Cube-steak Americans vs. the Wagyu-beef White House
My syndicated column today spotlights the return of thrift in individual American households — a phenomenon that stands in stark contrast to the unmitigated profligacy embraced by Barack Obama’s White House.
Opposition is growing to the confisctory spending train: Witness the Senate Republican success in delaying the omni-pork, coupled with the aggressive House GOP call this morning for a spending freeze, on top of the growing unease among both liberal and moderate Democrats, on top of the burgeoning Tea Party and Going Galt movements.
Can we hope for change? Yes, we can. In the meantime, feel free to share how you are tightening your belts and practicing the personal responsibility to which our president pays loquacious lip service.
***
Cube-steak Americans vs. the Wagyu-beef White House
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Maybe thrift isn’t dead after all. The Year of the Bottomless Bailout has yielded a much-needed correction in the lives of ordinary Americans. While government fiscal restraint is AWOL in Washington, individual frugality has made a cultural comeback. Better late than never.
In large and small ways, we are cutting back. An online Zogby International survey this week reported that 70 percent of households are foregoing movies and restaurants. Forty percent of those polled said they were delaying the purchase of major items such as automobiles, homes entertainment electronics, or a computer; the same percent said they were giving up vacations. Notably, Reuters pointed out, “nearly 80 percent of younger adults, aged 18-29, said they have scaled back on going out, compared to 55 percent of people 65 years and older.”
Pollster John Zogby called the results “depressing.” I beg to differ. Out of necessity, a consumption-based society is learning to live within its means. For decades, government policies fueled that insatiable appetite — and new government programs are desperately trying to preserve it. But the Obama administration’s frantic efforts to encourage more brainless home-buying, car-buying, and consumer borrowing aren’t producing their desired results. Generational theft, it seems, has a silver lining.
The phenomenon is spreading beyond America’s borders. London-based economic journalist Hamish McRae recently observed: “We may be on the cusp of a big socioeconomic shift. We have had half a century when the developed world has gradually moved away from regarding thrift as a virtue. It has moved at different speeds in different countries, faster in the US and UK than in Germany or China…We have created the institutional structure that has supported this shift: from credit cards to collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). The world has clearly reached a point where it can go no further down that road…The pendulum will swing back. How far and how fast we cannot tell, but we can be sure that debt will be regarded differently a generation from now.”
President Obama, celebrated by his liberal media admirers for a miraculous ability to groove with the common man, hasn’t yet caught on to the new age of individual austerity. As always, he talks a good game of “personal responsibility” and “sacrifice.” But while penny-pinching Americans head to Sonic Drive-Ins for $1 everyday value meals or stay at home for cheap cube-steak dinners (sales of the inexpensive meat are up 10 percent), the White House serves up high-grade Wagyu beef to congressional revelers. The luxury item was on the menu for the bipartisan stimulus dinner in January and was also served up at the governors’ dinner hosted at the White House two weeks ago.
Team Obama’s image experts, perhaps hung over from all the Camelot-recreating Wednesday cocktail parties that are now a signature of the new administration, have fallen down on the job. The man who scolded Americans for wasting energy and turning their thermostats too high still hasn’t lowered his own. “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” senior adviser David Axelrod snickered to the New York Times in January. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
In flyover country, the mood could not be more different. Party time is over. I heard from a reader in northwest Arkansas, now upside down on her house with two college-age kids who is preparing to tighten the family belt. President Obama, meet personal responsibility:
“We are ultimately responsible for the mess we are in. If my husband and I have to live in his pick-up and get ready for work at the community gym, so be it. If we lose our jobs, we will move in with [my husband's] mother, and he will hunt and I will garden. We have never been on unemployment, welfare, nor other assistance. We are Americans. Our ancestors fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and his brother fought in Vietnam. Our family has faced tougher foes than this economy and Barak Obama. We will do as true Americans do; we will not whine, we will persevere.”
Waste not, want not: Outside of Washington, it’s the renewed American way.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
84 Comments
Stimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Femme-a-gogue Debbie Wasserman Schultz smears Tea Party, exploits Tucson massacre anniversary
January 11, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
185 Comments
‘Your Tax Dollars at Work’ Update: Shrimp on a Treadmill
December 28, 2011 02:08 PM by Doug Powers
81 Comments
Romney: I’m the Ideal Tea Party Candidate; Update: Des Moines Register Endorses Romney
December 17, 2011 04:05 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Categories: fiscal stimulus,Pork,Tea Party
AmSpecBlog
» No Waiver for TheeNewsBusters.org
» WashPost Touts Poll That Even Leftists Support Obama on Terrorism, GOP Should Avoid 'Risky' Critiques
chapoutier:
I wanted to mention something to you that occurred to me although I don’t want to do it on the public forum and drag this thread out unnecessarily. I don’t think there is a way to do private IM’s on this board.
Might I have your email or shall I give you mine?
We all know that Chappy is out buying his weekly supply of narcotics and trolling for transvestite prostitutes at all the places he seems to know. Just another traditional leftist weekend for Chappy.
Be careful not to color outside the lines on all your new coloring books, Chappy.
Here, I set up a special email account:
chapmm@yahoo.com.
And WarEagle, if you are going to insult me at least be creative and not simply steal and repackage the coloring book insult I threw out at you. God, you’re so pathetic, you can’t even conduct a flame war with any competence.
Well, Chappy, that is a big step up. You now recognize it when people insult you. That means you probably aren’t doing as many drugs as normal. I am not sure if that is good or bad for you or everyone else…
See. This is a bad flame, since it has no basis in reality. You should know that I have many times said I have never done an illegal drug, not even pot. No. I turn to the bottle when I have to put myself in a mood to be able to deal with people like you. In fact I rate all you all by how much liquor it takes to make your posts tolerable. Someone like emjem…a glass of wine. Granite = a couple shots. You? Well lets just say I have worked my way through the better part of a fifth of vodka and I am still not quite there. Excuse me while I go finish the job.
