Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100601 0331

You have to focus on the important things in life, and need to know when to let things aside for a time. We’ll be back in about a year. In the meantime, enjoy the ride:

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100524 0500

From the National Propaganda Radio website: The Nation: Sexism Creeps Up Again For Kagan

I don’t know, “normatively gendered” identity is still a part of sexism, case in point:

Just remember when folks on the American left imply that they are the party devoid of sexism, it aint’ quite so.

The article mostly talks about “unfair” perceptions of Kagan’s “unwomanliness”:

Then again, it could have something to do with this:

Frankly I think the issue was more substantive in Palin’s case but it’s for Kagan that “sexism creeps up again”. In Sara Palin’s case, the attacks were directly against her competence despite having served as a governor. The attacks were regularly based on her status as a woman, including production of a pornography movie with a Palin look-a-like. In Kagan’s case, I doubt it is her success that leads people to consider her unwomanly, but her tendency to neglect the trappings of feminine appearance coupled with a rather unfortunate natural masculine/neutral appearance. Kagan’s gender identity and “fashion” should not be considered in questions of competence. One should not be surprised however when women and men notice and comment that she does not exhibit the majority expression of femininity, and dresses more typically like a man generally does. I think many women would resent the notion that women have to look or dress like a man or even some ambiguous neutral gender to be successful, that they must give up their gender identity and take on the appearance of another. Indeed Sarah Palin maintained her appearance as a woman and refused to adopt the “manly” dress of colleages. Who is more courageous? Sarah Palin for being strong in her own identity despite the sexist attacks, or women who hide from sexism in the clothes of men? Palin more strongly illustrates that a woman perceived as “beautiful” still faces challenges in professional and political arenas, and faces risk when challenging established gender roles.

Perhaps one day the author and friends will be successful at convincing people there’s no such thing as “womanly”, but I doubt it will happen naturally. It will probably take years of the proper “Education” to dull children into no longer perceiving bourgeois things like like “beauty”.

As a tangent, teaching children not to see beauty topic is well addressed in the book by C. S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man. I highly recommend it.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100501 1114

And today is May day, once a pagan festival of the end of winter, now the international day to celebrate enslavement of the workers by socialism. On of the big icons of of this international “coming out” day for global socialism and especially relevant to this year’s angst over a state actually interested in Rule of Law vis a vis enforcement of immigration law, is the ever fashionable Che Guevara.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for pulling this image from a socialist website advertising for May Day 2010. There we see Che on some nice Red (this is why I refuse to accept identification of Republican with Red) flags.

and of course the ever popular and very unambiguous:

Keep it short and sweet, many people wave this guy around without generally having any idea what kind of man he was, but for those who do know, consider what kind of people are fans of a man who said things like:

It’s really not funny how elements of the progressive movement live in fear of people who want a constitutionally limited and fiscally responsible government, but celebrate real terrorists and blood thirsty murderers like Che.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100314 1207

From the Library

From: The Course of American Democratic Thought, by Ralph Henry Gabriel published 1956, in the chapter on William Graham Sumner:

Apparently things haven’t changed much. The State is comprised largely of persons of great wealth Republican or Democrat) who struggle constantly for a spot to drink from the hose of wealth and power. It can be said of the legislative and executive branches during the Clinton administration, the Bush administration and the Obama administration, indeed it has been the story for much of the 20th century. While I have some disagreements in some of Sumner’s philosophies, he rightly points out that the larger the scope of the State, the higher the stakes and the fiercer the competition. Also the greater the consequences to the people as factions strip actual power and choice from the people and wield it “in their name” for things they may not agree with. We also see particularly with this administration an effort to buy the support of those who “fare ill in the struggle for” not mere survival but some concept of a dignified lifestyle including a car, a house etc.

Case in point:

Sumner also has I believe a key insight in argument toward the Liberation Theology and Social Gospel messages common to the religious institutions Barack Obama has affiliated himself with prior to his presidency. Where Obama complains that the constitution “Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”:

This I believe is the crux of the real debate between conservatism and “progressivism” today that has yet to be well communicated on the national stage. It is the necessity to uphold the sanctity of private charity, and resist the evils of state theft of the people’s charity for redistribution for the enrichment and empowerment of whatever persons hold the wheel of the state on a given day.

Why then do we not hear clear calls for prohibition on confiscation of charity for distribution, not by the people, but by those in power “on the people’s behalf”?

Is there any major political or media voice that would benefit from such a change? No one will speak against it so long as there is a chance they too can drink from the hose fed by the redistributive engine.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100211 0743

Marvel Comics portrays Captain America and sidekick as an Ignorant and Racist

I present to you the new american hero of the 21st century: Captain MSNBC

A reactionary super hero tirelessly defending America’s youth against notions that the nation’s founders supported a limited government and opposed socialistic schemes of wealth redistribution and government ownership of the people and their industry.

In the same way the identity of a black man who brought a rifle to a political rally in 2008 was concealed and used to portray “angry whities” by MSNBC, so too is now Captain America in the service of the same propaganda engine. They portray him as being ignorant of a major political force calling for fiscal responsibility and opposition to increased claims on the labor of the people by a government whose spending is out of control. It’s just some “anti-tax” thing, who cares about liberty from excessive taxes and public endebtedness. And his partner, now in the service of the new ideology, wastes no time to paint the entire movement as racist, so much for justice.

There was a time when Captain America fought against socialism in both the expressions of Nazism and Communism. Apparently the socialists have won, because now our children read their propaganda in the comics. Heroes embody ideals, like the founding ideals of this nation for example, and it’s sad to see them die and be reborn as tools of anti-liberty, anti-justice.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100129 0550

In addition to cutting spending increases in many areas of government, Obama is also proposing cutting NASA moon missions etc.

