You're All Commies

communism, republican, democrat, capitalism

Lately, the Republicans have been partying like it's 1954, accusing liberals right and left of being communists. (Being a communist is entirely legal in this country, but I digress.)

The funny thing is, we're all communists. Every last one of us.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Doesn't that pretty much describe your family? You don't all produce (earn money), but you all share equally in what is produced, each according to his or her ability, each according to his or her need. Nobody's shorting the baby on diapers because the baby isn't bringing in the benjamins, the baby gets diapers because the baby needs diapers. The wager earner who makes 73% of the family's income doesn't get 73% of the food at dinner, or 73% of the hot water in the morning. Dinner, hot water, heat, electricity are all shared for the benefit of the common good.

We're all communists, people. We just restrict it to people we happen to like or are related to.

Debunking the Debunking

environmentalism, global warming, climate change, the story of stuff, right, indoctrination, communism, socialism,
If you're like me, and have no real concern for the state of your heart or brain cells, you spend a lot time on conservative sites/blogs. Which means you've seen a lot of hysterical demagoguery concerning The Story of Stuff.

Basically, The Story of Stuff is a 20 minute video on the effects of human consumption, told in a child-friendly format. Of course, the right views this as "indoctrination" into communism by the left. Because we're all communists and we hate stuff. In fact, I don't even have stuff at my house. I don't even have a house. Good little communist that I am, I live in a field and eat off the land. Which makes it a little hard to explain this blog, but as a communist, I don't actually have to explain things.

What I can't figure out is, what parent wouldn't like to hear a little less "Mommy/Daddy/Whatever- buy me that! And that! And that, too!" As [redacted] pointed out, understanding that there is no cellphone fairy who magically provides batteries that never drain or die, and no magic involved in cell towers, and what all exactly is behind all of our "stuff" is apparently INDOCTRINATION now.

If the little boy's reaction in the New York Times' article is typical, The Story of Stuff is an excellent video.

And many children who watch it take it to heart: riding in the car one day with his parents in Tacoma, Wash., Rafael de la Torre Batker, 9, was worried about whether it would be bad for the planet if he got a new set of Legos.

“When driving by a big-box store, you could see he was struggling with it,” his father, David Batker, said. But then Rafael said, “It’s O.K. if I have Legos because I’m going to keep them for a very long time,” Mr. Batker recalled.

Exactly, Rafael. That isn't just environmental good sense, that's economic good sense, too. Instead of 100 cheap plastic toys (imported from China, no less), get one great toy you'll play with for years.

Now why is the right opposed to that kind of thinking?

Red is Shockingly Popular at Valentine's Day

red, communism, socialism, obama, agenda, plot, rapture, stupid
Apparently, the fact that red is (or maybe isn't, I don't know) a popular color right now means we are all going to be socialists soon. (That was communists, for those of you keeping track, but whatever.)

(1) Red is always very popular at Valentine's Day (at least in the US. Readers from other countries, feel free to chime in.)

(2) I love red. I look fabulous in red. Therefore, I decorate and wear as much red as possible. AAAHHHH . . . I must be Stalin!

From the ever popular Rapture Ready message boards:

Sundial begins the silliness with: Lately I've noticed several products marketed with an emphasis on the color red--cell phones have one in red, Dell computer totally want one in red, the youth brigade jackets huh?, a larger percentage of red in the new Pepsi logo pepsi is teh evul--these are just a few products. I did a search on the Pantone website, the world's authority on color trends for the seasons, and there is NO red listed for spring. wow! they missed one. they're not psychics, guys.This is no coincidence. it's teh evul! Our current administration is implementing a a very subtle means of marketing their socialistic agenda. obama controls what colors cell phones and computers come in? either i'm very lucky or that's insane. In a matter of time, we will see red as the primary color choice in our products. all products will be red. and nobody will think to distinguish themselves by choosing blue. yeah. Perhaps we will be known as the "red shirts". like commies!

EndisNear posts a picture of the traditional USSR hammer and sickle (symbol in yellow over a red background): I wonder if we'll be seeing yellow, too. i hope not. i look like i have liver failure in yellow.

jb777 totally accepts the idea that Obama controls our color preferences: I plan to adopt or wear any color I take a mind to....heck with them and their stupid socialist agenda.

wally was apparently channelling me (which would explain that rather awkward blackout yesterday): Colorful fiends! That's why they painted all thoses fire trucks red.To draw all young children deep into their communist clutches!I am soooo glad we have yellow fire trucks......Now why did the utility companies eliminate safety yellow from their vehicles and replace it with white? HmmmmSo the prolotariate would surrender? Yes ! Its all a color plot!Quick form a defense around Crayola! We need more colors!Sounds like diversity training...... wait a minuet.....

just when i think these people can't get any more nuts . . .

Darwin Sucks and So Do I

atheism, atheist, darwin, evolution, evangelical, religion, charity, communism,
(Though that's really a personal choice on my part.)

Some guy from the Colorado Springs Gazette clearly does not understand the Theory of Evolution, the works of Charles Darwin or atheism. That does not prevent him from writing on these subjects.

Happy birthday, Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection celebrates the virtues of capitalism, competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

Is it really too much to ask that people who criticize the Theory of Evolution actually at least find out what it is before criticizing it. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with capitalism. (Unless birds in the Galapogos were engaging in free market activities.) It also has nothing to do with competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

May he rest in peace this day, despite the abuse of his great legacy by an angry movement known as the "New Atheism." We're angry! Angry Alliterative Atheists! With jackboots!

Despite Darwin's profound tolerance for religion huh?, one group of anti-religionsists mispelled and "atheists" works so much better. we're not antireligion, we'd just like you to stop abusing science and rational thought in your pursuit of heaven. has bought billboard space for a message that exploits him. you mean like the prolifers that created an ad exploiting Obama (a living person who also happens to be the present POTUS)? that's terrible! The signs say: "Praise Darwin. EVOLVE BEYOND BELIEF." It's okay to use taxpayer (atheists, hindus, pagans, buddhists, muslims) money to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments or to put up religious Christmas displays, but for atheists to use their own money to buy billboards is just beyond belief. Get over yourself.

The group, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, rides a wave of atheistic evangelism that is to science what closed-minded fundamentalism is to religion. creationism is not science. sorry. it's not. it's not open-mindedness to accept any ridiculous idea as being equal to science.

Highlighting their publicity stunts serves to strengthen the positive role of religion in a free society. yes, acting like an intolerant asshole is always positive.

Darwin wouldn't have excelled in a world without religion. All of his formal education was provided by institutions of the Church of England, including Oxford and Christ's College. oh, puh-lease. christians founded oxford, therefore science is religion?

Darwin's wife, Emma, was deeply religious and the two enjoyed intelligent discussions about the origins of all which exists. Darwin's best friend was the Rev. Brodie Innes, who became a supportive asset in the scientist's never-ending quest for answers. so darwin had religious friends. darwin himself could have been the most religious man alive, and that wouldn't change evolution or atheism. red herring fail.

I will now remove about 10 more paragraphs of red herring. Feel free to read them if you have nothing better to do.

Today, a growing number of scientists express concern about zealous atheistic evangelism diminishing the stature of science. Matt Nisbet, author of "Framing Science," in case you don't feel like following the link, Nisbet is not a scientist, he is a professor in the School of Communication at America University. argues that New Atheism fails because it alienates the people it seeks to convert. that's stupid. atheism isn't interested in converting people, and even if it were, that would make the evangelism a failure, not the atheism itself. Michael Schermer, in a column for Scientific American, wrote: "Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: ‘An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack.'" interesting quote mine there. basically, Schermer believes that atheism should redefine itself by what it is for, rather than what it is not. he does not state that atheism itself fails. also, I love the random communism moment. atheists=communists=murderers. thanks.

Case in point: Those "Imagine No Religion" signs, which caused people to imagine a dearth of hospitals, soup kitchens, universities and homeless shelters. seriously? that's what you think of when you think of no religion? there are no secular hospitals, no secular universities, no secular charities at all? reality fail.

This is so utterly silly that all I can say is, if you can't think of anything to say that could be supported by, I dunno, reality, don't say anything at all.

Nazis Were NOT Socialists

socialism, nazi, conservative, nazis, communism, stupid
This is an excellent explanation of why the Nazis, though their name contained the word "Socialist", were not- NOT- socialists.

Side note: we could rename the US the Union of Tiny Pink Unicorns, but we would not all turn into tiny pink unicorns.

Why I Don't Have to Watch Dawkins

So, now I know why it's never my turn to watch Richard Dawkins: it's this guy's job!

Unfortunately, he's not content with watching Richard Dawkins, he also has to make ridiculous guesses as to why people are atheists (hint: none of the below)

Sometimes these problems can be easily solved yet we lack the motivation or even the motivation to get at the heart of the problem now I an going to ask you why you are an atheist? this presupposes that atheism is a problem. it's not. i'm not affecting you at all. get over it.

- You read the works of Voltaire and became a convert? i converted to the group of people who never want to read voltaire again.

- You are a secret Luciferian Satanist? posing as an Atheist. why not pose as a theist? nobody really likes atheists more than satanists.

- You are a Communist? who is a pinko in this day and age? i've never met one, not in real life, not on the internet. where are all these commies?

_ You went to church when you were younger but never experienced God? the great childhood trauma of not experiencing god?

- You want to make yourself God and do not like competition? BWAHAHAHAHAHA

-You are a postmodernisand you believe that that there is no ultimate truth? what is a postmodernisand?

-You read the works of Charles Darwin and are writing manuscripts of the next “My Atheist Struggle”? is he referencing mein kampf? bad form, that

- A Catholic Priest made a pass at you and you blame God? what? is he making light of child molestation?

- You are secretly in love with Richard Dawkins and have not told your parents that you are not like other men? i'm not man. and if i were, that would make me like lots of other men- gay ones.

- You are not convinced evil exists. sure, right there in the hearts of men. satan, not so much.

_ You believe the ten commandments are harmful to the well being of human kind. who thinks that "thou shalt not kill" is harmful to people?

_ You are following a trend? yes, the great atheism trend of 2009, hitting malls this summer.

This is your turn to speak, I will comment on what you have to say. and tell you how wrong you are.

The commies are coming! The commies are coming!

(or, Making McCarthy Proud)

You know, I'm almost 33, so maybe I'm too young for this, but do commies really scare anyone anymore? Really? I vaguely remember thinking, upon hearing of the Berlin Wall falling, "what, that thing was still up?" Communism is just such a theoretical fear to me that I can't feel anything about it. Apparently, that isn't true of others.

(Just for the record, I mostly vote Democratic, and I've been registered as Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Independant. While I feel strongly about the rights of women and children, I don't want to "spread freedom" via guns and bombs. I'd rather spread medical supplies and food and books via tiny parachutes. I like tiny parachutes.)

JERUSALEM – The enactment of a "single payer" socialist health care system; passing laws to make joining a labor union easier; raising the minimum wage and increasing labor union support – all these are just some of the policies the Community Party USA has mapped out as crucial for Obama to push through during his term of office.

Why is the place listed as "Jerusalem"? I'm pretty sure Obama is President-Elect of the US. Is this supposed to be symbolic? For all those aspiring writers out there, don't use symbols that are meaningless to anyone else but you. I could say that this article is very COG-like. It would mean something to me, it wouldn't mean anything to you.

For what is unlikely to be the last time: Obama's health care plans are neither "single payer" nor socialistic. Once more with feeling: If you have insurance you like, you can keep it. If you don't have insurance, or you don't like your insurance, you can buy into (at a fantastically low rate) the same insurance politicians get. That's it. Very soon, the only people without insurance will be people who don't want it. Why is this wrong? People without insurance are 50% more likely to die of traumatic injuries and cancer. That's a good thing?

Oh, god, raising the minimum wage! It's evil! EVIL! The minimum wage currently is $6.55. It will rise to $7.25 in July of 2009. (All figures: US Department of Labor) For anyone not living in reality, yes, there are adults raising children while simultaneously trying to eat and stay warm who have to get by on $6.55 an hour. You try it. And don't get me started on WIC and Food Stamps and Section 8. WIC stops when the child turns 6 (because 6 year olds don't eat), Food Stamps provide for $3 a day per person (the dollar menu at McDonalds is good for you, right?) and Section 8 will make you pay up to 30% of your income for rent. This might only equal $300 a month, but if all you had was 1000 to begin with, that's a lot of money.

Apparently, hating poor people is an American/Christian value. That's something to be proud of.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Obama is a member of the Democratic Party. There actually is a Communist Party in the US. It's tiny and powerless, and would be horribly offended to be mistaken for the Democratic Party.

"For the people who elected Obama and the increased Democratic majority," Norman Markowitz writes, "'change we can believe in' isn't about bailouts for corporations and banks. It isn't about wearing American flag pins on your lapel. ...
"It is about ending the post-World War II policies that led to the long-term stagnation and decline of the labor movement," Markowitz writes. "It is about creating a national public health care program more than 50 years after it was established in other major industrial nations, and handling a national debt which has increased 10 times since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981."

Apparently, I'm insane, because I can't see what is wrong about these things. No, wait, I've got it. Norman Markowitz is an admitted Marxist. A pinko commie! This is a logical flaw called "the attack ad hominem." Essentially, an ad hominum attack is an attack on the speaker rather than the idea. For instance, if I tell you that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health while smoking a cigarette, your immediate reaction would be "look who's talking", but, the fact that I smoke doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are bad for you. My point? Markowitz being an admitted Marxist doesn't affect the validity of his ideas.

Also, right wingers get all bent out of shape about the liberal media and freedom of speech, and then want to slap some duck tape over the mouth of anyone who disagrees with them. Apparently, freedom of speech only applies to people who agree with them.

Markowitz urges Obama to implement a "single payer" national health system, or socialized universal medicine.

Interesting. The first paragraph of this article implies that Obama is a communist and wants socialized medicine. Here, however, we have Markowitz "urging" Obama towards socialized medicine. You don't urge someone to do something they're already going to do. Hmmm . . .

The New Zeal Blog, which researched connections between Obama and the Communist Party USA, commented: "The best way to determine the Obama administration's likely agenda is to read the communist press. Very few US voters would have any inkling that the approximately 3,000 members of the Communist Party USA have a huge influence on the policy and direction of the Democratic Party ."

When did quoting random blogs become research? You're welcome to quote me all you want, but don't use me as source material in your doctoral thesis. I'm not an expert in anything. Neither is the New Zeal blogger. (He's also from New Zealand. I have friends from New Zealand and they have really peculiar ideas about the US.)

Very few US votes would have any inkling that the Communist Party has huge influence in the Democratic Party because they don't. That's just silly fear-mongering, conspiracy nut pandering. SHOW YOUR WORK, new zeal! (That's right, I'm calling you out!)