Category Archives: Social Issues

Capitalism, Libertarianism, Social Issues

Hollywood and Socialism: The ultimate in hypocrisy and ignorance.

January 3, 2013 Gary Nolan 5 Comments

Socialism: an interesting concept. Depending on who you are, your reasons for supporting it may vary.

Let’s start first with the basic concept which is inherently altruistic in nature. The idea that we should all pull together in an ultimate show of social equality—no winners or losers.

The people who have never lived under socialist rule who describe themselves as socialists, or their less extreme quasi-socialists who simply believe equal opportunity should be synonymous with equal result (We’ll call them quocialists), see socialism as a means of helping the less fortunate.

I find Hollywood ironic—they are composed of America’s most outspoken quocialists. However, think back to every movie where the plot line was a government that tried to create a socialistic utopia. 1984 and others all had one common thread: utopias suck and a government that tries to create one is inherently evil. There are hundreds of movies based on this concept, yet the hero is always someone yearning for freedom who leads a rebellion to fight the power. Government is never the benevolent protagonist.

So are Hollywood writers smart, yet actors blissfully ignorant?

Maybe.

If so, actors are either dupes or hypocrites. They take roles that reflect that big government is evil, while promoting it as the answer to everyone’s problems off the silver screen.

So then why do quocialists continue to pound the drum of more government? If you’re ignorant of history, and want to be loved by everyone, you fight to take away the bread crumbs from the rich and assume that will be enough to feed the poor.

The problem with this, is that they’re not taking just the bread crumbs—that’s never enough. They’re trying to take three or more courses of a five-course meal. Plus, they aren’t doing all of the giving, they’re forcing others to do it.

The reason I say they are ignorant is because we have many real-world examples of socialism to learn from. I cannot recall one socialist nation whose people don’t live in squalor. Hollywood writes these movies—even they can’t make it seem awesome. History shows it leads to deplorable economies; yet these folks, mired in ideology so thick they can no longer see through it, promote something that anyone with a modicum of knowledge has seen, never works to the benefit of the people.

So let’s throw out full-blown socialism for the half-hearted version our president routinely proposes; you know, the one where he says he loves business, but conveniently leaves out the “so I can tax them to hell and back” part.

Apparently these folks again are ignoring that no government has ever taxed itself into prosperity, and conversely ignoring that as a country embraces free markets and liberty, it thrives.

Look at Hong Kong vs China as a prime example. As the people of mainland China jump to their death from the Foxconn plant because conditions are so bad; a mere boat ride away, Hong Kong is a massively growing economy where people thrive and prosper making nearly 2-1/2 times as much per capita. Similar culture and people, just communism vs capitalism.

Suicide Prevention Nets at Foxconn factory

Compare the number of people fleeing socialist nations for America versus the number of Americans fleeing to go live in a socialist nation—then try to make your best case for socialism.

The problem is that Hollywood literally lives in a land of make-believe; where if something can be written, through imagination and companies like Industrial Light & Magic, it can be turned into an on-screen reality. When you live with a mantra that anything is possible, you start to believe that anything really is possible; such as making sure no one is left behind. The intentions are good. But much like science-fiction, it’s always lacking in real science that actually works.

Now to look at other paradigms, let’s talk about the people who live under socialist rule.

We know that people living under socialism often are dying to get out. Why do we know this? Because they are literally dying to get out. If you’ve not yet been disarmed, you become a rebel, fight the power, and likely die a martyr. If you have been disarmed; cutting and running is the soup du jour, with dreams of asylum yet nightmares of a watery grave on your mind.
Some are exactly what socialist rulers hope they would be: loyal servants of the state. They’ve been ingrained with the notion that serving your country is the most noble cause imaginable just as we’ve been ingrained that freedom is an unalienable right. If every person were born without a sense of individualism and a desire to want more, this socialism fad might just work. Too bad that’s not in the nature of mankind. Even the most loyal patriot drives 60 mph in a 55 mph zone. We just want to be free!
Many stay and take advantage of the hard work of others. They are beaten down, convinced there’s no reason for hard work (in their world there isn’t), and just do what they can to stay off the radar while working as little as possible and living off of the state.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in being any one of those people.

The last group I want to emphasize the most: socialist leaders. From Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro et al., they all have one thing in common. They expect everyone to pull their “fair share” and work together as a unified state. Name me one socialist leader however who doesn’t own several mansions, diamond encrusted Mercedes Benzes, and servants to wash their family jewels—yes, those jewels.

