Very good statement of conservatism. But wrong about Ayn Rand. Michael Savage is not an Objectivist, quite the opposite. He defends "sodomy" laws -- and in a totally incoherent way. Ayn Rand's "cold-blooded" morality of selfishness has created more wealth and happiness than have the "humanitarians" from Savonarola to Stalin, whose gift to humanity was piles of corpses. Objectivists are quite willing to help the tsunami victims -- with their own, not the taxpayers', money.

I do not profess to be "objective". I openly boast that I look at the world through eyes that are biased in favor of Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness.

I've listed a bit to Savage. If he's an agent provocateur, he does an awfully good job of acting disturbed. Although no doubt he is an embarassment.

I wrote this in reaction to the old post about Savage and, by implication, the comparison with G. Gordon Liddy:

Liddy is a relic from a different age. He introduced me to talk radio (his show did, that is) and his book Will, while somewhat offputting, has stayed with me since I read it over 20 years ago in college. Savage is something else altogther.
--
In the context of this post - the Jews and the tsunami - and your able dispatch of the "two sides to everything" fallacy, you have to admit that while Savage is basically a parody of right-wing talk show hots (he's what people who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh think Rush Limbaugh is), that's a long way from explaining how on earth that bomb got into place, too...

I found your site from a link found on instapundit regarding the Savage post.

Good reading here, thank you.

I have posted a link to the Savage post on FreeSpeech.com

-Steven G. Erickson aka Vikingas

"No doubt in furtherance of this policy of objective neutrality, Wikipedia links to this gem of a conspiracy site (which maintains that controlled explosions brought down the Twin Towers) and offers the following comment:
Some people see this as evidence that it was intentionally demolished by pre-placed explosive charges."

Not anymore it doesn't! That's the wonderful thing about Wikipedia, isn't it?

Yes, it's always wise to rule out the impossible, moving then smartly onto what appears to be the next most likely cause, in the minds of some erudite Leftists, the improbable. Because the crazier it is the more likely it is, up to a point. No wait, that gives me a thought: let's get back to the impossible. It must be possible if I had to rule it out. Thus its truth is necessary, it being the most absurd thing possible. Therefore it is likewise most true that Nothing caused the tsunami, and everything else, too. It was exactly like the Big Bang, which also came from the Nothing. Right? It happened, the tsunami happened, here we are, Nothing happened. That's it, nothing happened. DEQ.

Here is an ancient theory from the Vedas:

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi writes in his book "The Science of Being and Art of Living” how the negative actions of a population are absorbed by the atmosphere, which is like a sponge.

"The universe responds to individual action,” writes Maharishi. Collective violation of natural law results in a response from nature. According to Maharishi natural disasters are feedback from nature.

According to this Vedic theory it is no fluke the world's largest Islamic nation suffered thousands of deaths. The tidal wave was the response from nature to the thousands of Islamic terrorist murders. It is a message from those classical gods: the laws of nature.

Conspiracy theory

It's amazing what technological stupidity can lead to. And by stupidity I mean colossal ignorance of high school level science and basic technology.

The idea that a nuclear weapon could cause the Bay of Bengal tsunami is so laughable I am reminded of the dumb movie Independence Day where the alien spaceship described as one quarter of the size of the moon is destroyed by the power of a single tactical nuclear weapon.

Simple natural events such as earthquakes or hurricanes contain energies that dwarf even a huge nuclear weapon. A great earthquake has the power of more than 1000 megatons, the largest nuclear bomb ever tested only had the power of 50 megatons and the W54 small tactical nuclear warhead maxes out at only 1 kiloton. So a tactical nuclear weapon has 1 million times less energy than an 8.0 earthquake.

I find myself comparing American Digest's latest with this post, wherein Vanderleun writes:

If we had lived in the age of Atlantis (Pace, whether or not Atlantis happened my friend. That is for another time.), if we had lived then or even 200 years ago, we would have experienced this disaster at this distance as an event already risen to the realm of myth by the time the tale was told.
First stories told by seaman would reach us, third hand or much more distant still. Then reports and letters sent over the months via couriers, traders, vagabonds, horsemen and ships would accumulate. A rising series of items would be published in the broadsheets -- first a column inch or so as a maritime announcement, then more and more reports until whole newspapers were consumed in dense, small black type relating in thicker prose the real, rumored, fanciful, false and, at last, mythic nature of the day a wave erased a world.
In time, travelers and survivors would be heard from, each one with a different tale, a different interpretation.

And I find myself wondering if the speed at which we communicate now leads to a quasi-natural splitting off of narrative to crackpot sinkholes? Is there an inherent advantage to getting news at a more "organic" pace?

Well, one of the reasons that Krakatoa is so fascinating from a sociological point of view is that the telegraph system had only recently been installed to enough locations that the tragedy was reported in real time, pretty much. There was also the widespread use of a little device that's the direct ancestor of the seismograph; early adopters in the Victorian age were able to compare notes from all over the world. This means that Krakatoa was an event with a LOT of verifiable data.

It was also the last time a tsunami washed around the Indian Ocean.

Ayn Rand's cold-blooded new morality

:::sigh::: I suspect that the writer really knows very little of Rand's morality to label it "cold blooded".

Her objection was "charity" VIA the end of a gun. THAT was what that idiotarian Egeland was sniveling about..that the US government wasn't robbing its citizens enough to put more money into the parasitical UN. Indeed, Egeland et al deliberately ignore private relief efforts. Rand actually encouraged private and voluntary charity. She was a great believer and promoter of self-realized values.

In Atlas Shrugged is a scene where Hank Rearden meets the pirate philosopher Ragnar Danneskjold ... the world's #1 criminal...Ragnar explains:

If you remember the stories you've read about me in the newspapers, before they stopped printing them, you know that I have never robbed a private ship nor taken any private property. Nor have I ever robbed a military vessel -- because the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of government. But I have seized every looter-carrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others. I have seized the boats that sailed under the flag of the idea which I am fighting: the idea that need is a sacred idol requiring human sacrifices--that the need of some men is the knife of a guillotine hanging over others--that all of us must live with our work, our hopes, our plans, our efforts at the mercy of the moment when that knife will descend upon us--and that the extent of our ability is the extent of our danger, so that success will bring our heads down on the block, while failure will give us the right to pull the cord. This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity.

Savage is as much a "conservative" as a guy who joins the Jehovah's Witnesses so he can avoid having to buy birthday or Christmas presents.

Darleen:

Terrific! Thank you.

Listening to these ridiculous theories makes you wonder how long "Bushitler" and the CIA have been around. I mean, if they triggered the tsunami, they must be responsible for the 16th century Chinese quake that killed a million people, right? I GOT IT! TIME MACHINES! ROVE, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD! THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA... (struggling with strait-jacket.) Hey, where is my tin-foil?