The Little Joementum Redux

I was just rereading the significant sections of the Congressional report regarding Playboy Joe, and have to comment. No, the big Joementum is our beloved Senator, this is about little Joe, former Ambassador to Gabon (tough job for sure), and grand protector of all things SECRET, especially his lovely secret agent girl wife. I have trod this path before, back when it was interesting, and even speculated that the Libby trial could generate tons of fun, but alas, all for not. It was boring, sad, and clearly a trite effort. Two years of special investigation, and what have they concluded? "Where is Rove! Where is Cheney! Where is our blood sacrifice!" Yes, the left is still livid about Fitzmas, second only to the wonderful month of Jan, 2001. Forget 9/11, these are the dates liberals really cringe over. Anyhow, back to my general impressions of the report.

I notice now, that the Ambassador of Disaster had very little to say concerning the primary question. Chatting with a few retired officials, sipping tea on the veranda, then scheming a way to make millions... Oh, that last part isn't quite in the report. In fact, the report gives the impression that the King of Diploswing had such useless information, that it was not sent around generally. Gee, that's great. So the reality was, CURRENT Nigerian officials were in direct talks with the ACTUAL U.S. Ambassador concerning potential unsanctioned sales. Those same officials OF COURSE, claimed to have no contact with 'rouge' states officially. And why in the world would they admit to such weather it had happened or not? Duh, no wonder the CIA pointy-sticks wanted additional information. And the one useful thing Mr. Suave himself provided was evidence of a additional meeting betwixt the nasty Iraq and noble pure Niger.

What cracks me up is the contention of the Nigerian officials that the uranium production was very secure, as the French ran the operation. Is that the same French who at the time were raking in very large lumps of Oil for Food cash? The report is not clear on whether that France was the same as the Security Council France that went to bat for Saddam against the U.S., and provided a nice back door for billions in oil sales. Of course they wouldn't think of letting Saddam get hold of any uranium... Not the peace loving French. Never.

So, after you read the report again, see if you come to the interesting conclusion that I did, our intelligence service is a joke, and so is Joe. I want to be served better than that. But, from such inauspicious origins, comes the Wilson show! It has vibe, it has energy, and now it's got a movie and book deal! Goooo Joe! History will forever recall what a honest and forthright guy you were... or, at least in your book, your wife's book, and her new movie. Holy-weird history will give you peace and glory, don't worry. And your nutter fan base will immortalize you, till the next artificial scandal comes along.

The Four Unconscionable Lies Weisberg Demands You Believe (or you must be stupid)

So I get sent this nice article with the tag "a breath of fresh air", and thinking something nice or funny must be inside, what do you guess I find? Jacob Weisberg's little tidbit of arrogant liberal smuggish brain mugging drivel. Well, we simply must destroy!

Hah, stagnant swamp gas! What a idiot, and if you are somehow claiming that is the truth, well, guilt by association. And here I thought a 'breath of fresh air' meant you were going to talk about something else... Ok, lets get specific:

1) So the war was a mistake? Irregardless of how duplicitous a peacenik idiot can get, you have to be a soulless moron to want Saddam back, which is the implication. Or is there some other magic fairyland solution that was 'right around the corner' in the global socialist dream world of UN sanctions and resolutions? (Need I mention OIL FOR FOOD?) Likewise, is the implication that the U.S., who's goal is a free democratic state, is a worse Stalinist overlord than Saddam? Free elections, a constitution, free markets, even the freedom to fight a civil war if need be, though that is not our goal. Ah, liberal power to the people, but only the people we like... Now, with that idiotic view out of the way, an assumption he attributes as truth for all, he then claims most politicians won't admit their mistake. Duh, a simian buffoon can see through that one, yeah, even a buffoon in a liberal echo chamber... like SLATE readers.

2) For the big lie number two, Mr. Pointy Head claims that we aren't acknowledging American soldiers 'victimization'... WHOA! Imagine that, another liberal idiot trying to create more victims! Would never have expected that. Why doesn't he head down to any military hospital and take a poll, "Hello, do you feel like a victim? You should, you know." What a elitist prig, with no class at all, except perhaps class envy, which is the next slander of our troops. Another liberal idiot promoting the view of 'compulsory' opportunity driven enlistment. That argument has been crushed many times, yet is so convenient, most libs can't let go. It's capped off with the line: "Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not." Oh! So Mr. Pointystick knows about cannon fodder! Much better than the troops even, cause he is SMARTER than they are... At this point we can pretty much discount anything Jake has to say, cause we obviously won't understand it with our faulty, uneducated, unenlightened point of view.

3) The "Great Waste", is something so despicable, it's worthy of the term unpatriotic. And anyone who holds that view, is utterly beyond the pale. Irregardless of a individuals support of the Iraq war, no loss of a American soldier is a waste. We could be defeated, our society destroyed, and doomsday occurs, but the soldiers are fighting not just for their mission, but for each other. And to have a socialist pig journo try and force that assumption on the general public is truly Anti-American. Disgusting, and I would make the same claim about Obama and McCain had they not retracted their statements. Both of them, I believe, were not intending to claim waste as interpreted. Mr. Pointless, on the other hand, disapproves of the 'banal' euphemisms like "sacrifice". This is most likely a derivative of his nihilistic, insulated persona, and I would challenge him to stand up to those who take that risk, and have made that sacrifice, and explain how much more pure his self serving existence is. Anyone who concurs with this pint of view is equally open to derision, again, whether you agree with war or not.

4) For his final 'make what I say truth' blather, there is the stupid contention that we are 'loosing' or have already 'lost' the Iraq war. No, Mr. Worhtless, wars are won or lost when they are finished. How stupid are you? But we know you do not want to win, and you want to make sure everyone else should follow and intend us to loose as well. How about you jump off a bridge with a bag of bricks in your hand. After you go down, I will claim that obviously you have drown. Am I correct? Don't avoid the truth of my statement! Your condition is drowning, you can't make it, as claimed by experts! I am sure the point will be lost in the muddled mind of liberals who "have decided" that we lost. How about acknowledging the unpleasant truth that your views are destructive to society, and will weaken and undermine our nation? Grow strong Mr. Noteworthy, and confront the truth of your despicable, elitist, Anti-American viewpoint. Realize that you have succumbed to believing your own rhetoric and break free of the journalist echo chamber.

Well, it was a valiant attempt, however successful. Fight on seekers of the truth!

More Global Meltdown

I sent off a article that was amusing, "Allegre's second thoughts", with the tag-line:

Drat, even the pointy headed socialist frogs are figuring it out... But, much as I LOATH socialists, when your right, your right.

What a funny reply, exhorting me to read the source:

Ah, before you go jumping off ze deep end along with the National Post of Canada you should perhaps actually read ze article in questions, oui? Voila, l'article! I do not see a recantation here, I see a we don't know for sure, let's wait and see.....and not simply follow fad and fashion. Ze good researcher always checks ze resources primarie, oui?

Apparently my humorous and sarcastic motivation for forwarding the 'news' article was not recognized in its brilliance. Alas, the direct approach in return is called for:

Hello? Your telling me to not jump off the deep end? I have read a multitude of primary source articles on said topic, along with corroborating seminars and discussions from self same leading experts, and your trying to say I am missing something? You get your opinion on the topic from pop science, and your telling ME not to jump off the deep end? Please, don't mess with it. So, you go read a article and its conclusion is "we don't know for sure", while at the same time the IPCC has declared for an absolute certainty of anthropogenic forcing, and even has a panel discussing a 'maximum temperature' target, and you don't think that is a recantation? It's a full on revolution if he has the cahones to stick with that message. And how in the hell do you figure that a position of critical skepticism concerning man made global warming is "jumping off the deep end" anyhow? How many freaking blue 'Al Gore' flavor global warming pills did it take for you to get there? Or have your priors caused your brain to drift away from science? And the exhortation to not 'simply follow fad and fashion' is absolutely hilarious! The 'pop science' blue pill cruncher mentality is entirely fad and fashion!

