Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Detroit Lions Defeat the Washington Redskins!
THE LIONS WIN IT! THE LIONS WIN IT! OH MY GOD, THE LIONS WIN IT!
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The CIA Squirms and Balks at the Concepts of Justice and Accountability
Several CIA directors have asked Obama to cease investigations into interrogation tactics (i.e. torture) during the Bush administration.
The argument really boils down to this: if the CIA has to worry about being investigated for its actions, the burden will weigh heavily and make the agency's work that much more difficult.
An AP article posted at MSNBC summarizes it:
What we have here is a serial killer requesting that detectives not search for hair and fibers, fingerprints, or other kind of DNA left behind at the crime scene. Can you imagine what would happen if they found something incriminating? It would put the serial killer in an awkward position and make stalking and killing his next victim that more difficult. Potential accomplices will shy away, and potential victims who would have otherwise died and been dumped in the woods will continue to live out their lives in relative peace.
No wonder the CIA is upset.
The argument really boils down to this: if the CIA has to worry about being investigated for its actions, the burden will weigh heavily and make the agency's work that much more difficult.
An AP article posted at MSNBC summarizes it:
In their letter, the former directors warned that the investigations could discourage CIA officers from doing the kind of aggressive intelligence work needed to counter terrorism and may inhibit foreign governments from working with the United State
What we have here is a serial killer requesting that detectives not search for hair and fibers, fingerprints, or other kind of DNA left behind at the crime scene. Can you imagine what would happen if they found something incriminating? It would put the serial killer in an awkward position and make stalking and killing his next victim that more difficult. Potential accomplices will shy away, and potential victims who would have otherwise died and been dumped in the woods will continue to live out their lives in relative peace.
No wonder the CIA is upset.
The Beatles Rooftop Concert in Three Parts
It wasn't until I started playing The Beatles: Rock Band that I realized that the rooftop concert would be a great post.
By the way, The Beatles: Rock Band is, in a word, wonderful. While it plays pretty much just like Rock Band and Guitar Hero, it is visually stunning. As much a work of art as a game, it delivers everything that you'd expect and even more.
Oh, and it's The Beatles, for crying out loud!
By the way, The Beatles: Rock Band is, in a word, wonderful. While it plays pretty much just like Rock Band and Guitar Hero, it is visually stunning. As much a work of art as a game, it delivers everything that you'd expect and even more.
Oh, and it's The Beatles, for crying out loud!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
U.S. Government "Gives" Rights
The article calls them "new rights." By "new" I suppose they mean within the last thousand years, since they seem to me to be ingrained in the U.S. Constitution (1787 A.D.) and Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). More ancient precedents probably exist, but I don't see the need in looking for them.
Only in the entire scope of human existence, would these rights qualify as "new" (or at least "newer").
Let's take a look at these revolutionary "new" rights. They include
Also, the article's title uses the verb "give" as in "U.S. gives rights." This is a grave error, though its implications are not always clear to the ignorant.
Governments don't give rights. They choose whether to respect or violate rights. You're born with your rights. As Jefferson said, they are "endowed by their Creator."
It is an improvement for the government to begin respecting some rights. However, this improvement is lessened if we believe that the government is the source of these rights--and that's the suggestion by the verb "give."
P.S. I'm not saying that I have much (if any) sympathy for those guilty of terrorism. However, justice requires that we follow due process before distributing punishments.
Choosing when, where, and to whom justice applies means that, eventually, justice will apply never, nowhere, and to no one.
Only in the entire scope of human existence, would these rights qualify as "new" (or at least "newer").
Let's take a look at these revolutionary "new" rights. They include
- The right to challenge indefinite detention without conviction for any crime.
- The right to call witnesses on one's behalf.
Also, the article's title uses the verb "give" as in "U.S. gives rights." This is a grave error, though its implications are not always clear to the ignorant.
Governments don't give rights. They choose whether to respect or violate rights. You're born with your rights. As Jefferson said, they are "endowed by their Creator."
It is an improvement for the government to begin respecting some rights. However, this improvement is lessened if we believe that the government is the source of these rights--and that's the suggestion by the verb "give."
P.S. I'm not saying that I have much (if any) sympathy for those guilty of terrorism. However, justice requires that we follow due process before distributing punishments.
Choosing when, where, and to whom justice applies means that, eventually, justice will apply never, nowhere, and to no one.
Obama: Tariffs Part of Free Trade Commitment?
Obama wants to slap a 35% tariff on tires imported from China. Critics accuse him of stooping to protectionism, but--in an L.A. Times article--an official explains:
One other thing: Will it help Americans?--And I mean Americans in general, and not whichever few are represented by the lobbyists who obviously have the president's ear on this (apparently the United Steelworkers union put it forth)?
Will I be better off paying more for tires?
Will you be better off paying more for tires?
The extra money that we will now spend on tires will be money that could have been allocated towards other resources, be they needs or wants.
If this passes, then we all just got a bit poorer. I didn't realize that was the change that he promised.
"The president is very committed to open and free trade. . . Part of that is being committed to enforcing trade laws and trade agreements."Um, how about no? This is the same as saying "The president is very committed to peace and prosperity, part of that is being committed to waging war and levying taxes."
One other thing: Will it help Americans?--And I mean Americans in general, and not whichever few are represented by the lobbyists who obviously have the president's ear on this (apparently the United Steelworkers union put it forth)?
Will I be better off paying more for tires?
Will you be better off paying more for tires?
The extra money that we will now spend on tires will be money that could have been allocated towards other resources, be they needs or wants.
If this passes, then we all just got a bit poorer. I didn't realize that was the change that he promised.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Esquire
Esquire publishes this article on the costs of the drug war. It calls for the end of the drug war as a "radical solution" to the costs in both lives and dollars. How radical is it, really? The end of alcohol prohibition wasn't "radical"--it was good sense.
Communists Love Environmentalism
By the way: no one should be surprised that Van Jones--an avowed marxist and recently resigned adviser to Obama--held an environmentalist post in the administration. Environmentalism has been a boon to communists, for it offers them a pretext for seizing control of industry. The average American simply won't buy into dialectical materialism, but their wholesale ignorance of science and economics leaves them vulnerable to the left's ecological scare tactics.
When you support these eco-communists, you think that you're saving the world. Instead, you're playing right into their hands.
When you support these eco-communists, you think that you're saving the world. Instead, you're playing right into their hands.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Van Jones Resigns: One Down, The Rest of The Administration to Go
Van Jones has resigned his post in the Obama administration. He was simply too openly a marxist for Obama's agenda to remain under the weak radar of public awareness.
The White House Press Secretary stated that Obama did not endorse Jones's "past controversial statements," but note that nothing is said of Obama not endorsing Jones's sentiments.
Am I reading too much into that? Perhaps I am, but then this question must be answered: Why did Obama appoint the man in the first place if he did not approve of Jones's sentiments?
The NYT piece quotes Howard Dean on Jones's resignation:
Having an avowed militant marxist resign from his executive post is a loss for the country? This should tell you where to stand (or at least be suspicious) on any issue that Dean endorses.
Dean further defended Jones's having signed a petition that accused the Bush Administration of being complicit in the 9-11 attacks:
The White House Press Secretary stated that Obama did not endorse Jones's "past controversial statements," but note that nothing is said of Obama not endorsing Jones's sentiments.
Am I reading too much into that? Perhaps I am, but then this question must be answered: Why did Obama appoint the man in the first place if he did not approve of Jones's sentiments?
The NYT piece quotes Howard Dean on Jones's resignation:
This guy’s a Yale-educated lawyer. . . He’s a best-selling author about his specialty. I think he was brought down, and I think it’s too bad. Washington’s a tough place that way, and I think it’s a loss for the country.
Having an avowed militant marxist resign from his executive post is a loss for the country? This should tell you where to stand (or at least be suspicious) on any issue that Dean endorses.
Dean further defended Jones's having signed a petition that accused the Bush Administration of being complicit in the 9-11 attacks:
Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign. And he learned the hard way you ought not to do that.How surprising that someone who spouts out marxist rhetoric might not really think about what he's endorsing!
Real Change (for the better) Has to Start Somewhere
If you agree with me that this government is out of control in its foreign and domestic policies, especially--but not exclusively--in its willingness to spend, spend, spend; then I urge you to do one of two things in the next election.
Suggestion 1: Vote Libertarian. Currently, there's not much (if any) chance for a Libertarian candidate to win an election, but don't think that the ruling parties won't notice and begin to make accommodations if they see an increase in Libertarian support.
Suggestion 2: Don't vote. If you can't bring yourself to support the Libertarian cause (i.e. reduced/constitutional government; maximum civil liberties), at least don't carry on as part of the current system. Voting Republican won't change things for the better: just look at the Republicans' record when they had power. Voting Democrat won't change things for the better either: Just take a look around.
Suggestion 1: Vote Libertarian. Currently, there's not much (if any) chance for a Libertarian candidate to win an election, but don't think that the ruling parties won't notice and begin to make accommodations if they see an increase in Libertarian support.
Suggestion 2: Don't vote. If you can't bring yourself to support the Libertarian cause (i.e. reduced/constitutional government; maximum civil liberties), at least don't carry on as part of the current system. Voting Republican won't change things for the better: just look at the Republicans' record when they had power. Voting Democrat won't change things for the better either: Just take a look around.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Stimulus Is Working Says Biden; Things Must Be Great Because They Could Be Worse
Biden and all of Obama's other henchmen keep insisting that the stimulus package is working according to plan.
All that they offer in evidence, it seems, is their support, or (through their media outlets) reports like this from CNNMoney celebrating fewer net job losses. Or BusinessWeek noting that nonfarm employment "fell below expectations." So they're essentially saying that things suck, but they sucked more last summer--and this just has to be because of the stimulus package.
Politicians also add that recovery will be slow.
This stinks because well-documented (though largely ignored) evidence suggests that the stimulus package and other federal actions will actually slow down recovery (read this). However, people have been primed to focus not on the slowness but on the recovery. This way the elected felons up on Capitol Hill can have enjoyed the largest heist in American history and enjoy the gratitude of the dimwits who know no better.
All that they offer in evidence, it seems, is their support, or (through their media outlets) reports like this from CNNMoney celebrating fewer net job losses. Or BusinessWeek noting that nonfarm employment "fell below expectations." So they're essentially saying that things suck, but they sucked more last summer--and this just has to be because of the stimulus package.
Politicians also add that recovery will be slow.
This stinks because well-documented (though largely ignored) evidence suggests that the stimulus package and other federal actions will actually slow down recovery (read this). However, people have been primed to focus not on the slowness but on the recovery. This way the elected felons up on Capitol Hill can have enjoyed the largest heist in American history and enjoy the gratitude of the dimwits who know no better.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Obama Does Not Bring Change
An old French saying exists among historians especially: "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."
Translated, it means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
How odd is it that so many people refer to Obama and the democratic takeover of Congress as change, indeed.
The most significant trend in American politics since the Civil War has been the increase in federal power at the expense of the states and the people. Very rarely has a president and his party actually met the standard required to suggest real change. Thomas Jefferson's Republican Revolution of 1800 is an obvious example.
However, ever since Lincoln established federal domination of the states, "change" has been a code for politicians who want the same thing but a hell of a lot more of it. Just look at a couple examples of what "changes" Obama has in store for us.
The health care system is over-regulated, one of the chief causes of high health-care prices. The health care system is already quasi-socialistic because of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more regulation and socialism.