Now I know this sounds like a tragedy, and admitting American has fallen from it’s once great space capability is painful. Let me remind you that no human has left orbit since before I was born, we’ve been on a decline for a long time. We can go to the Smithsonian and look at all the fantastic capability we had more than 30 years ago. As for the modern capability? I think they had a closet with some red dust in it and a model of a mars rover tucked behind the new Star Wars exhibit. Pathetic. Frankly I was embarrassed when I visited it.

Many folks react to the thought of cuts in NASA as anti-science and anti-humanity. The thing for the conservative to keep in mind is that the federal program functioned much like a nationalized space industry, crowding out independent competition. If we can truly nurture private space venture and allow it to pay and bring profit, as well as get government out of the way, it might be to the betterment of all humanity (the protection of profit being critical, see also: http://www.hammerstrike.com/?p=428).

What I find interesting is the parallel with the old Vulcan Proverb “Only Nixon could go to China”. Certainly if a conservative proposed the cuts to NASA and other domestic programs there would be endless screaming about how evilly anti-science, anti-space conservatives are conceived to be. Making the same cuts in domestic programs would be greeted with screams about starving school children and carting the elderly off to gas chambers as was seen under Reagan’s proposed cuts. In the same way that only a stern and renown anti-communist could have visited China in the 70s, only a big spender with proven “progressive” credentials could possibly survive cutbacks in massive domestic spending programs and cutting back of the nationalized space industry.

I can only hope this will be coupled with regulation changes that will pave the way for allowing a somewhat more independent and liberated human approach to space.

Now that would be some “progress”, and change I could believe in.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100127 1044

At his death, I don’t propose to even touch a rebuttal of Howard Zinn’s life work of slanted, biased, hate driven, and willfully myopic contributions toward global hatred of The United States. Suffice to say it is a body of work filled with outrageous and disingenuous critiques of America and Classical Liberalism, promoting a socialistic world view that completely ignores the continuous failures of every application.

Let me give you an example. Zinn’s major hobby is screaming about “(Western) Imperialism”, the act of forcing others around the world to live or work in accordance with American interests. Now it’s well and fair to say it would have been better if western societies had more respect for the cultures they found and would have worked to preserve them while finding mutually beneficial interrelations rather than running roughshod over them as much as occurred. The American Revolution itself was resistance to British attempts to turn Americans from British Citizens with full rights, to a degraded form of colonial serfs, much as occurred in Africa and India, not cool. The problem is when this is painted as a specifically American problem or even Western problem. He turns a blind eye to every eastern power, african power, frankly every power from every corner on earth that does the same thing, even to this day. He chooses never to see that even his own philosophy is also imperialistic.

Is it not imperialism for politically correct liberalism to assert that all peoples in a country adopt a set of politically correct views? Is it not cultural imperialism to mow down and supplant indigenous American cultures with neoliberal ones? Yes. Every time someone says you are a murderer for eating meat, they are foisting their views, morals and values upon you. They seek to conquer your individual cultural distinctiveness and replace it with their own rule.

Now for a bit of levity, let’s review the Lego version of Eddie Izzard’s critique on British Imperialism:

Today, despite Zinn’s passing, a new generation of self loathing anti-American americans, that Howard Zinn’s views have fostered, rally under a new flag.

This flag is the latest expression of a desire and will to subjugate indigenous ideas about Right and Wrong, Morality and Immorality, Virtue and Vice with their own. They replace slavery based upon the color of one’s skin with slavery based on one’s ability to produce. The laughable part is that while they hold great disdain for “Imperialism”, they don’t even recognize that they are every bit as predisposed to it as the people Howard Zinn has taught them to hate. They even teach that Hate is evil yet are predisposed to it and can not see. It’s a sad state of human affairs, but it is an fundamental part of humanity’s natural character.

I only pray that the modern descendant of this flag and the ideals of the men and women who forged it is the one that prevails:

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100126 1051

If there’s anything I dislike it’s nonsensical propaganda. So it started with the image on the left, a good simple statement. Then someone less sophisticated came up with the image on the right.

The image on the right makes no sense really, capitalism has nothing to do with holding people at gunpoint, rather it’s a free will exchange of labor for value. Then again some think the fact that food has to be grown or chased down is evil and it should just magically appear in front of them or they feel like they are enslaved. I can only assume that represents the author of the 2nd image.

So fine, how about this for a more more detailed description of the real issue, free will charity vs “compulsory charity”?

That I think says it all, and better.

Comments (0)

By Hammer, 20100114 0436

…it’s how you use it.

There has been ongoing discussion that the GOP needs to embrace a “Big Tent” approach which generally amounts to adopting major platforms of the Democrat Party such as Federal recognition of non-traditional / alternative domestic arrangements, largely unchecked mass immigration without any reguard for assimilation, abandonment of the notion that living human individuals have intrinsic rights (i.e. not from the generosity of The State) that should be considered even before birth, acceptance of bans on arbitrary groupings of firearms, buying into the global climate hoax, abandonment of fiscal restraint and small government, and so on.

(There’s more to these issues than is allowed in popular debate or 30 second sound bytes)

How’s that working out?

Poll: Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot

Larrey Anderson at American Thinker has:
Some Advice for the Republican National Committee

The republicans had some success with their “contract with America” until they utterly failed to deliver. Likewise the Bush presidency completely dispelled rumors that the Republican party represented limited government and fiscal responsibility. Those two items might be a place to start.

And don’t get me wrong on these issues: