of Sudan (oil), Angola (oil) and Congo (metals).

          Peter Hitchens with Michael Sata

          Fighting back: Peter Hitchens with Michael Sata, the opposition politician nicknamed ‘King Cobra’

           

          It has cancelled Zambia’s debts, eased Zambian exports to China, established a ‘special economic zone’ in the Copper Belt, offered to build a sports stadium, schools, a hospital and an anti-malaria centre as well as providing scholarships and dispatching experts to help with agriculture. Zambia-China trade is growing rapidly, mainly in the form of copper.

          All this has aroused the suspicions of Mr Sata, a populist politician famous for his blunt, combative manner and his harsh, biting attacks on opponents, and who was once a porter who swept the platforms at Victoria Station in London.

          Now the leader of the Patriotic Front, with a respectable chance of winning a presidential election set for the end of October, Sata says: ‘The Chinese are not here as investors, they are here as invaders.

          ‘They bring Chinese to come and push wheelbarrows, they bring Chinese bricklayers, they bring Chinese carpenters, Chinese plumbers. We have plenty of those in Zambia.’

          This is true. In Lusaka and in the Copper Belt, poor and lowly Chinese workers, in broad-brimmed straw hats from another era, are a common sight at mines and on building sites, as are better-dressed Chinese supervisors and technicians.

          There are Chinese restaurants and Chinese clinics and Chinese housing compounds – and a growing number of Chinese flags flapping over factories and smelters.

          ‘We don’t need to import labourers from China,’ Sata says. ‘We need to import people with skills we don’t have in Zambia. The Chinese are not going to train our people in how to push wheelbarrows.’

          He meets me in the garden of his not specially grand house in the old-established and verdant Rhodes Park section of Lusaka. It is guarded by uniformed security men, its walls protected by barbed wire and broken glass.

          ‘Wherever our Chinese “brothers” are they don’t care about the local workers,’ he complains, alleging that Chinese companies have lax safety procedures and treat their African workers like dirt.

          In language which seems exaggerated, but which will later turn out to be at least partly true, he claims: ‘They employ people in slave conditions.’

          He also accuses Chinese overseers of frequently beating up Zambians. His claim is given force by a story in that morning’s Lusaka newspapers about how a Zambian building worker in Ndola, in the Copper Belt, was allegedly beaten unconscious by four Chinese co-workers angry that he had gone to sleep on the job.

          I later checked this account with the victim’s relatives in an Ndola shanty town and found it to be true.

          Chinese sign in Zambia

          Evidence of China is never very far away

           

          Recently, a government minister, Alice Simago, was shown weeping on TV after she saw at first hand the working conditions at a Chinese-owned coal mine in the Southern Province.

          When I contacted her, she declined to speak to me about this – possibly because criticism of the Chinese is not welcome among most of the Zambian elite.

          Denis Lukwesa, deputy general secretary of the Zambian Mineworkers’ Union, also backed up Sata’s view, saying: ‘They just don’t understand about safety. They are more interested in profit.’

          As for their general treatment of African workers, Lukwesa says he knows of cases where Chinese supervisors have kicked Zambians. He summed up their attitude like this: ‘They are harsh to Zambians, and they don’t get on well with them.’

          Sata warns against the enormous loans and offers of help with transport, schools and health care with which Peking now sweetens its attempts to buy up Africa’s mineral reserves.

          ‘China’s deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo is, in my opinion, corruption,’ he says, comparing this with Western loans which require strong measures against corruption.

          Everyone in Africa knows China’s Congo deal – worth almost £5billion in loans, roads, railways, hospitals and schools – was offered after Western experts demanded tougher anti-corruption measures in return for more aid.

          Sata knows the Chinese are unpopular in his country. Zambians use a mocking word – ‘choncholi’ – to describe the way the Chinese speak. Zambian businessmen gossip about the way the Chinese live in separate compounds, where – they claim – dogs are kept for food.

          There are persistent rumours, which cropped up in almost every conversation I had in Zambia, that many of the imported Chinese workforce are convicted criminals whom China wants to offload in Africa. I was unable to confirm this but, given China’s enormous gulag and the harshness of life for many migrant workers, it is certainly not impossible.