Well, Chappy, it was obvious from your posts that you weren’t sober. Now that you have admitted it it all makes sense.
Good luck on finding an AA program. Start looking now because all the best programs will be full of failed Obama administration guys and gals before too long. But, maybe you’ll get a chance to meet “TurboTax” Tim Geithner…
No can do. They make you believe in some “power greater than ourselves” or some other nonsense.
Just consider me the Hemingway of the board and bask the prufundity I choose to bestow upon you.
Dear, misguided, inebriated Chappy,
Yeah, well, it won’t be “prufundity” we are basking in when you post. Perhaps you really intended “profanity” which seems plausible, even likely, in your case.
As to the “higher power,” I guess the only higher power you recognize is the booze itself and I am not sure AA would appreciate that irony.
Chap,
OK, about Margaret Sanger. It is obvious that she was a classist and a racist. But what about Planned Parenthood? My wife contributes to this organization, believing that their distribution of contraceptives makes them a worthy recipient of donations – I cannot disagree with that assessment.
However, I think a credible argument could be made that since a lot of PP’s work is in low income, minority neighborhoods, and that some of that work results in abortions, that they are, in fact, performing a disproportionate number of abortions on poor and minority women. The result, regardless of Ms Sanger’s personal beliefs is to rid the world of babies of poor and minority people.
I think this is the point many posters are trying to make. Let us indeed judge PP on the results of their work.
CW,
You misquote me a bit, or perhaps I was not clear. I said the beliefs of Margaret Snager with respect to race and/or eugenics has nothing to do with the objective rightness or wrongness of abortion.
I admit I am sure I know less about Sanger than some here, but taking what has been said about her at this board’s word, she sought to use abortion as a means of promoting her racist ends. My only point was that one must consider separately the means from the ends when considering morality. No doubt Sanger’s ends were immoral. But one can deduce nothing with respect to the means from this conclusion. For example, what if Sanger had decided to acheive her ends by, rather than promoting birth control and abortion, by promoting abstinence? Does the fact that she is doing so for immoral purposes make any difference as to the objective morality, imorality (or amorality) of the act in and of itself?
Now certainly, one can very reasonably consider abortion of any kind an immoral act. I disagree, but so be it. However, I think one needs to support this conclusion with something other than the fact that one proponent happened to want to use abortion for an immoral means. After all, I am sure you would consider the right to bear arms moral, even if it facilitated some whacko killing off his entire family.
Okay…I think this clarifies your argument a bit, and is something I should address further. I can’t right now, but let me try to get back to this this afternoon.
Yay! This is still going on?!
Anyhow:
WarEagle82:
I am still waiting for an explanation of how you reconcile this:
with the fact that people like Robert Ingersoll and Ayn Rand exist.
I was content to let you bow out “gracefully” without giving an answer but since you are still here throwing insults around most graciously I decided I wouldn’t let it go.
So, how about it? Care to admit your error or are we going to get to watch your head swell and explode from an overdose of cognitive dissonance?
CWinNY:
By the same logic I guess you could make the argument that White Castle executives have some kind of vast conspiracy plan to destroy the lives of minorities and the poor by feeding them incredibly unhealthy food at all hours of the night.
PS A quick note, chap is dead on about AA. I believe South Park parodied their ridiculous (and likely psychologically unsound) beliefs that one needs a “higher power” to overcome their addictions. I wonder how well the belief structures of atheists are respected when they join AA, oh that’s right, they aren’t.
Or a conspiracy to provide drunken college students stumbling home from the bar at 1 in the morning with delicious anti-hangover sustenance.
Zeroangel,
No, I’m not saying that White Castle or McDonald’s executives are part of some kind of conspiracy. What I am saying is lets judge things (organizations, policies, etc.) on objective data.
Does all the cheap, fatty, sugar laden food produced by said organizations lead to increased obesity and increased rates of diabetes? The answer is obviously yes. Should the government do something about this? Well, for starters they could stop subsidizing the excess production of corn, which leads to cheap feed for cattle, pigs, chickens, which in turn leads to cheap, unhealthy food in this country.
I would recommend that you read Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma”. Americans have the highest concentration of corn, corn fed meat, and corn derivatives in their diet of any nation on earth. It is unsustainable agriculture, and is heavily dependent on government policies, and petroleum (in its lifetime, one steer represents the consumption of a barrel of oil).
This from a guy who grew up on a farm raising both corn and cattle.
CWinNY:
OK, so then, if White Castle isn’t part of a conspiracy to make minorities and poor obese; despite the fact that they mainly operate in areas where minorities and poor live; why do you think PP is part of a conspiracy to rid the country of poor and minorities?
I’m not interested in the effects of unhealthy food, BTW. I was just using it as an example.
Presumably because of Sanger, a woman who I’ll bet 95% of PP employees have little or no idea about, and probably 99% of the people they service have little or no idea about.
Zeroangel,
About atheism vs. Deism.
In my opinion atheism requires a belief in preposterous miracles – at a higher level than belief in a higher being.
If you were to come across an internal combustion engine in the middle of nowhere, would you assume it was the result of natural causes? Obviously not. Yet, if you look at the universe and how everything fits so precisely together, you have to conclude the universe, this planet, life itself all fit together more precisely than any internal combustion engine.
An example: two forces – gravity and atomic forces (that which holds atoms together). If you vary the ratio of one to the other by a smaller percentage than you vary the ratio of piston to cylinder the big bang would not have occurred, and if it did, there would not have been the subsequent coalescing of matter to form stars, planets, comets, etc. But, the engine could still operate.
No, I do not think PP is a conspiracy to rid the world of minorities. I am saying that lets judge results. I am going off memory here, but I think that black women make up 6% of the American population, but account for 40% of the abortions performed in this country. That is disproportionately high. Whether the people who work at PP mean to aid in reducing the number of minorities, the result is the same.
This is a core principle of conservatives: lets judge policies by the results. In this case, whether they mean to or not, PP and its employees are helping to keep the population of minorities lower than they would be otherwise.
