Listening to some people talk about Obama's inauguration feels like at noon today, Jesus of Nazareth returned to Earth in order to usher in an eternal period of peace and prosperity.
If only Obama's policies pointed towards that at all. He still figures an alliance with Israel, which means that we can have no peace. His economic recovery plan involves both increasing spending and reducing taxes. While the latter is beneficial, the former is detrimental. As with FDR, we are in for some hard times and for a long while.
Most people who spoke of the inauguration spoke as if it was more of a coronation, as if we were anointing a new king.
And yet, according to the Constitution--which he just swore to uphold--Obama is hardly a king.
According to the Constitution, he is in Commander-in-Chief of the military. He also has the power to make treaties, so long as the Senate approves those treaties. He also has the power to appoint federal judges, including those to the Supreme Court--again, so long as the Senate approves of his appointments. Finally, he has the power to pardon criminals.
That's it.
Read Article II of the Constitution.
If you wish for him to have more powers, then you are no friend of mine, for you recommend unlimited government, and unlimited government is the friend only to tyrants (read your history books).
For God's sake, people, come to your senses. Why should you believe a man who promises you the world when he hasn't the power to deliver it?
Is it because he speaks so eloquently (an assumption with which I, at least, must disagree)?
Is it because he's a minority? Is this grounds for electing a man as president?
Based upon what this man says he intends to do, he is not of the ilk that make for good presidents.
So tell me, why do you support him?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Problems With Education
This may not be the problem with education today, but it is certainly a problem.
Disregarding the kids who see no value in school whatsoever--and contrary to any legislation, these kids cannot be changed--even those who see at least some value in education suffer from two all too common ailments.
First of all, too many students think that "education" amounts to a memorization of facts to be regurgitated on quizzes/tests/exams.
Second of all, too many students think that the purpose of an education is to prepare themselves for careers.
I disagree with both of these all-too-common assumptions.
While the learning of certain facts is essential for education, a good education goes farther to explore epistemological concepts--thinking strategies. For instance, let's say that you wish to teach students more advanced mathematics or grammar.
It is necessary that the students memorized certain formulas or definitions/rules in grammar. However, that is not enough.
They need to be able to take such axioms and apply them.
This is why students have a hard time, say, finding the area of a rectangle. Sure, they might know by heart that they need to figure LxW, but give them a diagram, and tell them to do so. See what happens to at least a third of them.
Similarly, students can easily memorize that direct objects are always nouns or pronouns. They also seem to be able to memorize that a direct object follows an action verb and identifies what receives the action of the verb. However, give them a sentence, and tell them to find the direct object, and far too many of them fail to do so.
Why is this? It's because we live in a culture that embraces the assumption of knowledge, but not the investigations/thinking processes that lead to knowledge.
This explains why so many believe all of the global warming nonsense. They know the "facts" that they've learned (or at least heard and assumed to be facts), and without thinking accept the stated conclusions of the so-called "experts" who stand to profit from their conclusions.
We are in an age when asking questions is more pernicious than just accepting "facts."
We are in an age when Stalin should have been born and thrived.
I see no hope in the up-and-coming inauguration. I see more of the same, if not worse.
Why so? Because I'm a glass half-empty kind?
No, because I'm a thinking kind. We've never before been introduced.
And what's with this idea that all young people can be equally educated? If you've ever met anyone smarter than you--or dumber than you--than you know how ridiculous is our approach to education.
The proponents of universal public education claim that completely private education would neglect many people.
Might these be the same people who fail nonetheless under the system of universal public education?
Disregarding the kids who see no value in school whatsoever--and contrary to any legislation, these kids cannot be changed--even those who see at least some value in education suffer from two all too common ailments.
First of all, too many students think that "education" amounts to a memorization of facts to be regurgitated on quizzes/tests/exams.
Second of all, too many students think that the purpose of an education is to prepare themselves for careers.
I disagree with both of these all-too-common assumptions.
While the learning of certain facts is essential for education, a good education goes farther to explore epistemological concepts--thinking strategies. For instance, let's say that you wish to teach students more advanced mathematics or grammar.