          Sata warns that ‘sticks and stones’ may one day fly if China does not treat Zambians better. He now promises a completely new approach: ‘I used to sweep up at your Victoria Station, and I never got any complaints about my work. I want to sweep my country even cleaner than I swept your stations.’

          Some Africa experts tend to portray Sata as a troublemaker. His detractors whisper that he is a mouthpiece for Taiwan, which used to be recognised by many African states but which faces almost total isolation thanks to Peking’s new Africa policy.

          But his claims were confirmed by a senior worker in Chambishi, scene of the 2005 explosion. This man, whom I will call Thomas, is serious, experienced and responsible. His verdict on the Chinese is devastating.

          He recalls the aftermath of the blast, when he had the ghastly task of collecting together what remained of the men who died: ‘Zambia, a country of 11million people, went into official mourning for this disaster.

          ‘A Chinese supervisor said to me in broken English, “In China, 5,000 people die, and there is nothing. In Zambia, 50 people die and everyone is weeping.” To them, 50 people are nothing.’

          This sort of thing creates resentment. Earlier this year African workers at the new Chinese smelter at Chambishi rioted over low wages and what they thought were unsafe working conditions.

          When Chinese President Hu Jintao came to Zambia in 2006, he had to cancel a visit to the Copper Belt for fear of hostile demonstrations. Thomas says: ‘The people who advised Hu Jintao not to come were right.’

          He suspects Chinese arrogance and brutality towards Africans is not racial bigotry, but a fear of being seen to be weak. ‘They are trying to prove they are not inferior to the West. They are trying too hard.

          ‘If they ask you to do something and you don’t do it, they think you’re not doing it because they aren’t white. People put up with the kicks and blows because they need work to survive.’

          Many in Africa also accuse the Chinese of unconcealed corruption. This is specially obvious in the ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo’, currently listed as the most corrupt nation on Earth.

          A North-American businessman who runs a copper smelting business in Katanga Province told me how his firm tried to obey safety laws.

          They are constantly targeted by official safety inspectors because they refuse to bribe them. Meanwhile, Chinese enterprises nearby get away with huge breaches of the law – because they paid bribes.

          ‘We never pay,’ he said, ‘because once you pay you become their bitch; you will pay for ever and ever.’

          Another businessman shrugged over the way he is forced to wait weeks to get his products out of the country, while the Chinese have no such problems.

          ‘I’m not sure the Chinese even know there are customs regulations,’ he said. ‘They don’t fill in the forms, they just pay. I try to be philosophical about it, but it is not easy.’

          Unlike orderly Zambia, Congo is a place of chaos, obvious privation, tyranny dressed up as democracy for public-relations purposes, and fear.

          This is Katanga, the mineral-rich slice of land fought over furiously in the early Sixties in post-colonial Africa’s first civil war. Brooding over its capital, Lubumbashi, is a 400ft black hill: the accumulated slag and waste of 80 years of copper mining and smelting.

          Now, thanks to a crazy rise in the price of copper and cobalt, the looming, sinister mound is being quarried – by Western business, by the Chinese and by bands of Congolese who grub and scramble around it searching for scraps of copper or traces of cobalt, smashing lumps of slag with great hammers as they hunt for any way of paying for that night’s supper.

          As dusk falls and the shadows lengthen, the scene looks like the blasted land of Mordor in Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings: a pre-medieval prospect of hopeless, condemned toil in pits surrounded by stony desolation.

          Behind them tower the leaning ruins of colossal abandoned factories: monuments to the wars and chaos that have repeatedly passed this way.

          There is something strange and unsettling about industrial scenes in Africa, pithead winding gear and gaunt chimneys rising out of tawny grasslands dotted with anthills and banana palms. It looks as if someone has made a grave mistake.

          And there is a lesson for colonial pride and ambition in the streets of Lubumbashi – 80 years ago an orderly Art Deco city full of French influence and supervised by crisply starched gendarmes, now a genial but volatile chaos of scruffy, bribe-hunting traffic cops where it is not wise to venture out at night.