First, why, exactly, do you classify them as minority women and not simply as women seeking an abortion? Is there some inherent good in increasing the fruitfulness of one group? I thought it was a core principle of conservatism that race does not matter.
Second, do you think its possible that, for a variety of reasons, minority women 1) have a larger percentage of unintended pregnancies and 2) that minority women need to seek out lower cost clinics like PP to get abortions?
CWinNY:
Oh goodness sake. Do we have to go down this route yet again?
Do you really want to do this? Rest assured there are scientific and natural answers for everything you are concerned with.
Very simply, humans beings perceive order because that is what we are evolved to do. This does not imply that (for example) a cat had to be designed just like a combustion engine.
As for “astrological constants:”
1) It could very well be that those constants could only have come into being in one way, much like a bubble forms into a sphere. Physicists are working on this.
2) Flip a coin 1 million times. record the results. Then go back and calculate the odds of that result happening. Then ask yourself, the odds of that result occurring are so incredibly small, how could it have happened?!
3) It does absolutely no good or makes any sense to suppose a super-intelligent designer. You are then left to explain where that designer came from.
In any case, I really have no problem with Deists. I think their conclusions are wrong and amount to wishful thinking (many then use arguments for Deism to translate into arguments for their own specific faith) but in practice, Desists might as well be atheists.
CWinNY:
Could it be that black women just seek abortions more often and they (as a group) are to blame and not PP?
Oh, Chap beat me to it. *sigh*
CWinNY:
I did just occur to me. I apologize if I was somewhat callous in my post above in answer to your questions about Deism vs. atheism.
It was a knee-jerk reaction because of past derision and assertions about my logic / intelligence. You didn’t deserve it as you have been polite to me.
*It did just occur
Damn typos.
OK, lets look at the number of black males that are incarcerated. Why is there a disproportionately higher number of black males in prison than whites?
Do you think its possible that for a variety of reasons, minority
women 1) have alarger percentage of unintended pregnancieshigher tendency to perform criminal acts and 2) that minoritywomen need to seek outlower cost clinics like PP to get abortions?better lawyers to represent them in court?For several years now, I have been told that the higher number of minority men in prison is due to racist policies. The same could be said for the higher number of abortions performed on minority women. That is the point I am trying to make. What is the end result? I feel both results are themselves the result of racist policies, whether the perpetrators of said policies are trying to accomplish this result or not.
CWinNY:
I feel you are wrong. No doubt there are probably some racist police officers or even judges. However, for the most part, the system tries very hard to eliminate this.
For a variety of socio-economic reasons: minorities do commit more crime.
…as well as ending up with inferior legal defense (whether fomr lack of competance or just public defeneders being overwhelmed).
Zeroangel,
1) Yes, it could be that they come into being only one way, but why are there so many examples of thing being the way they are, that, if changed, would result in no life on this planet? I cited only one example, there are several that are sort of a Kiplingesque “just so”. To believe that “sh!t happens (and all to our advantage) requires a belief in a series of miracles (whether God performs them, or they just happen).
2) I think you left out a word or sentence here – I have no idea what you are trying to say. If I flip a coin a million times, I will be roughly 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. could I replicate this result (in the same order) ever again? No, which is one of the arguments against DNA replication of the first living organism being just a happy accident.
3)There are a stupendous number of happy coincidences that are necessary for the existence of carbon based life forms on this planet. You might not need so many for the formation of an intelligence that formed before the big bang (i.e. not carbon based).
Zero, interesting article that I thought of with this comment:
CW, the entirely important and obvious difference between incarceration and abortion rates is that getting an abortion in the US is an entirely voluntary exercise. Being thrown in jail is compelled.
Further, when a woman, minority or otherwise, seeks an abortion, the motivations for such are entirely her own (for the most part. Of course some women are coerced into it by third parties), entirely independent of the clinic’s motivations for providing such. I mean, would we call an abortion performed by a doctor whose sole motivation in the transaction was to make a profit “capitalistic”?
CWinNY:
1) It is possible that they all could only come into being one way. It is possible that life evolving is a natural “side effect” of the universe being the way it is. It does no good to suppose that a super-being created everything in his image (at the very least the universe would look like an incredibly unnecessary Rube-Goldberg machine).
2) You misunderstood. The point is, yes, it is incredibly unlikely that you could replicate the result; however, the fact remains, the result DID just occur! As far as DNA, the difference between DNA and coin tossing is that DNA DOES replicate. All it needs is to get started. Abiogenesis is an ongoing area of research, but nothing about it suggests a super-being had to have a part in it.
3) Huh? What possible form could this intelligence comprise of? Please describe what you think the Desists God would be like and how it came into being.
WRT the
I think that it is natural of humans to take an “inside looking out” approach to this. We ourselves are experienceing the benefits of this happy accident. And ignore the billions upon billions of times and places it did not occur. It seems so incomprehensible that it happened to us, that we take it for miracle, rather than probability, ignoring the fact that there would be no “us” to contemplate such but for the occurence of the event.
Once again, thank you Chap. I fear we are going to delve into the Anthropic principle yet again.
Yes, as I said, the universe as a Rube-Goldberg machine. *smile*
Lets dig down to why then minority women need more abortions and minority men are incarcerated at a higher rate. Could it be because of their lifestyles? Could the degradation of minority lifestyles be the result of government interference, just as gov’t interference is at the root of unsustainable agricultural policies? (that result in unhealthy diets for many Americans).
I say yes. I sometimes believe that the government has what we used to call the “sadim” touch (midas spelled backward) everything they touch turns to sh!t.
Not really, but there always seem to be 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the way the government does it.
My original point was that chapoutier stated that Ms Sanger’s personal beliefs did not effect the end results of PP. I say that is a conservative value and that policies should be judged on the end results. If those end results are not good, then the policies need to be either stopped or significantly altered.
