What I Think

About Higher Taxes and Regulation

2011-10-16T11:04:00.001-05:00

So let me get this straight, higher taxes and more regulation are bad for business? But I feel so much wealthier when my net pay is lower because my taxes are higher!
And when it's more difficult for me to do what I do best, I magically do better than ever!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594890367486316.html

About an Anguished Ramble

2011-08-22T22:00:00.003-05:00

I shouldn't be writing this. First, I learned some bad news. Second, I took comfort in a pint of Vodka.

That said, I'm rather inebriated and emotionally exhausted. Before you critique my arguments, take these points into consideration.

My father died when I was five years old. He died of cancer, which he developed due to exposure to the chemicals in Agent Orange. He wasn't a soldier; he was a forester. As I understand it, his job involved regrowing timber from clear-cut areas. One of the first things in order was to kill undergrowth in order to foster samplings. One of the barrels filled with the herbicide leaked into the bed of his pickup truck. He cleaned it himself without special equipment because he did not know how dangerous the materials were.

I remember my father being sick. I recall his hair falling out in clumps from the chemotherapy, but I didn't know the first thing about chemotherapy or cancer. I remember how often he was in the hospital, and I remember having to be good around him because he was so unwell. I remember all the people in our living room on the day that he died. They were all so quiet, but I didn't understand the gravity of the situation.

In retrospect, given the medicine of the early 1980s, my father had no real chance. My Uncle Dan donated bone marrow, but that wasn't enough. My Uncle Steve prayed everyday that God would shower my father with His grace, but it was all for naught.

Years after my father's death, I learned the story of it. Two people were present: my Uncle Steve and my mother.

My Uncle Steve had been in a car crash years earlier and suffered brain damage. He had his wits, but to this day he suffers vocal and motor limitations. Before his accident, he had been a man of the moment. Drugs, alcohol, and a good time were pretty much what he looked forward to. In a way, his accident saved him because it humbled him. He came to know God and to believe in Jesus' redemptive powers. To him, the accident had been a wake up call, and he was now awake.

Armed with his faith, my Uncle Steve decided that he would pray and that the Lord, in all His love and power, would hear his prayers. He prayed for my father, and he stood by my father's sickbed more than anyone besides my mother.

While my father laid on his deathbed--no one knew at the time exactly how soon the end would come--, my mother and my Uncle Steve were by his side. At some point, he asked my Uncle Steve to go and locate some ice cream. My uncle obliged. While my father laid there with just my mother, he expressed his fears and his grief to her.

He knew what was coming.

His breathing had been labored, but it became worse. I don't know what his last words were--I've either been too young or too--I don't know if I've been too afraid, too embarrassed, or what--to ask, but I like to think that he told my mother how much he loved her and that he had full faith in her ability to care for his children.

He died before my uncle could return with the ice cream.

For obvious reasons, this was a pivotal moment in my life. Nevertheless, I haven't thought enough about what it meant to my uncle. My Uncle Steve had prayed with all his might that God would show mercy on him. He'd had faith in the efficacy of prayer. But for what? My father suffered and died despite the prayers of many.

I don't know what kind of soul-searching my Uncle Steve did in the aftermath of my father's death, but I don't remember a day when he wasn't a devout Christian. He must have been devastated. He must have been out of his wits, for a moment. But in the end, he must also have understood that God's Will is often beyond our understanding.

And he accepted that.

Now my Uncle Steve has cancer. He hasn't drank a beer or smoked anything since his accident. He's always tried to eat healthy: lots of fiber, fewer sugars and fats. Still, he has cancer.

While my father knew that he would leave behind two children as his legacy, my Uncle Steve has never been married. He's been somewhat a recluse, due mostly to his handicap--people often assume that he's drunk because of his slurred speech and awkward motor skills. He has his brother, my Uncle Dan, and his sister, my Aunt Kellee, but I have this terrible sense that he feels that he's about to die alone.

Yes, I know that he's not going to die straightaway. He's already scheduled for chemotherapy. Nevertheless, he must know that the end in sight. His cancer is "treatable, but not curable," whatever that means. Isn't that pretty much the rule for all cancers? The thing is that it has spread from his gall bladder to his liver and lungs. I think that means stage 4 cancer, and the doctors are more concerned with "buying time" than with eliminating the cancer.

My Uncle Steve taught me to appreciate history. He had many books and was always up for a discussion. He taught me to appreciate classic rock. We took a month-long camping trip during the summer in which I turned 13, and the whole time we listened to cassette tapes of everything from Jim Croce through Lynyrd Skynyrd. Through my Uncle Steve, I learned the lesson that when life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade.

Regarding my current profession, three people have been the most influential: Jim Lockerbie, Thomas Conner, and my Uncle Steve. I admire my Uncle Steve, and I've much to say to him, but I don't know what to say. I remember the last time I saw my grandfather--Uncle Steve's dad. I was on the way to the airport with my wife and two children, and we stopped by the hospital so that I could say farewell to my grandpa. I think the both of us knew that we'd never see each other again. I wept like a child when the doctors took him to whatever test or treatment they were performing, and for the first time in my memory, I saw my grandfather cry.

My grandfather died of cancer a few months later. I had the plane ticket to come see him one last time, and he died a few hours before my plane took off.

I'd say "God damn cancer," but to me it seems more like "God uses cancer." Now I can take that in two ways. First, I can take it as God uses cancer to screw with people, to make their final weeks dreadful and to milk anguish from all loved ones. Another way is to say that God knows everything. He understands that we grieve, but he knows the big picture that we do not. I could try to fathom it and explain it in this post, but that would be fruitless. I could no more explain God's omniscience than I could explain the deepest mysteries of quantum physics. Heck, at least a physicist can try to explain quantum physics. Ask a priest about God's Will, and you end up with more questions and doubt than you started with.

I'd like to wrap this up now because it's a rambling mess. Many whom I've loved have died of cancer. My father, his father, my maternal grandmother, my wife's grandfather, and more. Praying hard won't cure cancer. My Uncle will live for a year, a few years, many years, or he may die soon. My prayers won't matter. As much as this fact irks me, I must confess that I cannot claim to know a better way. I am weak. I pray not because it will accomplish my will but because my will is insufficient.

Here then, is my prayer:

Lord, do what you must with my Uncle Steve. He is a good man, and he is beloved by many. If you must take him slowly and with great pain, keep us clear headed. Send us comfort in a random song on the radio. Cool our tempers with a soft breeze. Give him the strength that he needs, and give me and my family the strength that we need. In short, help him first, but then help me.

Thy Will be done.

About Killing Al Quaeda

2011-06-04T20:34:00.004-05:00

An interesting question that we should ask: When our government kills an Al Quaeda militant, is the US really one enemy down? When a predator drone wipes out ten mushahadeen, is the US really ten dead bodies closer to victory?

If the answer is "No, not really," then I think our current policy is destined to fail.

About Christian Charity--Does Socialism Follow Jesus' Teachings?

2011-06-04T19:52:00.004-05:00

Too many people armed only with scriptures written thousands of years ago claim to understand God's will and know "exactly" how we should behave socially and politically.

When the last books of the New Testament were written, slavery was acceptable and monarchy was the preferred form of government.

The most important lessons from the bible are, for the most part, not literally applicable to us. To better understand, we need to cut through the history, discriminate between what was present and relevant then and what is present and relevant now. We must read the subtext, and therein lies the difficulty.

For instance, many socialists claim that Jesus, with his message of charity for the weak and needy, would have advocated programs such as social security, medicaid, and medicare. Isn't it Christian to help the elderly, the poor, and the sick?

But social security, medicaid, and medicare all rely upon the violent, coercive powers of government to redistribute wealth involuntarily from the productive to the non-productive. Does love of one's neighbor come from the barrel of a gun?

Others, and I count myself among them, consider Jesus' proclamations to be calls to individual action. I should help the elderly, the sick, those weaker than I am.

According to the socialist model, my property is forcibly taken from me and (lacking major corruption), delivered to those in need. The first caveat, of course, is that socialism breeds corruption and inefficiency. The formula for helping people in this way ends up hurting more. The second caveat is that a man who pays his taxes is not charitable. He does so in order to avoid being harmed. Jesus did not say, "Blessed are the shirkers and those who cower before might." There's simply no charity in the socialist system.

According to our alternate model, men can demonstrate their devotion to Jesus' teachings by acting according to their free will.

Should the old version of the story be true, when we die and meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, which will be the more valid petition: "I paid my taxes," or "I gave of my own free will"?

So the trick to Christian theology isn't to say "This and this happened and in ancient Judea would have resulted in that and that, therefore the same should be true for us."

The trick to Christian theology is to strike at the meaning of Jesus' teachings, God's will itself, if you're a believer.

If you're not a believer, then you've already discounted this post. Alas.

About God's Will

2011-06-02T20:43:00.003-05:00

It is upsetting to submit in prayer "Thy will be done." We don't often pray for God's will but for our own.

At the same time, it can be comforting to know that His will indeed will be done, and-- whether we know it or not--it is for the best.

If God is omniscient, he knows more than I do or ever can. I must admit this when I'm at a crossroads of faith. I must rest assured that no matter the hardship for me or another whom I love, it is part of something bigger than I can fathom.

I don't have to like God's will in a temporal way. In prayer I might even submit a list of grievances. I think God understands and forgives such insolence. Nevertheless, despite my misgivings I should end every prayer with "Thy will be done."

In the end, His will is superior to mine, whether I like it or not.

Simplify, Simplify, Simplify!

2011-05-08T22:35:00.002-05:00

The federal government can relieve much of its burden by ceding much of its unconstitutional powers to the states. Simply because an issue concerns us all does not cause it to fall under federal jurisdiction. This is a union of states--states created the union by ratifying the constitution--and the states can be left to themselves to deal with important issues. Consider only a few examples.

Murder, rape, and assault are heinous crimes that should be punished in all states. This doesn't mean that the federal government should have jurisdiction over them, and it doesn't The states themselves enact laws against such crimes and enforce them. Since states differ from each other, they may approach and punish these crimes differently--per the will of their people. For instance, there is no death penalty in Michigan, but in other states--think Texas--murder is often punished by a death sentence. This does not mean that Michigan is softer on murder than is Texas. It simply means that Michiganders do not see capital punishment as the best way to deal with convicted murderers.

The Constitution's tenth amendment states clearly that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the states. Therefore, the feds do not prosecute murderers for murder, rapists for rape, or assailants for assault. Nevertheless, over time the federal government has assumed powers that are not constitutional, and they have done so on the grounds that the issues are vital to all Americans. As Ted Logan would say, this argument is bogus. Murder, rape, and assault are issues vital to all Americans.

Consider a few issues considered so important that the constitution must be violated, and think how states themselves could easily (and most likely less expensively and more efficiently--since states differ from each other).