I’ll believe real-world socialism isn’t evil hypocrisy when I see one socialist leader that lives on the same income as the people they govern.

The quocialists of America continue to assert that income disparity here in America is bad, but in China you have a couple of billionaires thanks to government corruption, then the other 99% who are lucky if they’re making a fifth of what we do here. Maybe American quocialists ought to take notice that while the real socialists build the iPhone and iPad, it’s those of us who live under capitalism that can actually afford to own one.

There are thousands of people in the United States that make far more money than the presidential salary our current POTUS rakes in. but that would rarely be tolerated under socialist rule?

So for Americans, socialism in any form is just a means for them to convince you they want what is best for you. Some are altruistic, but most are doing it to feel good about themselves. For people under socialism, they’re miserable, live in conditions I wouldn’t subject my dog to, or they die on a boat or a revolution dying to escape. Can you cite examples of anyone dying while trying to flee America or any other free country?

For socialist leaders, they have no intention of giving the people anything other than what is needed to convince the people not to revolt—not a penny more. To them, the food provided is merely fuel for the workhorses of their economy. Promises of primary needs are merely done for self-preservation of the socialist ruler, not the benefit of the people. Like Hollywood, they want to be worshiped and loved, but just can’t be bothered to do any actual work to earn that worship and love.

So are socialist leaders evil? All the socialist leaders I know of are.

Are Hollywood quocialists evil? No, They’re just altruistic, but lazy and ignorant.

Are people who live under socialist rule evil? No, they’re victims.

Guns & The 2nd Amendment, Libertarianism, Social Issues

Chicago Murders vs Connecticut Massacre: Typical vs Atypical

December 20, 2012 Gary Nolan Leave a comment

Earlier, I saw a story from Chicago that struck a chord. So again, I want to demonstrate a little skepticism.

I want to stress that the people in the story are acknowledging the tragedy in Connecticut as horrific, and are not trying to downplay it in any way. But they are also correct that we don’t hear nearly as much about violence in Chicago among young black youths as we do when tragedies like the one in Newtown occur in white communities. Why is this happening, and is it racism?

First: are there any mass school shootings in Chicago? I don’t recall, nor did a simple Google search reveal anyone recently murdering a large group of children and teachers in a Chicago school. If it has happened, then I am terribly sorry for not acknowledging the lost—I am truly ignorant of such an occurrence. If I am correct however, then we don’t have an apple to compare to an apple.

I believe that most shootings in Chicago involve a violent youth, often gang related, settling a score with someone. As so often happens when public shootings occur, innocent people are caught in the crossfire, and that often does make the news. However gang-on-gang violence is simply too common to report.

The number of murders in the state of Connecticut for 2011 with a population of 3,580,709 were 128 . Conversely, the murders in the city of Chicago with a population of only 2,707,120 were 433 . If we do some quick math, Connecticut has a ratio of 1:27,974 vs Chicago’s 1:6,252. This means you are approximately 4-1/2 times as likely to get murdered in Chicago as you are in Connecticut. That’s pretty alarming when you consider that there were less deaths in Afghanistan among our troops at 418 in the same year.

So why do I believe these stats are relative to the topic of discussion? There are a number of issues. The shooting in Newtown was a single incident; the second largest school shooting in American history in a state that ranks 37th in murders. Compare that to multiple incidents throughout the year in a city that is in the top 6% of the country’s most violent.

So what makes something newsworthy? It’s not whether something is violent or not—people are murdered every day in America. Something is newsworthy by virtue of how atypical it is. The more atypical, the more newsworthy. So I would argue that the issue isn’t about race, it’s about the rareness with which an occurrence such as the one in Newtown happens compared to the frequency of those in Chicago.

So are these people crying wolf? Let me say that there are unfortunately people who make a living out of exploiting racism. I won’t mention any names, but people should always be skeptical of those who make a living off of “raising awareness.” If racism were eradicated, such people would be out of a job. Therefore, if there isn’t any overtly racist acts to report, these types often look for something that could be construed as racism, and move forward with the assumption it is in order to remain relevant. Sadly, it’s a living.

But in this case, these are just average Chicagoans speaking out, so their claim isn’t one borne out of exploitation, but instead justified disappointment in the lack of concern for their losses while many mourn the loss of others. It’s a fair argument.

