The great global warming fraud

One day, assuming humanity survives, people will look back on the birth of the religion of global warming and realize just how pathetically ignorant most were about reality. Al Gore will be a pariah, a schmuck among millions of religious zealot schmucks that bought into man made global warming. The facts, that is the science, have never supported the argument for man made global warming (any more than it supported the argument for global cooling as a threat to our existence 30 years ago, oh what uninformed people will fall for!), it's only on a basis of faith that global warming has taken hold - that is to say, believing when one has absolutely no rational reason to. And that's why, for example, Al Gore had to use hyper scare tactics to get attention.

Fortunately, the British are coming to the rescue (and they're not alone, with Claude Allegre of France, one of global warmings originators, also now denying man made global warming). Thank the Queen for the BBC, this is one of the most important documentaries ever made:

Atlas shrugging in socialist Venezuela

It's tragic, as are all attempts at Socialism, but the people of Venezuela are going to get what they deserve for not only voting for Socialism but voting for such a monster as Hugo Chavez - and violating the individual rights of their fellow man in the process.

Chavez threat to seize food shops
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6364515.stm

Chavez and the people of Venezuela are about to enjoy the first major life and value destruction that inherently comes with all forms of statism (such as Socialism). Their food supply is beginning to be destroyed. The delivery, processing, selling, stocking, etc. of every manner of food is beginning to collapse. It's not shocking, it's the natural order of Socialism to kill the population of a country, starting from the bottom (the poorest) and moving up the chain. It could have been easily predicted that Venezuela would rot and Chavez would lead his people into hell.

The best and brightest of Venezuela have already mostly fled the country, they've been exiting in increasing numbers for the last few years (as demonstrated by the significantly boosted immigration of skilled labor into the US from Venezuela). Nature has beautiful, built-in mechanisms for dealing with all attempts to go against it (as Socialism does go against nature), and there are no long-term methods to escape the justice of nature. What's so amazing about South America's broad move toward Socialism, is that they apparently are completely ignorant of their own recent past where all of the ponzi schemes of Socialism have been tried in dozens of flavors and implementations. Of course don't let the fact that every form of statism inherently fails and such has been demonstrated globally for 200 years repetitively, dissuade anyone from giving it another go. I mean, why not starve millions, destroy an entire economy, and set a country back decades... it's a worthy experiment for Chavez' new Socialism. I'm sure all the pathetic statism lovers around the world will cheer as the country marches toward self-destruction. What's a few million human sacrifices compared to achieving such a noble ideal?

So as the downward spiral of Socialism sets in, Chavez is going to grip tighter and with increasing acceleration strangle his country to death. He'll transition from a mere elected Socialist punk, to a full-fledged Socialist dictator. In any given socialist nation, the country must either move toward freedom, capitalism and individual liberty, or toward bankruptcy, slavery, and a more severe form of statism (either fascism or communism for example). Chavez is, as is understood, following in the foot-steps of his idol, fellow monster Fidel Castro.

All forms of statism, to the degree of their implementation, require brute force to be employed against the population. Socialism in the Hugo Chavez format, gradually increases the use of force as the country begins to shut down - it becomes the only means for someone like him to maintain control and power, as the people begin to revolt nationally. Laissez-faire Capitalism requires the least force out of any form of government, all the way up to the extreme force required by Stalinist Communism (Soviet Russia, North Korea, Mao China, etc.).

As the Capitalists all begin to shut down in Venezuela, refusing to be slaves, Chavez (who is truly a top notch moron) will discover first hand exactly why Socialism fails: it's a cannibal, it eats itself, and it's built on a foundation of injustice toward the individual. So the collective is promoted as the ideal ahead of the individual (as though a 'collective' were anything more than a group of individuals), and the collective then proceeds to eat itself. You see the self-eating occurring in one of my other favorite socialist slums right now: France. The size of a socialist country's asset base and the severity of the statism are what determines how long the country holds out before total collapse; France will last a while, centuries of assets exist to be eaten by the welfare state (15% unemployment, Muslim ghettos living on welfare, low standards of living, low productivity, low innovation, etc.); Zimbabwe didn't last very long, and neither will Venezuela.