Federal spending is a huge problem. Our federal government is literally spending our way into economic oblivion. Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more federal spending.
Already the federal government too often violates the Constitution. Obama's change is to violate the Constitution a hell of a lot more.
Imagine a husband and a wife who are having extreme marital difficulties. The wife is upset that the husband drinks and sleeps around. The husband says that he drinks and sleeps around because the wife spends all of her time nit-picking every thing that he does and has the libido of a ninety year-old nun.
You might recommend divorce, but let's say that the couple really would like to re-connect but just don't know how to start doing it. You might then recommend a marriage counselor.
Whatever you do, for God's sake, don't recommend that they consult with Obama.
Obama's advice to the husband: switch from beer to vodka, and--instead of sleeping around with other women--sleep around with other men too.
Obama's advice to the wife: You need to point out every little thing (however minuscule) about your husband and his actions that you don't like, and you need to make it clear that you will not be welcoming in bed until he addresses every little thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't be fooled. The Emperor is naked. More of the same is not change. More of something that's bad is worse.
Translated, it means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
How odd is it that so many people refer to Obama and the democratic takeover of Congress as change, indeed.
The most significant trend in American politics since the Civil War has been the increase in federal power at the expense of the states and the people. Very rarely has a president and his party actually met the standard required to suggest real change. Thomas Jefferson's Republican Revolution of 1800 is an obvious example.
However, ever since Lincoln established federal domination of the states, "change" has been a code for politicians who want the same thing but a hell of a lot more of it. Just look at a couple examples of what "changes" Obama has in store for us.
The health care system is over-regulated, one of the chief causes of high health-care prices. The health care system is already quasi-socialistic because of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more regulation and socialism.
Federal spending is a huge problem. Our federal government is literally spending our way into economic oblivion. Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more federal spending.
Already the federal government too often violates the Constitution. Obama's change is to violate the Constitution a hell of a lot more.
Imagine a husband and a wife who are having extreme marital difficulties. The wife is upset that the husband drinks and sleeps around. The husband says that he drinks and sleeps around because the wife spends all of her time nit-picking every thing that he does and has the libido of a ninety year-old nun.
You might recommend divorce, but let's say that the couple really would like to re-connect but just don't know how to start doing it. You might then recommend a marriage counselor.
Whatever you do, for God's sake, don't recommend that they consult with Obama.
Obama's advice to the husband: switch from beer to vodka, and--instead of sleeping around with other women--sleep around with other men too.
Obama's advice to the wife: You need to point out every little thing (however minuscule) about your husband and his actions that you don't like, and you need to make it clear that you will not be welcoming in bed until he addresses every little thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't be fooled. The Emperor is naked. More of the same is not change. More of something that's bad is worse.
Hail to the Thief!: Obama's Plans Amount to Armed Robbery
An article at the Wall Street Journal is headlined "Democrats Target High Earners to Help Fund Health Plan."
I wonder how much of this is a Marxist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, and how much of this is politicians pandering to the masses: "Vote for me, and I'll get you stuff with other people's money!"
It's sick is what it is. No one has the right to another person's property, and this proposal amounts to little more than legally sanctioned plunder.
Obama is a bandit not in the likes of Robin Hood (who stole not from the rich but from the Lords who had unjustly taxed the peasantry). Obama is a bandit in the likes of Jesse James: no matter how beastly his actions, he will be loved by the simple folk.
I wonder how much of this is a Marxist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, and how much of this is politicians pandering to the masses: "Vote for me, and I'll get you stuff with other people's money!"
It's sick is what it is. No one has the right to another person's property, and this proposal amounts to little more than legally sanctioned plunder.
Obama is a bandit not in the likes of Robin Hood (who stole not from the rich but from the Lords who had unjustly taxed the peasantry). Obama is a bandit in the likes of Jesse James: no matter how beastly his actions, he will be loved by the simple folk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)