So what do I believe the issues regarding Chicago are?

Chicago is one of the nations most violent cities, yet the people can’t properly defend themselves thanks to over-restrictive gun laws. We have heard that one of the strongest deterrents for most criminals is fear of the homeowner they’re about to invade being armed. Thanks to laws in Chicago, those fears are somewhat allayed. They tried these gun laws to reduce crime, but in 2012, there are 488 murders and counting. Stats show gun laws don’t help, but I suspect reports of intruders routinely getting killed sure would.

Another problem I believe is that teacher’s unions have destroyed Chicago schools. Even the fairly left-wing mayor Rahm Emanuel had to go to battle with them, and he’s someone who is traditionally a union supporter. They cost far too much for the poor results they produce, and had no intention of improving their quality. Instead, they simply fought for higher wages—and sadly won! When you have a sub-par education system, children come out of schools, often sans diplomas, to either obtain low paying jobs or join a gang and make big money. For them, it’s a sad but easy choice.

I also believe that like many inner cities, Chicago needs better parenting and adult role models. Parents need to spend more time teaching their children that education is important and that gangs are a dead end—literally. I’ve seen far too many parents glorifying thug-life, encouraging their kids to be hard instead of smart, and not working with their children to make sure they’re actually learning. I’ve personally known many single parents, of varied races, who seem to be more concerned with going out and getting their drink on, than being a proper parent.

Being a libertarian, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that legalizing and regulating vices like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., has historically proven to reduce violent crime. Free people rarely war with each other.

Lastly, I think Chicago needs people who have the courage to take action to reduce the crime in their city. People have made depraved indifference an art form. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, yet people would sooner film a violent act with their cell phone than use it to call the police.

So is the coverage of the school shooting in Newtown vs the lack of coverage for Chicago racist? I don’t think so. If I am to believe the people making this claim, I would have to believe that the directors at NBC, CNN, Fox, et al., all sit around and say, “Don’t bother with the deaths in Chicago, they’re just black people.” If someone thinks that’s how white people think, they should consult their mirror for evidence of a racist.

The fact is, the tragedies of Chicago, by volume alone, outweigh the tragedy in Newtown. It kills me inside to see all of the people dying in the inner cities of our country, no matter what color their skin is. Why it’s not so often talked about in the media however, is merely a result of typical occurrences in Chicago versus an atypical massacre in Connecticut. It’s not racism—just rarity. I have no doubt, that if someone were to replicate the Newtown incident in Chicago, it would be talked about just as much; let’s hope we never find out.

Social Issues

Thurston Howell is fiction, no matter what modern day liberals tell you.

December 19, 2012 Gary Nolan Leave a comment

Your humble correspondent fancies himself a decent golfer with a higher than average passion for the game. While I live on a modest income, I am a bit of a golf snob. I have Perrier tastes on a well-water budget, but whenever I get a chance, I drop a dime or 700 on a nice round somewhere.

As I was growing up in a modest income household, I was ingrained with the idea, by family and friends, that rich people got rich by taking advantage of the poor. Thurston Howell from Gilligan’s Island may have been fictional, but as a young and highly ignorant boy, for all I knew, that was basically how rich people were because that’s what the populace painted them out to be. Growing up in the 70’s; gays, blacks, and women were painted out to be a certain way too unfortunately. There’s a lesson here, but more on that later.

Thurston Howell III played by Jim Backus

As I started getting into golf, I had a boss invite me to Heritage Golf Club in Hilliard Ohio. I was a little nervous, but I wasn’t going to pass up the chance to play at my first private club. So off I went, in my nicest golf apparel, having spent hours at the driving range getting my swing in peak form so as not to get scoffed at by what was surely going to be a group of scratch golfers.

As I walk in, the staff treat me like royalty. It’s not that they knew me, I was a guest not a member, but that didn’t matter. A private golf club is like any business. They don’t get paid to exist, they get paid by keeping membership up. They do that by treating guests as if they’re all Tiger Woods in hopes that those guests will return, or better yet, join. Yay for capitalism!

But here’s the other thing. The members we played with were incredibly nice also. Most members were what I’d call “doing well” but not rich, and it turns out their golf skills were about average like anywhere else. This was a sub $10,000 a year club, not one for the richest of the rich, but it still got me thinking—every member here makes more money than I do, yet no one looked down on me. I was nervous for no reason!

So as I continued to get better and meet people in the local golf community, I happened to befriend someone who was a member at New Albany Country Club. It is a Jack Nicklaus designed club, with grass tennis courts, a croquet court, an immense clubhouse, an incredible 27 holes laid out among million dollar homes, and a membership that requires you liquidate yourself of approximately six figures to join.

He invited me to play, and off I went. So here comes your humble correspondent, rolling up like Fred Sanford through Beverly Hills, in a 20-year-old rust colored Acura Legend. Not painted the color rust mind you, but a 20-years-of-driving-in-Ohio-winters shade of rust. As I pull into the parking lot, the high-school kids of members are driving two-year old BMW 3-series, and the adults were driving Porsche’s, 6-series BMWs and other highly exclusive cars. I was clearly out of my element.

As I pull up, the boy working the bag drop walks up, offers to take my clubs, sets me up with a cart, and off I go for my round. Again, everyone from the staff to the other members were as polite as can be with no hint of snobbery to be found. They could see I had a passion for the game, a decent swing, and a respect for the course. They didn’t care about my social status, they cared about my character. Imagine that.

My point to all of this being; we all know that bigotry against a race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion is wrong. These days, you’re quite likely to get looked down upon for any such behavior. Yet somehow, those on the left get away with lies and bigotry every day about the affluent among us. Bigoted hate is wrong, no matter who it is directed at, yet somehow class warfare is the one form of hate that is still widely accepted and that has to change.

My favorite quote that I repeat often is from Martin Luther King stating that you should judge someone by the content of their character. It turns out that while he may have added, not the color of their skin, I believe he understood bigotry in any form is wrong.

Are there bad people in the rich, poor, black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, female, male, etc. communities? Of course there are. Should we assume that one of them is a certain way because they’re in that community? Only if you’re a bigot.

Many people try to speculate why America is such a great nation. But like most things in life the answer to that question is quite complicated:

We have an amazing constitution which gives the government power from the people, not the other way around.
We have an amazing military that assures that anyone who comes after us will have a rocket shoved up their rectum and sent to the moon.
We have an amazing geographical location with a wealth of different climates to support many different industries, power generation, and farming.
Despite leftist agendas, we still have unalienable rights.
But the one thing that I think makes America truly amazing, is our diversity.

From state to state, city to city, region to region, you will find natural citizens, non-natural citizens, and guest workers from many walks of life. Most have a great story to tell, and with the exception of those of us already born here, most are here in order to make a better life for themselves. People motivated to be great, make us a great nation!

So do me a favor: If you’re someone who has hate in your heart for someone you haven’t even met yet, try a social experiment. Say hello and strike up a conversation with someone you would otherwise avoid. Thurston Howell might turn out to be just a cool dude with a great idea that made him rich. Unless someone is part of a hate group like the Black Panthers, et al., you’ll likely find what I did at the private golf clubs: good people exist in all walks of life and everyone should be judged solely by the content of their character—period.

Capitalism, Libertarianism, Social Issues

It’s spelled F-O-X News. Enough With The Hate, It’s Pathetic

December 16, 2012 Gary Nolan Leave a comment

One thing that irritates me like pepper spray on my nether regions is when people use the term “Faux News” to describe Fox News. I’m not a dog being led around by the News Corp leash; I get my news from a number of sources. I use Google Reader with feeds from approximately 40 different outlets focused on different themes that are generally news or science based. As someone who prides himself on exercising proper skepticism, I feel it is important to be quite diverse in gathering information. So I look for numerous sources, and then do my best to weed out the ones who prove to be less than honest. I would never recommend someone getting all their news from one source.

There are a couple of issues on the “Faux News” front that annoy me in particular. The first being that people often don’t seem to differentiate opinion from hard news.

On Fox for instance, Bill O’Reilly, The Five, Red Eye, and others are opinion, while Brett Baier, Shep Smith, and others are hard news. The hard news people just bring you the stories and facts. Opinion however, is people interpreting those facts and providing analysis of what they presume those facts mean.

Opinion journalists therefore are often prone to spin and distort things in a light that is favorable to their ideals. You’re a fool if you think CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and the networks don’t spin too. That’s just what opinion journalists do. But you can’t rightfully attack a network based on the opinions of one panelist. That’s like attacking the NFL because of what Mike Vick did. If Piers Morgan or Sean Hannity misspeak in some way, attack them, not their networks as a whole, because I guarantee there are others in their organization that are nothing like them.