I have given you two results that are either both racist or not, depending on your definition of what constitutes racism. If both are then results of lifestyle choices, then whatever is driving those choices needs to be stopped or altered (and increasing the amount of driving force is not an acceptable alteration).
Chap:
I read the article, good stuff. Math was my undergrad. Statistics are especially interesting. Folks that tout the “Evolution is so unlikely, there’s no way it could have happened by itself” mantra obviously don’t understand statistics.
guys,
I’ve enjoyed this debate. I obviously have not changed your minds, you have not changed mine.
But, I have to go now. I have to return books to the library and other chores. I usually read this blog and comments, but rarely comment. Somedays I just feel like killing time.
By the way, do not mistake a belief in an intelligent designer with a belief in the infallibility of the bible. We may not necessarily be created in God’s image. The fact is that I don’t know what God is like.
The billions upon billions of times that it did not occur is why I ask: why here, why now, why us? Is this all just the result of a cosmic roll of the dice? That again, means that every living organism on this planet has won the lottery an amazing number of successive times (if you consider life to be a good thing). If someone told me that he had won not just one lottery, but several, I would suspect that someone rigged the odds. (God as a rigger of odds.
CWinNY:
Does this mean that you no longer think PP has a racist agenda and you understand what Chap and I are saying?
You support the government banning of “trans-fats” in NYC?
To what degree do you think the government should legislate what people put in thier own bodies?
Oh, posted to soon. See you later than CW.
For the benefit of any lurkers:
Yes.
Too true. I’ll paraphrase Dawkins: “Every living organism on the face of the Earth is part of an unbroken chain of succesful ancestors, every one of your ancestors managed to survive long enough to reproduce.” “Everyone won of us has won the genetic lottery. The odds of any one combination of DNA are so incredibly small. We are all lucky to have been born.”
The big differences being that there is countless lotteries all running at once; not to mention the fact that only the winners are even around to talk about winning.
Chap:
If you haven’t already gotten it, I sent you another email.
It is really hard to take Chappy and ZA seriously when they make such odious and illogical statements such as “abortion is not evil but is simply a tool” and that “abortion is like White Castle restaurants.” Seriously, how deluded must you be to make these statements?
Abortion is killing an innocent and defenseless living human being without due process. If a murderer is executed people like Chappy go ballistic and claim it is cruel and unusual and violates “due process.” But, when a living human is killed without “due process” through an abortion it is hailed as a sacrament of leftism!
And now ZA chimes in and compares the people who murder babies for profit to those who hawk hamburgers and fries.
Revolting is not strong enough for this kind of “thought.”
——
And finally, to clarify for the evidently terminally obtuse ZA, if you read my comment in context it should have been relatively clear that I was speaking of “Soviet Communism” which I should have more specifically referred to as “Marxism-Leninism” when I said:
So far in the 20th century, the leading atheists who have reached positions of virtually unlimited power within nation-states have murdered millions if not tens of millions of people. This holds for the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, North Korea and Viet Nam. The Cuban revolution has probably only slaughterd hundreds of thousands of Cubans. I guess Fidel is one of the “slackers” of the atheist leaders.
If ZA seriously wants to maintain that these atheists murdered because they were Marxist-Leninists and some how ignore the fact that Marxist-Leninism demands atheism (and is therefore inseparable) then he is free to exercise his own cognitive dissonance. Oddly enough he accuses me of doing so.
I guess to someone with a brain that would have been evident but I forget the esteemed audience of Chappy and ZA seem to be singularly lacking in that regard.
And it is absolutely impossible to take you seriously when I have repeatedly said that is not in any way what I am saying. But again, you are clearly functionally retarded.
WarEagle82:
Putting aside the question of when life begins; this is a misrepresentation of what I was saying and any fair-minded reader can understand that. I am not comparing abortion to hamburgers. I am making the point that PP isn’t purposely “murdering” ONLY black babies as White Castle isn’t purposely making only poor and minorities fat. That is where the comparison ends.
OMFG. How plain do I have to make it? OK, it does not matter whether or not Marxism demands atheism. It does not mean that atheism demands Marxism!
Just because P -> Q, it does not follow that Q -> P !
If Ayn Rand or Robert Ingersoll ever became leaders of nations it is incredibly doubtful that they would have started murdering people. The same is true of countless atheists.
The whole point of bringing this up was to illustrate that there is no reason why an atheist is unfit for office simply because they are an atheist!
Again, please give me one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to.
I am assuming from your nick you are also a veteran and I am inclined to ignore your taunts out of respect for a fellow vet. You are seriously abusing your leeway, however.
WarEagle82:
To make it very plain for you:
Just because all KKK members are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants doesn’t mean all White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are KKK members.
Let me clarify and try to do so using VERY SMALL WORDS. I said specifically that, so far, in the 21st century, all the leading mass murderers who had obtained virtually unlimited power within a nation state just happened to be atheists. I have not said all atheists were mass murders.
Are you and Chappy really that dense? Evidently the answer is a VERY PROFOUND YES!
But, it comes as no surprise to find that you hang around KKK meetings. I guess that makes you the resident expert…
WarEagle82:
Oh for goodness sake! The whole point of this tedious discussion was responding to you here:
Again, please give me one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to.
In light of this:
Why do you think being an atheist makes one unfit for office? What “worldview” do all atheists have in common that makes them unfit for public office?
Okay, Chappy, then please clarify you position on abortion?
* You support it.
* You believe it is a tool that may be employed toward an moral end.
* You believe abortion is not, in itself, morally wrong.
You previously indicated abortion was a tool that could be used for various ends. That would seem to imply that you view it as a value-neutral tool.
Therefore, my summary of your argument that “abortion is not evil but is simply a tool” seems to represent your argument. If that does not adequately summarize your position please do clarify.
I maintain that the tool (abortion) and the end (eugenics) are both immoral. Killing babies is itself immoral, regardless of any other stated end purpose. There is no moral end for murdering babies. Murdering babies for racist reasons is doubly wrong.