          The once-graceful Belgian buildings, gradually crumbling under thick layers of paint, long ago lost their original purpose.

          Outsiders come and go in Africa, some greedy, some idealistic, some halfway between. Time after time, they fail or are defeated, leaving behind scars, slag-heaps, ruins and graveyards, disillusion and disappointment.

          We have come a long way from Cecil Rhodes to Bob Geldof, but we still have not brought much happiness with us, and even Nelson Mandela’s vaunted ‘Rainbow Nation’ in South Africa is careering rapidly towards banana republic status.

          Now a new great power, China, is scrambling for wealth, power and influence in this sad continent, without a single illusion or pretence.

          Perhaps, after two centuries of humbug, this method will work where all other interventions have failed.

          But after seeing the bitter, violent desperation unleashed in the mines of Likasi, I find it hard to believe any good will come of it.

           

           

          Here’s what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?

                 

          what can be done about these horrible conditions in africa and china as well, where i’m sure it’s not much better?

          – Chris Gill, Washington, D.C., USA, 28/9/2008 05:37

                 

          American greed caused this. The Chinese must have copper and other natural resources due to corporations such as Wal Mart and many others moving millions of American jobs overseas to improve profit margins. America has pumped hundred of billions if not Trillions of dollars into their industrial base. They are the fastest growing economy in history. American greed feeds the Chinese Machine..and we may have built a machine that very well may eventually take us over.
          Americans cannot compete on the world labor market, neither can those of you in Europe. If we continue to allow corporate profits continue to be paramount to nation states, all western countries will lose their standards of living. The West (Europe included) is being turned into one big third world. It appears that the New World Order plan will soon be complete.

          – Jim Knapp, San Francisco CA, 28/9/2008 05:26

                 

          Imperialism, no matter by what hand it is done by, is wrong on all levels. The Chinese seek to become masters of the world, but will realize soon enough that by doing so they seal their own fate, to rise to the top, only to be dismantled and destroyed like every empire before and onward into the future as far as I can see. Only when Africa, and Africans are treated like equals will they ever be able to rise from the bottom. Corruption must be quashed with popular revolt and tyrants must be ousted. Without the other nations of the world oppressing and exploiting Africa, it would in that scenario stand the best chance of becoming more than it is or has been for the last 450 years.

          – Blaze Hauser, Houston, Texas, United States., 28/9/2008 04:59

          Dim Bulbs

          September 28, 2008

          Even I can hardly believe that people are so stupid, so thick, so diabolically disordered, that they can’t see what is wrong with the ban on incandescent bulbs.

          If people really are this stupid, I give up. By “give up,” I mean I hold no more illusions about getting through their thick skulls and into their pea brains.

          I will still spend as much time as I can making fun of them, calling them names, and doing everything I can think of to make their lives miserable. Which I just figured out is pretty much all I’ve been doing anyway. I’m glad to know now that that is all could have hoped to do for the rat bastard totalitarian scum sucking maggot SOB’s.

          James

          <><

          This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
          To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=76301

          Saturday, September 27, 2008


          REAL AMERICA
          I guess I’m just a dim bulb
          Exclusive: Patrice Lewis is relieved that government tells her how to think


          Posted: September 27, 2008
          1:00 am Eastern

           

          By Patrice Lewis


           

          Amidst all the current financial chaos, amidst global pandemonium and the spiraling economy, amidst the dangers from terrorism … you’ll be glad to know that the U.S. government is still hard at work protecting us from a threat so vile, so evil and so dangerous that it dwarfs all those other petty international and domestic concerns we face as a nation.

          I refer, of course, to the incandescent light bulb.

          And thank goodness, I say. After all, I’m certain that banning a safe, cheap and almost universally used product in favor of something expensive, dangerous, unattractive and difficult to dispose of is just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          Of course, there’s bound to be a little trouble with the vast majority of Americans who don’t like their lighting options being mandated by a bunch of Chicken Littles. This resentment will have to be subdued in some form or another.

          Obviously, we can’t leave something this important up to the free market. If you let people decide for themselves how they want to illuminate their homes, they might choose something that goes against the scare-mongering and sky-is-falling propaganda of the greenies who (apparently) own Congress. Tsk tsk. Can’t have that.

          (Column continues below)

           

          As an aside, it’s never been explained to me why, if compact fluorescent light bulbs are so superior, they warrant their own personal disposal facility to keep from poisoning the air, groundwater, etc. Nor has it apparently occurred to anyone that the energy required to conduct this specialized recycling of CFLs and corral the dangerous mercury completely offsets the potential energy savings over incandescents. The extra time, energy, cost and gas requirements for people to deliver their used CFLs to recycling facilities also counterbalance any individual savings in energy consumption. And how about the fact that almost all CFLs are manufactured in China under staggeringly hazardous and environmentally dangerous conditions by non-union state slaves?

          But I digress.

          I don’t mean to cast doubt in anyone’s mind about the true environmental benefits of CFLs. After all, doubtless the medical complaints, the potential for groundwater contamination and the EPA requirements for cleaning up a broken CFL are all just right-wing nutjob conspiracy tactics to get We the Sheeple to bitterly cling to our incandescents just like we bitterly cling to our guns and religion.

          The transition from incandescent to CFLs won’t be easy, of course. Mandated transitions never are. People tend to approach these things kicking and screaming because most folks have an annoying habit of wanting to think for themselves. Fortunately, the government schools are working on squelching that penchant, and in a few more generations we’ll be just like those genetically altered kids in the Star Wars “Attack of the Clones” movie. Can’t wait.

          Don’t be alarmed when some houses burn down after CFLs are installed in circuits with dimmer switches or in track lighting (where they often smoke and cause fires). Also, people with light-sensitive medical conditions may suffer migraines, seizures, vertigo related to heart disease and other maladies. Even some green sites warn against a total ban on incandescent light bulbs, but doubtless they’re secretly in the pay of big oil companies or something. Besides, who cares? We should all do our part to save the earth, no matter what it takes or who has to suffer or die.

          What isn’t clear yet is how this ban will be enforced, beyond making it illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs. Random home inspections? Nosy greenies reporting a warm, comfortable glow from their neighbor’s living room that can only mean one thing? Undercover cops who arrange “deals” to buy a couple of incandescents from the guy down the block? Gosh, the possibilities are endless. So is the potential for more fines, fees, and payoffs for “exceptions” to the law. Apparently, our jails are not yet full enough, so all those empty cells can now be filled with light bulb smugglers.

          Naturally, crime will increase as even the mildest among us become offenders. Housewives will become bootleggers as they sell a few stockpiled incandescents to friends. Little old ladies will toss their CFLs in the trash instead of disposing of them properly in the nearest CFL recycling center. In our case, the nearest regular recycling center is 35 miles away from our rural farm, making ordinary recycling a challenge. No idea if or when a CFL recycling facility will ever become available. Don’t tell me anyone is going to drive 35-plus miles out of their way to dispose of the occasional burned out or (heaven forbid) broken CFL bulb, much less a little old lady.

          I, for one, look forward to the day when my freedom to choose my lighting options is curtailed. I humbly realize that I’m too (ahem) dim to understand all the subtleties of the CFL revolution. I’m sure China will clean up its manufacturing techniques by the time the 2012 ban on incandescents comes around. I’m sure a Star Trek-type transporter will soon be invented so that millions of CFLs can be wafted across the vast oceans without using a single drop of diesel to power the cargo ships.

          Yes sirree, I look forward to taking one more step toward becoming a government drone. It no longer infuriates me to hear condescending and pompous mandates from Big Brother about dubious environmental solutions. I’ve come to adore it when someone else knows what’s better for me than I know myself. I meekly acknowledge that my voluntary choice to live green isn’t enough, and I need a higher authority to dictate what’s good for me. The lobotomy scars barely show anymore.

          If you would like to express your appreciation for this benevolent dictate that will alleviate all our concerns about global warming, I invite you to e-mail your congressman. Be sure to encourage him to put forth additional legislation to make your life more complicated, expensive and restrictive.

          After all, it’s the American way.