Fox, MSNBC, CNN and the networks provide plenty of hard news that is good and factual. The charges that Fox lies are generally from people who just don’t agree with the opinions of the op-ed talent, and can rarely cite examples where the hard news people blatantly lied. Opinions, by definition, do not have a right or wrong answer. If you don’t like the opinions of the analyst, then don’t watch, but insulting them because they don’t agree with you is childish and pathetic.

The problem with hard news, is that it is often boring to people. News agencies have been delivering hard news for years, but once opinion programs started picking up entertaining talent, people preferred that over just a boring rendition of the facts. Human nature seems to be that most of us like hearing from people we think are similar to us because we trust those people more.

So while some think opinion is bad because it distorts facts, the truth is that it gets more people interested in the news who otherwise wouldn’t be. People like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Greg Gutfeld bring news with humor in such a way that younger crowds who would never watch hard news all of a sudden find themselves caring about the issues of the day. The more people learn, the better off we all are. We didn’t get to the top of the food chain by being ignorant.

So being the free-market capitalist I am, I love that the news has evolved to meet the consumer’s wants, instead of making us suffer through boring anchors of old who are just as likely to put me to sleep as they are to pique my interest. More importantly, I’m happy we have freedom of the press so left-leaning folks can watch MSNBC and I can watch Fox.

The other problem I have with the Faux News folks, is they’re not only insulting Fox, but they’re insulting everyone who watches it. Being a Libertarian, I love that Fox allows people like John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, and Judge Napolitano to have a voice. Most other news media often ignore libertarians, yet Fox kills in ratings because it provides information to non-left-wing people like me that we would otherwise not get.

To me, it’s said with the same hate and ignorance used by racists, sexists, and other hate groups. I would almost never watch MSNBC because of their statist bias, but I don’t insult them for it. If the Michael Moores and Janene Garafolos of America want a news program to watch, MSNBC is there for those people; more power to them.

The bottom line is that America is too often a nation of haters. Hip-hop music lovers call people who like country music inbred. Rock lovers call people who like rap music thugs. Conservatives call leftists commies; the left call conservatives greedy bastards. Just about everyone calls libertarians anarchists or potheads, of which I am neither. The intent behind these insults is to demean those different from you, which is no different from all the racial, homophobic, or sexist epithets people used in the past.

If you feel the need to insult someone who is different from you or has a different opinion than you, you are the problem in my opinion, and it’s time to grow up. America’s freedom and free markets guarantee that no matter what you like in this world, as long as it doesn’t threaten someone’s rights, you have a right to consume it or sell it. The left would be furious if people like me tried to get MSNBC off the air, yet they’ll sing it from the mountain tops that Fox lies, and should be shut down.

I’ve always said, if you can’t win, don’t bemoan your competition, motivate yourself to be better. If you find yourself on the losing end, the problem isn’t your competition; it’s you. So until the other networks start beating Fox, maybe they need to look in the mirror and see what’s wrong with them that people don’t care for their message as much. But to sling insults and demand the competition be shut down, while it would make Hugo Chavez proud, has never been, nor should ever be the American way.

So you watch yours, I’ll watch mine, and let’s stop insulting people because they differ from you. The beauty of America lies in our differences, not the people who like to attack us for being different. We all know racism and sexism are bad, but it’s time hate in general be seen for the unhealthy emotion that it is.

Logic & Reason, Science & Skepticism, Social Issues

Psy and a lesson in skepticism

December 13, 2012 Gary Nolan Leave a comment

Now that Psy is making news again for singing lyrics that advocate killing US soldiers many years ago, I’ve decided this might be a good lesson in proper skepticism. People are often quick to jump to conclusions about someone based on one tidbit of information, but that’s just not a good way to be. Too often you end up jumping to wrong conclusions, or leaving yourself vulnerable to attack because you ignored other important evidence.

For instance, if I told you there was a man long ago who was upset by the fact that cars were only available to the rich, and commissioned a car company to build affordable cars that the average person could buy, you’d think that sounds like a good person.

If you read my post called The Beetle is dead, and government killed it, you’d know that person was Adolf Hitler. So hopefully you understand the importance of gathering all of the facts before judgement is passed.