1.) Education. Making sure that our youngest generation is literate and capable of being productive members of society is important. Nevertheless, a quick reading of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution informs us that Congress lacks any power over the subject. According to the 10th Amendment, that means that states or individuals themselves should be responsible for education. The federal government spends billions on education, but it educates no one. All education is done on the state or private level. The Department of Education should be abolished, and the people of the states should be able to determine for themselves what their children need. This would save the federal government billions every year, which translates into trillions over time.

2.) The Environment. It is important that people do not so ruin the environment that it becomes inhospitable to human life. I don't know anyone who would argue against that. Nevertheless, it is not a job for the federal government. Rules regarding drilling for oil in Alaska should not involve votes from Illinois. Regulations intended to preserve the spotted owl in Washington State should not involve Floridians. California leads the way with reckless environmental policies. Let them test for themselves what happens when property rights are thrown asunder. Let the rest of us develop our own policies that suit our own needs and do not render us victims of other people's ideas. The Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

3.) The Department of Agriculture. Agriculture is necessary for life. Without access to good food, we're in trouble. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the federal government needs to regulate who and how our foods are produced, distributed, and consumed. States in which agriculture is important know what they need to produce quality crops and meats. Federal regulators assume that Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives them the right to "regulate" agricultural commerce because it often crosses state lines. This is a loose construction that ignores the reason for the so-called "Commerce Clause." The Constitution's framers created AI.S8.C3 in order to prevent states from trade-wars via tariffs. That's it. Every federal power over business that has been justified by the commerce clause--except for those that prevented states from limiting trade between each other--is unconstitutional. Let consumers and the states decide who makes their food, who sells it, and what's worth buying. Abolish the Department of Agriculture.

4.) The Food and Drug Administration. See comments above. Abolish the FDA.

Of course, the bulk of federal spending is on social security, medicare, and the military-industrial complex. The first two are clearly unconstitutional and should be abolished. Let states and families take care of their elderly. Federal spending on the military is, technically, constitutional, but that's not the issue here. If we did nothing more than reduce the federal government's regulatory powers (and thus its spending habits), we wouldn't be looking at either the fiscal or monetary mess that we presently are facing.

About Three Reckonings

2011-03-20T13:35:00.003-05:00

To suggest that there is a "reckoning" in the near future is to state the obvious but vaguely.

This society has a cultural reckoning demonstrated by the popularity of programming such as The Jersey Shore and other unscripted television. This week on the Bachelor, the bachelor faces a tough decision, and all relationships are "amazing." Comedy Central's South Park, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Tosh.0 are probably the best written shows on television. Ask yourself what they each have in common: they lampoon our bankrupt culture.

Popular music is mere imitation of what was uninspired twenty-five years ago. Lady Gaga's schtick was disingenuous and old when Madonna shocked us all by making out with black Jesus. The Jonas Brothers have run their course, so now it's time to squeeze every dollar of every microsecond of Justin Bieber's fifteen minutes of fame before it's on to the next teen pop idol.

Michael Bay is a fine example of what's happened to cinema. Screw plot. To hell with character development. Let's just blow up a bunch of shit. Alien robots that double as product placement revenues from General Motors is just icing on the cake (in the original Transformers, Bumblebee was a VW bug).

Social Networking consumes our time with trivial matters expressed in terrible grammar and "in-ovative $pelling" (4sh0). Nevertheless, it's too new--or perhaps I'm still too much of a novice--and its potential to bring people together in meaningful ways makes me reluctant to pass final judgment for the time being.

We also face a political reckoning. The two major parties are corrupt, morally and philosophically defunct instruments of theft and tyranny. While many will admit that we need a third party to come to the rescue, they also suggest that voting for third-party candidates is a waste of time. Our modern elections are the epitome of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Several seasons ago, a South Park episode brilliantly satirized the situation when the boys were expected to vote for a new school mascot. The choices were a turd sandwich and a giant douche. When one of the boys refused to vote because he hated both choices, the community insulted and ostracized him--as if he was the problem. We have a Nobel Peace Prize winning president who has just authorized the unconstitutional use of force to intervene in another sovereign country's internal affairs. Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" has proven to be an echo of the cynical proverb: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Perhaps the economic reckoning is the most pressing and fearsome of all. The federal government's spending is worse than insane and out of control. Considering the ultimate consequences of our fiscal and monetary policies, it is downright evil. The previous election saw a bunch of turd sandwiches replaced by a bunch of giant douches, especially when you consider that the amount of budget cuts suggested by (supposed) fiscal conservatives do not even match the increased spending. They suggest cutting in the billions while spending increases in the trillions. I'm neither a mathematician nor an economist, but I can see the the problem with that. Our debt is a threat to our livelihoods--I'm not even talking about prosperity; I'm talking about our ability to eke out a living of any kind--, and our very sovereignty. In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the second witch predicted: "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." In Macbeth, she referred to the protagonist himself. To us, that something wicked will take the form of unprecedented taxation or hyperinflation, followed by starvation, and quite possibly large-scale violence.

I'm not the first to point any of these reckonings out, and I'm not hoping to be lauded as insightful. What I've said has been better put by others, but this has been weighing on me for some time now. I'm also not the first to point out the similarities between our current situation and the period leading up to the decline of the Roman Empire. See Gibbon if you don't believe me (though I think that he exaggerated the role of Christianity in Rome's fall).

The world will not end in 2012, but we may be on the threshold of something too close for comfort.

About Julian Assange and Wikileaks

2010-12-09T23:21:00.004-05:00

While the United States fought its war for independence, France was a despotic monarchy. Nevertheless, we accepted French aid in our war against Great Britain and to this day hail France for its support.

Julian Assange may be a jerk. He may even be a criminal--but something in me is suspicious of the charges because they came at such a convenient time and so demonize him has a man. Nevertheless, his organization, Wikileaks, has showered corrupt and secretive (synonyms, if you ask me) governments with egg. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new age in which governments cannot wager that the people will buy into their deceits.

Mr. Assange, you may be an ass, but I accept your aid in the war against tyranny, and I hail Wikileaks for its support.

About Mid-term Elections

2010-11-13T23:48:00.003-05:00

The mid-term elections were exciting to anyone who has yet to realize that Republicans never deliver smaller government.

Can I sue for a breach of the so-called "Contract With America"?

Democrats and Republicans think that government is the answer to our problems. Therefore, both parties are equally defunct and, God willing, should be erased from the political spectrum.

Party distinctions are, today, as irrelevant as the northern wing of the Whig party in 1856.

About the Efficacy of Prayer

2010-10-26T22:47:00.004-05:00

I do not believe that prayer will help you get what you want, but if you pray correctly, you might better understand God's will.

Remember that the prayer taught by Jesus himself says "Thy will be done."

Sometimes that sucks, but you need to figure it out for yourself. I still do not know why my father had to die when I was five, but he did. Praise His grace, I had a wonderful step-father, and most things seemed to work out all right. I don't have to think long and hard to see how my step-father has helped me in life. I do, however, have to think long and hard as to why the same lessons and messages couldn't have been transmitted through my father. I am humble enough (just barely enough) to accept that God's will is superior to mine.

They say that the devil is in the details, but I disagree. If you look close enough with an open mind and an open heart, you can usually find the truth (or something like it) in the details.

Robert E. Lee suggested that the outcome of battles was God's will. This is always true, I suspect, even if the bad guy wins. We are too apt to think short-term and egotistically. We need to learn from our defeats as much as from our victories. Even pulp fictions like Shakespeare's tragedies teach us lessons.

Life is not like a box of chocolates, as Forrest Gump asserts. Life is a gift, and like all gifts we best take it and enjoy it for what it is.

Of course I pray that my will be done, but I also acknowledge that I would be more at ease if God's will and my will were one in the same.

They often are not, but it's not God's fault or my fault. It is what it is, and if I cannot see the light it is not because the sun does not shine but because I am still deep in the cave.

About the Best Modern Primer on Economics: Robert P. Murphy's "Lessons for the Young Economist"

2010-10-24T15:35:00.003-05:00

I need to take this moment to recommend Robert Murphy's Lessons For the Young Economist.

Written in clear, unassuming prose, Murphy explains both theory and practice. Unlike other economic texts, it is witty and approachable. You should check it out even if you've never liked economics. Even if you've taken some economics courses, go buy it. If you think that economics is too convoluted and inaccessible to laymen, then this book will change your mind.

Here is the table of contents:

PART I: FOUNDATIONS
1. Thinking Like an Economist . 3
Thinking Like an Economist 3
Is Economics a Science? . 5
The Scope and Boundaries of Economic Science . 5
Why Study Economics? . 8
2. How We Develop Economic Principles . 13
Purposeful Action versus Mindless Behavior 13
The Social versus the Natural Sciences 15
The Success of the Natural Sciences versus the Social Sciences 17
How We Develop Basic Economics 22
3. Economic Concepts Implied By Action . 31
Introduction 31
Only Individuals Act 32
Individuals Have Preferences 36
Preferences Are Subjective 37
Preferences Are a Ranking, Not a Measurement Using Numbers 39
Different Individuals’ Preferences Can’t Be Combined . 42
4. “Robinson Crusoe” Economics . 49
Introduction 49
Crusoe Creates Goods With His Mind Powers 50
Consumer Goods versus Producer Goods 52
Land, Labor, and Capital Goods . 53
Income, Saving, and Investment . 55
Goods Are Valued Unit by Unit 59
Pulling It All Together: What Should Crusoe Do With Himself? . 61

PART II: CAPITALISM: THE MARKET ECONOMY
5. The Institution of Private Property 71
Society Requires Rules . 71
Capitalism: This Is Private Property 73
The Market Economy and Free Enterprise . 74
6. Direct Exchange and Barter Prices 81
Why Do People Trade With Each Other? 81
Direct Exchange / Barter . 82
Prices 83
How Prices Are Formed in Barter . 84
7. Indirect Exchange and the Appearance of Money . 99
The Limitations of Direct Exchange . 99
The Advantages of Indirect Exchange . 101
The Advantages of Money 104
Who Invented Money? 106
8. The Division of Labor and Specialization 113
The Division of Labor and Specialization . 113
Why Specialization Makes Labor More Productive . 115
Enriching Everyone By Focusing on Comparative Advantage . 117
9. Entrepreneurship and Competition . 125
Entrepreneurship 125
Competition Protects Customers 127
Competition Protects Workers . 128
10. Income, Saving, and Investment 135
Income, Saving, and Investment . 135
Investment Increases Future Income 136
How Saving and Investment Increase An Economy’s Future Output . 141
11. Supply and Demand . 147
Supply and Demand: The Purpose . 147
Demand: Its Definition and Its Law . 148
Supply: Its Definition and Its Law 153
Using Supply and Demand to Explain the Market Price 155
Using Supply and Demand to Understand Price Changes .159
12. Interest, Credit, and Debt . 175
Interest: It’s About Time 175
Savings, Investment, and Economic Growth . 177
Common Credit Transactions 180
The Pros and Cons of Debt . 183
13. Profit and Loss Accounting 191
Profit and Loss Guide Entrepreneurs . 191
Interest Versus Profit 193
The Social Function of Profit and Loss Accounting 195
The Limits of Profit and Loss Accounting . 199
14. The Stock Market . 205
The Stock Market 205
Why Issue Stock? (Debt versus Equity) . 206
The Social Function of Stock Speculation 209