Let me deal with one important aspect of this issue. World view influences behavior.
Atheists believe that mankind is a huge cosmic accident with no possibility of any greater value than any other part of the huge cosmic accident that created the universe. Ultimately, this is the only logical conclusion for an atheist if there is no God to have created the universe.
If there is no god, and mankind is just a cosmic accident, then mankind cannot be “endowed with any unalienable rights by their creator.” The application of the fact that mankind has natural rights originating outside the state and therefore not subject to or dependent upon the state is fairly unique to American democratic practice. But it is not a concept an atheist can embrace since there is no God to grant such rights.
Atheism requires rejecting this foundational principle of American democracy. This would inevitably lead an atheist to reach a “statist” world view and conclude that mankind has no rights at all other than what the state allows at a given moment. Therefore the state becomes center of existence and the ultimate source and arbiter of rights. And the state would have the authority to take any right away from any man at any time for any reason as long as the state has sufficient power to do so.
Carried to the logical end, atheist philosophies are far more likely to come to the conclusion that the state is supreme and that mankind can be treated as little more than chattel of the state to be used and disposed of for any reason at any time. And this is precisely what has happened every time an atheist has come to power in the 20th century.
WarEagle82:
Good job at trying to make a point but this:
is just silly. Just because I am an atheist doesn’t mean I can’t use the word “God” poetically and doesn’t mean I believe that mankind isn’t “endowed with unalienable rights.” Indeed, I would agree that the US system of government and ideas laid down by the founding fathers are among the best in the world. Becoming an atheist does not change this. I just don’t think men were “created,” but they still should have “universal rights” derived from an “evolved morality.”
This doesn’t mean they have to come from any super-being.
False, as above.
False, though a clever strawman.
False, and Ayn Rand would disagree.
False.
False, false, and more false. Robert Ingersoll and Ayn Rand (and Sagan, Hitchens, Harris, and countless others) would disagree.
Fixed it for you.
So, do you think that if Ayn Rand came to power she would start murdering people?
Still waiting for answer:
Please give me one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to.
I have clarified it ad nauseum. I have said one can very well argue abortion, ina nd of itself, is evil. At a certain point I agree it is as well. One cannot logically argue it is evil, however, based on the fact that it can be used to achieve immoral ends.
Eugenics, racial cleansing, etc… are evil ends. If Sanger had held her same beliefs, but went about furthering the elimination of the black race by promoting abstinence to black people, you would not then turn around and say that abstinence is evil, even though it is being used as a tool to promote evil ends.
Now I am done. If you cannot grasp that very simple explanation, there truly is no hope for you.
I have made my point and you disagree. I am sorry that you are an atheist who is not too thrilled with the way fellow atheists have governed.
The fact that you don’t believe in God but accept that somehow the God that you think doesn’t exist “endows” man with “unalienable rights” is very interesting manifestation of “cognitive dissonance.” I don’t know how you rationalize that away and frankly I don’t care to know.
You seem to take “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” as a quaint and poetic phrase conjured by some men predisposed to flights of fancy some 200 years ago. I assure you this is NOT how they understood the concept. And if it is so then the very concept of “rights” is utterly empty and meaningless and we are all serfs of the most powerful person or group able to wield power.
If there is no God to bestow these “unalienable rights” then by definition all rights are “alienable” and bestowed and denied by some other power structure, or “evolved morality” as you put it, which inevitably means the state or whatever organ wields power.
You cannot have it both ways. If God does not exist there CANNOT be “God given rights!”. Even you must logically conclude that.
Every other point you peremptorily declared “false” is simply your opinion and one that stands on a foundation firmly planted in mid-air when you maitain a belief in “God given rights without a God!”
Chappy,
Alas you have done anything but CLARIFY your position. Even now you cannot bring yourself to declare abortion evil or immoral. You simply say it “at a certain point it is.” When is depriving a living human being of life without due process not EVIL?
You obviously believe that abortion IS NOT IN ITSELF EVIL. And therefore seem to think it may be used for some “good purpose.”
I maintain abortion is ALWAYS EVIL. I don’t need to argue that something vile and evil in its own right is evil because it is used to further another evil purpose or end. Abortion is EVIL in its own right! It cannot be used for any morally acceptable purpose.
WarEagle82:
It’s not a matter of disagreeing. Your conclusions are bigoted and just plain wrong.
Not what I said.
As if you have any idea what they thought.
Are you even aware of the fact that many of the founding fathers were members of the enlightenment and not even Christian? Indeed, many were “Deists,” the “atheists” of the day. Had they known about evolution it might be interesting what they would have thought.
This is telling because after all aren’t you the one that believes in a “celestial dictatorship?” Isn’t it you that thinks we are all ruled over by some super-being that watches us 24-7? To paraphrase Hitchens: “a celestial North Korea.”
Do you even know what I am talking about by this phrase? Clearly not. Simply it is the built in empathy we all feel for fellow human beings. God-given or nature given, it doesn’t matter. Just replace the word “creator” in the Constitution with “nature.” The meaning is still the same.
As I said, change “God” to “nature.”
No, they are false because they are non-sequitors.
So, do you think that if Ayn Rand came to power she would start murdering people?
Still waiting for answer:
Please give me one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to.
I guess there truly is no hope for you. If you still think I was trying to argue about the morality of abortion, then I quit.
ZA,
In your world, nature is a cosmic accident. You CANNOT substitute God for “nature.” God created nature. God, the “uncaused Cause,” is not nature.
I am well aware of the fact that some relatively few early patriots were Deists. I didn’t get my degree in PoliSci for nothing. But a large number of those who drafted and signed the founding documents of this nation were orthodox Christians who would have been far more theologically conservative than what passes for “fundamentalist Christians” today.
The fact that I believe that God endowed mankind with “unalienable rights” does not mean I do or should expect eternity to be a democracy. Again, your utter lack of understanding of Christianity reveals your bias and bigotry. And a Christian, enslaved by tyranny, is ultimately more free than anyone on the planet regardless of what temporal chains he might endure.