It is necessary that the students memorized certain formulas or definitions/rules in grammar. However, that is not enough.
They need to be able to take such axioms and apply them.
This is why students have a hard time, say, finding the area of a rectangle. Sure, they might know by heart that they need to figure LxW, but give them a diagram, and tell them to do so. See what happens to at least a third of them.
Similarly, students can easily memorize that direct objects are always nouns or pronouns. They also seem to be able to memorize that a direct object follows an action verb and identifies what receives the action of the verb. However, give them a sentence, and tell them to find the direct object, and far too many of them fail to do so.
Why is this? It's because we live in a culture that embraces the assumption of knowledge, but not the investigations/thinking processes that lead to knowledge.
This explains why so many believe all of the global warming nonsense. They know the "facts" that they've learned (or at least heard and assumed to be facts), and without thinking accept the stated conclusions of the so-called "experts" who stand to profit from their conclusions.
We are in an age when asking questions is more pernicious than just accepting "facts."
We are in an age when Stalin should have been born and thrived.
I see no hope in the up-and-coming inauguration. I see more of the same, if not worse.
Why so? Because I'm a glass half-empty kind?
No, because I'm a thinking kind. We've never before been introduced.
And what's with this idea that all young people can be equally educated? If you've ever met anyone smarter than you--or dumber than you--than you know how ridiculous is our approach to education.
The proponents of universal public education claim that completely private education would neglect many people.
Might these be the same people who fail nonetheless under the system of universal public education?
Politically Incorrect Analysis of a Politically Incorrect Issue by a Politically Incorrect Author
I recently had a conversation with a good friend of mine, and we were discussing the taboo subject of the vast difference between upper-class (as in educated, professional) black Americans and the difference between lower-class black Americans (and those who would be lower-class if they weren't really awesome at sports).
Playing devil's advocate, I posited this: Is it really any greater of a difference between lower-class and upper-class whites?
Very quickly, I reasoned a strong counter-point.
First, let's look at what the two races' upper-classes have in common--but differ from their lower-class counterparts.
1.) Most obviously, they have better jobs and make more money than the lower-classes.
2.) They are not only educated, they tend to have higher IQ's.
3.) They are less prone to--but not immune from--violent behavior.
There may be others--and you're free to add them via comments--but for the present moment, I find too much gray area in them.
In all respects, race itself is the only major difference between the upper-classes of the two races.
Now let's look at what the two races' lower-classes have in common.
1.) They are poor and have bad (if any) jobs.
2.) They have lower IQs.
3.) They are more likely than others to be convicted of violent crimes.
But what of their differences? What occurred to me during my attempt at Devil's Advocate was their music, and yes, I will be stereotyping here.
Think of your stereotypical, lower-class black dude. What music does he most likely listen to? Rap/Hip-Hop. What are the dominant themes in Rap/Hip-Hop?
1.) Having lots of money, as evidenced by "pimped-out" cars, and "pimped-out" cribs (i.e. homes).
2.) Getting it on with a variety of hoes/bitches (i.e. women).
3.) Violence.
4.) Drug (marijuana, cocaine) abuse.
5.) Hanging with the homies (i.e. friends)
6.) Trouble with the law, but not with women--you just smack and/or leave them.
Now think of your sterotypical, lower-class white dude. What music does he most likely listen to? Country. What are the dominant themes in Country?
Country:
1.) Working hard but barely eking out a living.
2.) Drug (alcohol) abuse.
3.) The importance of family and roots.
4.) Non-pimped out cars--usually trucks.
5.) Jesus/God/Christianity.
6.) Trouble with the law or the wife--both of whom can deny or allow conjugal visits.
There are some similarities: trouble with the law; trouble with women; drug abuse; cars.
However, even in the similarities, there are vast differences.
Rap/Hip-Hop glorifies trouble with the law.
Rap/Hip-hop glorifies misogyny (i.e. hatred of women).
Rap/Hip-hop glorifies drug use.
Country songs, on the other hand, tends to support the law--even if the protagonist of the story has run amok of it.
