Fighting For The Female Vote...

...and why it's probably a waste of effort.

This Lunatic has been busy this week, which is why I haven’t been posting. My apologies to all my loyal readers who come here first for diseased commentary, but I reckon that once you know exactly what I  have been doing, you’ll find it in your heart to forgive me.

For I have been doing important political research.

You see, it all began when I started really paying attention to all these news reports about poll numbers in the upcoming Presidential election. Normally, I could care less about polls because they are typically useless for just about anything except which brand of dishwashing liquid is more popular than another, Typically, when a newscast or somesuch starts talking about polling data, my eyes glaze over, and I retreat into a sort of semi-conscious reverie in which I become Wolverine, and I’m fantasizing about using my incredible mutant powers – and those way-too-fuckin'-cool claws – to rob banks, and my incredible animal magnetism (complete with mutant pheromones!) to get Salma Hayek out of her clothing and into the sack.

What I See at the DNC...

Lots of whining, and continuous talk of vaginas, basically.

Just a few quick points before I go into (sordid) detail:

1. You have to wonder at the true motivations and intentions of a party that can't even answer a straight question about it's platform. Apparently, the DNC has erased all references to God in it's platform, and all references of Jerusalem as the capital of a Jewish State. Fair enough: on the one hand, I don't mind removing the word 'God' since God does not exist, and because it is a true reflection of the beliefs of a majority of democrats: even the so-called "reverends" who lead the rear-guard of the Civil Rights era apparently don't take the Bible literally, or at best, use it to justify things and ideas that it most certainly doesn't justify.

Rangel "Baffled": Bought Voters Don't Stay Bought...

It's called Alzheimer's, Charlie.


New York Congressdouche Charlie "The Tax Cheat" Rangel "baffled" by apparent slimness of margin of victory in primary fight.


The one thing you democrats have to remember about buying votes is that sometimes they don’t always stay bought.


This page is no fan of Rep. Charlie Rangel, and believes that he needs to go. I believe that he is a criminal, and the only reason why he escaped the telling mark of the criminal (i.e. a conviction) is because his exalted status as Black Icon, and position as a member of Nancy Pelosi's "gotta have on board" clique saved his fat ass from an actual criminal proceeding, and saw him merely censored by his fellow criminals in the House of Representatives. Making Rangel pay for committing a series of felonies would have been politically disastrous and unseemly in an America obsessed with race, and would have deprived ObamaCare of one it's most fervent boosters at a critical time.

Doublethink...

Regular readers of this diseased commentary will know that I am a huge fan of George Orwell, in my estimation the greatest writer of the 20th century. I enjoy Orwell mostly because his command of the language was so great that he could explain complicated concepts in relatively few words, but his real talent was for political commentary.

In his novel 1984, Orwell introduced us to a political system -- Ingsoc, or "English Socialism" -- that made use of a variety of rhetorical and memory-control tricks that had definite political purposes. Mostly these were devices which were intended to ensure that The Party's point of view always prevailed, or which denied a political opponent the ability to make a point or express an idea which The Party found politically inconvenient, anathema, or seditious. One of these devices was called Doublethink.

Khaddaffi Dead, NATO Protects Next Dictator-in-Waiting...

While the news of the gruesome and all-too-late death of Colonel Moammar Khadaffi is welcome, it should not be greeted with all the expressions of hope that many in the Obama Administration, particularly President Frequent-Flyer-Miles, himself, have attached to the event.

Despite the evocation of a belief that, with this brutal jerkoff now pushing up the daisies, Libya is on the path to democracy, exasperating experience (and history) has often shown that no such thing will happen, nor should it be expected to happen, without continued sacrifices in blood, treasure and political capital by the West. Particularly, by the United States.

Mark Steyn Repeats Everything I've Said for the Last Ten Years...

...but says it better than I can.

The Word...

It was Saturday evening, and we're all sitting around the Lunatic's Sister's kitchen table. The cake has just been served, this day being her birthday (Happy Birthday, Dear Sister!). One of my nephews has just called another "retarded", as kids are wont to do.

What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.

"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"

"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.

The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:

a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and

b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.

I can hardly wait.

It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.

I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.

So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.

This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it  -- became the main subject of intense debate.

Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;

1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.

It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.

2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.

That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.

3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.

'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?

Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.

Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.

The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.

The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.

Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.

The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.

The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.

Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?

No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.

In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).

This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words;  especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.

The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.

Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.

I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable,  school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.

I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.

Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.

The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.

After all, he's not stupid.

I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.

I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.

Such is human nature.

That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.

UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!

Birth Tourism for Fun and Profit...

This was posted last week at Five Feet of Fury, and I had meant to talk about it, but got sidetracked. It's about the new phenomenon of Chinese Birth Tourism, wherein pregnant Chinese women travel to America so that their children can be born in American hospitals with the intention of gaining of American citizenship and all the benefits that accrue to a citizen.

Especially the welfare and education benefits.

And it's not just the Chinese who do it, you see.You'd have to have been living under a rock not to have heard of the phenomenon of Anchor Babies, especially in the context of the debate over Hispanic (illegal) immigration in the United States, too.

It was once said that "the Law is an Ass", and never was that more demonstrable than in the matter of who we give citizenship to, under what circumstances that privilege is granted, and the politics surrounding the beneficiaries.

You want to know why your taxes continue to go up, while your wages keep falling? Here's part of your answer. Anchor babies, H1-B visas, and illegal immigration all for the purposes of living high on the American Hog; a deliberate plan to steal citizenship and all the welfare, legal and educational benefits that entails.

Both political parties, incidentally, are responsible for this: Libs need a constant stream of poor and stupid folks to fill the voter rolls so as to continue to play the Class Warfare card and keep the retarded ideology of their pet causes alive, and Repubs need to ensure that farmers and businesses have a continuous supply of cheap and exploitable labor, and a perennial campaign issue.

If it were up to me, I'd start shooting people at the border and the airports and then clarify just exactly what the 14th Amendment actually says and then cast that reformation in concrete for centuries to come. But then I'm a racist douchebag who hates people of color, or so I'm told (not true: some of my best girlfriends were non-white, and they, at least, will do laundry without bitching about breaking a nail).

Money Quote:

"Americans are indoctrinated to think that the reason we are, on average and by global standards, comfortable...is because of our "propositions" or "diversity" or "immigration" or whatever. But the main reason, of course, is that there weren't enough American Indians to stop us from taking America away from them."

Some will read that and say "Aha! See? White European Imperialism! You stole this land from People of Color and therefore we're  (regardless of which "of color" you happen to be) entitled to get some of ours back!"

In days of yore, there wouldn't have been an American Indian left alive to bitch about having his land stolen. It is an historical anomaly that in 'stealing' the land of the American Indian, we White people managed to leave so many of them alive, their descendants living in their own sovereign nations (Casinos?), as wards of the State.

No Carthaginian Peace here! In fact,social reformers of the18th and 19th century tripped all over themselves, and nearly drown in pools of their own tears, trying to bring 'civilization' to the Indians, and all they managed to create was a ghetto with tepees, in most cases. Social reformers usually manage to achieve so little (with predictable results) because their goals are disconnected from reality, you see. I wonder how many billions have been poured into the Reservations, and just what, exactly, any of it has accomplished, except perhaps higher-than-average meth and alcohol use?

And in the stragest irony of all ironies, it seems as if some immigrant groups are coming to this country now not to conquer it or to become a part of something greater, but to achieve a status much like that of the American Indian! And why not? The government will allow it, libtards will defend it, and repubs will simply wail and gnash their teeth, and then hire the immigrants, anyway. It's cheaper than hiring Americans, after all, and the fines aren't all that bad.

See, here's the truth: the American Indian lost his struggle with the White Man because his was an inferior culture, by any meaningful measure, unable to adapt to changing circumstances. At current rates of immigration (especially illegal) American Culture will soon face the same fate. It will slowly be bastardized by imported social mores and conventions which will have to be accommodated, if only because growing numbers of people will be here professing them.

Now consider this:

Why does Mexico suck so hard? Why is China a dirt-poor (don't believe the hype!) dustbin with little to offer besides starving masses? Why does the Middle East produce fanatical murders with poor hygiene?

Answer: because they're all full of the same people who are coming here, Asshole!

Unlike the Indians, America will not succumb so much to an invasion from without; No, it will invite it's deadly virus in, and in fact, lavish it with gifts. These folks are coming from societies and cultures wherein the words 'democracy', 'republic', 'constitution', 'rule of law', have little or no meaning. They will be discouraged from assimilating into American life by political parties, academics, big business,, the better to manipulate them. The resulting demographic changes due to influxes of huge masses of ill-educated, unassimilated dregs from Third-world Shitholes with Inferior Cultures will make for new political realities, and politicians (being the parasites they are) will respond to them, destroying superior American Culture one piece at a time, trading serial perversion of the System for votes.

Immigration is fine. I'm the descendant of Italian Immigrants, myself, and so long as the paperwork is filled in, the new arrivals are paying income taxes (one of the lies of the Unfettered Immigration for All crowd is that illegals pay taxes; yes -- only the ones they can't avoid, Dipshit! -- but not Income Taxes) , speaking English, assimilating and in possession of at least an inkling as to what it means to be an American, then I'm all for it. Let 'em in.

It's the exploitation of loopholes -- most of them put into the law specifically by Congresscritters who have been paid for the privilege of destroying their country -- and the lack of enforcement of existing law, that gets my goat. I say we pass a law, and make it retroactive to say, 1986 (when Reagan declared a general amnesty) that if you're born in American hospital you are not granted citizenship unless at least one parent is already a citizen. Otherwise, you're shit out of luck.

But if you needed proof that we're being harmed by our own stupidity over the immigration issue, here's your proof. On the Internet, and brazenly advertised.

From the Religion of Stupid Files...

For all of you still under the impression that Islam is simply a misunderstood and peaceful religion, I bring you:

Love...Egyptian-style.

When someone in Egypt says they're burning with desire, they really, really mean it, don't they? What is so sad about this story is that a simple love affair devolved into a series of murders and arson. Does that sound very peaceful to you?

It's also really good to see that all those newly-anointed (by the Media and White House, oh sorry: that's redundant) peaceful, Egyptian democrats can all get along and respect one another in their newly-liberated, democratic, pluralistic society now that Good Ol' Hosni is no more, huh?

It's a good thing they had a "Reconciliation Meeting'.

Meanwhile, In Saudi Arabia, the very cockpit of Middle Eastern democratic tradition, the government has declared that protests against the government are contrary to Sharia Law and the so-called 'values' of Saudi society, such as it is. This edict was issued in response to a planned protest in which citizens of Saudi Arabia were simply asking if the King couldn't find his way clear to transforming the country into a Constitutional Monarchy. Remind me again how and why American soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'bring democracy to the Muslim world'?

And just in case that none-too-thinly-veiled threat doesn't get through, the Saudi Kingdom is ensuring that it will at least have enough soldiers to prevent an Egypt-style demonstration in the Shia provinces bordering near-riot Bahrain from getting too far out of hand. Nothing says "it's for your own good" than a phalanx of men with automatic weapons who have probably already been encouraged to not be too stingy with the ammo.

Now, on the off-chance that you were beginning to think that all Muzzies were Looney Tunes, we're told that a group that was to give Khadaffi's son a peace prize was shocked...shocked...to discover -- unbeknownst to them, because he had them all fooled -- just what a douchebag he is, and tonight is breathing a heavy sigh of relief that they managed to pull the plug on this nonsense before the ward was actually handed out. Why, just imagine the embarrassment that might have ensued...

However, you do have to be fair, and give credit where credit is due; Colonel Goofball''s son did try his mightiest to release a gaggle Belgian nurses arrested in Libya on charges of deliberately infecting children with AIDS. All the really good-hearted dictator's sons do their damnedest to ensure that people arrested on preposterous charges get the very best that Libyan justice can contrive.

Relieved at having avoided the painful embarrassment of almost giving a peace award to a murderer's son, the Towelhead prize-giving group in question issued this statement:

The Islamic Friendship Association is yet to confer the prize on a new recipient, which is awarded for those who help resolve conflict through dialogue.

Which probably means that no one in Egypt is probably going to win anything anytime soon.

On The Great Issues of the Day...

Some stuff I've been thinking about. Sometimes, I get this swirl of ideas -- I liken the process to watching something being flushed down a toilet -- and they don't go away until I write them down:

1. On the Looming Federal Budget Battles:

A great Kabuki Theatre of the Absurd. We all know that Obama won't cut a thing and any appearance of a cut is simply for show and spun as a disaster for the country, and that despite the GOP's protests they'll also be very selective about what they cut (i.e. anything that costs them campaign contributions or elections will be spared). This battle is one of propaganda between two competing philosophies; one which has been historically proven to be a complete and unsustainable failure, and the other an attempt by a once-proud-and-principled brand name to recover it's market share and good name.

If the Great Budget Battles to come were a marketing campaign, Obama's ad would basically say "Try New-and-Improved Crap, now with 10% More Less!", and the Republicans can be said to be in the same position that Tylenol was in after the great cyanide scare of the 1980's; They have a product which still works, but now they have to regain the public trust.

Both parties are afraid to tell the truth about these coming battles in this regard: neither will step up to the plate and say "we've fucked up, and the process of un-fucking it up will be long and perhaps bloody". If they did, you'd want to know what they fucked up and how they did it, and then you'd want them tarred and feathered, and perhaps ass-raped, as well. Unfortunately, the job of reigning in the federal budget, and limiting the reach(around) of government into our lives, is not going to be pain-free, and overflowing with rainbows and gumdrops. Sorry Welfare Queens, but you might have to start working for a living.

The only real interest I have in this looming budget fight is this: if, at the end of the day, we still have a welfare state (and that goes for Ethanol Subsidies and keeping GM on life support, too), we still have some hints or vestiges of ObamaCare, if the Department of Education (that's a $1-trillion wasted right there!) still exists, if Fannie and Freddie are still underwriting mortgages and there is no plan to liquidate their assets, if every department of the Federal Government still has a 'Civil Rights' division (we already have a Justice Dept., thanks!), if Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are still being federally-funded, and if we do not get a better, fairer, less-complicated tax code out of the bargain, then we're fucking doomed.

The problem we face is that approximately 50% of the members of Congress depend upon either expanded Federal spending or being able to grab pieces of that huge-and-overflowing "Discretionary spending" budget in order to keep their positions -- they must bring home the bacon, in any way they can -- there being no other discernible reason for them to be there, otherwise. That 50% number represents the Retards, Apparatchiks, Fixers, Poverty Pimps, '60's Retreads, and Race Hustlers lodged within the U.S. Congress. If you doubt this, take a good look at the New York State Congressional Delegation, and see if you can then find grounds for disagreement. There never was, I should think, a greater advertisement for Birth Control.

(As an aside: it's a toss-up as to who has the worst Galaxy of Retards representing them in Congress -- New York, Illinois, Michigan or California. I think if you take the number of welfare recipients in a state, multiply it by the number of burned out ghettos and abandoned factories, and then divide that number by the percentage of the population which are high school dropouts, you can arrive at a pretty representative Douchebag Factor for each state. The state with the highest Douchebag Factor is almost guaranteed to be the one with the worst Congressional Delegation).

Those members of Congress depend upon their ability to game the system in order to justify their existence, which is why prying any money away from their pet 'projects' is going to be like pulling teeth...from an alligator. Good luck with that, Republicans.

2. On 'Democracy in the Middle East':

The only things a 'democratic' Middle East will ever bring is more of the same. Don't think so?

Palestinians voted for Hamas. Iraqis voted for Al'Sadr. Lebonese voted for Hezbollah. Syrians voted for Ba'athists (like Saddam Hussein). Seeing a pattern here? If given the chance to vote 'democratically', Muslims vote for terrorists, religious douchebags, and dictatorial regimes. It's in their blood, it's in their nature, it is at the very foundation of Islamic Culture.

It's so ingrained now that oppression is the natural state of life, and one brand of repression is as good as the next -- but the best kind wraps itself in the Koran -- that it's probably a genetic feature, perhaps even a biological imperative in most Arabs by now. The need and ability to consistently make the wrong choice -- war over peace, religion over reason, terrorism over negotiation, brutal dictatorship over freedom -- is probably firmly-ensconced within their DNA.

When one of these nascent Arab 'democracies' finally gets around to purging itself of it's worst elements, establishes a clear divergence of faith and state, lets it's women loose to work outside the home, or even better, to wear comfortable clothes that don't express their second-class status with an unmutilated clitoris, when an Arab finally makes something useful that doesn't explode and is actually salable on an open market, when the AK-47 and RPG are replaced by the two-car garage, and the whole Islamic Culture finally emerges from the filthy mental sandstorm of constipated 7th-century doctrinal oppression, THEN I'll believe there's hope for 'democracy' in the Arab lands. Not one second before.

A clear example of what 'democracy' means in the Middle East is something I remember being said by the Jordanian Foreign Minster on FoxNews a few weeks back. When asked if the Jordanian government was worried that an Egyptian-style popular uprising could occur in Jordan, the Minister said (paraphrasing) that such was impossible. That if Jordanian democracy ever 'got out of hand' the King would be there to whip back into shape. In other words, a Monarch with the power to dictate to Parliaments and to reshape the political landscape with a decree, is somehow the guarantor of democratic government.

The 'Uprisings' in Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Algeria, et. al., are simply the visible symptoms of a disease which infects all the Islamic World. It was the same disease which once infected the Eastern Bloc nations, and the Soviet Union. There are legions of unwashed, hungry, pig-ignorant people in the streets of Middle Eastern capitols today who are simply doing what frustrated people always do; they're turning on the people they blame for their misery. The difference is this:

The Soviet Union, when it fell, at least degenerated into a series of semi-democratic, Western-style states and governments. We can argue about whether there is true democracy in the former Soviet lands, but one cannot argue as to whether or not at least some of those countries are on their way to something recognizable as Western Democracy. In the Middle East, there's a critical difference between how we view democracy and how the typical Arab Douchebag in the Street views democracy. To us, democracy is a system of checks and balances, of rights and corresponding responsibilities, of social contract and law. In the Middle East, democracy means
installing Sharia under whichever brutal strongman manages to exert enough control over the security services and make himself President for Life.

Islam cannot tolerate democracy, much like Communism couldn't tolerate it, and even if those people in the street have the best of intentions, because they are so stupid, so desperate, so lacking in basic material from which the thread of a democratic tradition can be spun, they will fail.

The people who rioted in the streets and shouted "Goodbye Mubarak" are the same people who formerly rioted in the streets screaming"Death to America!". Once their short attention spans turn from the heady wine of revolution and begin to turn to the problems of actually forming a democratic system, they'll be back to shouting "Death to America!" again, in short order. Why? Because they'll fail, a distinct possibility because they don't have the mental and social tools to succeed, and it'll be OUR (America's) fault. Why? Because it always is with these idiots, and besides, the Imams will make certain that Mohammed Q. Public actually believes that.

Expect more airliners-cum-WMD's from all those new 'democratic' nations very soon...

3. On China;

If I were the President of the United States, I could bring China to heel in about 30 seconds; I'd make an apparently off-hand, and off-guard, remark about China that would set the financial markets all a-flutter. Naturally, the comment wouldn't be off-hand and off-guard, but that's the point. The President of the United States could bring all of China to a screeching halt with a press release.

Yes, there would be some resulting economic damage done in this country if that were to happen, but here's the really neat trick; this country has the capacity to recover from it, China does not. China depends upon an inflow of Western cash, and access to Western Markets, in order to build it's Potemkin Villages with Bird's Nest Stadiums in the Smog.

To those who would complain that China will simply stop funding American debt if played that game, I say. So what? There's an old expression on Wall Street that goes like this:

"If your banker lends you $10,000, he owns you; if he lends you $1,000,000, then you own him."

Now, just how badly do you think we own the Chinese when we owe them several trillion bucks?
It's funny that Lenin was quoted (paraphrased) as saying that 'Capitalism will sell us (the Communists) the rope with which we will eventually hang them', and here it has come to pass in exactly the opposite fashion.

Fuck China. In another 20 years it will disintegrate into violent revolution, again, once the new middle classes begin to demand political rights in order to safeguard their newly-won personal fortunes. The first enemy all people strive to defend their nest eggs from is usually their own government.

4. On Iran:

This one is too easy. The next time Iranians take to the streets to protest against the theocracy and the sycophantic lunatic fringe which serves as it's visible face, I'd move an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. I'd airdrop 1,000,000 cell and sat phones, Wi-Fi cards, and spare batteries into Tehran. I'd make certain that Facebook, Twitter and Internet access were available by means other than those controlled by the Iranian Government. I'd also distribute copies of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence --in Farsi --all over the country.

Then I'd bomb the fuck out of every nuclear weapons site I could find or identify, and leave the Iranian people to the grisly business of killing each other over which faction, religious or political, gets to hold the dubious honor of running a ruined country. It is, after all, what they're really, really good at.That ought to keep them busy for the next 500 years, and continued inbreeding from all that cousin marriage will do the rest. Then I'd be building nuclear power plants and drilling for every last drop of fucking oil we know we have, and encourage American Enterprise to make the oil-producing states the industrial version of the dinosaurs.

5. On North Korea:

I'd transmit pictures by any means available to the North Korean people of Americans sitting down to a sumptuous Thanksgiving feast. I'd make the obvious comparisons; Americans have food. Americans have so much food that they can afford to sit down and engage in gluttony. I'd also transmit pictures of Americans throwing food away. See? We have so much food, we can afford to waste it! I'd show them Americans feeding their dogs table scraps-- we have so much food, even our dogs enjoy steak!

Wall-to-wall beer advertisements with busty babes. Pictures of hotdogs grilling. Lovely Scratch-and-Sniff, menu-quality photos of a Wendy's Taco salads, a nice Big Mac, a juicy T-bone, lobster in drawn butter, fresh vegetables and fruit, a nice, fresh loaf of Italian Bread, all airdropped by Stealth bombers all over the peninsula. If it were possible, I'd contrive to have the aroma of a lovely roast chicken with mashed potatoes and gravy, biscuits, and a lovely side of baby peas and carrots wafted over North Korea's largest cities. I'd gather all them Travel Size toiletries and liberally bomb the entire country with them; tiny tubes of toothpaste, bottles of shampoo, the little soaps you get in the hotel, and quite a few of those airliner bottles of Jack Daniel's, Absolut, Beefeater's, Johnny Walker Black.

What do you have, North Korea? Are you eating well? Do you have beer, or even clean water to drink? Do you have booze? Do you even have soap and toothpaste? No, you don't? Then why don't you march on Pyongyang and remove that demented little paper-hanger you call 'Dear Leader' and get with the program? Workers of North Korea: You have nothing to lose except your malnutrition and head lice!

About Egypt...

For over a week now, my television screen has been poisoned by the pictures of tens of thousands of Egyptians in the streets of Cairo demanding the removal of their President-for-Life, Hosni Mubarak. If there's a silver lining in this particular set of Muslims-rioting-in-the-streets footage, it is this: at least I haven't had to look at or listen to President Marriot-Suites 500 times a day (again) making the case that Reparations-for-Slavery-Disguised-as-Wise-Economic-Policy has been an absolute godsend for the American people.

(I watched some of that much-vaunted Bill O'Reilly vs. Barack Obama interview prior to the Super Bowl, and I will say this about it: Obama hasn't any real core principles. He simply says whatever he thinks he needs to say at any given moment. That has been obvious for the last three years to anyone with basic brainstem functions, so it wasn't as if O'Reilly got anything new out of him, and if it wasn't already crystal clear to you before, it should be after yesterday's tour-de-force of bullshit: Barack Obama has no answers to whatever question or problem is put before him).

What is happening in Egypt at the moment was, up to a point, entirely predictable. Which is why our government, press, intelligence and diplomatic services all seem to have been taken by surprise. Even the dumbest people on this planet, given time, will eventually get fed up with some situation and then decide to do something about it, even if they're not quite certain as to what they're pissed about, or what to do about it. I'm not going to pontificate on whether or not Mubarak is a prince amongst Men, or the worst sort of douchebag, because I have no first-hand experience, and because I know that at least 80% of what passes for information on the nightly newscast is someone's opinion, rather than facts. Mubarak's record, so far as I'm concerned, is not germane to the argument I'm about to make. I'm fairly sure that given the mold from which the typical Middle Eastern potentate is cast, he's probably the second-biggest Dick in the Universe, it being a toss-up as to whether Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Micheal Bloomberg deserves that title.

Egyptians are fed up with slowly starving to death. They are fed up with a country that is a police state in all but name. They have tired of a President who's appearance of a democratically-elected term of Office seems to have run nearly one third of his lifespan. He's an old man, now, which in the rough-and-tumble of what passes for politics in that part of the world, makes him vulnerable. Like the aged jackal which can no longer hunt or scavenge and which becomes vulnerable to the hyenas all around it. Yeah, yeah, spare me thee-mails; I did just compare the entire population of the Middle East to predatory canines. It fits. They certainly smell like offal-scavenging, predatory canines.

Anywhoo, the one thing that becomes painfully clear to anyone who is watching and paying attention is that despite all the lip-service being paid to "democracy" by some of those protesters, it's that no one in Egypt actually knows what democracy is, and it's even more apparent that no in in the White House knows what it is, either. So, all you talking heads on television can shut the fuck up about whether Obama makes a "powerful" statement in support of the Egyptian "democracy" movement. For a start, no such movement exists (more on this in a second), and secondly, because Obama talks so much that no one actually gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about anything he has to say. There is no "statement" -- "powerful" or not -- that does any good in this situation. More than anything, the moment requires action more than grand elocution, and when it comes to action, well, that's not Obama's strong suit; he's not a doer.

And his elocutions are usually written by somebody else, too.

As to what actions I would take -- since I've opened my mouth -- you don't want to know what I would do. Suffice to say, the only way you'd ever be able to know there was such a place as Egypt when I was done, would be a visit to a museum. The same for Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et. al. But, I digress.

For those of you who are beginning to buy the "democratic movement arises in Egypt" theme the American Press so fervently hopes to spin you with no actual facts to back that assertion up, I say this: you are engaged in wishful thinking, for there can be no democracy -- as we would understand it -- in the Middle East. There are no democratic institutions, for a start, and they could not be magically created overnight (see: Iraq). Sure, Egyptians could vote, but that's not the same thing. Purple fingers do not a democracy make, despite what George W. Bush and Barack Obama have told us. In fact, if given the chance to vote in fair, democratic elections, Egyptians are likely to do what the Palestinians and Lebanese have done, and....vote for the Terrorists and Islamonazis amongst them.