“Evolved morality” is “Dr. Phil-speak” for some wishful, delusional Utopian concept. Tell me about the “evolved morality” of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Kim Il-Sung, and Fidel Castro! Frankly, I am not eager to experience the “empathy” they held for their co-communists and co-atheists much less adversaries. There is NO SUCH THING.
If this “evolved morality” existed the world would have to be a nirvana after 5000 years of “evolved morality.” Pray tell how much “evolution” this “morality” of yours needs to become an influence for “good” somewhere? I am not sure we can live another 5,000 years waiting on your “evolved morality.” Your “evolved morality” has led to a century of utter depravity as humanism, secularism and atheism have seized power in nation after nation. Go peddle your “magic elixir” somewhere else. I am NOT buying it.
“God given rights without the God!” This is humorous…
Of course, that is not at all what I said. In fact you were trying very hard NOT to argue the morality of abortion though you still seem to view it as moral but seem to have some hesitation to declare strongly affirm it or denounce it. And I grow weary of your insipid attempt to defend abortion. It is hard to defend regardless of why Margaret Sanger approved of it.
Abortion and eugenics are both evil. Abortion is evil regardless of Margaret Sanger. It is no more or less evil because of her terrible ideals and purposes and application of it. Murder is still murder. Genocide is still genocide regardless of the means. Surely even a dolt of your caliber must understand that but you hesitate to admit it…
WarEagle82:
As I said, I truly do pity you. You honestly don’t understand what I am talking about. You really are not trying to throw up strawmen are you? You really and truly don’t understand what I mean by “evolved empathy.” Do you think it just coincidence that so many of the religions (and non-religions, and philosophies) of the world have rules like “don’t kill people” and “be kind to your neighbor?”
None of the founding fathers believed a religious test should be necessary for any public office. As such, they would likely say there is no good reason why an atheist shouldn’t hold public office based on his atheism alone.
I was raised Christian, communed and confirmed. I understand it just fine. I am not the bigoted one, after all, I don’t mind voting for a Christian.
Based on your last paragraph I must assume you seriously think a Christian theocracy would be preferable to the secular government we have today. Amazing!
Now if you are going to argue in good faith answer my questions:
So, do you think that if Ayn Rand came to power she would start murdering people?
Please give me one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to.
Good boy! You may finally be getting it! You get a cookie! I may not agree with your ultimate conclusions, but I am gratified you admit you were wrong to equate the morality of the means with the morality of the ends.
You cannot possibly conclude that I want a “Christian Theocracy” from what I actually said.
This means precisely what I said. I prefer our Constitutional Republic here on earth with the “unalienable rights” bestowed by God but expect a much better eternity where God Himself reigns over His Kingdom in perfect wisdom, peace and love. I will have all the rights I can imagine in His kingdom.
At this point you are obviously only going to continue to claim I don’t understand you when I obviously do and reveal your incoherent gibberish as such. All it takes to set you off is for me to offer empirical evidence to disprove your thesis. When you claim “Rights from God without God” or offer some notion of “evolved depravity” but call it “evolved morality” or now “evolved empathy” you cry out “strawman.” It is convenient but it isn’t convincing.
And to answer your idiotic questions just so you will shut up:
1) Ayn Rand can’t come to power because she is quite dead.
2) And here is one sensible, rational, decent belief or conclusion involving running a country that a believer could come to although an atheist could not come to is this:
Romans 8:28 – And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Since an atheist doesn’t believe in God he could not possibly apply this part of a Christian worldview to running a country or any other aspect of his life.
Atheists have made a living hell on earth everywhere they have gained power. You don’t have to like it but not liking it doesn’t make it not so.
If you will actually read what (try starting at #266) I have said I never “equate[d] the morality of the means with the morality of the ends.” I always maintained that both abortion and eugenics were equally and separately evil independent of one another.
You have tried to say that abortion wasn’t necessarily evil (but that it might be in some instances). That fencepost wedged between your buttocks must get uncomfortable at times.
WarEagle82:
Oh no? You were railing against secularism and somehow I am supposed to think you are OK with a secular government?
…and presumably all the people that aren’t Christian (especially atheists) suffer and despair for all eternity, but wait, God LOVES us!
A very predictable dodge. Bravo! Still no answer.
What thesis? That being an atheist doesn’t mean you will become a mass-murderer?
Ummm so what? So when an atheist makes a sensible, rational, decent conclusion it IS NOT sensible, rational, or decent because he isn’t doing it according to “god’s calling?”
So, if I donate money to charity it IS NOT a good deed because I didn’t do it with “god” in mind?
Do you know how utterly ridiculous that is?
“George Elliot” aka Mary Ann Evans dealt with your exact same ridiculous, bigoted argument in 1855!
….and the very same could be said of any theocratic goverment. Which is precisely why the founding fathers wanted ours to be secular.
ZA,
Again you reveal your ignorance of and intolerance for Christianity.
God gives people the opportunity to choose to believe or not. If people choose not to believe their eternal destiny lies in their choice. God forcing an atheist, who rejected God here and now, to spend eternity with Him hardly seems loving.
I am sorry you don’t like the FACT that atheists have become mass murderers in country after country after country where they have assumed power. But, you have to deal with FACTS and not what you wish to be true.
I have answered your questions and I could not care less if you like the answers or not. Again, you got your answers. You will eventually reap the benefits of your atheism unless you come to your senses. I suspect you won’t like the answer you receive then any more than you liked my answers today. Only that last question is far more important with eternal consequences.
WarEagle82:
You honestly think I CHOOSE the idea of a godless universe? You actually think I came to this conclusion because I want to deny “god?” You honestly think I like the idea of permanent death?
How do you “choose” what you believe? Can you tomorrow “choose” to believe the moon is made of cheese? Of course not. Similarly, I cannot “choose” to believe in something that simply makes no sense to me.
I have answered your questions and I could not care less if you like the answers or not.
No, you dodged both of them, very poorly in fact.
LOL! Yes, of course, here it is. If I don’t agree with your particular brand of faith, your “god” will make me suffer! He doesn’t sound like a very nice “god” at all. Sounds rather like the kind of vengeful, hateful, and malevolent deity some ancient barbarians would dream up.
Sorry, the following above should be in blockquote.
This is the sound of an idiot backpedaling. If you think Sanger’s views are so irrelevant to the intrinsic morality or immorality of abortion, why did you, and your ilk, waste so much breath telling me about it?
ZA,
Yes, I honestly believe you choose. Nobody chooses for you. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you be an atheist. I am sorry that you obviously aren’t happy with the choice you made.
If you don’t choose God then God will honor your choice and allow you to be separated from Him for eternity. Frankly, it sounds like you would blame God if He made you be a Christian and spend eternity in Heaven and you would blame God if He allows you to choose not to be a Christian and allowed you eternal separation from God. You can’t have it both ways.
You have rejected God. That is your choice. You get to live with the consequences of your choice and you don’t seem happy with that. So think about the choices you have made and make a different choice. You have time reconsider. Few people have ever died from reconsidering an unappealing choice.
I am not about to attempt to recap the entire argument again. You stated that abortion IS NOT evil intrinsically evil. I have stated abortion IS intrinsically evil. Like I said, go back and read what I have actually said. If you can’t find your way all the way back to #266 then just go back to #358.
WarEagle82:
This is your error. No one “chooses” what they believe. As I said, you can’t “choose” to believe the moon is made of cheese. A person examines evidence, weighs the possibilities, and then selects the most likely, logical conclusion (at least that’s what rational people do). If someone put a gun to my head the most I could do (if I chose not to fight) is pretend to believe what they want me to believe, it wouldn’t change what I actually think. The same is true of you or anyone else.
Actually, I am very happy. I am just not happy when people like you made bigoted and ridiculous comments about me and other atheists.
Assuming “He” exists, you have absolutely no clue what he will do. Don’t even pretend to know what happens after you die. No one knows, that includes you.
This part is just absurd. I am not blaming anyone because I don’t think “He” exists.
No, I don’t think he exists, there’s a difference.
Again, absurd.
ZA,
Very well. I accept you see it all as “absurd.” And you certainly appear to be certain what nobody knows or can know while you maintain absolute certainty that God does NOT exist. That is your choice.
WarEagle82:
Nonsense. All I ever said is I don’t BELIEVE “god” exists, oh that, and I don’t want to murder millions because of it.
No one is certain, and I am not the one presuming to know anything other than, I have no evidence. As such, I am not going to make anything up or believe what someone else has made up and then act like a bigot about it.
Oh, then doesn’t that make you agnostic and not an atheist? Either way, you seem to be sure what I can and cannot know…
And you seem to like to throw that word “bigot” around. Is a bigot someone who believes in “absolute truth?” Does that trouble you as an agnostic?
WarEagle82:
An agnostic doesn’t KNOW, an atheist doesn’t BELIEVE. Technically, I am both.
The colloquial definition of agnostic usually implies someone that is 50/50. I don’t believe in dragons, fairies, ghosts, UFOs, or magic. I cannot PROVE they don’t exist either. However, I am not 50/50 on them.
Am I sure you don’t know what happens after death? Yes, I am sure.
No, in the case a bigot is someone that claims another person will go on to murder millions simply based on the fact that he doesn’t buy into your superstitions and beliefs about the afterlife.
*in this case
WarEagle82:
I forgot to mention. Most atheists feel this way. Since many of us take a very rigid “scientific” approach to this question, very few atheists will say they know 100%. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t.
Well, I guess really you mean that a “bigot” is someone who maintains any belief you don’t happen to like. I have never maintained that every atheist is a mass murderer. I have simply said that every atheist who has gained control of a nation-state in the 20th century has done so. And it seems to bother you to no end that I prove it with quite irrefutable facts…
And since you admit that you cannot KNOW anything about certain things then to call my beliefs superstitious is, well, bigoted. You can’t PROVE my beliefs are wrong. You just claim I am wrong and then accuse me of being “bigoted” because I disagree with you.
That is convenient for you but hardly a convincing argument once you leave 1st grade. But it is your choice.
WarEagle82:
No WaEagle, you maintain that you don’t think an atheist is qualified for public office simply because of being atheist.
The difference between you and I is I understand that just because someone is a Christian doesn’t mean they are going to start a crusade or inquisition.
You, on the other hand, seriously think that because some communists killed a bunch of people (and they happen to be atheists) that means no atheist is qualified for public office based on their “worldview.”
It is NOT your superstitions that make you a bigot, it is your intolerance for that fact that I don’t share them.
PS. It is entirely possible the US (or many other countries) has had (or currently has) an atheist President (who isn’t going to murder millions). The problem is (because of bigots like you) they would never be able to admit it.
ZA,
I KNOW a bunch of atheists murdered hundreds of millions of people in the last century. I KNOW it. I don’t THINK it. I am not agnostic on this point.
And the last I checked, I get to decide who I cast a vote for. Again, you don’t like it so you call it “bigoted.” That is the equivalent of the 1st grade “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” argument. Good luck with that.
WarEagle82:
No, you THINK that just because Mao killed people, Carl Sagan wasn’t qualified to be President just because he was an atheist.
Of course you get to decide, do you also consider whether or not they are black? Moron? Irish? What other completely irrelevant facts do you consider? Mao was Chinese; does that mean Chinese people shouldn’t be President?
As a matter of fact I don’t think a Chinese citizen should be President of the United States. Do you?
And is “moron” an officially recognized ethnic group now? Did you and Chappy form a club and get listed somewhere official?
You are KILLING me. I haven’t found anyone to be this humorous in a very long time.
LOL! Another predictable (and stupid) strawman!
Indeed I did make a typo.
Mormon (not Moron) and no, it wasn’t a Freudian slip *smile*.
So, number the following people as to who is most qualified to be president in your mind:
Mormons
Catholics
Blacks
Atheists
People with Chinese ethnicity
You left out Filipinos and Filipinas. Oh, and Jews. And what about Armenians? And what about Otavaleno Indians? And how would we deal with mixed ethnic groups? My household is 60% composed of them.
If you want me to make a list you have to give me a complete list. I don’t want to have to do this twice.
You know how these days we look back through the history of our nation and find it hard to imagine that many years ago many people actually thought there is something wrong with a black (or Catholic, or Asian, or mixed, etc.) President.
That is exactly the way your viewpoint in regards to atheism will be perceived.
You are a bigot. Your bigotry is currently mainstream and accepted. However, this doesn’t make you any less a bigot. Since you have a mixed household (as do I) maybe you can appreciate this, and maybe you can’t.
Your last post was an obvious deflection. I hope I have at least given you something to think about.
Like I said, your definition of “bigot” is someone who believes something you don’t. It may make you feel morally superior and smug but in real life it means nothing.
I grew up in the deep south and I got called names because of the friends I had way back when it wasn’t acceptable to have those kind of friends. It cost me something as a kid. So you have given me something to think about. I will always wonder why self-righteous anti-Christian bigots like you think you are morally superior to anyone and everyone.
WarEagle82:
Like I said, I would vote for a Christian (indeed I have). I am not the one who is “anti” anything; except maybe “anit-people-telling-me-I-am-unqualified-to-hold-public-office-just-because-of-my-lack-of-religious-beliefs.”
Well, after looking at the track record of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol-Pol, Sung, Castro and Mugabe I can’t blame you for voting for Christians. Statistically, it isn’t healthy to vote for atheists.
Good luck with that “bigot” thing. It may work on simple-minded folk like Chappy but I ain’t buying it.
Let’s see:
Recent polls suggest about 10% of Americans are not religious. For the sake of argument let’s say 5%.
Total US population = 300,000,000 * 5% = 15,000,000 atheists.
You have 7 people listed.
Statistically, your 7 are irrelevant (not to mention not even American).
PS. It’s Pol-Pot
No, my list of 7 are not irrelevant to the hundreds of millions they have murdered or their families. Their murderous practices are not irrelevant to people who actually learn something from the past and other people’s mistakes.
And I don’t care how many people believe the earth is flat or there is no God. They are all still wrong. Absolute truth is not governed by how many people DON’T accept it. Er, shall we call that a “straw man” and not a very clever one?
And you say to-MAH-toh and I say to-MAY-toh. Pol-Pot, Pol-Pol? Just another dead atheist murdering thug who now KNOWS he was wrong.
…like Communism is bad?
Umm, no, it’s not a strawman and it’s totally relevant because we were talking about statistics (which you brought up).
WarEagle, just like with Chap and the coloring book thing, you can’t just recycle comments; at the very least it shows you are incredibly uncreative.
Anyhow, there you go again with “absolute truth;” as if you have any clue. Wouldn’t it be something if “God” (or Zeus, or Thor, or Apollo, or Allah, etc.) actually does exist but turns out he REALLY doesn’t like it when people claim to know what he wants and tell their fellow human beings they are going to hell? In fact, you would think telling other people they are going to hell is kind of wrong.
Dear, dear ZA,
You still don’t get it. I CAN do anything I want to do. You don’t get to tell me what I can say or who I must vote for. You don’t get to decide which of my views and opinions are acceptable for me to hold. It is still a free country, at least for those of us not ruled by atheists.
I can say “straw man” or “coloring books” or “misunderestimate” as often as I want.
And your logic continues to deteriorate. If I know someone is about to plunge over a cliff then I would warn them if I cared. If I didn’t care I’d let them plunge right over the edge!
And I know what God want has said on the topic of life and death. He told us all about it in the instruction manual, full of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, He left behind for that very purpose. I’ll send you a copy if you can’t find one. And try not to stand so close to the edge there. You might fall…
WarEagle82:
Yes, you are absolutely right. If you want to discriminate against people based on religion or race you are completely allowed to (well at least for voting). You are right again, I don’t get to decide which of your views are acceptable, you are free to make an ass of yourself and I am free to call you on it. It is a free country, one where I am free to be an atheist (who doesn’t murder people) and free to point out your idiocy.
Yup, you can make as many incoherent or childish statements as you like.
Emphasis mine. There you go AGAIN! Stop pretending to KNOW. You don’t KNOW anything about what happens after death and you are pretty arrogant for trying to tell me what is going to happen to me. Furthermore, you don’t care what happens to me, in fact I bet you probably look forward to some imaginary time when you can look down into “hell” and say, “I told you so.” If you really cared about me you would be trying to tell me all the great things about being a Christian, not trying to insult or argue with me.
You are talking about the Bible of course. Yes, I have one (as well as copies of Holy Texts from one or two other religions, all of which I have read). So, the Bible is absolute truth is it?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html
So, this perfect “god” sounds pretty nasty. Even humans have figured out things like killing a rape victim because she didn’t scream is WRONG.
Incidentally, I was just thinking about this stupid “body-count” argument of yours and it occurred to me:
demographics in relation to China show that at least 100 million people are atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Statistics
According to this tedious and inane article by Dinesh D’Souza (someone whom Hitchens has made to look a fool on several occasions):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
your
atheistCommunist mass murders have killed around 100 million.What does this mean?
Well it presumably means that in the coming century your “god” will send around 100 million people; many of whom are very likely decent people trying to get on with thier lives just like the rest of us; to burn and suffer for all eternity. Now, this is just considering present time and one country.
If we consider other countries, the past, and also the idea that everyone who isn’t Christian (not just atheists) is going to hell, well then there is absolutely no question that “Yahweh” is far worse then Stalin, Mao and all your others combined.
After all, they only killed people once. Your “perfect, kind, and loving god” is sending them to suffer forever.