The best thing the United States can do in this case, is literally ignore Chavez, and allow nature to take over. That is to say, take no action, stand back and watch as Venezuela implodes on a spectacular scale. All statist leaders (doesn't matter if it's heavy Socialism, Fascism, Communism, or other) require an enemy of redirection - someone the leader can attack, blame, point to, you name it, to redirect attention away from the evil occurring at home. And of course Chavez has been using the United States for that purpose, just as Fidel did as he butchered and enslaved his own people. Shortly the world is going to witness the spectacle of a nation tremendously rich in oil, nearly unable to even feed itself. The liberals in the U.S. that so dearly love Socialism will get another text-book classic example of why and how Socialism inherently can never succeed - and they will of course once again blatantly and ignorantly look away as though it never happened.

My favorite part of the BBC article has to be this:

"Some private companies are also concerned about President Chavez's intention to make them allow their employees time during the working day to study Socialism."

Chavez truly has never gotten enough credit for his comedic value.

Justice is a wonderful thing to observe in action. I won't be cheering as Venezuela sinks into the abyss, but I'm always happy to know that even in instances where evil temporarily triumphs, it ultimately destroys itself.

"if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders -- what would you tell him to do?"

Shrug 

Opportunity takers

I've never liked the way entrepreneurs are focused on and described as risk takers, as though that were the defining attribute. Read almost any article about entrepreneurialism and inevitably the article boils down to taking a risk on some business idea.

Jumping out of a plane is risky. Unprotected sex with someone you just met in a bar, is risky. Burning a Koran while walking through the streets of Tehran, is risky. Dancing on a hill in a lightning storm dressed in chainmail, is risky (although tempting, no?).

Starting a business and pursuing ideas that drive you, is hardly risky in a meaningful sense. I've been an entrepreneur for a decade now, since I was 16 years old, and before that I observed my father as an entrepreneur for a decade. In total he was an entrepreneurial 'risk taker' for a quarter of a century prior to his death. Growing up, what he did never struck me as risky in any relevant sense, and it still doesn't. Was it challenging, laborous, time-intensive, stressful, inspiring, meaningful, creative, productive, rewarding and disappointing? At times you can be sure it was any given one of those. Risky? There were elements of risk, but in no way is that the primary. He was pursuing value, not risk.

Wouldn't it obviously be infinitely more risky to your own well being to not pursue that which drives you? That which you're passionate about. Failure is a far better housemate than 'if only I had.' It's impossible to acquire any value in not trying, while quite easy to extract invaluable lessons from failure. In my experience entrepreneurs deal with failure very well, but, and this is common to all people I think, I've yet to meet the person that deals well carrying around 'if only I had....' Regret from not pursuing an opportunity is like a throttle on the soul of an entrepreneur.

I read something by Peter Drucker, famous business & management thinker, that prompted this post.

To quote him:

---

I once attended a university symposium on entrepreneurship at which a number of psychologists spoke. Although their papers disagreed on everything else, they all talked about an "entrepreneurial personality," which was characterized by a "propensity for risk taking." A well-known and successful innovator and entrepreneur who had built a process-based innovation into a substantial worldwide business in the space of twenty-five years was then asked to comment. He said: "I find myself baffled by your papers. I think I know as many successful innovators and entrepreneurs as anyone, beginning with myself. I have never come across an 'entrepreneurial personality.' The successful ones I know all have, however, one thing - and only one thing - in common: they are not 'risk takers.' They try to define the risks they have to take and to minimize them as much as possible. Otherwise none of us could have succeeded."

This jibes with my own experience. I, too, know a good many successful entrepreneurs. Not one of them has a "propensity for risk taking." most successful innovators in real life are colorless figures, and much more likely to spend hours on cash-flow projections than to dash off looking for "risks." They are not "risk-focused"; they are "opportunity-focused."

---

I disagree with a couple subtle points of his, but his last line nails it. Entrepreneurs are fundamentally risk killers, not risk takers. Their pursuit of success entails the elimination of risk as a threat to that success. Risk at any given time exists as a static, definable quantity, and only goes on existing so long as the foundation underlying said risk is allowed to remain unresolved. Risk is at its root simply a problem solving exercise (however obviously it comes in all manners of shapes and sizes). In my experience, all successful entrepreneurs tend to be good problem solvers (with variances in what kind of problems they're better able to solve according to their personal traits).

Interestingly, entrepreneurs and innovators stamp out risks that threaten everyone else at the same time they're eliminating risks to themselves and their businesses. Just one simple example: average human life expectancy has made quantum leaps due solely to having risks (threats) to one's health eliminated courtesy of innovators and entrepreneurs. In other words, don't credit the government and don't hug a tree, hug an entrepreneur, you have a shot at being healthy and living to 100  (instead of 27) because of people like him and those that came before him. Just another case of rational self-interest benefitting all of man-kind.

Trivially yours

How's this for a trivial excuse for a first post? Because I have to get it out of the way.

Hey, give me a break, it has been years since I've blogged regularly. Years!

Who's in my iTunes -

Aerosmith
Alicia Keys
Ashlee Simpson
Asia
Audioslave
The Bangles
The Beatles
Big Country
Billy Idol
Billy Joel
Black Eyed Peas
Bob Seger
Bruce Hornsby
The Chemical Brothers
Christina Aguilera
The Clash
Coldplay
Collective Soul
The Cranberries
The Cure
Cyndi Lauper
Dave Matthews Band
David Arnold
David Bowie
Deftones
Depeche Mode
Don David
The Doors
The Dream Academy
Duran Duran
The Eagles
Eddie Money
Elton John
Eminem
Eric Clapton
Eric Prydz
Fatboy Slim
Fine Young Cannibals
Fleetwood Mac
Fluke
Foo Fighters
The Gap Band
Garbage
Genesis
Gravity Kills
Guns N' Roses
Gwen Stefani
The Hooters
Huey Lewis & The News
INXS
Janet Jackson
Jefferson Airplane
Jem
Jennifer Lopez
The Jesus & Mary Chain
Jimmy Buffett
Joan Jett & The Blackhearts
Kelly Clarkson
Kenny G
Kenny Loggins
The Killers
Laura Branigan
Led Zeppelin
Lenny Kravitz
Linkin Park
Living Colour
Liz Phair
Madonna
Marc Broussard
Marilyn Manson
Meat Loaf
Medicine
Metallica
Michael Jackson
The Moody Blues
Motley Crue
Murray Head
Neil Young
New Order
Nickelback
Nine Inch Nails
No Doubt
Oingo Boingo
Orgy
Pantera
Paul Oakenfold
Pearl Jam
Pet Shop Boys
Peter Gabriel
Phil Collins
Pink Floyd
The Police
Power Station
Queen
R.E.M.
Rage Against The Machine
Rihanna
Rob Zombie
Robbie Williams
The Rolling Stones
Roxette
Roy Orbison
Rush
Sarah McLachlan
Seal
Seether
Shakira
Smashing Pumpkins
Soundgarden
Stabbing Westward
Sting
Stone Temple Pilots
Talking heads
Tears for Fears
Tom Cochrane
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
Toni Braxton
Tool
Toto
U2
Van Halen
Wang Chung
White Zombie
Whitesnake
The Who
Will Smith
Yes
ZZ Top

That's right, from ZZ Top to Roy Orbison to Toni Braxton to Tool to Kenny G to Metallica to Billy Joel to NiN to Eminem to Orgy to Yes to Pink Floyd to Sarah McLachlan to Duran Duran to Pearl Jam to The Rolling Stones. Around the music world in ten gigabytes (and yes I'm proud of the fact that 99.9% of it has been legally acquired damnit). Speaking of which, does anyone find it amusing that Metallica railed against music piracy big time, and yet they're one of the few remaining big artists you can't purchase at the iTunes Music Store? They're burned out chumps now anyway, they lost their edge years ago.

Flickr


  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Jonathan0766. Make your own badge here.