Blogcritics Author: Media Tycoon

The Audacity of Freedom

Media Tycoon — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:13:52 EDT

If I could ask Barack Obama one question, it would be regarding the privatization of Social Security.
A couple months ago, I came to the conclusion that if I could ask Barack Obama one question, it would be regarding Social Security. Why, I would ask, would someone who claims to be the candidate of change and of the younger generation be against privatizing Social Security? What is it about the current system that he likes? Is it its lack of...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Bill Clinton Is A Nazi

Media Tycoon — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:32:50 EDT

The point has been made in recent years that President George W. Bush is a Nazi/fascist. This is the typical rhetoric of children who know nothing of politics but feel that calling someone a fascist will help them look sophisticated.However, some of these children have gotten dangerously close to legitimizing this otherwise baseless argument by describing the main features of fascism -- and offering examples of how President Bush and Republicans have met those standards.You can find one such article at the Council for Secular Humanism written by Laurence Britt. After reviewing this article, I realized that these arguments could easily be made about any and every American president. Naturally, I’ve decided to take the articles main points verbatim, and write a rebuttal, using President Clinton’s record in order to paint him as a fascist.Do I really think Clinton was a fascist? No. My point is to show how easy it is to make this argument. Furthermore, if this is the standard that a liberal would use to call President Bush a fascist, then the fact is that their beloved first black president, B.J. Clinton, is a Hitler incarnate.Again, I stress that these 14 main points are not my own -- though the commentary is -- and have been used against President Bush by toddlers to “prove” he is a fascist.1. Powerful and Continuing NationalismWhether you like to admit it or not, nationalism has always been strong in America. The one exception may be during the Vietnam era, although nationalism still existed. The point is that it is dumb to pin nationalism on the Bush Administration.Even the liberal god - Howard Zinn himself - accused the Clinton administration of harmful nationalism. “Liberals today criticize George Bush's unilateralism. But it was Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who told the United Nations Security Council that the U.S. would act 'multilaterally when we can, unilaterally when we must.” That is just one tidbit of the "powerful and continuing nationalism" that occurred under President Clinton.Another example can be seen in perhaps the most arrogant quote by an American President: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." Pure American arrogance. He seems to be saying that America is the all-knowing beacon of truth in the world and that we, as a country, could not possibly learn anything from a foreigner. Such a view of the world can only be brought about by a dangerous and blinding love for one's country.2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human RightsAnyone who is alive and conscious knows that the biggest violation of human rights in the United States over the last 20 years occurred in Waco, Texas at the hands of the federal government. The unadulterated murder of unarmed men, women and children by government is inexcusable in any country, but it is especially disturbing when it occurs in the country that is supposed to be the freest in the world.It is sad for me to say that I would much rather be a baby-killing terrorist in Gitmo under President Bush’s watch than be a baby in the Davidian compound while Clinton was president.Not to mention the crimes against humanity perpetuated by the Clinton administration in North Korea (three million dead), Iraq (at least 500,000 dead -- yeah, Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush without even trying), among other places.Not to mention, his domestic spying and data mining through the Echelon program.All in all, Clinton makes Bush look like Beaver Cleaver.3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause I know Democrats and liberals like to pretend that Republicans have all these scapegoats they blame for everything (especially gays). First of all, even if the point has any credence at all, it is not at the level of anything in Nazi Germany (so why call Bush a Nazi when the comparison is extremely insensitive and unwarranted?). The only president ever to approach that type of oppression in modern America is FDR with the internment of the Japanese. As for liberal scapegoating, believe it or not, it exists. Democrats turn to the wealthy, large corporations (Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc.), and “extremist Christians” (see Waco Massacre) for their source of scapegoats. Of course, why use a minority as a scapegoat when you can just use your enemies. Remember when Hillary made her "vast right-wing conspiracy" comment? 4. Supremacy of the Military This is almost laughable. Believe it or not, the US still had the most powerful military in the world when Clinton was president. This argument is much easier because there are so many liberals out there who have defended the way Clinton treated the military. Not only is this argument winnable without any links, but I can add links with material exclusively by liberals, just for fun that prove the point.5. Rampant Sexism I suppose what constitutes rampant sexism is debatable, but I think when most people are given the facts, most will acknowledge President Bill for what he is: a sexual deviant.We will never know how many women Clinton took advantage of while he was in power. What we do know is that there is a laundry list of allegations of improper sexual advances. We are talking unwanted sexual advances here. Some write of these sex scandals as “Blowjob Gate” or “Monica Gate”. However, people with any concern for human dignity refer to them as “Rape Gate” and Sexual Assault Gate”. Libs really like to write off all these sex scandals. Perhaps because they are