Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

Misinformation

1. The numbers are accurate. You may not like them, but that doesn't change reality. Wiki for accuracy? Really? Regardless, I didn't say Bush didn't rack up a lot of debt. He did, and folks like me have always derided Bush as a wrong-headed spendthrift trying to buy votes.

2. We had a good deal. It was called Cut, Cap and Balance. Obama refused to even look at it - and then has the chutzpah to whine to the nation about compromise.

3. Social Security - like all Federal Programs - keeps growing and growing when it should be reduced. It was originally a simple program for a very limited number of persons who were in dire need but is now a sprawling monster. The demography is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that SS's projected budgets are unsustainable and must by necessity be decreased rather than grow over 8% YOY.

It great courage to admit socialism has failed. It takes humility to admit that socialism has gone beyond what is sane, rational, or even POSSIBLE. But Thatcher's "eventually you run out of other people's money" day or reckoning has arrived. First Russia failed and collapsed. Now its Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal... The list of failed Euro socialist systems that have bled their capitalist engines dry with impossible promises does nothing but grow ever longer.

And sadly, the US is right there with them. Riots in Wisconsin over simple, commmon-sense limits to unions... Riots and violence in Pittsburg... Riots and violence in Detroit, Akron, and many other places... The US only has once choice if it wants to avoid becoming Britain. That choice is to make the hard, necessary cuts to our socialist programs right now before they expand even further and cause even greater damage to society.

A simple freeze now, a few common sense cuts, basic tax code reform, and a balanced budget ammendment that Congress cannot just end-run-around and America is back on track. If we follow Obama's (and yes - Bush's) plan of ignoring reality while increasing the socialist network on pure debt spending and tax increases then the country will collapse and balkanize. It would be inevitable. But who knows? Maybe that's what Obama and neolibs like him really want. They sure are going about it in earnest.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

While it may get better, in my highschool, the kid who stood up for himself usually got himself curbstomped. If all you had to worry about is someone talking shit about you, kids wouldn't be killing themselves.

Colbert's anecdote feels nice and fuzzy, but doesn't address the humilating acts and daily terror some kids are forced to go through.

Hey. All is well, indeed..life is beautiful and each day is a new opportunity to learn and grow..things have just been busy is all. I appreciate your inquiry..I hope all is going well for you too. You're probably the most spiritual person on the sift that I know about..and though I pray you come to know the Lord, I know you are at least interested in the truth, which is a good place for someone to be. An open mind and heart, as well as a willingness to acknowledge my own limitations, perceptual or otherwise, are things that helped me..to attain virtue through humility and self sacrifice..to give love without expectation of getting something in return.

Well, I am going to submit some videos so I'll see you around. Take care

In reply to this comment by enoch:
where have you been my man?
your unique voice is missing from the collective.
i do hope all is well in your world and your heart is happy and content.

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.


Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?
No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."
You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.
The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.




Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?

No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."

You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.

The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

>> ^messenger:

Is that original quote from you? It's brilliant.>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.



Yup. That's the angry thought that pops into my head every time a religious zealot claims to be "a million times as humble as thou art."

I might also need to add something about man having dominion over all the animals, and being the only life in the universe.

Is that original quote from you? It's brilliant.>> ^MaxWilder:

Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.

Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.


>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..

Are you suggesting that the human race doesn't understand anything!? I suppose God created that keyboard you are typing on to send this digital information over the mysterious God-given internet. I personally get more humility from Stephen Fry than from you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..


Are you suggesting that the human race doesn't understand anything!? I suppose God created that keyboard you are typing on to send this digital information over the mysterious God-given internet. I personally get more humility from Stephen Fry than from you.