Friday, July 14, 2017

How to Save New Orleans

A Call for Action

I'm aware of the mystique that surrounds New Orleans. Born there in 1962, lived there thirty years.

And I'm also aware that this mystique is mostly of my own making. In my mind, New Orleans is intrigue, adventure, culture, history, romance, and she's stunningly beautiful, as well. What's more, there's the joie de vivre and laissez les bon temps roulez, y'all!, a spirit of good times eating red beans and rice (and what not). But here's the thing: we all make up this mystique about New Orleans, I am by no means unique here. Many visitors to this town wind up moving to the city on the broad banks of the wide, muddy Mississippi. They see the mystique, the absolute joy it is to "have a drink, and walk around", the ubiquitous street performers, the excellent food, the European feel of the buildings, landscapes and history, the street names (Tchoupitoulas, Nashville, Esplanade, Elysian Fields, St. Claude, to name only a few), the friendly locals, the neighborhoods, the traditions and frequent holidays.

In short, New Orleans is a very special place, a place to enjoy life, raise children, and live life to the fullest. Our zoo and aquarium are run by the Audubon Institute. The surrounding countryside makes for excellent outdoor activies, especially hunting and fishing. City Park, one of the largest urban parks in the world, is a jewel. "Wux, daddy, wux!", the smell of hot dogs and popcorn, the Delgado Art Museum, landscaping so beautiful in a lush, sub-tropical garden. Love City Park, especially at Christmastime...

For all the above reasons, what is happening in New Orleans is tragic, sad, and infuriating. Widespread poverty, and an alarmingly high crime rate. These things lessen New Orleans in many ways. People stop coming to visit; locals leave. 


We need to do something, now, this very day. I have a suggestion.

New Orleans hasn't had a Republican mayor in well over a hundred years. For multiple generations, New Orleans has been run by Democrats. I ask you to review city history, and to ask yourself if they've done a good job. I ask you to vote for candidates who respect the culture and traditions of New Orleanians, promote success and prosperity for all, by removing the bureaucratic obstacles to market entry. This candidate will not be corrupted, and thinks New Orleans is great. To a large, significant effect, specific liberal policies have caused the problems, or exacerbated them.

If you can run for Mayor, city council, police jury, etc, you should, and run a good campaign. New Orleans needs a huge dose of conservatism/libertarianism in her politics.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Elitism of Certainty

Someone once told me that my views on leftism versus rightism made him think I believed that leftism is inferior to rightism. I do. I am absolutely certain that this is the case. Moral relativists do not believe anyone is either right or wrong when it comes to matters of morality, so when they encounter moral certainty like this, they assume it's either psychopathological, arrogant, or else, silly. This was the case with my critic, because after he made the observation about my moral certainty, he proceeded to inform me how exclusive and elitist he thought I was because of it.

When anyone claims to be certain about something, that does not necessarily make them an elitist, and I don't suppose this is what prompted my friend to lay his claim of elitism on me. But yet, when I say "leftism is evil", I am certain that this is true. Therefore, rightism is superior to it. Certainty is the result of a careful, deliberate, logical, rational thought process. I am right about this, not because I say so, but because I can prove it with logic and reason.

So, let me define my terms:

"rightism": one of many words used to describe a system of thought based on reason, rational, non-emotional thinking, and a complete embrace of objective reality.

"leftism": one of many words used to describe a system of thought based on emotions, fuzzy logic, and narcissistic self-interest.


Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Garbage - Stupid Girl Live at Letterman 1996

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Social Justice: A Null Term

Here is the Google dictionary's definition of social justice:

...Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.

"Individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"

"Individuality gives way to the struggle for  social justice?". Excuse me, comrade? Then who benefits?

Whose struggle? Whose justice? Why should individuality give way?

Communists do not like to be specific when engaging in rhetoric or polemics. They prefer to intimidate you into becoming a true believer. That is the case with the null term "social justice", null, because it means nothing specific, relative to justice (in fact, it has nothing to do with justice at all). It carries a certain amount of clout, however. Everyone on the Left gives it lip service; it seems to be a noble goal, and besides, to argue against it would be like arguing against world peace, or puppies and kittens. There are problems here with specificity: who belongs to society? Answer: no one individual, and everyone in general (except yourself). If social justice pertained to individuals, then we all could lay a claim, based on justice, to a mansion in Bel Air. Or perhaps we could just lie around all day, smoking weed, and demand a house, electricity, food, clothing, and free Internet-in the name of "social" justice. What is just, who decides, and who passes out the goodies? And again, who is society? Everyone, except individuals? No, the collectivist answer is: the sum total of all the useful idiots, brainwashed automatons, and imprisoned captives who all believe, or pretend to believe, in the State as the benefactor of mankind.

Monday, June 27, 2016

On Inclusion and Social Justice

Inclusion? Social justice? What do these Leftist values mean, actually? Can I get a definition, please? I'm just wondering what a Leftist would say if I asked him for a definition.

Inclusion is, as far as I can tell,  the principle that no one, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or for whatever reason, should be excluded from... what? government programs? private businesses? an individual's free choice of association? I would imagine a Leftist would say "no one should be excluded from educational, economic, or social opportunities, because of who they are." Excluded, by whom? Everyone, but the elites? (there goes freedom of personal choice). And when a Leftist claims he wants to be inclusive, does that include Christians, who believe that Muslim radicals should definitely be excluded from civil society? Christians, who believe that homosexuals should be excluded from the institution of marriage? Conservatives, who believe tyranny should be excluded from the government? Or how about someone who simply disagrees with the Leftist agenda?

No, when it comes to disagreement with them, Leftists are amongst the most exclusive people in the world. Especially if you're a Christian. And tell me something, just exactly when did "inclusivity" become such a sacred principle? Also tell me, if someone doesn't want person type x into his business, the principle of inclusivity says he doesn't have that right, even if he is the owner of that business?

"Social justice" is another amorphous, vague, and  ultimately meaningless principal. Ask any liberal what it means, and you'll get a mishmash of Leftist bromides for an answer. Near as I can tell, it refers to the principal that no one should want for the basic necessities of life (as defined by lefties), which means: lefties want to take your shit and give it to a poor person. If no one should want for life's basic necessities, who then will give it to them, if they are needing it? What if some people would rather keep their shit for themselves? It's the Gulag for those selfish bastards, comrade. Or the firing squad.

Social justice destroys property rights; inclusion destroys property rights. To Hell with that, and with the lunatics who believe their fucking concern for the poor makes them morally superior, and entitles them to forcibly take the property of one man, and give it to another. Or to force their values on others.