AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

I’m Tired of Effing Earth Day

“You got people like this around you?  Country is full of them now!  People walking around all day long, every minute of the day — worried about EVERYTHING!  Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil.  Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos.  Worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right?  Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature!  It’s arrogant meddling!  It’s what got us into trouble in the first place!  Doesn’t anybody understand that?  Interfering with Nature!  Over 90 percent . . . over . . . way over 90 percent of all the species that have ever lived — EVER LIVED — on this planet are gone.  Whissshht!  They are extinct!

We didn’t kill them all.

They just . . . disappeared!  That’s what Nature does!  They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our behavior.  Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today, will be gone tomorrow!  Let them go . . . gracefully!  Leave Nature alone!  Haven’t we done enough?

We’re so self-important.  So self-important!  Everybody’s going to save something now.  ‘Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails.’  And the greatest arrogance of all, “Save the planet.”  WHAT?  Are these fucking people kidding me?  Save the planet?  We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet.  We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?

I’m getting tired of that shit.  Tired of that shit.  Tired!  I’m tired of fucking Earth Day!  I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths.  People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos.  Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet.  They don’t care about the planet.  Not in the abstract they don’t.  Not in the abstract they don’t.  You know what they’re interested in?  A clean place to live.  Their own habitat.  They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced.  Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet.  Nothing wrong with the planet.  The planet is fine.  The PEOPLE are fucked.  Difference.  Difference!  The planet is fine.  Compared to the people, the planet is doing great.  Been here four and a half billion years.  Did you ever think about the arithmetic?  The planet has been here four and a half billion years.  We’ve been here, what?  A hundred thousand?  Maybe two hundred thousand?  And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years.  Two hundred years versus four and a half billion.  And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat?  That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us.  Been through all kinds of things worse than us.  Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages . . . And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?”

April 22, 2012 , 4:28PM Posted by | Communism, Global Warming, Liberalism | Comments Off on I’m Tired of Effing Earth Day

We are in a Classic Debt Spiral from Which There is Probably no Escape

CHANGE! Gotta love liberalism.

Via Monty at AoSHQ: DOOM, Served Hot Off the Grill

Read this link and weep. We are in a classic debt spiral from which there is probably no escape. The mandatory spending numbers will never go down, and debt-service will eat ruthlessly away at the remaining portion of the federal budget. (Most of the states are in the same fiscal boat.) Pretty soon, our government will exist to do two things only: send out welfare checks, and pay the vig on our mind-boggling debt.

And even our debt, formerly considered a safe haven by nearly everyone in the world, ain’t what it used to be. This is why our borrowing costs are going up… way up. Pull quote:

The major entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — other “mandatory” spending, national defense, and interest on the debt make up more than 80 percent of federal spending.

[ … ] We cannot tax our way out of this hole. We cannot grow our way out economically. We cannot use demographics to work our way out over time (in fact, we’re barely maintaining a replacement rate of reproduction as it is, and most of that reproducing is among the least productive of our citizenry).

We cannot vote the problem away. The only solution that would really work — draconian cuts to entitlement programs and a serious effort to pay down the national debt — would require a level of austerity that few Americans have the stomach for. This means that a political solution to this problem is also pretty much impossible. There is no political solution to this dilemma because neither the citizens nor the politicians are willing to do what is necessary. (Nor is it simply a Democrat/GOP divide. As we have all seen in the Social Security threads I and others have posted, even many conservatives bristle when faced with cuts to their own programs.)

Example: all liberals, and even many conservatives, quail at the harshness of the so-called “Ryan Roadmap”, and insist that it’s not “politically doable”. Well, guess what? The Ryan roadmap is the best attempt by a politician I’ve seen so far at solving this problem — and it barely scratches the surface. Even if every single one of its reforms were adopted right now, it probably would take decades for us to get back on an even fiscal keel. And I don’t think we have that kind of time.

We lost this battle when the debate stopped being about whether the government should provide a gigantic welfare state, and began to be about how we would fund it.

Remember this, if you remember nothing else: it will never be any easier or cheaper to fix this problem than it is right now. The longer we wait, the more catastrophic the outcome will be. If we will not impose discipline on ourselves, the market will do it for us.

Meanwhile, Obama goes golfing and Democrats, instead of doing the business of the people they were elected to do, decide to run and hide from their States and refuse to participate in representative government.  All the while, liberals (ie public sector unions who only care about themselves), instead of working to save the nation, work to destroy the nation and harass with vulgarity and violence the few people who are working to try to right the ship.


