Hypocritical Aliens? January 1, 2009
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture , comments closedHere’s a very insightful take on the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still- via Literatrix:
The basic premise seems to be that humans are “destroying” the earth and thus some super-powerful aliens have decided to get rid of humanity in order to “save” the earth. What are we doing that’s so bad? Technology.
Now, here’s where it just gets STUPID. How the hell did these aliens get the power to destroy us WITHOUT technology? We’re being attacked by super-powerful HYPOCRITES? [HT: Gus Van Horn]
I don’t usually do movie reviews, but this one is so awful that something needs to be said. And just like the above review, I’d like to confirm that The Day the Earth Stood Still has not a single redeeming quality! There are worst ways to waste 12 bucks, but spending it to see this movie is right up there.
From what I can still remember, the premise of the movie is that the visiting alien is actually a representative of several alien races that have somehow decided that humanity is a scourge that must be eradicated. Why? Because Earth is one of the very few planets in the galaxy that can support life and we’re destroying both the planet and the life it sustains.
I suppose no one bothered to ask why 6.5 billion humans aren’t “life” and what exactly has made it possible for such a great number to exist on a single planet.
And the disturbing thing is, people will swallow this garbage whole without as much as a gag. The lack of self-esteem in our world today is just amazing! For all the times they cry about free speech or some other supposed “civil right”, most people don’t even truly know that they have a right to live.
Untitled July 21, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture , comments closedDo you know what I’m sick of? The incessant babbling by both McCain and Obama about the intrinsic nobility of public service. No. Not “public service” as in choosing to be a policeman, or firefighter or soldier, but rather outright serfdom – euphemized as “serving a cause beyond one’s own petty self-interest”, of course.
Sink your teeth into this excerpt from Obama’s recent speech to the 2008 graduating class of Wesleyan University:
[...]There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.
But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.
It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story.
Assemble all your mental strength and ignore the doublespeak for a minute. There is something very condescending and insulting being insinuated here. First, that living my life the way I choose, pursuing my own goals and happiness and wanting to improve my own lot in life not only has no moral merit, but is a moral defect that “betrays a poverty of ambition”. Second, which is really preposterous, is that the mere fact of someone being a public “servant” makes him morally superior to those who are not. [Pay a visit to the Post Office and report back on who is the real servant.]
The intended argument here is that a social worker, or thuggish bureaucrat, or favor-peddling congressman is intrinsically morally superior to the actually productive businessman. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t remember the last time I was satisfied with an act of Congress. And since he doesn’t legally rob me of half my earnings and never forces me to act at the point of a gun, I find my local grocer to be of better service to me than any current member of Congress. And as long as we’re measuring moral worth according to social utility, I still consider my grocer to be more useful to “society” than the IRS or once again, the entirety of today’s Congress. No offense to grocers, of course.
What is saddening, and indeed very frightening, is that virtually everyone buys into the poisonous philosophy of Altruism. No one safe Objectivists can present a principled and flawless defense of your right to be selfish; that is, of your unalienable right to your own life, liberty and property.
I remember enjoying fireworks over the Hudson River just two weeks ago. I couldn’t help but notice another spectacle: that for almost everyone present, Independence Day was about just that – fireworks! Flags were waving and everyone was wearing red, white and blue, yet no one seemed to be mindful of the fact that the independence that was being celebrated barely exists anymore and is in serious threat of extinction this very year!
Americans certainly have a poor roster of leaders “public servants” today. It’s not often mentioned, but this sorry state of affairs is only a reflection of the the political mindset that dominates the voting population- that is, a self-righteous sense of entitlement. And this is the other side of the altruist coin: the expectation that others must toil for your benefit just as you are expected to toil for theirs.
In practice, this means lacking any semblance of self-reliance, a total rejection of responsibility and a convenient predisposition to falling hook, line and sinker for the bait of any ambitious demagogue “public servant” – who’s merely preaching to the choir. Case in point: our tragic but very predictable current mortgage crisis and the seemingly baffling, mysterious and simply inexplicable popularity of Barack Freakin’ Obama.
Gas Prices and the Problem of Evil May 22, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture, Philosophy , comments closedThere’s a man going around the country organizing prayer stations at Gas stations asking God to “deliver us from these high gas prices”. Whatever you think of him, you should credit the man for his novel approach to a rather vexing problem.
Religious people stubbornly lack the ability to recognize that everything about God is one gigantic contradiction. Instead of having anything to do with evil, Diana Hsieh has undeniable proof that high prices, being part of God’s plan and will, are the greatest good we could ever wish for. It goes as follows:
…as an omniscient being, God must be already perfectly aware of the high price of gas. As an omnipotent being, he must be capable of lowering gas prices. Since he’s all-benevolent, he wouldn’t allow gas prices to remain as they are if that was an evil. Ergo, high gas prices must be all for the best.
Can’t argue with that, can you? This, in fact, has opened my eyes to the fact that for anyone who believes in an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful and all-[insert favorite attribute here] deity, it is impossible to logically admit in the existence of any kind of evil since everything is part of God’s will, which is all-good.
Don’t believe me? The Holocaust is considered by many in our society to be the greatest act of evil ever committed. Just recently, a sermon from televangelist John Hagee (a former endorser of John McCain) has surfaced which essentially makes the claim that Hitler was nothing but an instrument of God’s omnibenevolent will.
This twisted view of the nature of good and evil is rather commonplace; just look up Fred Phelps or the Reverend Pat Robertson.
No Wonder Our Taxes Are So High! March 12, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture, Politics , comments closedThere’s a finally a convincing theory to make sense of that complex question: Why are we lawfully robbed of so much of what we earn? I’m not sure about the people in other states, but in New York, we have an answer — which is that taxation is necessary so that our honorable politicians may be able to afford “a basic human necessity”: $4300 to spend a couple of hours with a whore, every now and then!
Please excuse my language today, I just find this sort of hypocrisy beyond outrageous! I wonder though what would make a man such as the governor, (i.e.: a rich, powerful man who without a doubt has an abundant selection of women at his disposal – freely, not to mention HIS WIFE!) would spend $80,000 a year for sex. Even Julia Roberts only charged $3000/week; Mr. Spitzer routinely shelled out the same amount for one freakin’ HOUR! Either these girls have some out-of-this-world skills, or “The Sheriff of Wall Street” must have some very, very, very sick fantasies! Most New Yorkers don’t even make near $80,000 a year … or even 2! But maybe I’m just falling victim to the Marxist notion of price.
Isn’t it amazing how it’s always the self-righteous ones that tend to be the sleaziest of them all, whether they be Republican or Democrat? I wonder what’s hiding in Obama’s closet(s)? Do you think he could be Muslim? Just kidding. He might be a socialist however.
P.S: On a more serious note, I believe prostitution should be perfectly legal … I just don’t think public officials (or anyone else, for that matter) should be able to enjoy it at my expense.
Rampant Idiocy in New York February 14, 2007
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture, Politics , comments closedNew York really seems to be outdoing itself lately: first, it was a statewide smoking ban, then it was a ban of trans fats in all New York City restaurants. Then there was something more ridiculous: The New York City Board of Health decided that it would not only let people “pick” their gender, regardless of what it actually is — but that it would also enforce that decision on others!
Now, State Senator Carl Kruger, seeing that New Yorkers will take just about anything, wants to basically stop us from using any electronic devices while walking outside. Via WNBC:
A state senator from Brooklyn said on Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would ban people from using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in New York City and Buffalo.
NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.
“While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they’re tuning out the world around them,” Kruger said…
Yep, you’ve got to leave it to politicians to manufacture the crime of WWLM — Walking While Listening to Music. It is impossible to walk for more than 30-45 seconds in New York City without having to cross a street! Now imagine having to interrupt your phone conversation, or having to pause your iPod, every 30 seconds, just so you can cross a street! Why does Mr. Senator think that, for some reason, I can’t use my eyes and ears at the same time? Your guess is as good as mine.
Politicians really are awkward creatures: they think of every little thing as a big problem that needs to be solved by legislation. Not to sound too insensitive, but if a grown man doesn’t know how to properly cross a street, he really may be out of “tune” with the world, but an iPod is the least of his problems. Maybe Mr. Senator ought to consider legislation that would ban people from listening to music or the radio while driving their cars.
—
P.S: Holy sh*t! I think I’m blogging!
Technorati Tags: Idiocy, New York, Carl Kruger