I don’t presume to know what’s in anyone’s heart, and neither should you. But one of the first things that concerned me on this is something that happens often when people judge musicians. They assume that the lyrics have meaning to the artist. When Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the movie Se7en, no one asserted he was advocating killing all sinners in brutal fashion. Why? Because it was a fictional movie. Phil Collins’ famous song “In the air tonight” is often mistakenly assumed to be written because Phil witnessed someone committing a violent act. In reality, he has repeatedly stated that it was pure fiction.

So when judging a musician based on some lyrics they wrote, first you must stop and ask was this just a work of fiction or were they truly advocating this sentiment. Based on Psy’s own statements, he was upset about American soldiers who killed two Korean nationals, and were acquitted of any wrong doing. He was highly upset, and as a result, spewed some pretty hateful things. So this was not a work of fiction, he actually meant it.

So then I think about what motivated him to say it and how would I feel if the roles were reversed. If Koreans soldiers killed two Americans and were acquitted, would I be mad? Probably. Would I say hateful things? Well, I’m a proper skeptic, so I’d do the research and not jump to conclusions, but if I were an impulsive, young, dumb, musician prone to spouting off through my music, maybe I would.

So then I ask myself; is he someone who has never really come to know America? People in other countries are often anti-American, and spread a lot of lies, hyperbole, misinformation, and half-truths about the good things we actually do around the world. Musicians sometimes live in a pro-anarchy bubble of friends who love to demonize any government as well. However, Psy spent 4 years here in America prior to writing these hateful lyrics, so he has certainly had an opportunity to come to know America, and should have known better.

So then I ask myself, does he still believe this? Well, he did issue an apology. So as not to leave out any context, here it is in its entirety:

As a proud South Korean who was educated in the United States and lived there for a very significant part of my life, I understand the sacrifices American servicemen and women have made to protect freedom and democracy in my country and around the world. The song I was featured in — from eight years ago — was part of a deeply emotional reaction to the war in Iraq and the killing of two innocent Korean civilians that was part of the overall antiwar sentiment shared by others around the world at that time… While I’m grateful for the freedom to express one’s self I’ve learned there are limits to what language is appropriate and I’m deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted. I will forever be sorry for any pain I have caused anyone by those words.

I have been honored to perform in front of American soldiers in recent months — including an appearance on the Jay Leno show specifically for them — and I hope they and all Americans can accept my apology… While it’s important we express our opinions, I deeply regret the inflammatory and inappropriate language I used to do so. In my music I try to give people a release, a reason to smile. I have learned that though music, our universal language we can all come together as a culture of humanity and I hope that you will accept my apology.

So after reading this, do I believe his apology? As I look at it, I have a couple of problems with it. A proper apology doesn’t try to justify the behavior in any way, it just says, “I’m sorry.” But here, he does seem to make excuses for why he acted the way he did. He also says, “…how these lyrics could be interpreted.” Here are some excerpts:

Kill those fucking Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture.

And

Kill [the Yankees’] daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers / Kill them all slowly and painfully.

I don’t know about you, but to me there was little ambiguity there in what he said. I do believe I read they were lyrics from a song by someone else that he was just repeating. But, I don’t see how it was open to interpretation, either way. So again, it seems like he was trying to downplay the severity of the things he said instead of just properly apologizing for them.

So then the last thing I would ask, is if his apology is motivated by anything other than remorse? Well, he is trying to sell CD’s after all. Being universally hated by the most powerful economy in the world isn’t exactly a brilliant business strategy for a musician looking to achieve international fame. So he has a motive other than regret for his apology that cannot be ignored.

So what is my skeptical analysis?

I’d say he probably doesn’t feel the anti-American hate he did back then these days based on his words and actions as of late, but I doubt he’s truly sorry he said those things either. He’s probably just embarrassed. I suspect he has hate for those soldiers that killed his countrymen, but understands that America is the only reason there even is a free South Korea in the first place.
Can a person change? Well, I used to say I was Republican who thought Libertarians were crazy, and now I’m a Libertarian. I used to be a Christian but now I’m agnostic/atheist. So yes, people can change.
Is it possible Psy went from being an America hater to an America lover? Of course!
Does he a really want to kill Americans? I doubt it.
Was he prone to make emotional, hateful, and idiotic statements back then? Probably.

So I would accept his apology at face value, but I wouldn’t assume him to be pro-America either. America has been pretty good to his career as of late, so that may have changed in light of his new success here.

I do know this, I listened to Gangnam Style once just to see what all of the fuss was about, and after doing so, I realize that I cannot unhear it, I’m eternally scarred, and I want my 5 minutes back. Only a monster could write something so hideous.

Libertarianism, Social Issues

Michelle Obama A Libertarian?

December 11, 2012 Gary Nolan Leave a comment

Do not bring people in your life who weigh you down. And trust your instincts … good relationships feel good. They feel right. They don’t hurt. They’re not painful. That’s not just with somebody you want to marry, but it’s with the friends that you choose. It’s with the people you surround yourselves with. – Michelle Obama

This quote strikes me as odd. Michelle Obama is absolutely right. I echoed this sentiment in my column Bad Friends too. So I don’t want to belabor or revisit that point.

However, this is a sign that Michelle Obama’s ideals seem to be in conflict with one another. Because her and her husband continue to promote two virtues that are in direct contradiction to this thought.

The big-government mentality these days continues to paint the narrative that everyone is poor because they are not given a fair shot. I don’t know about you, but every time I hear this, I keep thinking to myself, “Mr President, may I buy you a mirror?”

We have the son of financially modest parents, who is of mixed race, as president of the United States. If this isn’t one of the greatest lands of opportunity for all people on this planet, how the H-E-double hockey sticks is this man even president? We may have a sketchy past with how we treated other races and women, but so do other countries. However, if you look at us now, we are clearly the country to be in if you want to make it big.

If you disagree with me, feel free to name one country more foreigners attempt to migrate to than the United States. When you’ve found one, let me know. They don’t come here because they like a challenge and it was just too easy in their own homeland. They come here because we have a wealth of pretty humble people who turned nothing into something big—really big. That opportunity is solely because of the freedom America provides that the left, and some Republicans of late, seem to be so dead set on taking away.

America and its Constitution guarantees you many rights, one specifically enumerated being liberty. Liberty encompasses so much that it’s hard to even fathom, but opportunity is a huge part of it. So while it’s fashionable to say that people who are poor and unsuccessful are victims, I know too many alcoholics, drug users, people too lazy to work, people too unmotivated, too unambitious, and people to mean-spirited to make friends and get ahead, that I cannot begin to entertain the idea that every person below the median income is a victim.

What I don’t know is someone who has impeccable business sense, pure genius, supremely motivated, and is a good decision maker, yet somehow success always eludes them. I know they’re out there, but if you want to convince me that there are more of them, than there are people of the “I like to shoot myself in the foot” variety, I’m going to say that you are “honesty-challenged.”

So with that being said, why do the Obama’s try to appeal to the people who have done the least at the expense of those who have done the most? I’m not a psychiatrist, and I say this with serious trepidation as I cannot know what’s in their heart, but I feel like they are consummate politicians who are more concerned with winning than with what is right and just. I try to see the best in people, including the Obama’s, but this last election cycle has shown me that honesty and character are qualities they too often lack.

My other point is that they love to play the class warfare game as if it’s part of their religion. They scoff endlessly at people with money who have worked hard and achieved success. How did these people become so successful? I have news for you Michelle, they got it by following your advice in the above quote. They purged bad influences from their life, cut their losses with people who weighed them down, sent leeches packing, and rid themselves of people who polluted their attitude with bad mojo. Yet instead of pointing to these people as an inspiration, you point to them as if they’re the sworn enemy of the working man.

Never mind that they create all the jobs, provide all the products we enjoy, pay almost all of the taxes, and serve as inspiration to every immigrant and entrepreneur that comes to this great land; they’re somehow the problem?

I pride myself in trying to be a person who uses logic and reasoning to make well thought out points, and not just throw out hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, and other logical fallacies. But as much as I try to divorce myself from passion, this disgusting tactic of attacking the people who are successful and insinuating they’re the ones keeping the masses down infuriates me.

So Michelle, if you believe what you say, then get big government out of our way. Let successfully minded people be successful, and let failures fail. Good people fail all of the time, and they often rebound from it better, stronger, and faster. Anyone who has ever gotten fired from one job, had their ego pummeled, then parlayed that termination into an even better career and never looked back, knows I’m right.

Conversely, let the ne’er-do-wells do whatever it is they’re going to do and live or die with the results. If they’re good people, I assure their family and friends will help them if they’re at least trying to help themselves. I know this from personal experience after my own failures.

I’m not going to make the argument that there are no victims out there who are doing bad through no fault of their own, nor am I making the argument that everyone with money is a wonderful human being. The fact is every social class, race, sex, religion, or any other discriminate group has its share of good and bad people. But I do know this: by and large people reap the rewards of their efforts, or feel the pain of their lack of effort more often than not. In a land of opportunity, it takes a lot of effort to succeed. If you don’t have that motivation, then that’s not Bill Gates’ fault. That’s on you.

Blue Sky Thinking, Libertarianism, Social Issues

Marriage and government need a divorce

December 7, 2012 Gary Nolan 3 Comments

Straight people being opposed to gay marriage makes as much sense as someone who is on a diet being upset that the person next to them is eating a doughnut. ~ Anonymous

I love the simplicity of this quote. Because I am heterosexual, the gay-marriage issue doesn’t personally affect me, but as a libertarian who considers liberty the single most important thing mankind should have behind food, air, and water; I am furious when people think it’s their right to dictate the behavior of others; especially when that behavior doesn’t infringe on their own rights in any way.

The U.S. Constitution, to an atheist patriotic libertarian like me, is the closest thing I have to a bible, as it ensures my freedom.

The religious-right wing of the GOP have proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Republicans present themselves as the party that loves the Constitution, and many prominent Republicans even carry around a miniature copy in their pocket to consult whenever the desire strikes them.

Kudos to them for loving the Constitution—it’s a pretty amazing document. What concerns me is they don’t seem to comprehend or understand the sentiment behind it. There’s an underlying theme in our constitution that is often lost on people proposing such changes.

The U.S. Constitution was specifically drafted to establish a government, then restrain it. Let’s look at the 1st amendment for instance:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says, Congress shall make no law… not The people may…

This distinction means that the Constitution is a set of limits to government as demanded by the people who have the power, not permissions granted to the people by a government that has the power. Our rights are ingrained within us, not given to us by government.

Our forefathers were all oppressed by their respective homeland’s monarchies, something modern day Americans have had the good fortune to not know (Thanks veterans!), and they weren’t about to let such oppression happen here. We the people should never tolerate a government that feels it has the right to tell us what we can do. We the people decided that we wanted to create a system of government solely to protect our rights, and that’s it.

Aside from prohibition, which we rightly fixed later, the Constitution has never placed limits on the people, only the government.

So the idea of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is specifically out of character for that document—a polar opposite to the rest of it.

Republicans complain about losing the White House; many claiming it’s because people want free stuff and are willing to vote themselves handouts. While this is certainly a part of it, Republicans also lost because many of them are mired in religious ideology that a majority of Americans, including many Christians, think the government shouldn’t be legislating. We are not a theocracy, and those wanting to legislate religion-based morals scare reasonable Americans.

The issue is much bigger than this proposed amendment however, as Government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the first place. Let’s go back and think about what marriage is.

Long term, it’s a commitment between two people; a contract of love, which is generally followed by a ceremony among friends and family to celebrate that union.

I defy anyone to name one good reason why government needs to be involved in any of this. The process should be pretty simple.

Marriage License — Unnecessary nonsense in a free country: AKA Marriage Licensthe process should be simple.

Two or more people decide they want to commit to each other.
They find a venue willing to perform a ceremony of their choosing.
They sign a contract with terms that they all agree to.
Done.

The only thing the government should do is enforce the contract in the event of a dispute. Meaning, if someone breaches that contract, leaves the union, and the parties can’t come to terms on how to settle their assets, a court settles it for them.

Some of you might be thinking I’m crazy—I’ve been called worse. But guess what; everything I’m proposing is already legal. It’s just that we don’t call it marriage. I could rent a hall somewhere and perform a “Love ceremony” or something like that, then enter into a contract with someone where we give power of attorney to each other and agree to some sort of legal partnership. This is basically what a marriage is, and the law will enforce that contract as it is written. The only thing I’m proposing is that the government has no business requiring you to get a license to do it, and subject you to regulations, if you want to call this contract “marriage.”

All that being said, to be fair, there should also be similar protections for the various religious entities (churches, mosques, etc.) that do not wish to perform such ceremonies, so that they indemnified from legal action if they decline to perform the service.

If the couple wants liberty, the church must have it too; otherwise it’s a hypocritical infringement of rights on the church instead of the non-traditional wedding party.

So when someone asks me whether I support legalization of gay marriage? To me, it’s just an illogical question. Government and marriage have no business being married in the first place.

log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

Tell people how awesome this is or something:

log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action