PART III: SOCIALISM: THE COMMAND ECONOMY
15. The Failures of Socialism—Theory . 221
The Vision of Pure Socialism 221
Socialism’s Incentive Problem . 223
Socialism’s Calculation Problem . 229
16. The Failures of Socialism—History . 239
Economic Theory and History . 239
Communism vs. Fascism 241
Socialism’s Body Count . 242

PART IV: INTERVENTIONISM: THE MIXED ECONOMY
17. Price Controls 255
The Vision of Interventionism . 255
Price Ceilings . 256
Price Floors . 261
18. Sales and Income Taxes 271
Government Spending 271
How Government Finances Its Spending . 275
Sales Taxes 277
Income Taxes 279
19. Tariffs and Quotas . 287
Mercantilism 287
The General Case for Free Trade . 289
Tariffs . 293
Import Quotas . 299
20. The Economics of Drug Prohibition 305
Drug Prohibition . 305
Drug Prohibition Corrupts Government Officials 307
Drug Prohibition Fosters Violence 314
Drug Prohibition Reduces Product Safety 320
Money Inflation vs. Price Inflation . 325
21. Inflation . 325
How Governments Make Prices Rise . 329
The Danger of Government Price Inflation 336
22. Government Debt 345
Government Deficits and Debt 345
Government Debt and Inflation 350
Government Debt and Future Generations 353
23. The Business Cycle 361
The Business Cycle . 361
How Governments Cause the Business Cycle . 363
The Inevitable Bust Following an Artificial Boom 368
The Causes of Mass Unemployment 369
Glossary 377

About Being So Damn Busy

2010-10-20T19:30:00.001-05:00

I again apologize to my readers (both of them--or are they now three?) for the scarce postings. My duties as football coach along with other professional obligations leave me tired most evenings.

On the bright side, my boys thoroughly whipped a team that ran the score up on us last year. Their only points (two touchdowns, no extra points) came in the fourth quarter when their first string faced our third string.

We scored at will on offense.

Final score: 48-12.

About George Washington (Briefly)

2010-10-20T19:21:00.002-05:00

When I think of how easily George Washington could have seized--heck, could have accepted--dictatorial power yet chose instead to return to Mount Vernon as citizen Washington merely, I have two reactions.

First, I shudder at how easily a Republic can fall to demagoguery.

Second, I wish that we today had someone half as equal: popular, wise, and respectful of the Constitution.

Alas. Now his name is tainted by the city of hypocrites, tyrants, and thieves.

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
--Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson"

About a Ridiculous Argument Against Legalizing Pot

2010-10-14T18:10:00.004-05:00

In an article entitled "Legal Pot in California a Big Mistake," (apparently verbs no longer en vogue) columnist Ruben Navarette, Jr. asserts

If you legalize any kind of undesirable behavior -- from vagrancy to prostitution to identity theft -- you'll remove the stigma and get more of that behavior.

I disagree. First of all, it's not as if access to marijuana is terribly restricted. Ironically, it's easier for kids to buy pot from an illegal vendor (i.e. drug dealer) than it is to buy beer from a legal vendor (i.e. Rajeeth at 7-11--I'm not being racist here. My local 7-11 is owned and operated by a man named Rajeeth. Were it not for my beard and my being a regular customer, he'd card me every time). Illegal vendors don't card their customers. When I was in high school, my buddy Garreth R., no, that's to specific, let's call him G. Ritz, used to hook us up through an old boss who would buy us beer and try to sell us pot at the same time.

Also, it's incorrect to suggest that legalizing something reduces the stigma and leads to greater demand. All legalizing something does is permit those who demand it to trade for it openly. As far as I understand, eating my dog's feces is legal, but there's still plenty of "stigma" attached to doing so. Were it legal to marry my sister, I wouldn't.

What Navarette means is that legalizing something in demand leads to people legally (and thus visibly) consuming it. Such is not the same demand increasing.

Few people who have never tried pot have abstained simply because it is illegal. It is already readily available. The illicit trade is the cause of much violence on the streets and tax-payer burdens in the form of court costs and prison accommodations.

Legal pot stops the violence and tax-payer burden. There is no argument valid to suggest that it will lead to more people smoking pot.

Besides, suppose that pot smoking becomes a bigger problem. Can't its legal status simply be repealed?

Malaise

2010-10-05T20:49:00.003-05:00

These are exhausting days. Although I've been doing my job perhaps better than ever before, I'm working against several frictions that neither decrease my performance nor damage my reputation, but they are annoying.

On top of this, it is football season, and I am again coaching. We won our first game last week, and we've another tomorrow. It occurs to me when I come home that I am no longer in my twenties, and that years of relative non-exercise have taken their toll. I like to run with the kids, even hitting a bit to show how to drive block or deliver a good "pop," but my legs are less responsive and the soreness persists longer than ever.

Add the coming elections, and I fall into despair. The right men and women will either not win or default on their promises. The wars persist. Monetary and fiscal policies are insane. The dollar is in real danger. I'm not an economist, but I see dark clouds on the horizon.

I haven't heard many speak of it, but I think that in addition to rising debt and persistently low interest rates from the Fed, we're looking at petroleum being valued by a currency other than the dollar. This is only a hunch. I've heard it in a few places (though I cannot remember where), but it makes sense. Perhaps Bob can correct me on this, but if petroleum drops the dollar, global demand for the dollar will plummet. Given the unprecedented supply (am I right on this?) of dollars, a rapid drop in demand will be a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions (in the United States, that is).

Someone who knows better than I do on the above subject should chime in and clarify or correct my assumptions.

And my Fantasy Football teams suck.

I am not old, but I am tired.

About Being Dead Dog Tired

2010-09-27T20:39:00.001-05:00

I'm coaching football for the next month and a quarter, so don't expect much of consequence in the meantime. (At least now I have an excuse.)

About Tax Cuts Without Spending Cuts

2010-09-26T22:24:00.004-05:00

Tax cuts are a great idea if they correspond with spending cuts. As long as the government keeps spending, the tax cuts are to us as a mirage is to a thirsty man wandering the desert.

Ask yourself, from where does the money spent come? If not from taxes now then it is from taxes later or inflation. Taxes later is no better than taxes now, and inflating the currency is bad all around.

But promoting tax cuts wins votes because most voters are stupid. In the end, Democracy screws us all just the same. Men like Ron Paul are the exception. Oh but if we had a few dozen more like him.

"Dr. No" was coined as a pejorative, but it rings like a compliment.

Let's "End the Fed" but not stop there.

About Government Aid

2010-09-17T23:50:00.003-05:00

I recently heard that more Americans than ever are receiving government aid. How's that for a gentle euphemism? What it should read is that more Americans than ever are living off the labor of fewer Americans than ever.

Newsflash: It's not government aid. It's welfare. But "welfare" is itself little more than a euphemism for good old fashioned redistribution, the kind promoted by such visionaries as Lenin and Mao.

Before you suggest that Lenin and Mao had ideas that looked good on paper (as most ignorant people state when they describe communism), look at what their ideas brought to this earth: the most repressive, depressive, and aggressive governments ever established. Stalin followed Lenin, and Stalin made Hitler look like Mr. Rogers.

I thought that the 13th Amendment settled the issue of people living off of others' work. Such is called slavery, and the idea that anyone is due another's property without compensation is more akin to slavery than a mere analogy.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are becoming slaves to the state. The U.S. government earns no money. What it pays it takes from its productive people. It does not ask for their productivity. It takes it.

We are becoming a country of slaves. Maybe now you'll read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

Read it. Think about the news.

The men and women in Washington are either in on the scam (e.g. Pelosi) or too damn stupid to get it. Dr. Ron Paul may be the only exception. You can infer this merely by how disliked he is amongst his congressional peers.

It's nearing time to side not with he who promises to fix the system but with he who promises to bring down the system.

About an Old Friend

2010-09-12T21:50:00.002-05:00

I recently reunited with an old friend via Facebook. There was a time (if you can imagine) when my forceful assertion of opinions rather irked him. He says that he has mellowed, but we'll only know after he's perused this site's archives.

FYI: He's a smart son of a gun, so if he becomes a frequent reader and commenter, this site will only get better!

About Human Rights and Islam

2010-09-12T20:23:00.003-05:00

Islam is a religion of peace that has spread by the sword and composes the most tyrannical nations on the face of the earth. Adultery leads to a divorce in most countries, but in countries run according to Islamic law it leads to execution by stoning (e.g. Nigeria and Iran).

The defenders of Islam need to step up right now and repudiate its archaic traditions. A woman is not a man's property, and her fidelity should not be a matter of the state's concern.

Either Islam is peaceful and its many followers are wrong, or it is not peaceful and every word about it's supposedly peaceful message is a load of crap.

I'm sick of hearing how the religion is distorted by a radical few while pretty much every country dominated by Muslims is repressive of the most basic human rights.

If I'm wrong, then I invite opposition. If I'm not wrong, then you must accept my conclusion that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

About Two Funny Links

2010-09-11T20:48:00.004-05:00

The guys at The Onion have done it again and again.

About Soldiers in Germany

2010-09-08T23:02:00.001-05:00

Why do we still have soldiers in Germany? I suppose that I understand Okinawa--as a springboard in case of trouble in Korea, but we spend billions to keep soldiers in Germany. Really?

As long as we've got Hasselhoff, we don't have to worry.

About Pandering

2010-08-29T20:43:00.002-05:00

Why do the politicians who want to put "Main Street" first think that doing so requires funneling money and power into East Capitol Street?

About Slavery and Abortion

2010-08-25T21:38:00.004-05:00

Abraham Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," and I agree with his sentiment. I should note, however, that I disagree with many of Lincoln's political assertions. Yet the above quote is not political. It is a moral statement recognizing that anyone appealing to justice and human rights must be against slavery.

In modern times, we simply know that slavery is wrong. Few, however, can express why.

In a nutshell: The institution of slavery was an established system of legally sanctioned inequality. When you take another man's liberty, you take his life. When you make a man your property, his property is made yours. Therefore, slavery violates the sacred principles that established this republic: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Those who defended slavery from its critics appealed not to what slavery did to enslaved men and women, but to the "benefits" of slavery--race control, and the economic health of slave owners. If slavery were abolished, then blacks could roam the country freely! If slavery were abolished, then much of the South's economic capital would simply vanish into thin air!

These concerns were real. There is no doubting that slavery both kept blacks under control and propped up the South's economy. White men and women throughout the country feared the social equality that might follow black mobility, and economic interests in the South (e.g. planters) and the North (e.g. textile mills) relied upon slave labor. Ending slavery would set blacks free and threaten the cotton supply. Of this there is no disputing.

Nonetheless, slavery was wrong, and there's no appealing to the inconvenience of abolition. Abolition hurt many, but slavery hurt more and deeper.

The same is true with abortion. If abortion is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Abortion stops a heartbeat. It kills. There is no denying it. Saying that a fetus is not a person is as feeble an argument as saying that blacks are not persons.

The abolition of abortion will be inconvenient to many. It will put some women in uncomfortable positions. It will be costly to some women, families, and the state (which will certainly be called upon to care for unwanted babies).

But it doesn't matter.

Abolishing slavery ruined the planter class, but we are better as a people for it. No man has the right to build his wealth in such a way. Abolishing abortion will also have its costs, but they are worth it. No one has the right to kill another person simply because that person is an inconvenience.

About a Funny Bar-B-Que Video

2010-08-25T17:03:00.000-05:00

I saw this on Tosh.0.

About the Perils of Socialism (See Venezuela and Its Stalin: Hugo Chavez)

2010-08-24T09:54:00.004-05:00

Read the whole article, but if you haven't time, these excerpts should suffice:

In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000.

...the climb in homicides in the past decade as unprecedented in Venezuelan history; the number of homicides last year was more than three times higher than when Mr. Chávez was elected in 1998.

Venezuela is struggling with a decade-long surge in homicides, with about 118,541 since President Hugo Chávez took office in 1999.

So you're more than three times more likely to die violently in Venezuela (a country at "peace" but suffering under a socialist dictatorship) than in Iraq. Did you catch that? It's safer to live in Baghdad than in Caracas.

This is not unprecedented. More Russian's died from Stalin and Marxism than from Hitler's war machine (and the wermacht killed 20,000,000!). In China, Mao has a similar record of killing more of his people than the Japanese did during WWII, and all in the name of progress.

The list goes on, and the lesson is clear. Socialism is deadly--often deadlier even than war.

About So-Called "Drug Violence" in Mexico

2010-08-23T23:35:00.002-05:00

Add a comment to this post if you agree with me that the violence along the Mexican boarder (and elsewhere in Mexico) is the result not of drugs but of the drug war.

What caused the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? It wasn't alcohol. It was prohibition.

About Minor, Personal Things

2010-08-22T15:00:00.003-05:00

Our mattress is in bad shape--bad enough that my wife often retires to the couch in the middle of the night (and not because of me, BAR). We're looking into a Tempurpedic mattress. Does anyone out there have a Tempurpedic? Is one worth its expense?

BTW, I've a bit of time to make this decision. I'm owed some money, but it doesn't look like it's coming in any time soon.

Ahem...

About Obama As a Machiavellian.

2010-08-21T22:32:00.003-05:00

Read this interesting article from former vice-presidential candidate Wayne Allen Root on the possibility that Obama is purposefully screwing things up.

About Nothing, Really

2010-08-14T02:40:00.005-05:00

"I remember when I used to be into nostalgia."
--Demetri Martin

It's past midnight, and I'm sleepless. I tried a couple glasses of scotch--good 15 year Glenfiddich--,but I am wide awake.

Perhaps it's because I have no work tomorrow. I often have trouble sleeping when that is the case.

More likely, it's something else, and that something else is so personal that I cannot now (if ever) put it properly into words. I'm near Coos Bay, Oregon, the city of my birth and earliest years. My memories of the place are few--headless turkeys (don't ask), sand dunes, family friends, a small house, Shakey's Pizza.

In this region I was born, and though I have no affinity for the logging business, I am nonetheless drawn to it. I'd say that there's something "spiritual" about it, but that would sound (and be) utterly stupid.

What draws me to this place, I think, is that it was here that my father brought my mother to lay root and make a life. This he started to do and would have done if he hadn't become sick with cancer and died before my sixth birthday.

Say what you want, Freudians. I like cigars too.

Maybe I'll post something in the next couple of days, but more likely I won't. It's not like I have been overwhelmed by comments to my previous posts.

"Planes, Trains and Automobiles" Recut

2010-08-07T22:49:00.000-05:00

About Etymology and Misusing "Enormity"

2010-08-05T13:27:00.009-05:00

English is a delightful language with a rich history. Its influences include ancient Greek Latin--and its Romantic offspring, especially French--and various Germanic languages going back to the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic nations who conquered England (literally "Land of the Angles"). Minor additions from Hebrew , Old Norse, and even Arabic have made themselves a part of the lexicon. Individual words from dozens--perhaps most--other languages also roll comfortably off our tongues.

What follows is a brief--excruciatingly brief--look at how the English language has borrowed from other languages. I will conclude, however, with a look at a particular error in usage--an error based upon etymological ignorance.

The ancient Greek contribution is most plain in many of our medical and scientific terms, words as photograph--literally "light painting" or "light writing" --hemophiliac--literally "blood lover" ). All of our phobias (e.g., agoraphobia--"fear of public places") are ancient Greek, as are our --ologies (e.g., psychology--"logic or study of the mind").

Latin is similarly important to medicine and science. Ars medicina is the "art of healing," and science, from scientia, literally means "knowledge." Latin is also the language of the law. If you're ever arrested, you will thank the framers of our Constitution for ensuring the writ of habeus corpus--writing (i.e. court order) to show "that you have the body [the subject person under detention]"--otherwise you can be kept imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. The abbreviations i.e. and e.g., which I use frequently, are from Latin.

Both ancient Greek and Latin show up in regular words: hydration, democracy, and hypocrite (to name only a few) are Greek; dictator, aquatic, automatic, benefit even et cetera are Latin. Even new forms of expression base themselves often in these ancient languages, especially modern additions owing to technical advances (who used the word "text"--a word formed from the Latin noun textus-- as a verb twenty years ago?).

French and Germanic influences are everywhere. Most every day English words come from the period dating from when the Norman French conquered the Anglo-Saxons of England and imposed their (Latin based) language.

I live in a house. My wife's Austrian relatives, who obviously speak German, live in a haus. French is so closely tied to English that I use French phrases without even thinking about it: (e.g., bon appétit, à la carte, c'est la vie). Many of our Latin words came to us through French variations. I say cathedral, and Pierre says cathédrale. Both of us mean "large church." Cicero, however, used the word cathedra for "seat," and this is where our French-based usage derives, for Ecclesiastical Latin adopted cathedra to identify a bishop's "seat." Of course English isn't the only language to borrow. The Latin cathedra is from the Ancient Greek kathedra (καθέδρα).
I bid farewell by saying "Goodbye," a variation of the Middle English "God be with ye." God from the Germanic Gott. Be may be related to the Germanic sie--I say may be because I don't know it as a fact. With obviously comes from the Germanic mitt, and ye--or you--from the German du.

So an English-speaker says "Goodbye," meaning "God be with you,"which translates directly into the German Gott sie mit dir. Dir is the object form of the subject du, but in English you stays the same in its subject and object forms. If the German did similarly, "God be with you" would translate into "Gott sie mitt du." This common English expression is clearly Germanic in origin.

But what strikes me by our expression "Goodbye"--rooted in "God be with you," is that almost the exact same expression is used to say farewell in Spanish and French--both of which are most influenced by Latin.

Many of our words and phrases are not just verbally borrowed in the sense of similar words, but even our idioms cross over.

I say "God be with you," but Juan says "Adios"--to God--and Jean Claude Van Damme says "Adieu" (just before he knocks me out with a round-house--or is that roundhaus?).

Most of our Spanish words originated in Latin. Nonetheless, there's some cross over with German (I presume due to the Gothic invasions/settlements). Guerrilla means "little war," which we use with a bit of redundancy in "Guerrilla war" ("Little war-war"?). The Spanish Guerra (don't pronounce the "G"), meaning "war," is from the High German werra or middle Dutch warre.

The Latin influence is similar in Italian. If you've been classically trained to play an instrument, then you know more than a few Italian words and expressions.

From Hebrew we have amen, hallelujah, and other religious terms.

Yiddish, a fusion of languages including German and Hebrew, gives us schmuck, schlemiel, schlimazel (but not Hasenpfeffer Incorporated).

Even non-Western languages have found places in our speech. If I'm watching a football game, and I note that number 82 rammed into the receive team's wedge as a kamikaze, I've used a Japanese word. Kamikaze means "divine wind," but it was the title applied to Japanese pilots who sacrificed their lives by crashing bomb-laden planes into American ships. In English, we use the word kamikaze in the latter, historical but non-literal sense.

And it is in this regard that I finally make my point. Using kamikaze in a way that ignores a personal disregard for one's safety is not appropriate. In the football example, my use of the word kamikaze is hyperbolic. While number 82 may indeed have been risking his health, he was neither homicidal nor suicidal. It's a fine line I'm walking when I make such exaggerations, for I run the risk of diluting an otherwise strong and specific word.

What's next? I remark that Jeff Gordon win races because he drives like a kamikaze? I use kamikaze to describe my dog chasing a rabbit?

Before long, the word becomes merely a synonym for reckless or recklessly. Later still, it may simply be another way of saying quick or quickly.

This is exactly what happened to the word awesome, a word that we use nowadays interchangeably with cool or great and the like. Nonetheless, the word is rooted in awe, which means to overwhelm with reverence and dread. To awe is to inspire respect and fear. It's not simply an exaggerated word meaning "impress." We stand in awe of God because God is awesome. In one word, awesome, we confess that God is great and fearsome--to the extent that we have no further modifiers. Something is awesome when it is so magnificent, so wonderful, so great that no words or descriptions suffice.Similarly, something is awful when no other word or words will adequately describe its iniquity or foulness.

Yet the last time you used awesome, you probably meant hardly more than "really neat."

That's what happens to words and language when people do not use them properly. We think in words. Your reactions to these stated opinions are now forming themselves into words, and you can hear those words in your mind. Maybe you've even muttered a few under your breath. Therefore, whatever weakens the language weakens our ability to think. As our words mean less, so do our thoughts.

When you see a person butchering the language, know that he is butchering your ability to think abstractly. He is engaged actively in a quest to reduce us to a lower order of animal.

Then again, I'm most likely not being fair. If all you've ever heard is a bastardization of a word, then how can I blame you for it? Well, you're reading this, so now you know. Our words have meaning, and sometimes those meanings reach far back into history. Knowing this, you must be careful.

Recently, an article in the Detroit Free Press misused the word "enormity."

Regarding Hansen Clarke's victory over Carolyn "Cheeks" Kilpatrick, a supposedly literate and educated journalist wrote,

Twelve hours after a stunning upset of incumbent U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a weary and emotional Hansen Clarke began to feel the enormity of what he accomplished Tuesday. [emphasis added]

Above, the author uses "enormity" to express the importance (or enormousness) of Clark's election: "a weary and emotional Hansen Clarke began to feel the enormity of what he accomplished."