March 10, 2011 , 12:41AM Posted by | Communism, Economy, Liberalism, Socialism, Taxes | Comments Off on We are in a Classic Debt Spiral from Which There is Probably no Escape

The Founding Fathers were Against Redistribution of Wealth

Via Bill Costello at The American Thinker: The ‘Your Money Is Not Yours’ Crowd

An excerpt:

Because your money is not yours, the government feels free to take it from you and redistribute it to others. President Obama expressed this belief when he said, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

However, those in government did not always support redistribution of wealth. The Founding Fathers were against it.

Thomas Jefferson observed:

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

And James Madison:

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.

And Samuel Adams:

The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional.

The Founders would have supported the popular bumper sticker that says, “Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.” They believed that “[t]he proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things,” according to The 5000 Year Leap, a publication of the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Despite the intent of the Founders, those in government have been perpetuating the Ponzi scheme of transferring wealth from the productive class to everyone else. That the scheme is unsustainable is evidenced by the collapse of the modern European welfare state.

January 29, 2011 , 3:28PM Posted by | American History, Barack Obama, Class Warfare, Communism, Conservatism, Economy, Founding Fathers, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on The Founding Fathers were Against Redistribution of Wealth

Fairness is About Opportunity, not About Results

There is a good discussion going on in the comments of this post over at This Ain’t Hell regarding economic policy and tax cuts: The Waddler fears GOP “gangsters”

It is a rarity when I actually can articulate my thoughts well enough to (1) make sense and (2) have others understand them. So I decided to make my comment contribution there into a post here. But do click over to This Ain’t Hell to read (and join in, if so inclined) the economic discussion there in the comments.

Michael in MI Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I would like to know why some people are bound to succeed despite setbacks, whereas others in a similar situation fold under the pressure, get depressed, get alienated, never recover. Or where the line between assisting and enabling lies, and how you determine that line with different people. Or how you give someone who’s been beaten down the incentive to dust themselves off and get back in the fight. These are not democratic or republican questions. They’re human questions.

The difference in philosophies between the modern liberal and conservative is that liberals want equality of result while conservatives want equality of opportunity. The fallacy of the liberal way of going about government is exactly as you mention here… everyone could have the same opportunity to succeed, but not everyone takes advantage of that opportunity. The result for everyone is not the same.

But that is not the responsibility of government to guarantee the result. It is the responsibility to provide an environment that everyone has the opportunity. There is a reason people from all over the world have seen the United States as the “land of opportunity” and not the “land of guaranteed result of living off welfare” (though they might be feeling that way now).

The fact is that it is not the responsbility of government to provide everything for the people. The government should do just enough to provide everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. After that, it is the responsibility of the individual to succeed or fail on their own. Some will succeed. Some will fail. It is not the government’s responsibility to guarantee that no one fails. It is the responsibility of the indidividual to take advantage of their opportunities given by this nation to succeed.

Some people will only work minimum wage jobs and will live their lives poor. Some people will go to a trade school and learn a skill that will help them earn a middle class wage and live a middle class lifestyle. Some people will go on to college and do the same. Some people will go on to college and earn an upper middle class wage and live an upper middle class lifestyle. Some people will go on to graduate school and earn an upper class wage and live an upper class lifestyle.

All of those results came from having the same opportunity. But there is no way for the government to guarantee that every person in the nation is able to have the result of going to a great university and ending up earning an upper class wage and living an upper class lifestyle. And just because that does not happen does not mean the system is not “fair”. Fairness is about opportunity, not about results.

What liberals are obsessed over is fairness of results. And there is just no possible way to guarantee that. But that is what socialism and communism try to do. But what they end up doing is making sure everyone is fairly miserable.

The problem with liberals is that the logical result of their policies of socialism and communism is that they encourage people to be lazy and dependent. That’s what happens when “the rich” are taxed for their success and their earnings are given out for free to those who haven’t achieved success, even though they had the same opportunity of everyone else to achieve that success. All that does is encourage people to not achieve… why bother when the see that when you achieve you are punished, but if you do nothing, you will still be given handouts.

The liberal policies are akin to a parent allowing their grown children to live for free at home, instead of encouraging them to move out of the house, get a job and become independent and self-reliant. Why would a grown child (citizen) have the incentive to move out on their own if their parents (government) were providing everything for them for free (welfare and unending unemployment ‘benefits’)?

Something that I have not see asked is concerning the Democrat politicians’ focus on unemployment extensions (and the idiotic claim by Democrats that tax cuts don’t spur the job growth, but unemployment benefits do spur job growth… I believe that was the verbal riTARDation emanating from Nancy Pelosi herself last week). Well, we know that when people are given unending unemployment checks, they don’t have the incentive to go out and look for a job. I wonder if something similar is also happening with regards to the Democrat politicians. I wonder if Democrats don’t feel the incentive to improve the economy and job growth, since they can just pass unemployment benefit extensions and their constituents are appeased for another 6 months to a year. Imagine no more unemployment benefits and tens of millions of Americans demanding a better environment for job growth. I think that would give the Democrats (and everyone else in Congress) plenty of incentive to get their asses moving to improve job growth. Instead, they keep the masses appeased with unemployment benefit extensions and the Democrats go back to not doing a damn thing to improve the economy.

My friend Nathaniel added a great comment:

NathanielPatton Says:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:05 am

Michael, that has got to be the dumbest post I’ve ever read. Trying to say that it’s about opportunity, not results. Have you ever even read Keynes? HAHAHA I’m just pulling your leg man, great post, thanks for letting me know about this debate, I’ve gotten a lot of good laughs off of the basic beat down that’s gone on here. Looks like the battle’s all over, but I’m going to fire a volley anyway just in case.

Joe, I’m assuming that you went to school. Maybe not college, but if you did, I think that your economics professors owe you a refund, but the point is this. At any point in your scholastic life did you get A’s? Maybe upper B’s? Hell, even C’s? I’m going to assume that if you got the upper grades, you probably had to work and study for them. You know, homework, show up for class, do the reading, etc. How would you feel about the following scenario?

Your professor tells the class after the first exam that he’s got an amazing parity. Most of the kids passed with C’s, there were a few B’s and even fewer A’s. He also had some D’s and a few failing E’s. BUT, those results aren’t fair. How is it fair that some kids are going to end up on the Dean’s List while others are failing? So the prof says that he’s going to take points from the A’s and give them to the E’s to boost them to C average, and he’s going to take a few less points from the B’s and give them to the D’s to get them to a C average. NOW the grades are fair, because everyone in the class has a C. There’s nothing wrong with a C, you can pass the class with a C, so what’s the problem? I mean sure, you worked your ass off to get the A, you skipped a party last weekend, you put in several hours a week just on reading for that class alone, but why should you have all of those points while Joey doesn’t have any? Sure, he did go to that party, his book is still in it’s wrapper, and that last time you saw him in class was the 1st week, but how is any of that his fault? We’ve got to have fairness and fairness means an equality of results, not opportunity. Everyone had the opportunity to pass, but not everyone did pass, so we’ve got to fair stuff up a bit.

Ok, it’s at this point that Michael left off, but I’m going to go 1 step further and fast forward a little bit.

Alright, back to our scenario. Prof evened out everyone’s grades. You go home after class and you are PISSED. You worked your ass off for that A, and what’d it get you? Your friend Joey begged you to go to that party with him, he found a girl and said he had one for you too, he hasn’t put in a dimes worth of work, had tons of fun, and got the same grade in the end. Screw it, next time Joey asks you to a party, what are you likely to say? “No, I’ve got to study?” Hell no, you’re going to go to that party, you’re going to read less, skip classes, etc.

Fast forward again now to the next exam, how many people who got A’s on the 1st exam get A’s this time? A quarter maybe, who still have some pride in hard work, or are just really smart, or are socially awkward, or just really enjoy the material? Meanwhile the number of kids with B’s also went down, the number of kids with C’s went down, there are way more D’s and E’s out there. BUT the prof can’t make points up for his grading system, he can only take them from the haves and redistribute them to the have nots. So now, with fewer people at the top(because really, what incentive is there to be at the top when the results are the same?) there are fewer points to give to those down below. Now, instead of everyone averaging a C, the class average is a low D to a failing E.

Do you kind of see the point here Joe? Taking from those that work the hardest (The A’s), and giving to those that don’t work at all (The E’s) so that they can enjoy a middle class like living eventually brings everyone down. Pretty soon, you’ll see those with an A transfer their points/wealth to another classroom that doesn’t have such a redistributive professor, i.e. move their money overseas or hide it in a fund of some sort. The B’s and C’s won’t do this because they either don’t have the knowledge or it’s too expensive for them to transfer, so they end up having to shoulder more of the D’s and E’s burden.

Yes Joe, it’s about people. Now you look that A in the eye and tell him he doesn’t need his A, he can share his points because he doesn’t need them as much as E over there.

Oh, and as for the gov’t providing a “safety net” and us not knowing when best to pull them off of it blah blah blah, no, not at all. That is NOT the job of the gov’t to provide a safety net for anyone. If people like that billionaire liar Warren Buffet are sooooooo concerned, they could be funding private organizations who would make sure through a vested interest that the person was out looking for a job, in earnest, because the rug isn’t going to be under them for long.

December 14, 2010 , 7:45PM Posted by | Communism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on Fairness is About Opportunity, not About Results

The NAZIs Were Statists, Just Like All Leftists (Fascists, Communists, Socialists, ‘Progressives’)

Great comments left in response to this Big Hollywood post: The Wachowski’s ‘Cobalt Neural 9′: Bush Assassination Porn


From the National Socialist Platform:

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

What part of “Socialist” and “Workers'” in “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” are not clear?


“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” —Adolf Hitler

The Nazis were Statists, just like all Leftists. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism: they all represent the same foul objective: the enserfment of man to the Almighty State. Leftism is all about coercion and represents the antithesis of liberty.


What can I say regarding fascism and it being left-wing that BronxZionist hasn’t laid bare? The myth that fascism was right-wing was laid bare BEFORE WWII EVEN ENDED in the book “The Road to Serfdom,” by F.A. Hayek. He wrote the book because, as an Austrian who watched the rise of the Nazis, who fled to the US and then to the UK, and as an economist surrounded by Brits who thought socialism was an “answer” or “cure” to fascism, Hayek thought it important to show that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was, indeed, yet another spawn of Marx. Not only did BZ quote directly from the Nazi platform, but you can find early speeches of various Nazi leaders (pamphlets, to be more accurate) that clearly illustrate that the Nazis thought socialism would work, just not the *internationalism* of the Soviet Marxists. The battles between the Soviets an the Nazis were battles between siblings over the remote control.

Your “it’s a semantic trick” argument is worthless. You see, as someone who believes in absolute Truths, I can take the position that there are actual definitions/meanings in the world and that everything is NOT just a matter of “perspective.” Thus, I have no problem saying that someone who “believes” in the free market is someone who understands the free market. Doing whatever you want with your money is NOT the definition of someone who “believes” in the free market. Otherwise, we could say the same thing about the left-wing enviro-nut who shot up the Discovery Channel offices. Though he openly declared he hated things like the free market in his rambling declarations, some months before he had caused a stir by throwing his money around as he crossed a street in front of the DC’s offices. Hey, he was making a statement with his money!

Clearly, this has nothing to do with the free market, just like making this movie would have nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with their egos.

Media centric culture? Critique? HA!! They’re the ultimate propagandists who use *entertainment* in an attempt to influence the weak-minded and intellectually vapid. And the simple story behind the “Matrix” only makes sense if you understand what THEIR views are. After all, we could say it’s the rebels against left-wing propaganda (since the left-wing controls the media and the educational system) and a libertarian fight against the oppressive control of a bloated government. Or we could say that it is a little more than a homosexual masturbatory fantasy picture starring (of course) Keaneu Reeves and a butched-out “love interest” where the homosexual ideal is a “god” fights against everyone who won’t recognize his sexiness. Or, whatever number of mindless, deconstructionist b.s. exercises you want to engage in. That isn’t the point.

When we understand what the *creators* of that entertaining but overly serious movie believe (ESPECIALLY given the bloated, pseudo-philosophical jabber of the sequels), it becomes easier to come up with views of the movies that are actually likely and not just mental masturbation (deconstructionist blather).

The hipsters? You’re just using circular semantics blah, blah, blah . . . Again, you’re assuming absolutes (that there is some standard that individuals can be held to in determining whether or not their criticisms of a subculture are legitimate) that just begs the question – why are *those* standards the ones we should use? How ’bout a little common sense? How ’bout this: self-involved is self-involved, and it happens in every generation and in every subculture, some more than others. When a subculture defines *itself* through its own sense of self-importance, then I think there is more than enough reason to laugh at it.

And, sometimes, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out a subculture is just plain stupid, even if it does produce some cool stuff here and there.

the sinner,


Also, these commenters ask good questions:


Seriously: what is it with the Left and the impulse to violence? Why do they find it pleasurable to imagine those they disagree with being silenced brutally and permanently? Or for that matter, trying it in real life, as Kenneth Gladney and others have learned to their cost?


And what’s with liberals and all their murder fantasies lately? Machete, the 10:10 “No Pressure” video, and now this. They have all the political power right now, yet they’re still so angry that we’re not all marching in lockstep with them that they’re making movie after movie in which they get to murder anyone who disagrees with them.

Guess what liberals, if you have the White House and both houses of Congress, and things still aren’t working out for you, then you’ve got no one to blame but yourselves.

RELATED: Actually, It is Blatantly Obvious that Hitler was a Leftist

October 4, 2010 , 3:50PM Posted by | Communism, Democrats, Fascism, Hitler, Liberalism, Socialism | 1 Comment