A model to the rest of the nation and the world

Latest

When giving thanks this year, think of this

Recently I learned a fact about the Pilgrims that settled in Plymouth that I wasn’t taught in my history classes.  Given the Progressive bent in education and the tendency of revising history for political purposes, I’m not entirely surprised.

Now, we know that the Pilgrims came to seek religious freedom.  They were puritans who wanted to be free to practice their religion the way then saw fit.  This much we know.  However, the one fact that doesn’t seem to be in the history books and all the stories is that the Pilgrims intended, and did for 2 years, for Plymouth to be a Collectivist Utopia based on the Communism of Plato’s Republic.  They wanted to take care of everyone on the colony so everyone worked and shared the fruit of their labors.  Nobody had private property and everyone got an equal share of the work and food.  What happened as a result of following this may be a reason why this has been excluded from history textbooks across the nation.

Now, the Governor of the colony, William Bradford, wrote down in his journal what the result was.

As Governor Bradford of the Plymouth Colony explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):

“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it.”

It’s not surprising to me that there was resentment.  What’s interesting is that they did give the system a fighting chance, to the point that they had to make drastic changes or die of starvation:

Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.

As Governor Bradford put it:

“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . . This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

They switched to private property and individual responsibility.  Each family was responsible for their own.  As a result, they produced more as individual units.  So much so that they were able to trade surplus with others.   Communism failed and Freedom prevailed.

The last quote that I want to provide is this.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

The last of my thoughts is this.  When the LDS church headed west to avoid persecution and settled in the Great Salt Lake valley they did the same thing.  They gave each family a portion of the land to till and farm as their own.  For those not familiar with LDS church history, the members of the church prevailed and grew into a very industrious people.  Many visitors were surprised at how beautiful they had made the valley.  The state symbol is the Beehive, which symbolizes industry.

Read the full article from Richard Ebeling, he does a great job at describing what is going on.

What are you being conditioned to believe “code words” are being used for?

Here’s the latest installment of true “Unfit for the Internet”.

There’s been some articles floating around which are just range from lazy to asinine. The sad thing is, there are some folks who actually believe this. Which is why these articles are boarder on insidious.

Apparently, while claiming the term “cracker” is a “term of endearment”, there’s a few “code words” that when used really are racially charged words to describe something, anything, that might be related to a Black person or persons. Of course, the only people who are really using them in a way to be racist are only Republicans or Conservatives. Joe Biden can use the words and not be racist, cause he’s rich white Democrat who just wants the Blacks to do his bidding.

Curious what these words are?

  1. Thug
  2. Urban/Inner City
  3. Welfare and Food Stamps
  4. Law and Order
  5. Cut Taxes

“OMG, I’m like, horrified that people still use these words!” Although some of these are terms, not words, we’ll let that slide. While I could just go on and on about these words, I’m going to quote from a reply to the article because it’s pretty good. Go to the article and look for Harry Merkin’s response at the bottom of the page.

1) THUG http://misterroosevelt.blogspot.com/2008/06/suprising-origins-of-word-thug.html.
All this time I never knew black people were actually from India.

2) URBAN http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/urban.
Do any of you people KNOW what a dictionary is?

3) STATE’S RIGHTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States’_rights.
In American political discourse, states’ rights refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment.

4) LAW AND ORDER I don’t even NEED to give proof of how asinine THIS ONE is. You don’t think white people commit crimes? Jeffery Dahmer used to EAT black people. Casey Anthony killed her child. Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin….I could go on. Jesus, do you think every criminal is black? Guess that makes the TV show LAW and ORDER the most racist shit being broadcast today.

5) CUT TAXES This word is racist? Hard working Americans don’t like paying taxes. People too lazy to get off their asses and work and expect others to pay their way, don’t worry about a higher tax bracket.

Some of the other responses are entertaining of course. One even suggests that the writing is using an Andy Kauffman tactic. Act like an idiot so people think you are an idiot.

Now, we all laugh at this and think that they aren’t serious, or that nobody could possibly be that gullible. Surely this is new. But it’s not. I found these words grouped together in this same claim in what may be the originating article. Of course the original article is targeting Senator Paul Ryan and his racist terms in a speech he gave. The list in this article has 8 words, 5 of which got carried over to the article above. The 3 dropped words are “forced busing”, “shariah law” and “illegal alien”. The last two are just as stupid, but extra because the connotations have nothing to do with race, that is unless you are going to be disingenuous.

“Shariah Law” obviously is religious word, one of the Muslim faith. If anything, it’s a religious word not racist. Because a large portion of the worlds population is Muslim, and that spans many races, how can its usage be racist? If anyone knows anything about Islam is that it’s one of the largest religions in the world which spans across the globe. Which means that it covers all races. So, which race is using that term racist against?

Ironically, by mentioning President Bush and the Iraq war the author is doing the exact same thing that she is claiming Ryan is doing with using the term “forced busing”. She “simply dropped in the phrase[s] to trigger resentment and gain supporters.” Again. it looks like the author is being disingenuous.

“illegal alien” is another term that is often misrepresented by Socialists, Progressives, and Liberals. It is in fact a technical term that is used in government documentation. While these people make these assertions about things they know nothing about, those of us who have actually gone through the immigration system and deal with it often understand that this term is in no way racist. The simple proof is asking the author which race she thinks this is pointed against. It’s obvious that she’s talking about Mexico. Of course, Mexico is a country, not a race. Then there’s the claim that it’s against Latinos. But again, anyone who knows anything about our immigration system know s that one of the biggest problem we have is people overstaying their visas. These offenders are also “illegal aliens”. And which race is that? Well, just about from every country in the world.

The thing that is interesting in this whole thing is that if the use of these words were really so truly racist and an actual problem the articles wouldn’t be pointing to only 1 group of individuals, the Republicans. It would be pointed to all people. It’s my assertion that these articles point to people doing just what they claim the Republicans are doing. They are trying to set up “code words” for common themes used by Republicans so that when Republicans use them people just push them off as Racist and the condemnation begins.

These types of articles are truly “unfit for the internet”.

Is he just being a contrarian or is there something to what he’s saying?

Gary Oldman was recently interviewed by Playboy and had some responses that will catch the ear of a few people.  Since its Playboy, I won’t be linking to their site but I am looking for an alternative link.  However, Independent Journal Review has sections of the interview available for reading without scantily clad women leering in the background.  Needless to say, some of his responses somewhat NSFW, or at least read at home away from kids.

Looks like he and I share similar feelings about “Political Correctness”:

“I just think political correctness is crap. That’s what I think about it. I think it’s like, take a f***ing joke. Get over it. … I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all f***ing hypocrites. That’s what I think about it.”

And the intellectual dishonesty when it comes to calling out racism:

“It’s our culture now, absolutely. At the Oscars, if you didn’t vote for 12 Years a Slave, you were a racist. You have to be very careful about what you say. I do have particular views and opinions that most of this town doesn’t share, but it’s not like I’m a fascist or a racist. There’s nothing like that in my history.”

Lot’s of people fee the same way as Gary when it comes the the hypocrisy of Liberal Media:

“Well, if I called Nancy Pelosi a c**t—and I’ll go one better, a f***ing useless c**t—I can’t really say that. But Bill Maher and Jon Stewart can, and nobody’s going to stop them from working because of it.”

One thing that is pointed out that has people hemming and hawing is the fact that despite his amazing body of work, he has only a single Academy Awards nomination.  Obviously with some of the things he’s said there will be a few roles he’ll not be invited to read for.  However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t support people like him.

And if you really need an answer the title of this post poses, yes, there is something to what he is saying.

Learning how to be offensive

Certain factions of the government (the “politically correct police” faction) is trying to force the American Football team, the Washington D. C. Redskins, to change their name.  Why?  Well, the term “Redskin” is apparently racist, or at the very least derogatory or offensive.  Before we really even entertain such nonsense there’s one question we need to ask: Where’s proof of the word being used in a derogatory manner within the last 10-15 years?

Do a search with Bing or Google for the word redskin and exclude “Washington”, “football”, “sports”, and “team” and see what you get.  Mostly definitions, some medical sites with pages on the skin condition, a movie, a used car lot website, and lot’s of sites saying that it’s offensive.  But after 10 pages of search results in both, I couldn’t find a single example of intentional derogatory usage.  If that’s not enough, feel free to go over to the News searches and see what’s there.  Just more people telling you that the word is offensive, but no actual offensive use.

Because how the word is used can change the definition of the word, the question of recent usage is an important question.  Take, for example the words “Gay” and “Queer”.  Try to use the words “Gay” or “Queer” as their original definitions and see how many confused or concerned looks you produce.  Most children will directly associate the word to the football team and will need to be educated as to what the word once was used as to show them that it could be used in an offensive way.  That to me shows that we are moving beyond using “Redskin” as a derogatory word.  As a simple, but effective test, I asked my High School aged daughter about the team Washington D. C. Redskins, and if she found that offensive or derogatory.  She just said it’s the same as the Yankees and couldn’t figure out why it was offensive or derogatory.  It goes to show, you have to be taught how to use it in an offensive or derogatory way in order to know it can be used that way.  In other words, those who are so worried about you being offensive teach you how to use certain words in an offensive or derogatory way.

This brings me to something I discovered in High School.  Being a typical adolescent who tries to be clever, my best friend and I began to use the word “friend” in a new way.  We were pretty consistent in that use of the word, which meant the completely opposite of the word.  Yes, we weren’t very nice at times.  Pretty soon, you did not want to be called “friend” by a certain group of people.  We realized just exactly what we had done, we took a good word and turned it into a bad one.  It was easy.  Does that mean that nobody should use the word “friend”?  No.

I don’t really think that the use of the word as it generally is today is offensive or derogatory.  I haven’t been able to find a recent example of it being used that way.  I feel that using the word in a positive way  In any case, someone will need to tell the Red Mesa High School that they will need to change their name as well.  I’m sure that the Navajo High School would be happy to be renamed the Vikings or something less offensive.