Unfortunately, many in my own scientific community have embraced fad and fashion for fame and profit! Blasphemy you say? Look at the billions they are getting for global climate change, and the accolades poured out on those willing to 'speculate' in the correct direction. On the other hand, vocal skeptics are shunned in many places, and can plan on rejection when submitting proposals along those lines. What happened to the real core of scientific investigation in this regard? I think it is quite simple, when 'private' conjecture within the climate sciences during the seventies leaked out into public forums, activists and alarmist jumped on it quickly with popular result. The same scientists reacted to that public exposure in a natural way, and began to investigate speculative projections more closely. They were able to do this in conjunction with the massive increase in computational resources, but not with a concurrent increase in data. Model resolution far outstripped actual data long ago, and has exponentially exceeded it with today's supercomputers. That is our greatest physical failing, albeit not intentionally. One supercomputing center, with diverse uses, can run into the tens of millions. Conversely, a single project to measure a few data points in the ocean over months of time consumes the same amount of resources, and is useful to very specific investigators. For even regional coverage, hundreds of square kilometers, it would require hundreds of millions. And what is necessary is long time series of global measurement.

The best global measurements we have regarding climate change have only a short few decades of coverage. And those measurements are primarily atmospheric and ocean surface, as satellite instruments cannot penetrate ocean depths at this time. This is the equivalent of trying to determine how a car works by filming it from a distance. You can see it move, tell what color it is, and watch it stop for gas, but what makes it go? Additionally, even the short records of global coverage have raised new issues of complexity regarding climate modeling. To sum up, we know very little about what controls the climate. And even more interesting, some of it could be entirely random and chaotic. Predict that... So populist alarm-ism as is the cry of the day has little going for it. All major players in the debate have vested interest in the short term public perspective, most of which is motivated by money.

Concise and well crafted, if I don't say so myself. (pat pat... with arrogant smirk)

The Liberalism of William Wilberforce

You could only get this from a truly, beyond the pale, blue pill popping modern nutter liberal:

Well,
Went and saw a great movie last nite.
Amazing Grace (yes, the song)
About William Wilburforce,
An MP who spent 30 years pushing for a bill to end the slave trade in the British Empire.
Of course, the Conservatives/Tories of his day were opposed to ending slavery, because they made money hand over fist in the Triangle Trade.
But, you know those damn Liberals. If something is wrong, they fight tooth and nail for change.
You know, things like slavery.
Damn liberals...

Yes, wouldn't perhaps be about a Christian pushing for change based on the principle of Freedom arrived at through his faith could it? Yes, liberals were a force for good, until they became socialist pigs and rejected God. You might want to adjust your context there a bit, your modern secular liberal scum philosophy would have nothing to do with the man. And I wonder if William would possibly be pro-life? Hmmm, ya think? The modern struggle against the culture of death is paralleled in the abolitionist movement. So I would say, those tenacious Christian activists, if something is wrong they fight tooth and nail for change, against things like, you know, killing unborn humans.

Where did his tenacity and conviction come from? Inspired by the glories of liberal thought? Yeah, I can hear it now: "Amazing humanism, how sweet the sound, that inspired a liberal like me! ..." Glad you liked the movie, sad that you can't see the mote in your own eye. I love the title and intention inherent in on of William's most influential writings: "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity". A man who, without pride or pretense, can claim to know real Christianity, is one of great character. There is a fantastic introduction in the book (third printing?), maybe you could get some context of its purpose: "It is a contrast between Christianity lowered, misapprehended, obscured, falsified, by the prevailing doctrine and morals of the day, and Christianity as it came from heaven, as it remains in all its freshness in the Sacred Records, as it is loved and obeyed by those in every age, who, like the primitive Christians, or our Reformers of the sixteenth century, come out from the world, and live unto God by the faith of a crucified Savior." A reformer in the Anglican church, lookout! So William's real pounding desire was to see a revival of Christian values in the UK? Now that is a real liberal.

I wonder what the great liberal's view on politics was? Well, if we delve further into this fine text there is a fairly concise statement towards that question: "Legislators must act fully as Christians. The public mind expects this, and will bear them out in it. England must rise to her high destiny. If she remain stationary, -but she cannot remain stationary- she will decline and perish, unless she press on in the noble career which providence now opens before her." I am afraid your band of socialist secular humanists are a long, long ways from a man like this. So now that we have cleared up that little trap of history, lets address a interesting question about the divergence of state sponsored religion, religion of the crown, and freedom of religion.

These three conditions existed in the west at the time of Wilberforce, and the outcome of countries practicing each model could be examined. I propose this in light of the apparent contradiction in William's desire for reform within the church. Though the Anglican church was free of Rome's influence for generations, it had persecuted fellow Christians, many of whom emigrated to the New World. Perhaps the structure of a sect that is inextricably tied to the government lends itself to the corruption expressed by the title of William's work. This does not mean the modern interpretation of 'Separation of Church and State' as bandied about by secularist in the modern day. What it represents is the strength in having diverse decentralized Christian communities lending their support to a government of the people. That is close to the intentions of our founding fathers, and probably something Wilberforce would approve of with hindsight of a couple hundred years.

One can only wonder, if his mother had not been fearful of his becoming a evangelical, whether history would have been quite different! However, speculation is just that, and in no way am I suggesting he may have become a second George Whitefield, but the thought is enticing. Anyhow, what a wonderful story about a remarkable man. A giant of a man that we would be wise to emulate in our daily activities, especially in the concerns of political philosophy, and precisely as that philosophy relates to the underlying Christian principals of open, honest, and moral governance. Unshackle the bondage that is secular humanism! Pull back the blinding veil of modern phony liberalism! You too could proclaim with peace and joy: "... Was blind, but now I see!"

To Talk or Not to Talk! (with Solutions for Iraq)

Sometimes it is instructive to send news articles amongst friends, so I did:

URL:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070301/D8NJ9AM80.html

Message:Oh, so Bush has actually been pressuring Arab states to talk... but they don't want to. "Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference,..."

Of course the response was worthy for a liberal rant:

Ah, now read the entire section..

"Two Arab diplomats in Cairo said Wednesday that the U.S. recently increased pressure on some Arab governments to press them to attend the conference, after they initially had turned down invitations from the Iraqi government. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. Syria and Egypt confirmed separately they would attend, but there was no immediate comment from Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, Turkey and Kuwait also were invited, along with the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference."

Each side in the Mideast's widening Shiite-Sunni split has accused another of being responsible for the spiraling violence in Iraq. Iraqi officials have complained that Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not doing enough to help calm Iraq, while the Sunni countries in turn blame Iraq's Shiite-led government for failing to rein in death squads and Shiite militias. Well, I can think of at least two reasons why other Arab governments might not want to get involved. First, they don’t want their own populations to get any idea the they might be acting as tools of the warmonger Americans simply by being in the same room with those who kill fellow Muslims by the thousands without any remorse, concern or care. Second, they are a mix of Sunni and Shia, and do not want to get involved in the Shite/Sunni dispute. Take Saudi Arabia, where the government is largely of one sect and the people are largely of the other. Who needs to cause problems at home? Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me. What’s really interesting is that AFTER Iran said it would attend, the Bushies very quickly said, well, of course we aren’t going to talk DIRECTLY with Iran or Syria. What are the Americans gunna do, walk around the buffet dinner with their eyes on the ceiling so they don’t see Iranians or Syrians? What a bunch of fools! Hey, Condi, bring the President of Iran a cup of coffee and a finger sandwich and sit down in a nice quiet corner of the room and have a heart to heart talk. What have we got to lose? But now, the phony-Christian moralists wanna be pure and not get contaminated by the axis of evil Muslim Persian devils!

Hah! What arrogance, as if I didn't read the article. Apart from the thinly veiled religious bigotry, where is the answer to my provocation? The liberal perspective is always "If Bush is involved, it has got to be bad." Wow, eight years of complete mental and emotional constipation. If nothing else, Bush will leave a lasting legacy in the world of therapists serving liberals. When I first began a response, it was to be short and snippy. Then I caught a thought that I tried to run with, you decide if it was successful or not.

Still nothing good you can find anywhere? Surprise surprise. Not that I expected any change in consistency... (smile) I love this: "Who believes the Americans are REALLY after anything constructive? Not me." No kidding? Couldn't have figured that out from any previous statements. Notice how that view is DESTRUCTIVE and creates a myriad of mental traps you consistently fall into with any situation? There is no escape for you from this mental and emotional bondage it seems. Anyhow, back to the reality of Arab insanity. We can leave Bush out of it, as you seem to have no objectivity or measured context from which to argue if the president is involved. (It's called BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome)

I see two possible scenarios playing out from here, and they depend on Iraq Shia motivations. Even with that there are qualifications due to the mixed primary source messages that are available ('mist' of war?). It appears that there is a general sentiment of revenge against Bath atrocity fueling the sectarian violence. On the other side (still considering Iraqi Shia) there is a sentiment aligned with (but not attached to) the same nutty 12th Imam stuff who could be increasingly influenced by Iranian Mullah magic. Neither of these has matured into a pervasive force, and self interest still rules the public. But both sentiments are fluid and could easily ignite frenzied violence if given enough room or provocation. So, the overall general public must back their government to a extent where they can maintain the lid on both common popular movements. Yet unlike Al Qaida, or other foreign involvement, the government has to court the Shia population away from support of these movements, just crushing them will only add to the fervency of each. The revenue sharing agreement recently passed will go a ways toward this goal, as money begins to flow. And what money it is! Iraq already produces more oil than Indonesia and Qatar combined, with increased production on the horizon with increased stability. Of course, Iran would like to control some of that, so would many others.

If the general Shia populations perceives that the Government will be able to provide jobs and security they may abandon the more radical ideas. If they wont give up support of these populist semi-radical ideas, then security will be very difficult for anyone to provide. This seems to be key. Fighting the Islamist Radicals will continue no matter what happens, and is a separate issue at this point. I don't think the average Iraqi would hesitate long in giving up a Al Qaida member or other radical. But they obviously have not changed sentiment regarding the other two elements. If they had, it would take less than a month to stabilize much of the violent regions. So that appears to be the real roadblock at this juncture. Granted, two of the Sunni provinces are still rife with disgruntled former Bathist and Al Qaida sympathizers, but that, like western Pakistan, is a separate problem, and not a real threat to a stable functioning Iraq government (of some form). Pakistan is a bad example of course, as its not exceptionally stable. The whole Arab region is a bad example, as there is not much in the way of freedom, education, or respect of human rights. As a step towards progress though, even a semi democratic Iraq will change the whole Arab map.

Can a free Iraq exist in a repressive, 12th century Arab world? Or would it become the prime target of radicals for years to come simply due to its 'Westernization'? This is where I part with established policy. It is not about one country or region. It is about a dark oppressive society that will consume a sea of blood before it emerges from the Arab Dark Age. If we have that perspective, maybe our policy would become less complex. Export freedom, import oil. Yet we can not force freedom on a society, and we can not buy freedom for a region. Men and machines have ravaged the Arab world for many years, to little avail. Much like the trillions of aid dumped into Africa, with little result. Buy the oil, sell them DVD's, and let them duke it out amongst themselves. Unfortunately in this modern time, isolationism has become a impossibility with the advent of global Islamic Radical terror. No future of 'stick to our shores' if we intend to retain our personal security.

With this broad picture in mind, the purpose of securing Iraq should become similar to that of securing the Korean peninsula in the '50s. Create at least a secure functioning region in the Kurdish north where commerce and freedom can flourish. Even this permanent foothold would have a significant impact in the region. Next, focus on secure zones that we have absolute control over. Begin to restrict American patrol and movement to controlling those clear areas and real terror interdiction. What I mean by this is begin to downsize military involvement to anti-Jihadist activities and operations and control of sterile zones. This will lead to increased violence in some areas, but with the perspective outlined, any transfer to Iraq control will be one that has a frictional element. Why is this pullback necessary? It must happen in order to regain the initiative in the propaganda battle.

By 'redeploying' a portion of the Iraq force and then changing the mission publicly to one of anti-Jihadist hunting only, we would be given a time frame to build a structure of security that is easy to maintain and requires lower troop levels. At the same time allowing Iraq security forces to adjust for the conditions they will eventually face many years hence. All this could be implemented rapidly thus thwarting some of the Anti-American element in the Iraqi public perception. In real terms, we could 'cut the force in half' by summer of 2007 without hindering any anti terror activities. In real troop levels this could be masked by the permanent presence in the north being a 'extension' base of power. Rotations and equipment increases would happen there as (hopefully) planned. The one extreme variable in this short term plan hinges on the strengthening Baghdad government. If there is a weakening of power, or a serious collapse of cooperation, this plan would have to include retaining or increasing security around the government, or letting it fall, which would be a severe humanitarian disaster and increased security risk.

In essence, the prolonged formation of a stable governing structure in Iraq coupled with the failure of this administration to marshal the American public has created a situation where we are unable to increase our presence or change tactics easily. So with the current 'surge' and the decrease in violence in Baghdad, there is a bit of political capital that needs to be used effectively, and the implementing the plan as shown before the end of summer would short circuit criticism of the 'surge' tactic and shift gears within the public debate. It will also allow for the Iraqi government to make autonomy claims if it appears that we are downsizing, thus garnering more of the absolutely necessary general Shia confidence and support. Whether the Iraqis can suppress the two sentiments outlined and maintain a level of security long enough for the proverbial "money to flow" will depend entirely on Iraqis, there is nothing in the short term that Americans appear to be able to do apart from what they are doing. We lost the chance to 'crush' and hold the worst areas, and we can not allow the descent into chaos. Now, the effectiveness of 20/20 hindsight is weak and I am not sure that a 100k increase in troops two years ago would have actually suppressed the sectarian uprising, but that is a separate debate.

Of course most of the short term speculation is just that, but the concept of integrating our short term goals into a cohesive long term strategy to counter Islamic Radical expansion that hinges on Arab long term socioeconomics and systematic cultural repression. There are certainly wiser and more informed strategies that could be constructed in the short term, but establishing the long range goal has not been expressed publicly beyond platitudes in most cases. This is something the modern western Muslim could make great strides in and begin to lead the debate eventually. Championing women's rights, economic freedom, and religious tolerance would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, that tend to get one killed in the Arab world, most recently seen in the assassination of a Pakistani woman politician for not wearing a headscarf. They have a long way to go, and seem to be either idling or heading in reverse in some regions. Additionally, the Muslim community living in the west has not raised its voice against the radicals. This should concern them, as they are a target of the Radicals. Leaders in the West need to throw off the yolk of political correctness and reject the diversity police in this long term strategic fight. Concisely frame the argument, even while suffering with archaic policies. Speak truth, even if it offends the Saudis. Challenge partners on the clearest issues, like women's suffrage, even in the face of cooled relations. There can be no other way eventually.

In the end I do advocate discussion! Yet not the unilateral waste of time nutter libs would force upon us in regards to Iran. My discussions would be continual challenges to the Arab world to end repression, free society, and abandon mono-theocracy! Down with Jihad!

When Progressive Becomes a Religion

Here is my kind of entertainment. Conversations that expose the Liberal Religion for what it is, your basic Stalinism. But it begins in such a innocuous way:

Hmmmmmm...... China and Japan have savings rates of over 50%........ The US has a negative savings rate.....ie, we are living off our savings. Result, we borrow A LOT from China and Japan. So.... We are in hock to them for a lot (a whole lot) of money. Hmmmmmmm......

My reply:

And with the unholy, unintended cabal of liberal doofus educators and Corporate Banks that make billions on ridiculous credit, it ain't going to change soon. There is virtually no practical economics taught in school. Why?

As you can see, 'them's fightn' words', so we know what to expect, right?

ah, hard to know how to answer this......

You watched any television lately? Been looking at what you get in the mail perhaps? Don't you think American corporations are hell bent on trying to sell us an enormous range of crap and junk we don't need? I mean, take a gander at the commercials ur kids are watching on TV these days! And the applications for 'easy' credit cards come by the boxload. Zero percent interest (for the first six minutes), buy now,pay later (and forever). But that's what you get with unregulated free form theft capitalism; 22% and 24% interest rates are the standard! But that's what you neocon types just love---profit before common sense, profit before country, profit before anything. Remember, it is a basic tenet of capitalism that the ONLY responsibility corporate management has is to produce profit for its investors. Any economist will tell you that we can't live like this forever. There will come a reckoning, in the form of massive economic collapse.....the history of capitalism is chockablock with these cycles, and it ain't over yet. Care to buy any tulip bulbs? (an economists joke.....)

Sheesh, always the same, pessimism, doom, and gloom. I don't want tulips, I want more stock in financials, as that sector has done quite well. Anyhow, what did we send back...

What you are describing is a society that has no sense of personal responsibility. That is not a product of add campaigns... but of bad education. Its the proliferation of welfare mentality, victimization, and inflated self esteem. Not a result of capitalism. Education reform! Return competition to the school system, and kick out the failed socialization curricula! You want to blame a symptom of consumerism, and regulate. But that is the problem! Looking to government to correct what appears to socialist feelgooders as exploitation. Never addressing the root of improving the individual, just coddle up some more victims.

Damn liberalism is backasswards!

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! Tension, rhetoric, heated impulsive argument!

All the ad people have been wrong all these years? All the corporations have been wasting their money by buying advertising? Television spots have no influence on consumer buying habits and choices? Where ya been lad? Trouble with you CCCRW's is that you live in a wonder world of should'a, would'a, could'a.....trying to tell everybody what 'ought' to be, how we 'ought' be behave, what we 'ought' to do. You don't deal with the real world of how people actually act, how people actually make life style choices. You've become hung up on crackpot religious moral philosophies that pre-date the scientific study of human behavior. All human 'failings' are 'moral' choices to you, not learned and situational responses to stimuli. Join the 19th century and then come into the 21st.

For example. I know very well what 'causes crime'. And I also know very well that moral admonishment, punishment, prisons and 'finding Jesus' isn't the answer. There is no morally based 'solution' to the 'crime problem'. I know the CCCRW moralists and 'holier than thou' breast beaters don't like that, but there it is.

Ok, now the veil is lifting! But, what is underneath? Not a enlightening argument, mostly ranting and raving against some religious demon. Oh well, take what you can get. Funny that someone can 'know' that finding Jesus is not the answer, when they have never had that experience. And of course, invalidate anything of the sort for the unwashed...

Boy, you gettn' real defensive again? Whats up? Cause and effect man, its pretty simple. Of course adverts work, and your state retirement fund happily increases in value from successful advertising. But its a idiotic liberal idea that people are somehow being forced to watch tv, look at billboards, listen to radio spots. You can turn most of it off. Most people choose not to. So, why don't you advocate mandated limits on media usage? Makes as much logical sense as your want of more corporate regulation. And whats this insane babel about my side trying to tell people what to do? YOUR THE LIB WHO WANTS TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!! What insane babel. Here you go, life is just a bunch of responses to stimuli. ITS NOT JOHNIE'S FAULT HE CHOPPED UP JANE, HIS MOMMY WAS REPRESSIVE... Yep, that's the outcome of your 'so called' study of human behavior, a society of the lowest common denominator, moral equivalence, mush for brains nihilists. Oh, that's progress all right. And whats this BS that "you know" what causes crime, and that moral judicial systems don't work? Are you the king of the world now? You have placed yourself very high in judgment... Yet the foundation of your lofty perch is a 'belief' in a philosophy of governance, yes a veritable godless religion of social humanism, that has never engendered success. Please...

Did I make my point? I get it, but will we receive a counter to the obvious clarity of liberal moral relativism? If you guessed no...

Gee, there's that 11th century scholastic philosophy bunk again. All you gotta do is use your 'free will' and 'make a choice'! Moralistic theological thinking in the 21st century. Inadequate and obsolete ideas from the dank dark dead past. You can't accept that 'man' is just another kind of animal, susceptible to all the conditioning, learning, training and physio-psychological of the other primates and all living things. You have to make every decision into a 'moral' choice, when 'moral choices' are garbage old-think ideas. The useful conception of right and wrong isn't 'moral' at all, its based on utility, function, purpose, object and equity; commonly agreed up social values of producing 'the good life' for all of societies members, a shared set of secular human values in which are members of the community are valued productive members, not toys of a remote wrathful father-figure deity who hides in the clouds commanding us to obey him or he'll do terrible things to us. Oh Zeus, Oh Wootan, Oh Baal, protect little me! Forgive me for my pretended offenses against you! Have your sacred priesthood tell me what to think , what to do, where to go, how to behave....for I have no mind of my own. I cannot think for myself, I need your sacred book to tell me how to think. I'm just a weak willed sinner, oh whimper oh whine.

Of course we know how to reduce crime! We've had adequate crime-control strategies in the West for more than a hundred years. Give me the political power to sweep aside the medieval religious mind and I could reduce crime to a small fraction of its current level. What's lacking isn't the strategy but the political will, because the public mind is still controlled by mystical religious moralisms that are out of step with modern science. While you dwell on 'fault' I'd prefer to look for prevention.

Now we see the real beast within! Fear of the unknown, life at the level of the animals, and arrogance of 'knowing' what is right and what is wrong. Furthermore, this is the view you, I, and everyone else must have, otherwise they rate no consideration. Well, lets get frisky!

Ah, you fail to perceive the trap you have fallen into. The mentality you express is one of grand superiority, towering confidence in your personal beliefs, and defensive derision for anything else. The true nature of secular humanism is its incredible audacity. Refusal to accept others, unable to compromise, eventual compulsion to denigrate opposing viewpoints. It's a sad myopic world parading as 'openness' and 'acceptance'. However, it seems to be that once one converts to your religion, they pitch all universal objectivity, in favor of populism and groupthink. Who can't allow for a diverse world?

Another failure of socialist nutters spouting off about secular human values is to perceive the monumental hypocrisy in such statements. On one hand, you say you value all members of the community, but in the same breath prove you actually have great disdain for the majority of that same community. What grand tragedy is this? Trashing the values of the larger community and attempting to impose your own? Its the oligarchy for sure, Stalin would be proud. Make them productive members! Give them the good life! The good life where you have forced the majority to bow down to your self perceived superior philosophy! Ah, that is progress all right. Just the concept of believing the masses are sheep, weak willed puppets, who need secular humanism to save them is very corrupting. No free thinker there. No strong will in that elitist position. Just nihilistic self glory, and social defensiveness. Emotional self preservation in the form of group mental agreement and ego stroking. Couple that with the Grand Denial of the total failure of socialism wherever it rears its ugly head and you have a religion in the uber cult category. The worship of self, elevating man to be his own god.

Furthermore, it is asinine from a scientific perspective to claim some grand progress in the modern day that is decoupled from Christianity in the West. Any objective analysis can not separate the influence, in fact the dominance of Christian principals and thought. Yet the defensive secular humanist MUST not credit anything of the sort, as it infringes upon his own beliefs. It is of absolute importance to refuse the positive influence of faith on society, this would introduce doubt into the belief that is the foundation of secular humanism. They claim no god but man.