Enormity, however, means "profound wickedness." It is not rooted in enormous, and should not be used to express magnitude; rather it is related to normitivity (relating to standards or morals) it's Latin original enormitatem, meaning "a divergence from standards (i.e. morals)."

I do not think that the author means to say that what Clarke has done is wicked, so it should be revised to "the enormousness of what he accomplished" or "the magnitude of what he accomplished."

But it won't be revised. Most people will think that I'm merely a whiner. I knew what the author meant, so I should just leave it at that, right?

For those who hold that opinion, I have a pair of words. And although they're based on German words, most people preface them with "Pardon my French."

...

About Holocaust Deniers

2010-08-02T22:09:00.004-05:00

It makes me laugh--but not happily--when I Google keywords such as "Holocaust Hoax" and come up with websites that explain away the holocaust without a single footnote.

It's as if they expect the average dimwit simply to accept their view of the world. Thank God neither American conservatives nor liberals rely upon such sources...

All I've learned from anti-Semitic websites is that anti-Semites are either semi-literate or flat our liars.

Footnotes are good. They prove research and support argument.

Is That a Double Entendre in Your Pocket, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

2010-07-21T16:46:00.001-05:00

So the other meaning for "Johnson" must have come sometime after the 1970s... (HT2 Murdock)

About a Bad Defense

2010-07-20T13:32:00.003-05:00

As Bolivian forces descended upon the wounded mass murderer Ernesto "Che" Guevara, he who sent so many to their deaths begged, "Don't shoot. I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead." I always found it an ironic plea, as if to say "Don't shoot me. I'm the guy who would have murdered you and your entire family."

Similarly (well, only kinda, but still), the Obama administration recently sacked a USDA bigwig for confessing that she had discriminated against white farmers. It seems to me that this is a bit more complicated than it initially seems.

However, it's this comment that she makes in her defense that bugs me:

I was telling the story of how working with him helped me to see the issue is not about race," she said. "It's about those who have versus those who do not have.

Am I missing something, or is she defending herself by saying that she's not racist anymore because now she's a Marxist?

"Don't shoot--I'm Che!"

About the Post Office Rate Hike

2010-07-06T20:18:00.003-05:00

Hey, have any of you DB's who voted for Obama because you thought that government could solve the problems of this country even once considered how badly the federal government understands even the most simple tenets of economics?

To wit, the Post Office is in trouble. While private delivery companies like FedEx and UPS make profits, the USPS is constantly in the red.

So the feds pull out the big brains. More likely than not, within the next year or so, you'll see an end to Saturday deliveries from the U.S. postal service. That's great. Demand for your service goes down, so make your service even worse than before.

Brilliant!

Also, be on the watch for price increases. While every private company in the world understands that higher prices lead to a decrease in demand, the federal government plans on increasing its prices in order to make up for the loss of demand. That higher prices will lead to even less demand has not occurred to them.

Barack Obama: Your apostles say you are a genius, and yet you cannot read the writing on the wall. You are the epitome of the blind leading the blind.

At least Ray Charles could carry a damn tune.

About Stupid Celebrity News

2010-07-06T20:09:00.002-05:00

Lindsay Lohan is headed to jail for 90 days. Can anyone tell me who, other than herself, she has hurt? It the answer is no one, then can anyone tell me why in the hell she needs to be sequestered from society against her will and at taxpayer expense?

Is she ruining her life? Sure. Is she a dangerous element who needs to be locked up? No.

On Adverbs, Briefly

2010-07-05T20:20:00.006-05:00

I have developed an aversion to adverbs. I don't mean that adverbs are bad, but too many people use them to modify weak verbs instead of using strong, vivid ones.

To wit, the lazy man will write, "He ran quickly down the hall."

While there's nothing innately wrong with the adverb quickly--it has it's time and place--, it's being used here simply to modify a very plain verb: run. Why not scrap the plain verb in favor of a dynamic one?

"He sprinted down the hall."

Not only is sprinted a vivid verb that needs no modification, its usage conveys the same idea and image as ran quickly--and it does so in one less word.

Creating the same image and impact in fewer words is now among my goals, and it should be among yours. Never compromise clarity for brevity, but if you can say it as well simpler, then go simpler.

I have adopted--at least I am trying to adopt--this advice from Stephen King, who recommends it in On Writing. By King's suggestion, I picked up a copy of Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E.B. White. Strunk and White make the same case. I recommend both books to anyone who loves to write and who wants to write better.

When Poetry and Truth Collide

2010-07-04T15:47:00.003-05:00

Independence Day reminds me of a poem by Robert Frost.

Nature's first green is gold

Her hardest hue to hold.

Her early leaf's a flower,

But only so an hour.

Then leaf subsides to leaf,

So Eden sank to grief.

As dawn goes down to day,

Nothing gold can stay.

Hiatus

2010-06-30T22:41:00.003-05:00

What I Think will return after the fourth of July.

Soccer Announces It's Gay

2010-06-14T17:01:00.000-05:00

Soccer Officially Announces It Is Gay

Hail Caesar--Oops, I Mean Hail to the Chief

2010-06-13T11:26:00.003-05:00

The NYT reports that Obama intends to force BP "to create an escrow account reserving billions of dollars to compensate businesses and individuals if the company does not do so on its own."

Yes, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, "The president will use his legal authority to compel them."

Hmm. Since the president has no legal authority to do so, I guess Gibbs meant to say the president will use illegal or unconstitutional authority to compel them.

Folks, it doesn't matter if you sympathize with the intent of what Obama's trying to do here. The powers he is assuming are the powers of a dictator, not a president. If we keep letting him and other federal officials slide, we will find ourselves in a bad situation.

Capital Punishment In Utah (and Everywhere Else) Sucks

2010-06-09T00:05:00.003-05:00

As Utah prepares use a firing squad to execute a convicted murderer, many critics speak to the barbaric nature of the method.

Really? Is the injection of poisons that first paralyze the muscles (so that they cannot writhe in pain) and second arrest the respiratory and circulatory systems so much more humane?

How "painless" would lethal injection appear if the first poisons did not render the victim's muscles immobile?

I'm not trying to excuse execution by firing squad. I'm trying to refute the notion that there is any way to murder a man humanely.

How is the lawful execution of a convicted murderer inhumane?

The answer is simple. The only moral excuse for intentionally killing another man is out of self-defense or the defense of another innocent party.

By the time that the state carries out capital punishment, there is no threat to anyone. The bad guy is in custody and under wraps.

Justifying the execution on the grounds that the bad guy might escape would similarly justify me killing anyone on the street because anyone might at anytime might decide to kill me.

That dude in the suit might have had a gun that he might have drawn and fired at me.

Remember When Obama Promised to End the War and Bring the Troops Home?

2010-06-08T23:39:00.003-05:00

Remember when Obama and his people chanted "Yes we can"? Remember how he promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay? Remember this and Ron Paul's response? (HT2 Robert Murphy).

'80s Montage

2010-05-25T17:58:00.002-05:00

I'm afraid that some of the clips from this '80s montage will hit some of my readers a bit hard. Chin up BAR, Biobandit, and Bob.

And yes, I'm embarrassed that it must have originated on the Huffington Post.

Check out this great MSN Video: 'Lost' Spin-Off Featuring Dana Carvey

2010-05-25T17:55:00.000-05:00

Check out this moderately funny MSN Video: 'Lost' Spin-Off Featuring Dana Carvey

Disingenuous Reactions to Rand Paul Comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2010-05-20T15:46:00.003-05:00

Now that Rand Paul is one step closer to the Senate, all of the media establishment (as if from nowhere) seems concerned with his ideas. However, their the media's sudden interest in Paul is disingenuous. Headlines are misleading, hoping (and probably knowing) that many folks will simply skim them on Google News and form an opinion without reading the article or further inquiring into the matter.

msnbc's headline and article "Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks: Kentucky Republican Senate hopeful faces storm after questioning '64 law" (when did journalists stop capitalizing words in titles?) immediately implies (by the headline) that Paul spoke out against the act, but manages to make him look like a politician desperately trying to backtrack by opening the article with

In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s "Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal.

So what exactly did Paul say? According to the same article:

In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.
He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.”
But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.”
He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.”

So Paul repeatedly condemns racial discrimination, but he's obviously for repealing the Civil Right Act because "he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses" because he is wary of limiting property owners' rights?

He's for repealing the act because he did not say that he loved it? Or is it because he said that he "would have tried to modify" it? Since when does "modify" mean abolish?

Left out of the msnbc interview is this clarifying excerpt from the interview:

I`m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race," Paul responded. "What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that`s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn`t mean we approve of it. [source]

And yet the media is posting headlines like this gem from theAssociated Press "Ky. Senate candidate questions Civil Rights Act"

Or this one from dallasvoice.com "Rand Paul would turn back civil rights."

What's so ridiculous is that the media doesn't (because it can't) assail Paul for his opinions on race and racial discrimination. It attacks him for having a consistent belief in freedom, property rights, and federalism/limited government.

The real lesson is this: If you think that we've got too much freedom, that property rights are old hat, and that the federal government isn't strong or intrusive enough, then Rand Paul is certainly your enemy.

________________

Even if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were to be repealed, which companies do you think would revive Jim Crow style policies?

Seriously.

Even the Drug Czar Knows that the War on Drugs Is a Failure

2010-05-17T20:48:00.003-05:00

All quotes are from this article.

Here I abridge things a bit, make a few of my own points and ask a few questions:

According to U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, "In the grand scheme, it [the drug war] has not been successful. Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

Taking exception, former drug czar John P. Walters said:

To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous. It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided.

So what really bothers Walters is simply admitting failure. That's about it. Let's continue spending billions each year, and let's sacrifice thousands of more lives each year. Just don't you dare ask us to admit that we failed to accomplish our objectives!

When President Nixon first declared a "War on Drugs" he spent $100 million. Under Obama's administration, the federal government will spend in excess of $15.1 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to 31 times more spending. So let's ask a couple of important questions: Is drug use down 31 times? Is there 31 times less violence? Are we 31 times better off in any way?

Of course we aren't. So what are we getting for our money?

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs [Insert sarcasm-laden gasp]. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

- $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico - and the violence along with it.

- $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

- $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

- $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

- $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse - "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" - cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

The rest of the article discusses how Obama pays lip service to treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, but it points out that he's spending twice as much on the criminal justice side.

Oh, and it ends with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano suggesting the equivalent to drug use is just so bad that we just have to do something!

Even if something doesn't work and costs an awful lot in money and lives lost?

I guess so.

Kenny "K-Strass" Strasser Strikes Again - Yo-Yo Master

2010-05-13T21:39:00.000-05:00

It's an Epidemic of Pandemic Proportions!

2010-05-11T22:19:00.004-05:00

Is it too much to ask that people stop calling things "epidemic" just because they are concerned?

I get that childhood obesity has increased, but it's not a damn epidemic. Such hyperbole is disingenuous and downright annoying--almost as pernicious as inappropriate use of the word "like."

Seriously, there's like an epidemic of misnomers here, and I'm like so tired of it. Seriously.

The Onion News Network: Semi-Literate Former Gold Prospector Given Own Cable News Show

2010-05-11T22:17:00.000-05:00

Semi-Literate Former Gold Prospector Given Own Cable News Show

Landscapers find workers choosing jobless pay | detnews.com | The Detroit News

2010-05-10T20:46:00.000-05:00

Landscapers find workers choosing jobless pay | detnews.com | The Detroit News

Racism is Racism

2010-05-09T09:54:00.002-05:00

This article blew me away.

In a supposed attempt to reduce the achievement gap between black and white students, Mike Madison, principal of an Ann Arbor elementary school, arranged a special field trip in which some kids met with and listened to a presentation from a successful African-American rocket scientist.

And how might this reduce the achievement gap between black and white students? That's easy. Madison (himself an African-American) reasoned that this would get kids more interested in math and science, so he decided to exclude all white students from the field trip.

That's right. He hoped that black scores would go up and white scores would either go down, stay the same, or at least not go up as much. How else do you reduce the gap?

Of course, that's not Madison's stated reason. According to him, "[I]t gave the [black] kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them."

But why forbid white students from attending? If all students had been in attendance, the black students will still have seen a successful black man. Every benefit cited by Madison would have still been valid. The only difference is that white students would have benefited too.

There can be no reason for excluding the white students other than that the principal did not want them to benefit from the field trip.

Assailed by parents, Madison rose to his own defense, saying

The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community.

And yet he sought to accomplish this intent by segregating and excluding students. He basically said to black students, "You are black, so you get to go." And to white students, "You are white, so you do not get to go."

If you have trouble seeing the blatant racism at play in this scenario, try reversing the races. Imagine a white principal arranging an enrichment activity that he hoped desperately would lead to measurable improvement in achievement scores. Now imagine that white principal arranging the activity for white students only. If it helps you to picture it in the South back in the 1950s-60s, then go ahead. Also, while you're at it, imagine the principal's defenders dressed in white sheets.

Just remember that this crap is happening in Michigan as we speak, and it's promoters wear shirts and ties and vote democrat.

The Government Is Us?

2010-05-01T15:03:00.005-05:00

While I take exception to several parts of Obama's recent speech to students at the University of Michigan, this one annoys me the most:

"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad . . . For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

Bullshit, Mr. Obama, Bullshit. If it was, then my taxes would be lower.

I am not your government, nor am I a part of it, or is it a part of me. I merely endure this government.

By the way, Mr. Obama: don't use the object pronoun "us" as a predicate noun. You would never say "Us is government."

Elton John--"Levon" (Live 1971)

2010-04-26T17:05:00.003-05:00

Great song, great performance. A quintessential paring of songwriting and performance.

Brilliant Onion Article

2010-04-23T20:09:00.000-05:00

All hail, The Onion!

Old Crow Medicine Show: "My Next Go Round"

2010-04-21T18:34:00.004-05:00

A selection for your enjoyment. It's probably nothing that you've heard, but give it a shot if you trust me.

Murdock Hits the Jackpot

2010-04-19T17:40:00.000-05:00

Over at Murdock's blog, he found some solid gold. Check out the two videos for a good laugh.

"Iran Strives for a Nuke Free World," and I've Got Some Oceanfront Property in Arizona for Sale

2010-04-19T17:17:00.006-05:00

The headline reads Iran "Strives" for a Nuke Free World.

Yeah, maybe, but definitely not until its desire for an Israel Free World policy is complete.

C'mon, Iran. Seriously, who in the heck do think is going to buy this? Do you take us for morons, as if we're the kind of people who will hear and believe any given line of BS (e.g. Obamacare will decrease costs and improve health care; Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction; it's the Internal Revenue Service; Scientology is a religion; etc)?

On second thought, well played, Iran. Well played.

Cartoon posted from here.

Watergate Had Its Cover Up, Why Shouldn't Climategate?

2010-04-18T16:02:00.004-05:00

Somewhere, behind closed doors, when the truth started to leak out in Climategate, a group of big wigs realized that they'd have to admit to something. They decided that they'd have to admit the most obvious problems with their so-called "science," so now they're conceding that the hockey-stick graph depicting the rise in global temperatures and threat regarding Himalayan glaciers are wrong.

But that's it. Everything else is kosher, right? We're good. Seriously, you can trust us.

So what have they really learned? Nothing. They knew that this garbage was false all along, and only now admit it because they have to do so. Do not expect a mea culpa. They don't think that you deserve one. They think that you're an idiot, and they're your knights in shining armor.

IRS=MF/SOB

2010-04-15T19:17:00.001-05:00

Imagine if our federal taxes weren't withheld from paycheck to paycheck, and we instead had to "pay up" on April 15. You can bet that most people would be horrified by how much the government extorts.

Instead, as if by slight of hand, the feds make many grateful for this time of year: the season of the tax refund. As if it was some kind of gift and not your own damn money being returned because the grubbers took to much.

Link to Free Advice Post: Obama on the Pesky Constitution

2010-04-13T18:15:00.001-05:00

Head on over to Free Advice and take a gander at Obama on the Pesky Constitution.

From the Mouths of "Terrorists"

2010-04-13T17:48:00.005-05:00

According to Roland S. Martin, Confederates argued in the exact same words as Muslim terrorists. Let's see.

Here's how a former Confederate officer, Gen. John Gordon, framed the debate:

During the entire life of the Republic the respective rights and powers of the States and general government had furnished a question for endless controversy. In process of time this controversy assumed a somewhat sectional phase. The dominating thought of the North and of the South may be summarized in a few sentences.
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.
The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable."

Or from the Virginian, Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter:

When this Union was originally formed, the United States embraced too many degrees of latitude and longitude, and too many varieties of climate and production, to make it practicable to establish and administer justly one common government which should take charge of all the interests of society. To the wise men who were entrusted with the formation of that union and common government, it was obvious enough that each separate society should be entrusted with the management of its own peculiar interests, and that the united government should take charge only of those interests which were common and general. To enforce this necessary distinction, it was provided that all powers, not specially granted, should be reserved to the people and the States, and a list of the granted powers was carefully and specifically made. But two parties soon arose in regard to these limitations. Those who wielded the powers thus granted became interested to remove these limitations as far as possible, whilst the minority, who belonged to the governed rather than the governing party, early learned to regard these limitations as the best and surest defences against the abuses and oppressions of a despotic majority. . . .
The contest between the two sections over the limitations in the constitution upon the governing party under it began with the commencement of its history, and ended only, as I shall presently show, with the revolution which destroyed the old form and established the despotism of a majority of numbers. It is in the history of this context we must look for the true causes of the war, and the use made of the victory by the winning party will show the object and nature of that contest. When it became obvious that the only protection of the rights of the minority against the encroachments of the majority was to be found in the limitations upon the power of the governing party, a death struggle arose between the two parties over the constitutional restraints upon this power. The struggle between the two parties commenced at the beginning of the government. These were respectively led by Hamilton and Jefferson, the one with an avowed preference for monarchy, the other the great apostle of democracy, men of signal abilities, and each conscious of what would be the consequence of complete and perfect victory on either side. The party of power showed a constant tendency to draw all important subjects of jurisdiction within the vortex of Federal control, and an equally persevering effort on the other to limit that control to the strict necessities of a common government.

Yep, sounds to me exactly like bin Laden and the ilk.

On an Utterly Asinine, Dishonest, Idiotic Article From CNN.com

2010-04-11T18:44:00.005-05:00

I know. I know. That title covers an awful lot and has you asking, "Which one?"

But when a friend of mine decided to forward me this article--one of the worst (as in dumbest) interpretations/analyses of the Civil War--he had to know that it would get my goat. Way to go, Dan.

The author's thesis is that the secessionist movement in the South was pretty much the same as militant Islam today, and the Confederacy as an organization was akin to Al Quaeda.

The argument is one based entirely on analogy with such gems as

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil.

I guess this means that any people who resist an aggressive neighbor's unprovoked invasion are as vile as Al Queda.

Charles De Gaulle and the Free French resistance? They were a bunch of religious fanatics who unjustly opposed Nazi occupation.

Metacomet, Pontiac, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse--they had no reason whatsoever to resist the invasion of their homeland.

But the author is not being merely hyperbolic. "Same language; same cause; same effect," he says.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

Did you catch that? The author actually claimed that Confederates and Al Quaeda's terrorists "say the exact same thing as their rationale." His exact words include "say the exact same thing." Remember Pickett's speech just before the charge at Gettysburg: "Up men, and to your posts. And let none of you forget that you are humble servants of Allah!"

The only analogy that can honestly be built here is that both Confederates and Muslim terrorists who have committed atrocities had grievances. This does not make them one and the same.

And then there's this bit of absurdity:

Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

This whole article is worse than an exaggeration. It is one of the most dishonest analogies that I have ever seen a serious so-called journalist make. If you want to know the Confederate rationale, take a look at each Confederate State's Declaration of Secession. You'll find that they are remarkably like the United States' Declaration of Independence. You know, the document written by Thomas "Osama bin" Jefferson.

Confederate soldiers were not taking arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point. Confederate soldiers were taking arms against an aggressive foreign power that was hell bent on conquest. In this respect they were (if we want to draw an analogy) most like the colonists who, under Yassir Washington, seceded from and fought Great Britain.

Reading this article from CNN.com makes me angry, baffled, and sad. Then again, it is CNN. Perhaps they're so desperate for ratings that they really are unabashedly "jumping the shark."

Next week on CNN.com: Parents who insist on good hygiene for their children are like Nazis.

(Hint: Both forced reluctant people into the showers).

Stupak Out; Fool TBD In

2010-04-09T21:13:00.005-05:00

It's great to hear that swindlers and scoundrels such as Bart Stupak are being run out of office (in the sense that they no longer entertain themselves with delusions of re-election). It's be even better if we could run them out immediately.

However, the historian in me reminds me that running the bad guys out doesn't always bring the good guys in.

Russia traded an inept Tsar for a sociopathic Bolshevik (yeah, I thought about it, but "sociopathic socialist" didn't seem right--especially to my readers whose inner voice has a lisp).

Germany traded a pathetic Wiemar regime for Hitler's Third Reich.

Adios, Batista; hola Castro.

See you later, Friends. Welcome, Joey.

Yeah, I just have this nagging suspicion that after the elections in November we'll be reminded again of the old adage: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

The Onion: Freakonomist Keeps Close Eye On GE Stock Versus Height Of Mexican Weightlifters

2010-04-09T20:18:00.002-05:00

This article from The Onion will probably amuse only those among you who have read Freakonomics.

Quick Question

2010-04-09T00:07:00.000-05:00

Why is it that people still seem shocked that mining is a dangerous job, and bad things often happen to people employed in dangerous work?

Classic Parking Ticket Dispute.

2010-04-09T00:02:00.002-05:00

This is just too funny.

Tea Parties

2010-04-05T06:10:00.002-05:00

Of the Tea Party movement, the AP dismissively says

It has no single issue around which people rally. It has no clear leader who drives the organization's message, motivates followers and raises money. Indeed, the hundreds of tea party chapters and tens of thousands of its activists cannot agree on the most basic strategic goal: whether to influence the current political system or dismantle it.

Kinda reminds me of those fellows most active in Boston, say in the early 1700s.

Later in the article:

"Lot of noise," says one senior Republican consultant, "no muscle." But plenty of ability to make a scene: The consultant, who is directly involved in plotting the party's Senate elections strategy, insisted his name not be attached to that quote, concerned about alienating activists. [Can you believe this last part? What a douche!]

Lot of noise? Like that group--what the hell was its name? It had those James Otis, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere dudes... The Sons of Liberty. That's right.

Sure, they never did anything of importance.

Now I'm not saying that the Tea Party movement is in fact going to bring about real change. What I'm hoping to point out is how dismissive the press and politicos are of anyone who questions the status quo.

And when the Tea Party does cohere around a firm set of principles and center around a leader, I think that I can guess what the politicos will say then:

"The die is cast."

Where Are They

2010-04-03T02:34:00.002-05:00

I recently finished watching HBO's series Rome. (I don't have HBO, but I do have Netflix).

In Season One's finale, Caesar dies like a dog, stabbed to death by Senators whom he thought he controlled.

Yes, there was once a time when a republic guarded itself against usurpation.

2010-03-29T20:46:00.002-05:00

A true leader, a true visionary, would strike down rather than build up the source of our malaise.

Ask yourself if Prohibition solved the problem of alcohol consumption. Ask yourselve if the New Deal solved the problem of the business cycle. Ask yourself if the Great Society solved the problem of poverty.

Indeed, every one of these government intrusions made the problems worse.

And yet you somehow think that the government will fix healthcare?

You're a moron.

2010-03-29T20:40:00.003-05:00

This is supposed to be a revelation--that a political party might act in opposition to its stated principles.

Clinton did it in the freakin' Oval Office. Is this an excuse? No, it's an indictment on both parties.

They stand for nothing except themselves. Do not trust them with anything.

Wow--Didn't See That Coming! (wink, wink)

2010-03-29T19:17:00.004-05:00

So Ricky Martin announces that he is in fact gay.

Really?

Any other bombshells for us, like Tiger Woods really likes sex? Or Isaac Newton's pretty sure about gravity? Or Scientologists are morons? Or Obama will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office?

My bad. I retract that last one.

A C.S.Lewis Quote

2010-03-29T19:01:00.003-05:00

As for matters of taste and mere preference, there is room for debate. However, regarding issues of right or wrong, good or evil, there is no debate. C.S. Lewis put it best:

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose.

--In The Abolition of Man.

Common Sense

2010-03-27T01:26:00.002-05:00

What if you can't fix the system from inside, and you can't fix it from outside?

Destroy the system.

There's a time for junking cars, and if this government was a car then it would be an Edsel.

If you want to call me a traitor or a bad man, then be sure to dispose of anything depicting Washington's, Franklin's, or Jefferson's image.

I can't stand the kind of idiots who think that it is an American's duty to stand behind his government no matter what.

That's such an un-American notion that it nearly makes me sick.

Faustian Politics

2010-03-25T18:44:00.003-05:00

Supporters of Obamacare, you have sold your soul. But at what price? Who will save your soul?

Socialism is theft, and more people have been killed directly and indirectly by socialism than by HIV.

And yet no one speaks to the social justice of AIDS.

It's almost possible (but not quite) to forgive the ignorant for their support of the socialistic measures of the Obama administration. However, the educated who know better--including Obama himself--cannot, must not be forgiven. They are the vilest sort who peddle in evil for their own benefit.

They are a blight, nay a curse upon us.

The worst of it is that when the piper comes for his due, it is our children--not the men and women responsible for the debt--who must pay him.

A Warning

2010-03-24T20:07:00.003-05:00

When you are young, all adults--even the worst--seem amazing. What with their incredible size and confidence, they are not to be reckoned with--at least by the likes of you.

However, when you age, you realize that the formerly awesome ones are mere mortals much the same as you--petty in some respects and overall vulnerable to the evils that afflict mankind.

For this reason, I do not hate those who would presume to deny me my patrimony. However, I will fight them.

And they must know this before the next stage.

I will not deny my origins or my birthright. I will not bow down because at one time you were greater than I.

The idiot who told you that I would be docile and accept a perverse interpretation of the law is exactly an idiot. I am my father's son, his legacy, and I will stand tall as such.

I will have what is mine and leave you with what is yours.

Be careful with how you proceed, or I will have that as well.

Nemo me impune lacessit.

And yet, I wish with every fiber of my body that this cup should pass.

However, I will not surrender simply because I prefer peace. The peace to come will either be the peace of all served justly or Kant's peace of the graveyard (metaphorically, of course).

Fire and Ice--By Robert Frost

2010-03-22T23:10:00.001-05:00

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

To BAR

2010-03-22T21:38:00.001-05:00

There is something wonderful in friendship. When else would someone dare to ask what one would otherwise not ask to one who would accept what one would otherwise not accept?

Hope the van runs well.

Best Picture Material

2010-03-22T20:35:00.003-05:00

And what do I consider Best Picture material? You might ask.

Try Jeremiah Johnson. It's superbly acted. Perfectly written. Expertly shot. One of the few films ever made with out a scene missing or a moment that you could do without.

The Hurt Locker--Best Picture By Default?

2010-03-22T20:23:00.003-05:00

I recently (as in two days ago) watched 2010's Academy Award winning Best Picture The Hurt Locker.

It was better than Avatar.

It was better than The Blind Side.

It was better than District 9.

But as for Best Picture? The protagonist is a worn out character type in a conflict overdone to boot.

It's well enough acted, written, and shot. However, it's uninspiring, unenlightening, and nothing that we haven't seen before.

If The Hurt Locker is the best that Hollywood can do, then I'm ready to surrender my Netflix subscription for good old AMC.

An Ubi Sunt On Obama's Health Care Victory

2010-03-22T19:33:00.003-05:00

There comes a point when working within the system to change the system becomes futile, and something more must be done.

Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et alia knew it.

Thoreau, Brown, Gandhi, and King knew it.

Ubi sunt? Where are they now?

I feel abandoned and alone, like a man lost in the desert searching for water, pleading for rain, but dying in the sand despite my efforts.

None are ignored faster or shunned more vigorously than those who speak even a kernel of the truth. Plato saw it in his Allegory of the Cave. Thoreau observed it in "Civil Disobedience."

The only innocent man since Adam before the Fall--and no less than the Son of God Himself--was nailed to a dogwood cross and left to die amongst thieves.

Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et alia were pronounced traitors and faced certain death in defeat. It was Franklin who, upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, said something close to "Now we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately."

A man who spoke of peace and justice was murdered at a motel in Memphis.

And yet Jesus, while he wished that the cup might pass him over, stood and accepted his fate for the good that it would bring mankind.

And yet Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams signed the Declaration of Independence; and Washington led a ragtag, underfunded, under-equipped, and under-trained army in opposition to the world's most powerful military.

And yet King, who saw the promised land but knew that he wouldn't get there, marched and spoke out in the heart of Dixie.

They risked all, and some lost all; but they stood for ideals that mattered and did not with them perish.

We have no such men active today. We are not a broken society. A broken society can be repaired.

We are a rotten society, and we have only the rubbish heap for which to look forward.

2010-03-21T01:59:00.001-05:00

This health care bill will hopefully be a bridge too far for congress and the executive administration. Let's say enough to the symbolic protests. It's time to up the ante.

Also Untitled

2010-03-13T01:47:00.000-05:00

Building upon my earlier post, true reform will commence once people realize that the government is the worst reformer of them all. Its interest is always in the status quo, and it only ventures away from the status quo when doing so enhances its power.

Your real enemy does not have a colored face, speak a strange language, and practice a different religion.

Your real enemy looks like you, talks like you, and says "God bless you," while he does his best to bring Hell upon you.

Untitled

2010-03-13T01:43:00.002-05:00

It's not enough for the democrats' health care plans to fail. We must somehow rebuke the entire notion of the state as a caregiver, safety-net, etc. There can be no valid compromise on this issue. The government must get out of where it does not belong.

One fine day, people will look around them and realize that the government belongs nowhere.

Until then, it will remain a mortal foe.

My Apology

2010-03-06T21:40:00.002-05:00

No, I am not dead.

Even though I have not posted anything in quite some time, it's not because I've fallen off of the face of the Earth or that I've ceased to have opinions.

I've not been well for a couple of months, and the combination of my physical discomfort with the correlating anxiety have stripped me completely of my muse.

When I'm occupied, it's almost impossible to tell that I'm having any troubles. However, when I am not occupied, that's when it gets to me. Since I tend to post to this blog when I am not otherwise occupied, you might see now why I haven't posted in so long.

I'm working on a post that will describe this ordeal, but it is taking me a while.

Forgive me.

An Anti-Statist Rant

2010-02-06T21:45:00.002-05:00

It seems to me that both Republicans and Democrats campaign on promises to cure all that ails society. For this reason, most people vote either Republican or Democrat.

How's that going? I mean, in regards to curing society's ails?

Did the New Deal end the business cycle?

Did the Great Society end poverty?

These were both products of the democratic party's ideology. How did they turn out?

Remember the Contract With America?

What about reductions in the cost and scope of government?

These were what republicans promised. How did they turn out?

I understand if you're still as stubborn as a mule as to suggest that governments can do some good if properly led. I mean, that's what you learned in schools (funded by the government).

But you have no excuse if you stand in line with democrats and republicans. They are liars, and they are thieves. Look only history in the post-Civil War era for proof.

So what's to be done? If the theory of popular sovereignty holds, then it's up to YOU to demand change. If not, then things will get worse and worse until those who finally do force a change will be so desperate that they will bring into existence something actually worse than what proceeded it, as the Russians did when the Tsar abdicated.

Think about it. For the first time in their history, the Russian people had a chance for a representative government (Kerensky's Duma), but they turned instead to to Bolsheviks.

Tsars are bad. There's no getting around that. No man should have absolute power. And yet, when the Tsar was killed, he was replaced by Lenin, and then Lenin was replaced with Stalin...

How many so-called Tsars (usually spelled "Czars") does Obama have? Too many, if he even has one. So we have the choice of abolishing such nonsense or embracing the epitome of statism (as the Russians did).