Oh, and please, if you are referring to the “Washington” on the East Coast, please remember that it’s “Washington D. C.” so you don’t confuse that group of malcontents with the State of Washington and our group of malcontents.  D. C. is slightly more corrupt.

Don’t put that in your mind, you don’t know where it’s been!

I have no delusions that I’m a good writer, or that I make really good points.  Most of what you read here is just stuff that I try to get off of my chest.  But lately I’ve been running into really, really stupid articles.  (what, stupid stuff on the interwebs?).  I’ve decided that since I’m calling this heap of junk that I put out on the internet “Unfit for the Internet”, I might as well start point out what I see as articles and other internet stuffs that is, well Unfit for the Internet.

The first item that I bring to you is an article from the extreme leftist website “PolicyMic” written by one Eileen Shim, which highlights one of the cool things about Japanese culture, honor.  But first, a little hatred and over the top generalization to get things started…

The article starts off in a bad way…

The news: When American fans win a major sporting event, they often like to celebrate by turning over cars and burning everything in sight. When Japanese teams lose, it turns out that fans commiserate by cleaning the stadium.

That’s right, every stinking sports fan in the grand ol US of A is exactly like those LA Laker fans who took the opportunity to engage in a little civil disobedience.  Shim’s talking to you golf fans!

Now that a proper villain has been established, in comes to good guy…

On Saturday, Japan lost its first World Cup match with the Ivory Coast by 2-1. While that could have been a demoralizing start for most sports enthusiasts, a bunch of Japanese fans who attended the event at Arena Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil decided to respond with an unbelievably classy move: cleaning up the stadium.

This is an awesome thing.  No doubt about it.  And I’m not picking on Shim for pointing this out, she’s right to do so.  It’s what she does next that gives this article a “Unfit for the Internet” stamp of disgrace.

In true fashion, she begins to deluge us with image upon image of just how awful America really is.  I mean, surely every person who enjoys sports is exactly like the LA Laker fans or College Frat boys who’s celebrations include turning over cars and setting them on fire.  No other country in the world has fans like those horrible Americans.  I mean, look at these Seahawk fans celebrating wildly when their team won the Superbowl.  That’s one group of fans living on the edge I tell you.

So, file this one under Unfit for the Internet.

Hashtag Diplomacy has no place in the White House

Sometimes, the Obama’s act as if they are still candidates for the Whitehouse, despite 6 years in the office as the President of the United States.  One of those moments happened recently.  I recently talked about Boko Haram, the slime ball terrorist who took over 250 school girls to sell on the sex black market because “Western Education” is evil, or so he thinks.  The First Lady had a picture of her with the hash tag #BringBackOurGirls on a piece of paper she was holding.  Lot’s of people praised Michelle for this act, and of course lot’s of people criticized it.  Just search for “Hashtag Diplomacy” and you’ll see what I mean.

Using social media is a great way to bring attention to issues to public attention or for public shaming.  If the general public doesn’t know about something, getting famous people to throw a hashtag out there so that people start using it is a great way to show the leaders of the country that it’s a topic that people care about.  Of course, the leaders typically will jump on the bandwagon and do nothing about it (case in point, President Obama and the coddling of the “99 percenters”).  It’s typically a tactic that you use to try to pressure someone to do something either by giving the perception of large numbers or shame.

Let’s make sure that we understand what’s going on here.  School girls, in a third world country are kidnapped by a terrorist group who’s name can loosely be translated as “western education is sinful”.  Given that, there is obviously an aversion there to anything western.  Maybe I’m grasping at straws here, but my guess that would include things like oh twitter, or facebook, or the internet.  So, when Michelle Obama and others use Hashtags to try to shame this group into letting the girls go, maybe they don’t care.  That’s assuming that they even get word on the fact that people are using hashtags against them.

So, what does it mean when the wife of the person who sits in what is supposed to be the most powerful position in the world uses a hashtag?  Well, it might as well have read something like this…

#ineffectual

Hashtag Diplomacy in the Whitehouse

What is sad about Michelle Obama using a Hashtag is that it directly points to the failure of her husband’s Foreign Policy.  Sure, it was Hillary who refused to put this group on the terror list, but she’s an employee of President Obama who has the ultimate responsibility.  But with the great orator giving speech after speech after speech, we’re kind of tired of hearing him talk (and wow, does that guy like to hear himself speak).  Now, to be completely fair, President Obama has reportedly sent US Military officials to Nigeria to help out, which I hope means some serious justice for the girls and we can find them quickly.

Hillary Clinton is “on the wrong side of history” about Boko Haram

Quite literally, Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of history when it comes to Boko Haram.  When she was the head of the State Department, she fought against labeling the now infamous Boko Haram a terrorist group.  The reason?  It would give them “creds”.

Designating them as official terrorists, the petition says, “would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets.”

Just where does this line of thinking come from?  Well, MoveOn.org of course.  Breitbart has an article on this, plus a link to the well written original Daily Beast article and others.

File this as another example of why Hillary is unqualified to be the President, let alone run for the office.