Brianna

Spoof Article

11 posts in this topic

I got this idea from a WSJ article. Enjoy!

***

Last night President Obama, with the full backing of the Democratic Party, shocked the nation by calling for a repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which he claims have been "nothing but an impediment to my efforts to get this country out of the recession."

When asked why he felt it necessary to alter the laws of nature, Obama explained that studies conducted by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and his own personal staff had shown that these laws, far from being unalterable facts of reality, were actually mere human constructs which were hindering American prosperity and lengthening the recession.

"You see," he explained, "the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy must be conserved, prevents us from obtaining energy out of nothing, which forces us to pay more for energy. And even worse than that, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the universe must continually become more disordered as entropy increases, means that even when we find a convenient form of energy, our use of it forces it to become disordered and impossible to reuse. So you can see that if we repeal these laws, America will be much better off."

Reporters then asked him whether he felt this issue was more serious than his fight against the Laws of Economics, which had previously been the Obama administration's main focus.

"Oh absolutely," he replied. "The Laws of Economics may tell us that government cannot create wealth and that it cannot give money to one person without taking at least that much money from another, but the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we can't obtain energy out of thin air. Think how much cheaper energy for cars and homes would be if we could get energy out of thin air; think how much easier it'd be to run factories and create manufacturing jobs. And all of those things would benefit the poor and the middle class far more than the rich. We like to think that the Laws of Economics hurt the poor, and they do, but in reality the damage done by the Laws of Thermodynamics are much worse. So if we just focus on repealing the Laws of Thermodynamics instead, then Americans - especially the poor and middle-class - will be much better off."

Obama emphasized this point in a speech given to his supporters later in the day:

"If it weren't for the greedy machinations of reality, we could have cut poverty in half by now through decreased energy prices," Obama told his supporters. "Forget those greedy fat cats and their touted Laws of Economics, it is Nature itself against which you should truly direct your ire!"

When asked whether he really thinks its a good idea to defy "Nature itself," Obama replied that it wasn't "Nature" he was concerned about. Rather, what drove him was the concerns of real Americans whom the arbitrary edicts of Nature were harming. "I hear from you at town hall meetings like this. I read your letters," Obama said. "I know that the Laws of Thermodynamics are causing you to suffer, are causing you to expend effort that would otherwise be unnecesary, and I promise to devote the remainder of my Presidency to helping you to alleviate that suffering."

The initiative has garnered much support in Democratic and more moderate Republican circles, but some hardline conservatives and independents have been less enthusiastic. Although these critics reluctantly conceded that life would indeed be easier if the Laws of Thermodynamics could be repealed, they expressed doubts as to whether those Laws were indeed mere human constructions which could be changed at whim. However, President Obama denounced this view.

"There have always been those who refused to compromise, who attempted to block the road to progress," Obama replied when he was asked about these comments. "These people are entitled to their opinion, but I will not allow their cynicism to get in the way of real Americans' hopes for change."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very sarcastic and funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got this idea from a WSJ article. Enjoy!

***

Last night President Obama, with the full backing of the Democratic Party, shocked the nation by calling for a repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which he claims have been "nothing but an impediment to my efforts to get this country out of the recession."

[...]

You ought to post that as a comment on that article on the WSJ website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama Calls For Repeal of Laws of Thermodynamics

So is Glenn Beck. A few days ago (Oct. 11) he gave a demonstration with candy ordered in layers by color inside a large transparent jar. He showed how the colors mix together when you shake the jar, saying you would have to shake it for an "eternity" if you wanted to try to get the colors back in the original order just by randomly shaking it because it is impossible.

He then likened this to human social systems and said that "spiritual gravity" causes "everything to decay". "Socialism", he informed us is just a "lower" form of "order" than "freedom", and it will decay too. "Life", he said, is "all about, really, it is the endurance of that decay".

So what do you do? If you want order, he claimed, you have to turn to God to create it against the natural law and "entropy". God is the source of order and you have to please Him because you will meet up with him at your end. We "shouldn't concentrate on our 'rights'" because rights did not appear anywhere in "the Tora". "God's law is all about responsibility" -- "We don't have to worry about our rights when we start concentrating on our responsibilities." We "get our rights from God" because the "free market is God's way of teaching people how to do good" -- you only have freedom so that you can learn how to serve others. "Gandi has the answer", he said, "The answer is love". Beck has previously said that our "rights" only come from "God", that someday he will take them away, and we will (somehow) know when that is -- so much for human "rights" being rights. He also insists that we must pursue "individual salvation", and rejects the "collective salvation" pursued by the left.

This patent nonsense in the form of bromides about "love" is right out of the earliest, most primitivist days of Christianity -- one of the many "mystery cults" of the time -- founded out of fear of an imminent apocalypse predicted by Judaism, leading to obsession with other-worldliness, and secondarily with loving everyone as the means to serve God, who has given us everything and is about to take it all away. (Saving one's own soul in another world is as close to "individualism" as they ever got.)

Beck's claim that we need freedom in order to sacrifice ourselves in order to "do good" had absolutely nothing to do with the Enlightenment values of reason and the rights of the individual in accordance with man's nature, resulting in the American form of government guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one' own happiness here on earth. Beck and the history of the founding of this country are diametrical opposites.

Yet Glenn Beck and the long line of previous religious conservatives that he echoes claim to be teaching us the "real history" and insist on the "original intent of the Founding Fathers" -- now being using to push a sense of life based on "enduring the decay" and obsequiously pandering to the supernatural through human sacrifice and an appeal to God to restore "order" as a miracle overcoming the supposed natural tendency towards chaos and destruction allegedly in accordance with these "laws" of the universe they want to get around. A primitive tribe of mystic cannibals couldn't express it any better.

This is why Glenn Beck keeps saying that we should all be "praying on our knees" for divine intervention in politics -- it's on behalf of a "higher order" of "the free market" making it possible for us to voluntarily sacrifice instead of having it imposed on us in earthly ways. Of course the promotion of collective self-sacrifice and anti-reason out of the mystic fear felt by an impotent mind are all the socialists need (like Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright and many others) to take them up on it and bring about the irrationality and sacrifice for real. Yet the religious conservatives -- the one's who are serious about this -- claim that they are fundamentally different from the left because they insist on "freedom" and the "individual salvation" obtained through human sacrifice.

So there we have the false alternative between the Obama left and the Beck religious right: Both deny that rights come from objectively identifying the nature of man and his requirements of freedom in order to live as an individual. One replaces rights with subjective entitlements imposed by force by "society", and the other denies that rights come from man while insisting on a mystical, "intrinsicist" notion of undefined, supernaturally revocable "rights" from "God" as an injunction for "freedom" to practice the same sacrifice as the left demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good Brianna. This was very funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure the Keynesian multiplier exists, it's just <1

Personally, I have always been of the opinion that it is <0. But to each his own :-)

ow, this is very clever. It's almost as if he actually said this!

Thanks Cadence. That was the effect I was trying to go for, but I'm not so good at thinking like Obama, so I wasn't sure how well I'd done.

@All: I write these things for a blog, opinion-forum. You can find the article itself there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading the article "The Anti-Conceptual Mentality," in Philosophy: Who Needs It,

and there is a very interesting issue in this article that you've written, that I could not name until now.

If Barack Obama were to actually give this speech, he would be laughed at, because the *concrete*, scientific Laws of Thermodynamics are accepted as logical and factual.

However, the conceptual, more abstract issue, the Laws of Economics, are equally factual and logical, but are *conceptual* facts. The fact that if he were to give this speech about the Laws of Economics, many Democrats/Socialists would rejoice and full-heartedly agree with him (however, many - due to the pragmatic nature of America, would say that he is being 'too extreme', but agree with him, *kind-of*).

My point is that it is interesting to recognize a concrete example of the anti-conceptual mentality, and I (excitedly) wanted to point it out explicitly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure the Keynesian multiplier exists, it's just <1

Personally, I have always been of the opinion that it is <0. But to each his own :-)

Whoops, of course you are right, that's what I meant! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites