The American Tyrant

Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of South Carolina.  Next year, with the 150th anniversary of the start of the civil war, we are sure to hear incessant praise of America's only tyrant, Abraham Lincoln.  The fact that so many Americans idolize the proto-fascist is revolting, especially when Americans take a dim view towards foreign leaders who kill thousands of their own people in wars.

For example, Slobodan Milošević killed 130,000 people to preserve the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and he was arrested as a war criminal, dying in jail.

Yet, Abraham Lincoln killed 600,000 people to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States, but a Greek temple was built in his honor and his portrait was placed on America's most common coin.

Beta-in-Chief

As I've written in the past, I'm a bit skeptical of the alpha-beta-omega paradigm popular amongst HBDers and gamists.  Their definition of "alpha" seems to be a man who is capable of sleeping with a lot of sluts, whereas in biology and political science that term is used to describe the highest-ranked individual of a group (the leader).  By the HBD/PUA definition, Adolf Hitler, despite his charisma and leadership abilities, was a beta or omega because he slept with few women in his lifetime.  Yet, a gangsta who has four "bitches," but exists on the fringes of society without a job or education is an alpha.

My skepticism was assuaged today, when Barrack Obama demonstrated that is is quite possible to be both a beta by the HBDer/PUA definition and an alpha by the traditional definition.  Obama and Bill Clinton were at a press conference regarding the tax "compromise" and Obama dodged the reporters with this exchange (video here):

Obama: "Here's what I'll say, I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm gonna take off."

Clinton (laughing): "I don't want to make her mad - please go."

(h/t: W.F. Price of The Spearhead)

Why I Support Extending Unemployment Benefits

Despite my libertarian beliefs, I think it's clear that even libertarians should support the extension of unemployment benefits.  This article from MSNBC notes the dreadful impact not extending those benefits would have on the economy (bolding is mine):

The [Council of Economic Advisers]’s report, which details how a failure to extend the aid would affect people on a state-by-state level, says nearly seven million Americans could lose coverage by the end of next year and that 600,000 jobs are at stake. Goolsbee contended the gross domestic product would be six-tenths of a percent point lower in December of next year if the benefits are not extended, slowing the nation's recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

According to an earlier report by the National Employment Law Project, some two million workers nationally could lose benefits in December if they are not extended, an estimate the CEA also uses. The U.S. Joint Economic Committee estimates failure to extend the benefits program "would drain the economy of $80 billion in purchasing power and result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year."

In order to preserve the GDP and prevent the loss of even more jobs, Congress must act quickly to take money from people who create jobs and give it to people who do not have jobs.  Poorer people spend more of their money than rich people (who would just do socially irresponsible things like save or invest their money), so if we simply give poor and unemployed people more money, they will spend their way out of our recession.

Additionally, Congress should hire little boys to wander around towns and break windows.  True, shopkeepers would have to pay to replace them, but just think of all the money that would be spent on windowmakers and glaziers.  They would have to hire many more employees to keep up with the increasing demand for their services and they would have more money to spend, creating even more jobs.  Our high unemployment rate would fall dramatically!