Tuesday, October 23, 2007

I See Dead People

"Mrs. Clinton is the tea bag that brings the boiling water with her. It's always high drama with her, always a cauldron--secret Web sites put up by unnamed operatives smearing Barack Obama in the tones of Tokyo Rose, Chinese businessmen having breakdowns on trains after the campaign cash is traced back, secret deals. It's always flying monkeys. One always wants to ask: Why? What is this?"

- Peggy Noonan, the very-perceptive columnist for the Wall Street Journal

"Flying monkeys". Nice choice of words for the Clinton many consider The Wicked Witch of the West, no?

Speaking of seeing weird things around presidential candidates, according to recent reports on a new Shirley MacLaine book, Dennis Kucinich (above) saw a U.F.O. while at MacLaine's house. (Hardly surprising for the likes of him, seeing how he's always making such a big deal of his goofily-bad poetry writing, and the insistence he's so "different".) So - if I've got this right - Kucinich sees U.F.O.s, and Hillary Clinton talks to the dead, amongst other things. And both are, still, considered presidential enough to be regularly invited to debates. Oh-K.

I'm just asking but, has anybody noticed, this kind of stuff doesn't pop up on the radar of the other presidential candidates? I mean, sure, they say John Edwards was boinking a New Ager, but nobody ever said he was one - not even me - since I'm only trying to tell you about confirmed fruitcakes. What's up with that?

As far as I know, comparatively few Republican candidates have been found to be part of the New Age - except for, maybe, unknowingly taking cult money. Any quick look around the blog will show I've had reason to talk, almost exclusively, about Democrats in the pocket of one group of cultists or another. Not because I hate Dems but (surprise!) that's who is, almost exclusively, into cults and cultish thinking. Maybe Republicans are just too tied to the concept of "individual freedom" to let any kind of guru lead them around by the nose for too long?

Hillary, especially, has a long list of New Age stuff in her history while claiming she's merely a Methodist Christian (Notice that none of these so-called "brave" folks can handle being an atheist?) but did you know Arianna Huffington (above, of the politically influential Left-wing Huffington Post blog) is also a follower - of the cult leader John-Roger? I didn't, until the stuff about the Daily Kos and astrology came out, which gave me a reason to start rooting around in the "netroots" phenomena.

Really: So much of the in-house anti-America rhetoric is coming from cult sources, it's truly amazing - makes one wonder what else they're lying about, doesn't it? It does for me because, seriously, I can't seem to find any escape from it.

Bruce Springsteen once said (speaking of this time of war:) “what’s true can be made to seem like a lie, and what’s lying can be made to seem true.” But, really, who's doing the lying? The Right or the Left?

These days, in what Frank Furedi calls The Age of Unreason, I see tons of opinions being treated as facts by the Left, and just as many facts being disregarded as opinions merely because they come from the Right. Seriously, forget about the war for a moment, and ask yourself how much you really know about some other things the Left is pushing on us - things that you can actually nail down - that you can check for yourself? How much of it is true, and right, and really "good"?

Like, is recycling (something which everyone I know insists on) really "good for the environment"? Not according to the facts. Penn and Teller's Bullshit! even won an Emmy for showing "the reality behind recycling, a supposedly pro-environment activity that in actuality creates pollution, has to be subsidized by the government because it's cost ineffective, and is completely unnecessary."

Now, if the Left can be that far-off about good ol' recycling, as they're going out of their way to accomplish it (and fascistically demanding others follow suit) how right, or wrong, might they be about what's going on half-way around the world with our boys lives and, possibly, the fate of our nation on the line?

Admit it: Any of these serial protesters can be that exact same distance from the truth and never know it. And, all the while, screaming their heads off that the president of the United States is actually leading a nation of murderers, when it's they who may be destroying the best chance for peace and prosperity someone else may ever have, leaving only dead bodies in their wake.

I swear, once this shit is cleared up - and it will be - this blog is gonna be worth big bucks one day,...


  1. What any group would need to do to be a real threat would be to indoctrinate children and run stealth candidates.

    Then we'd be talking about something worth taking seriously.

  2. Yea - like nobody knows what Christians are up to - sure.

    Meanwhile, homeopaths sell their magic water in "health food" stores, college professors are warning their college campuses about cult infiltration, and an Occultist might be the next Democratic president. I think I'll keep my eye on that while you continue to "discover" what mainstream religion is doing. Here, let me help you:

    Did you know Catholic preists are sleeping with boys?


  3. BTW - Has it ever occured to you that, since the Occult phenomena is a Baby Boomer thing, you've already been indoctrinated to hate Christians?

    Just a thought,...

  4. For a journalistic brief that runs 'discredit recycling', the article does a brilliant job. It's one thing to mount an attack on something that seen to be integral ('gospel') to the Left, quite another for it to be true.

    Truth is a far more slippery concept than our perception of it would allow. But in saying that, I have no intention of using New Age language to argue some abstract notion coated with snake oil.

    No this is real oil I'm talking about. The chief assertions as to why 'recycling is bad or at best misguided' is that it is not cost effective, not really harmful [to the environment], will only take 35 miles of US soil in refill by the year 3000 (for American garbage). Why then are we paying more for oil? The right wing thinking assumes that advancing technology will see concomitant advances in our ability to need less natural resources.

    Perhaps we will see advances in the efficient use of primary resources such that we will barely need to extract more from the earth or from the native forests but if that is the case, why not the possibility that our ability to reuse existing material will become more efficient and the end product will attract more willing buyers.

    I had a good laugh about the claim that New Yorkers are confused about what goes where. Of course if you're the kind of consumer who doesn't care where your packaging comes from or where it ends up, it's going to take education to work out the numbering system on the base of the bottle. But would you give up on quantum physics because you didn't understand linear projection? A proposal to abandon some practice on the grounds that it is confusing to some would cause us to abandon every worthwhile activity since the dawn of civilisation. So leaving aside people who can't understand instructions about putting the size 3 in the carton; is there really only the space consumed by the empty tin can, is the cost of digging the tin out of the ground - and here we're counting cost to surrounding flora and fauna, cost to the soil, cost to the resource 'tin' - really less than using a perfectly good tin can that is otherwise going to be discarded.

    The reason, I imagine, that conservatives have taken to this bizarre notion is rather cultish itself. We shouldn't plan for the future because it's less effort and less expense to do nothing but throw it away when we've used it. The marvellous technology that's meant to develop a fuel out of water, or thin air, throws its hands up at what to do with some damn handy looking stuff.

    And on that point, notice that emphasis on handling real junk and garbage. If you put your glass, paper and metal in the recycle bin then it gets used over and over instead of once. And the handlers deal with something you've cleaned. That's good economics and a legitimate industry.

    Our cardboard king, a billionaire, made his fortune from recycling. Fairly useful I'd say.

    I see no merit in convincing people to be unaware and unconcerned, which is exactly what telling them not to give a shit what grade of metal or plastic that thing they're consuming from is.

    The misfortune of promoting plastic is that it doesn't all end up in landfill (which apparently breaks down at the same rate as paper and cardboard. Come on! Leave four different materials out in the rain and see which breaks down faster. This is sloppy thinking. Oh and note that there's an admission that stuff doesn't break down well in landfill. So your proposition is that we choose the least useful way of disposing of our paper bag?), it ends up being discarded by folk who have been taught to be lazy assholes and just discard stuff when they've finished with it and reports start coming in about ducks being strangled by ring top holders.

    Plastic is made from oil. I was told this by a Bush voter who works for an oil company in Saudi. They're not afeared of alternative energy cos there's so many other uses for oil.
    Ooh maybe the conspiracy theorists were wrong about the Iraq War being about oil (even though our conservative Minister of Defence at the time let slip that it was) because the oil prices haven't done anything like stabilise.
    And what else hasn't? The plentiful supply of oil that's not so plentiful (or involves such conservative ecology plan as digging in previously protected areas), that's what.
    So it is arrant nonsense to suggest that we can continue to go through the whole process of gouging out more instead of recycling the stuff we've already taken. Unless you can guarantee supply (and this includes getting past terrorists who, according to the Guide to the Most Dangerous Countries to Visit, sabotage oil lines) you have literally no business insisting that we rely on it.

    For recycling doesn't - at least not at this stage - supply all needs. What it does is supplement the demand for the product that still requires a number of processes of conversion, and some kind of invasive and disruptive new setup each time a supply source dries up.

    Again you're proposing a plan that requires throwing away what you can't use and digging up or chopping down something that is serving a purpose already in order that, after one use, you can throw in a hole in the ground. Big hole, granted.

  5. Berko, Berko, Berko:

    You know what I see as one of the biggest problems today? The desire to paint others as the enemy - thus making yourself into the enemy we others must fight. The idea that this recycling campaign was started in response to a non-problem (as all NewAge endeavors are: like providing non-medicines for the "worried well" etc.) should give you pause: you're being manipulated, pushed, prodded, goaded, lied to and led - for nothing - by people who, because of their "feelings," clearly possess fascistic tendencies. Doesn't that bother you?

    Also, none of the advances we've enjoyed - advances that have always resulted in us using less resources - came by using less, doing less, pushing for less. The computer industry was made by people "burning the midnight oil": leaving the lights and computers on, drinking Cokes and eating pizza, and over-doing it in every way - not by cutting back on anything. The entire NewAge outlook is the absolute reverse to the concept of true "progress." It screams that it's cynical in regards to anyone's ideals but their own. That's an ugly world-view if there ever was one. It should come as no surprise it's been called The New Dark Ages

    Look (I'm trapped for time) you can question my country's ideals if you want - not a surprising development since your own isn't based on them - but I don't have that luxury, Berk, because it's all I got: we are a country based on nothing but an idea. (Stop reading Reader's Digest and read our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.) That's why people die trying to get here like nowhere else - not money - which you seem to think is all we're about. Freedom is our guiding principle.

    It's the people who think we need "change" who are, either, badly, badly, mistaken or truly corrupt to-the-core.

    Nice to hear from you (as always.)