I am not optimistic about what my neighbors will choose.

In the end, Jefferson was right, and we now have everything that Hamilton wanted--and it is now leading to its natural conclusion.

Do you recall the Constitution and its Bill of Rights?

"When I was a boy..."

Another Amusing Anecdote

2010-02-06T21:32:00.002-05:00

Both Natalie and Mark earned excellent markings on their recent report cards. As a reward for good work (a 4.0), we decided to buy Natalie an American Girl Doll. Mark wanted a game for his PS2 or my XBox 360.

Today, I took Mark to GameStop in order to buy a game. At least the first five games that he asked for were rated "M" (Mature), so I had to tell him no. After the fifth or so request, Mark asked me exasperatedly, "When can I buy a rated "M" game?"

"When you're older," I said.

To which he asked, "How old?"

"Not until you're in High School," I replied.

"Is that when I'll grow hair around my penis?" He asked loud enough for anyone in the store to hear.

"Yes," I answered, "that's about when."

An Anecdote With a Musing Question

2010-02-06T20:46:00.004-05:00

We often attach more meaning to some things than actually exists, and this is likely a case. However, something just happened about an hour ago that at least felt profound.

I am a very amateur guitar player. I taught myself how to play chords and arpeggios, and I can pick a few licks here and there, but I am no artists. My wife bought me a few lessons about ten years ago, but all my teacher did was show me the "power chords" and introduce me to the concepts of "hammers" and "pulls." While those lessons served me well, almost all of my ability and progress have been self-taught.

But this isn't about me. The only reason why I mentioned the content in the previous paragraph is to note that I am able to read pick up a tune's chord progressions and tablature.

When I was young, my parents used to listen to a gospel singer named Don Francisco, and let me tell you that every Christian should download and listen to his music. It is profoundly good, especially his narrative songs.

My favorite is "He's Alive," and it chronicles the story of the Resurrection through Simon Peter's vantage. After some time of picking around, I figured out that it must be in A minor (or at least it sounds OK in A minor), with an Am, G, Am, G, Dm, G, Am, G, Am, G, progression through the verses and a D, A, C, G, D in the climax/chorus.

While playing the chords alone is somewhat satisfying, if you clicked on the link then you noticed that Francisco doesn't strum. He picks individual notes in those chords--which is what I meant earlier by "tablature."

I simplified Francisco's pattern (for I am no maestro), but was able to make a decent adaptation. What isn't decent is my vocals, for I my larynx and vocal chords have yet to recover from damage caused by severe reflux (expect a post detailing that ordeal, but I digress). As of now, my vocal range is comparable to Johnny Cash's in his last couple "American Recordings" albums.

So there I was in my basement, guitar in hand, playing some tunes when Robbie (aged 2) came downstairs to listen. I had been picking some Old Crow Medicine Show (this song) when Robbie asked, "Wot you dwing, dahddy?"

"I'm practicing the guitar," I said. "Do you want to listen?"

"Uh huh," he said, and then he sat down beside me on the couch.

I resumed "We're All in This Thing Together," but I only held his attention for about twenty seconds. Before I'd ended the first verse, he was playing with Lincoln Logs.

I finished the song and started "Old Apartment," and Robbie continued to construct cabins.

However, when I took out my notes on "He's Alive," and started playing (and singing), Robbie stopped playing, returned to the couch, and listened intently through the entire song. Throughout my entire rendition, all that he did was stare at me and nod occasionally, as if he understood and agreed.

After I slowly picked the last notes of the last chord (an A), and stopped playing, Robbie clapped and said, "I yuv zat song, dahddy!"

"Would you like to hear another?" I asked.

"Uh huh," he said.

So I began playing "Why Me Lord," by Kris Kristofferson.

Again, Robbie sat quietly through the whole song. When I finished, he leaned in to me for a hug and added, "I yuv you, dahddy."

"I love you too, Robbie," I replied, before starting Johnny Cash's version of Bruce Springsteen's "Highway Patrolman."

Within twenty seconds, Robbie was off of the couch and again playing with his toys. By this point, I had an idea about what had been going on, so my next song was "In the Garden," one of the most beautiful gospel songs ever composed.

Sure enough, Robbie stopped his playing and resumed his place by my side. My next song, Don McLean's "Vincent," once again saw Robbie return to his trifles.

At this point, I stopped playing completely to watch my youngest child play. Whilst I had been praising the Lord, he had been enraptured. However, when I sang of more secular musings, he preferred to construct pseudo-buildings consisting of nothing but right angles.

Am I wrong to assign any meaning to this?
_____________________________________________________

By the way, I hope that the links to these songs actually produce the songs. Turn your speakers on if you want to hear them. They're all good songs--and much better than my versions!

Payton Manning: The Best QB Ever.

2010-02-06T14:58:00.001-05:00

There are moments (however few and far between) when even the New York Times gets its opinions right.

Great Song; Link to Video

2010-02-04T20:58:00.002-05:00

Loving Her Was Easier Than Anything I'll Ever Do Again, by Kris Kristofferson, is a beautiful song and one of my favorites. It's opening line says it all:

"I have seen the morning burning golden on the mountains in the sky."

Putting the Dog to Sleep; Bald Eagles for Peace

2010-02-02T20:09:00.004-05:00

The Onion at its best here and here. What the heck, try this one too.

It Means "Slow" or "To Slow Down."

2010-02-02T19:47:00.005-05:00

"Retard" literally means "slow." "To retard" means to slow down. "Tardy" means late (presumably because you're too slow). In music, "ritardo" means to slow your pace.

Typically, when you suggest that something or someone is "retarded," you're not actually suggesting that he or she has a true mental defect. You're using figurative language to suggest that someone's thinking process isn't up to speed.

Is it an insult? Yes, it is. Is it an awful thing to say in all circumstances? No. I mean, I wouldn't say it to someone who really is slow, but I might use it in another context, especially amongst friends or about enemies. It's full meaning depends upon how and when it's used. By itself, it is not an awful word.

Sarah Palin urges Obama to fire his chief of staff because he used the word "retarded."

Way to go, Sarah. Your little protest has only deepened the meaning of the offensive word.

On the other hand, you do have to wonder what kind of public figure decides to drop the "retarded" bomb. I'm not so much amazed by his insensitivity as I am to his utter foolishness. In a way, he also deepened the meaning of the offensive word.

Obama's Ego

2010-02-02T19:40:00.003-05:00

Fox News tracks Obama's excessive use of the first person ("I")in his speeches and asks "why?"

I'll tell you why. It's because many people still think that Obama is the second coming. More importantly, Obama thinks this of himself.

Ironically, Theodore Roosevelt, an egomaniac in his own right--just read his autobiography)--gave a speech (it may have been his inaugural address)and refrained completely from referring to himself. There was not one "I," "me," "my," or "mine."

The reason is simple. Theodore Roosevelt argued from conviction (though he wasn't always right). Barack Obama, on the other hand, argues from celebrity.

Avatar--Best Picture?

2010-02-02T19:23:00.004-05:00

I have to break out of my pseudo/temporary retirement in order to complain about something--so really, this is nothing new or special.

The Motion Picture Academy announced its nominations this morning, and James Cameron's Avatar is included amongst those nominated for Best Picture.

Now I went and saw Avatar in 3D, and I was entertained and especially mesmerized by its spectacle. However, in terms of story, acting, and script, it's an average picture at best.

James Cameron could not write a dynamic character to save his life. Think of the characters in Titanic. They're all static. Rose is the most dynamic of all the characters because she starts the movie as a spoiled brat who looks down on Jack and ends it as a spoiled brat who loves Jack. Everyone other character has the range of Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

And yet, like Titanic, Avatar is now poised to win awards that it doesn't deserve.

Why?--Because it made a buttload of money? There is no award for this because box-office draw is its own reward.

Why?--Because lots of people like it? This is not the criteria for selecting Best Picture.

Avatar should clean house in every special effects/technical category in which it is nominated. But it does not deserve even a nomination in any other kind of category, especially Best Picture.

China Pisses and Moans

2010-02-01T23:18:00.003-05:00

Screw China if it thinks that it can conquer and oppress an unwilling people without the world noticing.

The only problem with the Dali Lama is that he doesn't kick as much ass as Eddie Murphy's "Golden Child."

My advice is to tell China to kiss our AND its own ass. If you seize a territory, then you must be willing to accept opposition. Otherwise, you're just a whiny A-hole.

Pitiful Excuses

2010-01-28T20:09:00.001-05:00

I have been swamped lately (to say the least), so I apologize for not posting anything of value in some while.

Among other things, I just finished with a very busy couple weeks at work, and I've been struggling with a health problem that has since turned out not to be nearly as serious as I had feared but has still been a distraction of epic proportions.

As soon as I am done with a project that I should have been done with last weekend, I promise a full update and a return to normality.

Of course you may wish to know my thoughts on the State of the Union address.

C'mon, you silly people! You know my thoughts on that issue.

"The Union, next to our liberties, the most dear."--John C. Calhoun

Rabbit Hunting

2010-01-20T17:48:00.001-05:00

Rory recounts a couple of hunting expeditions. New Year's Day and MLK day.

Aristos v. Murdock Part II

2010-01-14T20:10:00.002-05:00

Over at his blog, Murdock pointed out that no one, including me (gasp) is without flaws. At one point in time, everyone has lied and been a hypocrite.

He is correct. However, when I lie, no one dies. When I'm a hypocrite, no one's freedoms and property go down the tubes.

This president's lies and hypocrisy damage the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. Such a man deserves respect, but not in the manner that Murdock wants. No, the president should command the same kind of respect as a gun--you're best to watch the muzzle, set the safety, and always assume that it is loaded and dangerous. There may be a time that you need it's power, but until that time comes, keep it locked away where it cannot cause any unintended mischief.

But default respect for the man because of his office? I decline to confer upon the presidency the privileges known more commonly to nobility.

Aristos v. Murdock Part I

2010-01-11T23:37:00.003-05:00

My friend "Howling Mad" Murdock posts recently on how the recent string of presidents have degraded the office--Obama, he adds, is no exception--, but that he is nostalgic for a time when people at least respected the office of the president.

He is the symbol and spokesperson for us. And because of that he deserves a modicum of our respect and support.

I disagree.

Respect is not something that anyone deserves automatically, especially just because of that person's station in life. That's old-school monarchical/oligarchical thinking.

No, a man deserves respect because he conducts himself in a respectful manner.

Anyone who is clearly a liar and a hypocrite deserves not an ounce of respect, be he a stranger on the bus, a colleague, a priest, or even the president of the United States.

If Murdock wants me to respect a president, then I ask for a respectable president. Until then, I and everyone else should call it like we see it.

By the way, take a look at some of the criticisms of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson during their political contest in 1800. So much for Murdock's nostalgic "When I was a boy, people respected the president..."