It's predictable. It's inevitable. It's what their culture compels them to do, because they don't know any better. When the smoke clears, and Mubarak and the other despots in the region who are also under threat from this nascent "freedom movement" are gone, we're likely to see even worse forms of government arise. "The Shah always falls", the saying goes, and what usually follows him is likely to be our worst nightmare. That part is always unspoken.

When someone speaks of "democracy" in the Middle East, what they're really talking about is the means by which people will willingly vote to destroy any vestiges, or possibility, of Freedom. At the moment, all the talk about "Freedom" in Egypt is little more than people using this month's new buzzword. A society which has no history of Freedom, which has gone from Pharaohs, to Caliphates, to Foreign Occupation, to Presidents-for-Life, all of it overshadowed by the threat of force, is a land totally devoid of even the simplest idea of what freedom is.

Primarily, Freedom is the ability to ask the simplest of questions -- Why? -- without getting a less-than-social visit from the Death Squads, Gestapo, or Clerical Authority intent on stamping out heresy. Heresy, in this case, being not strictly limited in it's scope to strictly religious subjects. In a place where it is illegal, perhaps even deadly, to question secular authority as well as religious, Freedom cannot exist. The foundation of Freedom is that ability to ask "Why?", and then get an answer from an authority which is compelled by force of Custom and Law to provide an answer that doesn't involve firing squads or false confessions signed under threat of continued beatings in a dank basement cell.

A very interesting aspect of this whole "What Happens in Egypt Now?" drama being played out on the television is the differences in point of view between so called Conservatives and so-called Liberals. The ersatz-Conservatives worry about "what comes next", while the ersatz-Liberals openly question why their Great Man of History, Barack Obama, has been relatively silent. The differences are mainly between people who;

a) wish to convince us that they're intellectuals, in all ways smarter than we,

b) wish to give the appearance of substance to their act of pretending to be intellectuals

And in neither case does either side come close to accomplishing their goal.

For Conservatives, the question "What Happens in Egypt Now", revolves around a binary star of Right-Wing bugaboos; the fate of Israel, and the need to prove that George W. Bush was right, all along. The Israel question is a difficult one, because it requires that a Right-Wing intellectual balance his Reason while never telling the truth about his real attachment to Israel. On the one hand, he has to argue that Israel is a Western-style, pluralistic society in a region where no others exist, and that on that basis it is the task of the United States to do everything in it's power to protect and support such a state, because in so doing, we live up to our ideals about freedom. Intellectually, this is a powerful argument, and in my opinion, absolutely true.

However, there is a strong element in American Right-Wing politics which sees Israel not so much as a democratic flower in a desert of despotism, as much as it sees in Israel the fulfillment of God's Prophecy, for without the State of Israel to build that Third Temple, the primary requirement for the Rapture cannot occur, and these religious idiots will be stuck here on Earth with all us sinners for eternity. For them, the preservation of Israel is a means by which to bring about Armageddon. Any threat to Israel threatens to delay what God hath ordained. They can't come out and say it, because these are largely the same people who decry the Islamic Theocratic states, and people in glass houses, etc, etc. It's why Mike Huckabee broadcast his weekly dreck from Israel this weekend, you know, when there was apparently no reason to do so (guess who is running for the GOP nomination in 2012, and just burnished his Godbot credentials on the backs of Egyptian protesters?)

Conservatives have a third reason for giving a turd about what happens to the sandy little buttholes in Egypt, too. This has to do with proving the point that George W. Bush was essentially correct without having to tell the truth about how half-assed his efforts truly were, that the Reverse Domino Theory (topple Saddam Hussein, watch the entire Middle East go democratic) works, and that The War, it's expense and it's sacrifices, Guantanamo, Renditions, all of it, was justified; we were on the side of the Angels all along -- even if we didn't find WMD's or direct links between Saddam and Al'Qaeda. The end result of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq would automatically be Democracy, and "stability", and therefore, less terrorism, more Freedom (vaguely defined) and more commerce. What Conservatives of this ilk never tell you, though, is that so far as they're concerned, "Stability" means nothing more than the free flow of Middle Eastern oil to Western Industry. If you've ever needed proof that even fire-breathing-Freedom-for-Everyone Conservatives will deal with the Devil, here's a short list of them: The House of Saud, The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, The Jordanian Monarchy, Hosni Mubarak.

"Stability" (meaning there is no "trouble") often trumps the call to Freedom, it seems.

For Liberals, the question of "What Happens in Egypt Now" is more about what their self-described Elitist figures of the Mentally-Deranged Cult of Personality do and say. Appearances are always more important than substance in Left-Wing Circles, which is why a great many Liberal Flapping Rectums on the Idiot Box have been gravely disappointed with Obama on this issue. Where are the grand pronouncements from the Oval Office? Why hasn't there been a U.N. Resolution condemning this, but supporting that, and making it perfectly clear that while it apears as if somebody is being admonished and someone is being praised, no one is really taking sides? Where is the Shuttle Diplomacy between Washington and Geneva? Where are the grand-but-empty gestures of Treaties, and Memos and White Papers?

Where are the Kennedyesque, Cuban-Missile-Crisis-Quality, dramatic black-and-White photos of Obama in the White House Situation Room, surrounded by grave-faced dolts who have even less of a clue than he does, passing papers, looking all stern and concerned and Statesmanlike, feverishly "working" to solve a problem they neither understand, or have any workable solution to.