all as degenerate as the former president, or perhaps because they put politics over the well-being of a few nappy-headed hos. Whatever the case may be, the president all but confirmed these allegations by systematically intimidating and auditing witnesses along with asking others to lie.It has been a long time since most of us have recalled the track record of the Clinton regime. It makes the Plame Gate look laughable.6. Controlled Mass Media No offense, but if you believe George Bush or the Republican Party has control over the mass media, then you may as well give up on life, because you are devoid of any reasoning capabilities. Does anyone really argue against the idea that the news media has a strong liberal bias? Can anyone really argue otherwise?Here are a couple tidbits that pretty much prove the point: "MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans." And again… "In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent..." 7. Obsession with National Security I don’t even know what this means. Obsessed with keeping the country safe -- if that makes me a Nazi, sign me up. However, Clinton, to his credit, was obsessed with national security. However, Clinton’s obsession differs from Bush's in a fairly stark way. Bush starts wars, Clinton used sanctions. If you think about it, Clinton’s way of handling conflicts was much more sadistic, and deadly for that matter. To put it simpler terms: would you rather get blown up and die instantly, or starve to death over the course of a couple months?Of course, Clinton's rampant bloodlust led to a couple of rather embarrassing mistakes. Like the time we bombed a Chinese Embassy, or that aspirin factory, or the time his national security advisor stuffed secret documents down his pants. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined This is a tough one because what constitutes a religion or a religious idea is debatable. One could argue it is anything that is not based exclusively on reason that gives someone a greater purpose or meaning in life. That being said, I think we can all agree that morals and religious ideas permeate the American government, as well as every other government around the world. You cannot separate morals from law. The notion is absurd. That being said, one of the strongest and fastest growing new age religions – environmentalism – is shoved down everyone’s throats by the Democratic Party. Michael Crichton (not religious) has already made an extremely compelling argument as to why modern environmentalism more closely resembles a religion rather than a science. If you buy the argument (if you read it and have an open mind, you will) then you will agree that modern environmentalism is the closest thing we have to a state established religion in the US.Of course, as an enlightened libertarian, I would argue that any government action that is unnecessary is just as bad as forcing religion on someone. Coercion is coercion. The motive behind it is inconsequential. I don’t care if it is for religious, moral, nice, compassionate, or environmental reasons. Get out of my life, and stop telling me how to live, spend my money, and treat other people (other than directly harming someone of course).9. Corporate Power is Protected Who knows what this is supposed to mean, but believe it or not, all the corporations that are around today were around when Clinton was president too. Not to mention, all those corporate scandals in the early years of Bush’s presidency actually occurred when Clinton was president. It wasn’t until they were brought to light under the all-knowing guidance of George W. Bush that these corporate criminals were prosecuted and convicted. It is important to note that free trade, long rued by socialists and other freedom haters everywhere, was one of Bill Clinton’s stronger points. Don’t pretend you don’t remember NAFTA.10. Labor Power is Suppressed This from the Labor Party (maybe not the most mainstream voice, but I think it makes the point): “Clinton’s support for schemes like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) … have led directly to an epidemic of plant closings, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and the exploding trade deficit.” 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts George W. Bush has greatly increased spending for education at the federal level. A fact that is indisputable and one that actually upsets a lot of conservatives. Meanwhile, Al Gore (Clinton's VP), has taken a strong stance against intellectual debate, saying balanced news coverage of global warming is "bias". Don't worry, it doesn't make sense to me either. Either way, Clinton's VP sure seems to have a disdain for people who intellectually disagree with him. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Oh those libs and their obsession with gun control; do I even need to post links for this? 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption The Clinton Legacy:The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify Most number of witnesses to die suddenly First president sued for sexual harassment. First president accused of rape. First first lady to come under criminal investigation Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case First president to establish a legal defense fund. First president to be held in contempt of court Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court 14. Fraudulent Elections Republicans tend not to bitch as loudly and as obnoxiously as Democrats do, but I would argue that there is more evidence to prove that Clinton stole the 1996 election than there is that Bush stole 2000 or 2004.Let me guess -- you don’t know what I am talking about, do you? Face it. Republicans are just better losers than Democrats. Democrats lose an election that happens to be close, and it is stolen.Republicans notice serious violations of fundraising laws that involve foreign involvement (China) and (like Nixon when Kennedy stole the 1960 election) they graciously bow out for the best of the country.The only conclusion I can draw after this careful and fair analysis of President Clinton and Democrats, is that they are just as much Nazi and fascist as any Republicans I know. Maybe even worse -- it is hard to say.

Five Reasons Liberals Should Detest Welfare

Media Tycoon — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:10:02 EST

1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!”If you know anyone who is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who don’t know, I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their moral value of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?It seems logical that people should be able to choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking: If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone! You self-righteous sons of bitches. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readers of this article to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep. Liberals shouldn't worry about conservatives not giving enough money to the poor. However, I (and I'm sure many conservatives would agree with me) would be willing to trust the libs will give a fair share to charity if it meant ending the government mandated welfare state.2. “Freedom of choice!”One liberal argument goes like this:I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good human's responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.This flies in the face of facts and history since the government has spent trillions on welfare and hasn’t put a dent in the poverty levels.3. “Don’t be simpleminded, be nuanced like me…”How many times have we heard the libs say Bush’s arguments are simpleminded and ignore the nuances. Sometimes it gets to the point where it is comical. One man’s nuance is another mans nitpicking I suppose. Sometimes I think liberals just like the word “nuance”. I can understand them – I like it too.However, there is no case of ignored nuances more prevalent in American politics than in the way we treat poor people. The liberal line of logic goes something like this:Rich people have money. Rich people can use money to buy things. People like things. Poor people don’t have money. Poor people can’t buy things. Poor people are sad. Poor people need money.It goes something like that anyway. Whatever the line of logic, it ends with poor people needing money. That is why welfare – the main way the government helps the poor – involves handouts. After all, poor people need money, so let’s give it to them.Thankfully, I, along with many nuanced conservatives understand that this is false. You know the problem with poor people? They have freedom of choice – that is the problem. As long as people have the freedom to make bad choices, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to drop out of high school, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to get pregnant with no husband to support them, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to abuse mind-altering substances, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to refinance their homes every six months, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy cars that are above their means, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy 30 lottery tickets a week when they can barely make rent, poverty will exist.The fact is that most poor people have made big mistakes in their lives – and more often than not, they repeat those mistakes.4. True compassion…If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.One sentence KO.5. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.More liberal logic:George Bush has too much power and he is abusing it.My simpleminded foes. Here is a line of logic that makes sense.Money = power. More money = more power. Power will corrupt. The more power one has, the more corrupt they can be. Therefore, more money = more power = more corruption.If you want a less corrupt government, take away their money. That is the only way. You cannot reform government to be subordinate. It is an untameable monster. This is why the founding fathers (in their infinite wisdom) pushed for limited government. Since welfare essentially makes up half of the 2006 2.6 trillion budget, it’s a logical target when wanting to curb government power. Rather than just being another asshole critic, I will support what I have said with answers.1. Pushing morals on others unnecessarily is a real issue. One way to avoid this in our welfare state would be to allow people to opt out of Social Security, and put that money in their 401k.I know the arguments against this, but if you can honestly claim that you feel safer with Social Security than a 401k, then you are a retard. The fact is that no one actually believes the stock market is too risky to invest in. That idea is rhetoric used by Democrats to feel better about the fact that they have taken an anti-freedom stance on this issue. Every single Democrat in the House and Senate has money in the stock market. When they pull their money out, I will start to believe them when they say privatizing Social Security is risky.2. Choice is the key word here. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the government said that we have to give ten percent of our money to a certain type of cause. If one person was helped by a soup kitchen when they were down and out, they could give all their charity to that soup kitchen. If others thought that their college was responsible for their success, they could give their ten percent to their school or to a fund to help students pay tuition.The beauty of choice is that when it turns out that soup kitchen or that college was found wasting money, funds would immediately drop off the next year. No one would continue giving their money to a cause that was careless with their money. The result would be a strong checks and balances system against fraud and waste. And hey, just to make the libs happy, we would even let people still give their tax dollars to current government programs – like food stamps. Hurray.3. Wake up. We are never going to end poverty. With freedom comes responsibility. The best thing we can do to end poverty is to improve education. Let’s stop teaching hocus pocus global warming BS to the kids and start teaching them how to shop for a mortgage, the benefits of buying a house while you’re young, and about personal finance. Not to mention how to speak, read and write English.4. Admit it, the best place to go for help is to family and close friends. That is what life is about. Making personal relationships with people you care about, then depending on each other when things get rough.5. I don’t even know what to put here. Most liberals can’t admit that their welfare system creates a powerful government. Let me appeal to you now. There is a reason that wars like Vietnam and Iraq didn’t happen until government got bigger… frankly, governments had no money to fight wars before then. You could also make the argument that having a large peacetime military has a lot to do with it, but that argument is for another day. Fact is, more money = more power, more power = more corruption, and all of this means less freedom.

Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

Media Tycoon — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:24:53 EST

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been whining about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in the country we're protecting, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own backsides from political damnation. This was my line of thinking for the last few months – that is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. Democrats have been speaking up about the genocide in Darfur as if it were critical to US national security. One small example of this sudden urge by Democrats to police the Sudan was seen in a demonstration held by New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in July of 2004 which led to his arrest. There are a litany of examples of Democrats supporting intervention in Sudan. Buy why?I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here are a list of reasons that make the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.…yep that’s about it.Here are a list of reasons that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.• Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.• Fear of a WMD program• Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions• Oil• Connections to terrorism. Don’t pretend they didn’t exist. Al-Qaeda isn’t the only terrorist group in the world.• The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.• Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMDs. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped to divert attention by coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy SOB.• Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US…at least according to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.• Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn't been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.By contrast, the Sudan has been moving closer to mainstream circles since they banished Osama bin Laden from their country in 1996. You can read more about it here.The whole situation just baffles me. Democrats keep making statements lie: “I knew invading Iraq would only make Muslims hate us more. It was so obvious that this would happen. Bush doesn’t understand the nuances of the situations.”I hate to break it to you, but the Sudan has all the negatives of Iraq, and none of the positives. I already listed all the reasons to invade Iraq (none of which apply to Sudan), but the similarities in the negative aspects of these two countries is eerie. Here is the short list:• Like Iraq, Sudan is currently involved in a civil war. I thought Democrats were against sending Americans to die in other countries civil wars.• Like Iraq, much of the violence in the Sudan dates back hundreds of years. • Like Iraq, much of the animosities between the groups in Sudan are based on ethnicity and religion.• Like Iraq, intervening in Sudan will lead to an increase in violence. This is something that conservatives seem to understand better than liberals. When you fight a war, violence increases. I know for a fact that this isn’t what many liberals expect out of an intervention in the Sudan. A lot of you think it will be like Kosovo. It won’t be. In Kosovo we were saving Muslims. In the Sudan, we will be fighting against them. There is a difference. Don’t believe me? Maybe you will believe Osama who called for Jihad in the Sudan back in April of ’06. If you think intervening in Sudan would be a cake walk, you are dead wrong. Democrats who were against the invasion of Iraq, but are now in favor of intervention in the Sudan have either got pretty strange priorities or are very confused. Or maybe it's just that they like their brand of pointless international adventurism better than the Republican version.

The Moral Values Fallacy

Media Tycoon — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:32:35 EDT

Denouncing the merger of politics and moral values has become a popular rhetorical tool in America. Separating religion and politics has always been a central belief in the US, but it does not go far enough for some people. Recently, there has been a push to upgrade the idea of separation of religion and politics to the separation of morals and politics (insert joke about immoral politicians here). This belief is most common among Democrats, and they often cite the "separation of church and state" as the basis for this set of beliefs. The problem is, morals and religion are two very different things. Everyone agrees that murder is morally wrong, but it is also part of various religious beliefs (see the Ten Commandments). Does this mean that murder should be made legal to protect the separation of church and state? Of course that would be ridiculous because virtually everyone agrees that murder is wrong regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.On the other hand, the belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is a religious belief. Only one religion, Christianity, believes that. The difference between moral and religious beliefs can be subtle at times, but it is usually pretty clear. When an idea transcends multiple religions (gay marriage, murder, helping the poor, etc.) it is probably safe to say it is not a religious belief, rather, it is a moral that many people from many backgrounds happen to agree with.Many fail to realize that at its core, the moral values argument is a fallacy. Most voters in this country choose candidates and political parties based on ideas. Whether it be the environment, economics, foreign policy, welfare, gun rights, or abortion, parties and voters choose their beliefs based on their sense of right and wrong. Since right and wrong make up a persons moral core, it would be true to say that most people vote in line with their own morals.Despite both major political parties aggressively trying to make the country better based on their morals (liberals with gun control, conservatives with restrictions on Janet Jackson's breasts), only one party is associated with it. It is often said that Republicans are leading a crusade to push their moral values on America (or something like that).Ironically, the Democratic Party deserves most of the blame when it comes to morals in politics. While Democrats claim to be against forcing values on others, they are responsible for creating the most invasive moral project that exists in our government - the welfare state. Currently, our national budget is around $2.6 trillion. The three biggest injections of moral values into our government ($1 trillion worth) are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.Each one of these programs forces a value onto the citizens of this country that many do not agree with. Certain citizens may prefer to buy a TV, a car, a house, or even to give money to a different social cause, but the government coerces taxpayers to pay for the healthcare and retirement of others whether they agree with the cause or not (and regardless of the programs effectiveness).Why force others into paying for those programs? The short answer is that Democrats think their morals are superior to Republican morals. Don't get me wrong, that is a legitimate, but it is hypocritical.The argument Democrats make against morals in politics is fallacious. Either you have to accept that both parties try to legislate their morals (and vote with the party that more closely represents your values), or you should vote Libertarian and truly be against all unnecessary moral values in politics.