Great Men of History do these things. Whether they achieve anything of consequence is besides the point; they at least have the appearance of Great Men of History, with all the suitable backdrops -- the White House, the U.N. General Assembly Hall, the huddled masses of useless diplomats and sycophantic journalists enthralled by the oratory pearls of a Man Who Speaks Much But Says Little. They go through the motions, only with Drama, and most of that has to be manufactured for strictly domestic consumption.

Liberals don't actually expect Obama to be able to do anything (doing requires action, and ultimately, responsibility, neither quality is in Obama's, nor in the Libtard's in general, character, for that matter), but they wish to be seen as being effective, as being strong, capable, smart, on top of things, when the truth is that they're really just pretending.

Neither Liberals or Conservatives has an answer for Egypt, primarily because they don't understand, or cannot admit to themselves, the reasons why what has happened has happened. Egyptians are dissatisfied with their lot in life, as people usually are, and what they are crying and bleeding for in the streets of Cairo (just as they did in the streets of Tehran, Beirut, and Damascus) is that they at least want to have the opportunity to choose which demented douchebag inflicts their misery upon them, whether despotic secular or despotic clerical, or a combination of both. This is not, strictly speaking, democracy.

The answer both Libtards and Godbots come up with is essentially the same: a newer, kindlier-and-gentler version of the White Man's Burden, in which "enlightened" Westerners gently nudge (on the one hand with bombs and infantrymen, on the other with grand-but-empty gestures and words) our Islamic-nutjob-retarded-cousins in the "right" direction. Both sides ignore the real problem because the means by which it can be solved is too terrible to contemplate and leaves too many open questions which our so-called Elites cannot answer; how does one change an entire culture?

Because that is the real problem. Islamic culture, an oxymoron if ever there was one, is like a disease. Terrorists and despots are merely the visible signs of it, the pustules or the bad rash that occurs upon infection. The Terminal Phase of this affliction begins with shouts in the streets and ends with airliners being plowed into office buildings. One side believes the disease can be dealt with by simple comparison and learning lessons from with the West and calls to reason, and the other believes that it can be cured with good intentions, greeting card slogans, and dreams of Rainbows, Pixie Dust and Purple Unicorns.

Ultimately, the best solution lies in something far more sinister and destructive, which is a Pan-Islamic Asswhipping followed by a 200-year Cultural Enema, delivered by a strong, untied, and determined West. George W. Bush was correct in this assumption, but he didn't follow through and make his War on Terror a Terrible War, which might have begun the process of radically changing Islamic culture (just ask Japan and Nazi Germany how that worked out for them in the long run). Neither side in this Great Debate has to courage or the intellectual honesty to speak that truth, or even to acknowledge it, because in so doing they both trip all over their most cherished dogmatic beliefs, and would have to, necessarily, reveal their true motivations.

Whatever happens in Egypt is none of our business, insofar as Egyptians have the right to be led astray and given the shaft by anyone they chose. So far as I can see, if the protesters are successful, and Mubarak is chased from office, all they will have accomplished is a choice between Bad and Worse; another dictator-for-life, or another version of the Khomeini Revolution, but they will not have fundamentally altered either the source or the severity of the cancer which eats away at them. They will not have changed themselves or their culture.

When the American punditocracy (a.k.a The Flapping Rectums) asks the question in another decade, "Who Lost Egypt?", the first people they'll look to blame will be the American political class, but the real culprits will have been the Egyptians themselves.

Personally, I hope they all turn on each other and spend the rest of the century killing one another (their only real talent), because it saves us the trouble of having to do it ourselves. However, if I'm wrong (it's been known to happen from time to time) and there is a glimmer of hope that what is now happening in Egypt can evolve into something approaching a true democratic nation, then by all means, let it happen. Stay out of it. We can't do it for them; they have to figure this out -- and even perhaps fight it out --for themselves.

Mark Steyn is Back!

I was in withdrawal. Seriously.

Dependence Day.

The opening paragraph is rather frightening, but it makes the point. We are in danger of gradually losing our liberties and our unique identity;
　
"If I am pessimistic about the future of liberty, it is because I am pessimistic about the strength of the English-speaking nations, which have, in profound ways, surrendered to forces at odds with their inheritance. "Declinism" is in the air, but some of us apocalyptic types are way beyond that. The United States is facing nothing so amiable and genteel as Continental-style "decline," but something more like sliding off a cliff..."

IowaHawk is God...

If you're STILL not reading IowaHawk regularly, then you, Sir or Madame, are a dipshit. One that should be taken out and sterilized with the rustiest of farm implements, so that you may not pollute the gene pool with future generations of little dipshits. Who will grow up into big dipshits, who will vote democratic and believe in Global Warming, and all that rot, and continue the cycle of dipshits who don't read IowaHawk.

Just read the damned thing!

So, you've lost your election...

The Athenian Legacy...

A very good article on the nature of Freedom, which I found quite interesting. It's a bit thick to read, but well worth the effort. If more people in this country were aware of this sort of thing, we'd all be in much better shape, and would probably have never elected the string of incompetent-but-well-meaning doofuses from Bush I to the Present (very-temporary) Inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Emperor Barack Hussein Obama I.

I don't agree with everything the author had to say, but he made enough interesting points for me to recommend that you invest your time in reading it.

If you don't, I will hunt you down and kill you in your sleep.

Denial Ain't Just a River In Egypt....

The 52% of the American Electorate that was desperate and brain-dead in November of 2008 should do the rest of us a favor and voluntarily kill themselves this morning. Consider it your patriotic duty.

Obama still doesn't get IT...

Fidel Castro: Cuban Model No Longer Works...

Nice try. Suddenly, Castro is the advocate for capitalism, and crusader against communism, nuclear weapons and anti-Semitism?

A deathbed conversion, perhaps, of the sort that used to be common in the Middle Ages? It was not unusual in days of yore for the absolute monarchs to pay lip service to the cause of the Church during their lives, while they exercised absolute power and committed the worst of sins, and to save the absolution of baptism for their very last days --- finally confessing all of their sins with their very last breath -- if only to hedge their bets against the torments of Hell they all feared would come to them for all the shit they had done in Life. While alive, they would praise the majesty of God, only to whore, steal, kill, torture and make war, knowing that in the end, the compliant bishop or cardinal in their pockets would anoint them with water and oil (many professed Christian beliefs all their lives, but reserved the sacrament of baptism for their deathbeds...nice trick!) and send them into the afterlife washed clean of sin. It was how "things were done" back in in the day.

The Church often required the protection and patronage of the Monarch, so it was quite happy to play this hypocritical game of looking the other way while King So-and-So became the biggest bastard on the planet in return for this last-second redemption. Eventually, the Enlightenment arrived and even the worst of Popes couldn't continue to shrug away the obvious -- the "system" as it were, was full double-standards , contradictions and incestuous undertones that became too onerous to hide, or explain away, and so the practice ceased.

But, enough about Castro's immortal soul and motivations, and back to the idea that Socialism doesn't work.

The Russians abandoned socialism simply because they could no longer hide the fact that seventy years of practice never delivered as promised, and that the reign of tyranny required to prop the system up was almost as bad, and often far worse, than the worst excesses of the Czars. Yes, the Soviets had nuclear weapons, but they also stood in queue several hours a day to buy toilet paper...assuming any was available. In the end, those who lived under the Soviet system and within it's satellite vassal states, had had enough of the double-standards, terror, scarcity and contradictions and demanded reform -- when they weren't just "voting with their feet" and hopping over the Berlin Wall. Once those reforms began, and the typical Soviet/Eastern Bloc citizen began to see for the first time just how badly he had been screwed by comparison with his Western counterpart, the reform express train rocketed out of control, and the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it's own contradictions.

And the former Communists all asked for forgiveness.

Looking North, the Chinese Communists had seen the effects of Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost had had on the Soviet Empire, and decided that the same thing would not happen to them, and so while they embraced capitalism with both hands (abandoning all pretence of Socialism/Communism), they implemented a more restrictive and controlled variety -- they have tried mightily to manage the rate of increase in material wealth (while stealing as much as of it as they can). They've hoped to delay the inevitable call the for freedom and human rights that always accompanies any appreciable increase in living standards with a sort of outright bribery (Hey! You're rich, so what do you care for "rights"?); but they, too, will soon learn that's a pipe dream. The Chinese are "rich" --compared to their own standards of the past -- but will soon be richer. Those Chinese leaders who think they can control what they've unleashed are in for a rude awakening: in another generation, when the Chinese actually are rich (by Western standards) they're going to want to have those personal fortunes secured, and the first danger they'll want them protected against is their own Government.

I'm stocking up on Orville Reddenbacher for when that day finally arrives. It's going to be one hell of a fireworks show.

Europeans are finally waking up to the fact that their brand of "democratic socialism" has also been a failure (except in Greece, where they seem incapable of understanding this), and in some quarters, governments are taking steps to begin -- if not fully dismantling their ridiculous social schemes -- at least making the atmosphere more amenable to market capitalism than it was before(see: Germany). When the World Economy begins to truly recover in a few years, don't be surprised if it is the Europeans who will lead the way.

Vietnam, where so many American lives were wasted in a War that began the process of disintegration in America's moral fabric (and I'm not talking religious morals, which are bullshit), has abandoned the very communism they fought for seven decades to implement, discovering for themselves that it doesn't work. They too have embraced capitalism, even to the point where some now openly begin to ask why they didn't just surrender to the United States in the first place instead of fighting and suffering for so long.

And now Fidel Castro adds his voice to the world-wide chorus;

"Socialism Sucks!".

Of course, he only does so in the very twilight of his life, after he's enjoyed all the perks and perversions that come with being an absolute dictator. Much like a latter-day Constantine the Great, he seeks to shuffle off this mortal coil with a clean soul, and so this admission that his state and system are failures are his brand of last-second baptism. And so forgiven his sins (he thinks), he will pass into history much like Constantine: remembered not as the warlord, thief and rapist -- but as the Saint. Good luck with that one.

The lessons are everywhere, but are Barack Obama and the American Left paying any attention? I rather doubt they are; they're blinded by the idea that America is an evil place, full of greedy people, who have trodden on the rights and aspirations of millions for it's own selfish ends, and do not see the country that has striven mightily to repent of it's own sins and to bring it's enlightened system to billions more. The Russians, the Chinese, Europeans, Vietnamese, and now the Cubans have realized how wrong they were and are making efforts to adapt to this reality. Will Barack Obama ever be able to do the same? Or, like the Absolute Monarchs of old, does he believe that he can perform the greatest evils imaginable in life (although I don't expect Obama to actually rape anyone; he'll only do so figuratively with taxes, regulations and redistribution), only to have his personal bishops (the Media, academia) grant him absolution in the waning moments of life? When Obama is within seconds of the Dirt Nap, will he, too, suddenly raise from the deathbed to proclaim "I was wrong!"?

I wouldn't count on it.