Country songs either lament the loss of a woman (e.g. she left) of praises her virtues.
Country songs treat alcohol abuse as either a problem or an escape. To this, there are exceptions, but not many.
Don't believe me? Sample the lyrics of Eazy-E in "Eazy Duz It" (Parental Advisory!)
(Little Girl Voice) He once was a thug from around the way.Eazy, but you should(Eazy-E Interupts with) Bitch, Shut the fuck up.Get the fuck out of here. Yo Dre give me a funky ass bass line.
(Intro Chorus) What fuck is up? In the place to be.Coming on the mic is Eazy Mothafuckin-E.Dre is on the beat.Yella's on the cut. So listen right close while we rip shit up.(Shit Up echoes while fading.)
Well I'm Eazy-E, I got bitches galore
You may have a lot of bitches but I got much more
Wit my super duper group coming out to shoot
Eazy-E, muthafukas cold knocking the boots
'Cause I'm a hip-hop thugster, I used to be a mugster
If you heard (cash register), you think I own a drugstore
Getting stupid because I know how
And if a sucker talks shit, I give him a (POW)
8 ball sipping, the bitches are flipping
Slow down, I hit a dipping, continue my tripping
Hitting my switches, collect from my bitches
The money that I make so I can add to my riches
Fill my stash box and start rubbing my gat
Feeling good as hell because my pockets are fat
A hardcore villian cold roaming the streets
And wit a homie like Dre just supplying the beats
(Chorus)
Because I'm a gansta having fun
Never leave the pad without packing a gun
Hitting hard as fuk, I make you ask what was it
Boy you should have known by now, Eazy duz it
I was knocking muthafukas out
What's your name boy
Funky, fresh Eazy-E
Kick, kick that shit
Where you from fool, Compton, yea
Rolling through the hood, cold tearing shit up
Stick my head out the window and I say what's up
To the niggaz on the corner cold bumping the box
But you know that's an alibi for slanging the rocks
A dice game started so I said what the fuk
So I put my shit in park and had to try my luck
Hard to roll wit my bitch jocking 24-7
Rolled them muthafukas, ate 'em up, hit 11
Got another point, I made a ten a fo'
Was taking niggaz money and was itching for mo'
Laughing in their faces and said you're all making me rich
Till one punk got jealous, cold slap my bitch
He pulled out his gat, I knew he wouldn't last
So I said to myself, homeboy, you better think fast
He shot (gunshots), Then I shot (gunshots)
As you can see, I cold smoked his ass (ha ha)
Chorus
(Wait a minute, wait a minute, who does it)
Muthafuking Eazy duz it
But how does he do it
Eazy duz it do it eazy
That's what I'm doing
STOP
Man whatcha gonna do now
Now I'm a break it down just to tell a little story
Straight out the box from the gangsta category
About a sucker, a sucker muthafuka
He's addicted, he's a smoker but in Compton called a clucker
he used to have a house car and golden rings
But the cooky cooky crack took all those things
he must of been starving 'cause he broke in my house
Caught the nigga on the street and straight took his ass out
Now I wanted for a murder that I had to commit
Yea I went to jail but that wasn't shit
Got to the station about a quarter of nine
Call my bitch to get me out 'cause I was down for mine
The bitch was a trip cold hung up the phone
Now my only phone call was in the ganking zone
All the SHIT I did for her like keeping her rich
I swear when I get out, I'm gonna kill the bitch
Well by now you should know it was just my luck
The baliff of the station was a neighborhood cluck
I looked him straight in the eye and said what's up
And said let's make a deal, you know I'll do you up
Now back on the streets and my records are clean
I creeped on my bitch wit my uzi machine
Went to the house and kicked down the do'
Unloaded like hell, cold smoked the ho
Chorus
From around the way, born in '73
Harcore B-boy named Eazy-E
It's '88 now, '73's obselete
A nigga wit a serious ass attitude and 100% street
And if you all wanna hear some more
In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother
Word to the muthafuka
Forgive this hack-job video clip, but "Gangsta Rappa's" didn't make music videos and didn't tour.
Now sample lyrics from Kenny Rogers in "The Coward of the County,"--also a song about relationships and violence.
Ev'ryone considered him the coward of the county.
He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama called him Tommy, the folks just called him yellow,
But something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong.
He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison.
I took care of Tommy 'cause he was my brother's son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy:
"Son, my life is over, but yours has just begun.
Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it don't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."
There's someone for ev'ryone and Tommy's love was Becky.
In her arms he didn't have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was workin' the Gatlin boys came callin'.
They took turns at Becky.... n' there were three of them!
Tommy opened up the door and saw his Becky cryin'.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace took down his daddy's picture.
As his tears fell on his daddy's face, I heard these words again:
"Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it don't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."
The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom.
One of them got up met him halfway 'cross the floor.
Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! ol' yellow's leavin'."
But you coulda heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked
the door.
Twenty years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him.
He wasn't holdin' nothin' back; he let 'em have it all.
When Tommy left the barroom not a Gatlin boy was standin'.
He said, "This one's for Becky," as he watched the last one fall.
And I heard him say,
"I promised you, Dad, not to do the things you've done.
I've walked away from trouble when I can.
Now please don't think I'm weak, I couldn't turn the other cheek,
Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."
Ev'ryone considered him the coward of the county.
See a difference?
Is this difference typical?
Does this difference have implications?
Let's discuss.
Playing devil's advocate, I posited this: Is it really any greater of a difference between lower-class and upper-class whites?
Very quickly, I reasoned a strong counter-point.
First, let's look at what the two races' upper-classes have in common--but differ from their lower-class counterparts.
1.) Most obviously, they have better jobs and make more money than the lower-classes.
2.) They are not only educated, they tend to have higher IQ's.
3.) They are less prone to--but not immune from--violent behavior.
There may be others--and you're free to add them via comments--but for the present moment, I find too much gray area in them.
In all respects, race itself is the only major difference between the upper-classes of the two races.
Now let's look at what the two races' lower-classes have in common.
1.) They are poor and have bad (if any) jobs.
2.) They have lower IQs.
3.) They are more likely than others to be convicted of violent crimes.
But what of their differences? What occurred to me during my attempt at Devil's Advocate was their music, and yes, I will be stereotyping here.
Think of your stereotypical, lower-class black dude. What music does he most likely listen to? Rap/Hip-Hop. What are the dominant themes in Rap/Hip-Hop?
1.) Having lots of money, as evidenced by "pimped-out" cars, and "pimped-out" cribs (i.e. homes).
2.) Getting it on with a variety of hoes/bitches (i.e. women).
3.) Violence.
4.) Drug (marijuana, cocaine) abuse.
5.) Hanging with the homies (i.e. friends)
6.) Trouble with the law, but not with women--you just smack and/or leave them.
Now think of your sterotypical, lower-class white dude. What music does he most likely listen to? Country. What are the dominant themes in Country?
Country:
1.) Working hard but barely eking out a living.
2.) Drug (alcohol) abuse.
3.) The importance of family and roots.
4.) Non-pimped out cars--usually trucks.
5.) Jesus/God/Christianity.
6.) Trouble with the law or the wife--both of whom can deny or allow conjugal visits.
There are some similarities: trouble with the law; trouble with women; drug abuse; cars.
However, even in the similarities, there are vast differences.
Rap/Hip-Hop glorifies trouble with the law.
Rap/Hip-hop glorifies misogyny (i.e. hatred of women).
Rap/Hip-hop glorifies drug use.
Country songs, on the other hand, tends to support the law--even if the protagonist of the story has run amok of it.
Country songs either lament the loss of a woman (e.g. she left) of praises her virtues.
Country songs treat alcohol abuse as either a problem or an escape. To this, there are exceptions, but not many.
Don't believe me? Sample the lyrics of Eazy-E in "Eazy Duz It" (Parental Advisory!)
(Little Girl Voice) He once was a thug from around the way.Eazy, but you should(Eazy-E Interupts with) Bitch, Shut the fuck up.Get the fuck out of here. Yo Dre give me a funky ass bass line.
(Intro Chorus) What fuck is up? In the place to be.Coming on the mic is Eazy Mothafuckin-E.Dre is on the beat.Yella's on the cut. So listen right close while we rip shit up.(Shit Up echoes while fading.)
Well I'm Eazy-E, I got bitches galore
You may have a lot of bitches but I got much more
Wit my super duper group coming out to shoot
Eazy-E, muthafukas cold knocking the boots
'Cause I'm a hip-hop thugster, I used to be a mugster
If you heard (cash register), you think I own a drugstore
Getting stupid because I know how
And if a sucker talks shit, I give him a (POW)
8 ball sipping, the bitches are flipping
Slow down, I hit a dipping, continue my tripping
Hitting my switches, collect from my bitches
The money that I make so I can add to my riches
Fill my stash box and start rubbing my gat
Feeling good as hell because my pockets are fat
A hardcore villian cold roaming the streets
And wit a homie like Dre just supplying the beats
(Chorus)
Because I'm a gansta having fun
Never leave the pad without packing a gun
Hitting hard as fuk, I make you ask what was it
Boy you should have known by now, Eazy duz it
I was knocking muthafukas out
What's your name boy
Funky, fresh Eazy-E
Kick, kick that shit
Where you from fool, Compton, yea
Rolling through the hood, cold tearing shit up
Stick my head out the window and I say what's up
To the niggaz on the corner cold bumping the box
But you know that's an alibi for slanging the rocks
A dice game started so I said what the fuk
So I put my shit in park and had to try my luck
Hard to roll wit my bitch jocking 24-7
Rolled them muthafukas, ate 'em up, hit 11
Got another point, I made a ten a fo'
Was taking niggaz money and was itching for mo'
Laughing in their faces and said you're all making me rich
Till one punk got jealous, cold slap my bitch
He pulled out his gat, I knew he wouldn't last
So I said to myself, homeboy, you better think fast
He shot (gunshots), Then I shot (gunshots)
As you can see, I cold smoked his ass (ha ha)
Chorus
(Wait a minute, wait a minute, who does it)
Muthafuking Eazy duz it
But how does he do it
Eazy duz it do it eazy
That's what I'm doing
STOP
Man whatcha gonna do now
Now I'm a break it down just to tell a little story
Straight out the box from the gangsta category
About a sucker, a sucker muthafuka
He's addicted, he's a smoker but in Compton called a clucker
he used to have a house car and golden rings
But the cooky cooky crack took all those things
he must of been starving 'cause he broke in my house
Caught the nigga on the street and straight took his ass out
Now I wanted for a murder that I had to commit
Yea I went to jail but that wasn't shit
Got to the station about a quarter of nine
Call my bitch to get me out 'cause I was down for mine
The bitch was a trip cold hung up the phone
Now my only phone call was in the ganking zone
All the SHIT I did for her like keeping her rich
I swear when I get out, I'm gonna kill the bitch
Well by now you should know it was just my luck
The baliff of the station was a neighborhood cluck
I looked him straight in the eye and said what's up
And said let's make a deal, you know I'll do you up
Now back on the streets and my records are clean
I creeped on my bitch wit my uzi machine
Went to the house and kicked down the do'
Unloaded like hell, cold smoked the ho
Chorus
From around the way, born in '73
Harcore B-boy named Eazy-E
It's '88 now, '73's obselete
A nigga wit a serious ass attitude and 100% street
And if you all wanna hear some more
In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother
Word to the muthafuka
Forgive this hack-job video clip, but "Gangsta Rappa's" didn't make music videos and didn't tour.
Now sample lyrics from Kenny Rogers in "The Coward of the County,"--also a song about relationships and violence.
Ev'ryone considered him the coward of the county.
He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama called him Tommy, the folks just called him yellow,
But something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong.
He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison.
I took care of Tommy 'cause he was my brother's son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy:
"Son, my life is over, but yours has just begun.
Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it don't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."
There's someone for ev'ryone and Tommy's love was Becky.
In her arms he didn't have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was workin' the Gatlin boys came callin'.
They took turns at Becky.... n' there were three of them!
Tommy opened up the door and saw his Becky cryin'.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace took down his daddy's picture.
As his tears fell on his daddy's face, I heard these words again:
"Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it don't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."
The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom.
One of them got up met him halfway 'cross the floor.
Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! ol' yellow's leavin'."
But you coulda heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked
the door.
Twenty years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him.
He wasn't holdin' nothin' back; he let 'em have it all.
When Tommy left the barroom not a Gatlin boy was standin'.
He said, "This one's for Becky," as he watched the last one fall.
And I heard him say,
"I promised you, Dad, not to do the things you've done.
I've walked away from trouble when I can.
Now please don't think I'm weak, I couldn't turn the other cheek,
Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."
Ev'ryone considered him the coward of the county.
See a difference?
Is this difference typical?
Does this difference have implications?
Let's discuss.
Global Cooling Again, Is It?
Just remember, you heard much of this from me first...
Russian scientists and others suggest that a new Ice Age is looming.
Good Question: Is An Ice Age Coming?
Gore's Church Losing Followers
Another article that I read but forgot to keep the URL suggested that Russia's current hard-line stance toward natural gas distribution in Europe is Putin's plan the see Russia control the means of warmth when the cooling sets in.
I don't know if I believe any of it, but it's so damn refreshing to hear something other than how I'm going to destroy the world because I drive a Chevy Trailblazer.
Russian scientists and others suggest that a new Ice Age is looming.
Good Question: Is An Ice Age Coming?
Gore's Church Losing Followers
Another article that I read but forgot to keep the URL suggested that Russia's current hard-line stance toward natural gas distribution in Europe is Putin's plan the see Russia control the means of warmth when the cooling sets in.
I don't know if I believe any of it, but it's so damn refreshing to hear something other than how I'm going to destroy the world because I drive a Chevy Trailblazer.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Kids' Toys Rant
Whomever designed how children's toys should be fastened in their packaging should suffer for years in purgatory, if not in Hell. Lucky for those guys, I'm not the one who decides.
Seriously, why in the heck does a Barbie or a Transformer have to be held by more restraints than were used against Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs?
I guess that is a bad example, since Lecter escapes.
Still, you get my point--especially if you have kids between the ages of 1-10.
Seriously, why in the heck does a Barbie or a Transformer have to be held by more restraints than were used against Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs?
I guess that is a bad example, since Lecter escapes.
Still, you get my point--especially if you have kids between the ages of 1-10.
Down With Hamas AND Israel AND All States; LIke Braveheart I Cry "Freedom!"
I go out on a limb here and note what I am more and more observing is the true root of the majority of this world's violence. Feel free to comment, but I'm feeling pretty good about my conclusions, so be prepared to get ripped upon in my responses...
I am annoyed by the constant ridicule of Hamas for not confronting the Israeli military directly.
Seriously, the a-holes in Hamas are not insane. They know that, in a pitched battle, Israeli forces (also a-holes) will kick the tar out of them. Hamas's only option--in terms of accomplishing its ends--is to hit and run to places where Israel doesn't dare to strike with the force of which it is fully capable.
Let the record show that I support neither Israel nor Hamas--nor the virus of nationalism that inevitably leads to such blood feuds.
Both sides have their arguments. However, both sides have acted in ways so atrocious as to invalidate both of their arguments, morally speaking at least.
It does not have to be that Israel is right and Hamas is wrong, or Israel is wrong and Hamas is right. It can be that both Israel and Hamas are wrong, but they cannot both be right--at least not logically (and if you cannot think logically, then please click on the X in the upper-right corner of your web browser).
When you look at how and why both sides are wrong, the issue always comes to that of a powerful state that can control the lives of those within its borders: Israel wants a Jewish state; Hamas wants a Muslim state.
The real evil isn't the nation of Israel or the nation of Palestine. The real evil is the idea of the nation-state of Israel or the nation-state of Palestine. Without devotion to nationhood, people would cooperate freely in order to get what they want and need. The very idea of nationhood alone has led to countless wars, all of which result in diminishing the prosperity of both sides of the conflict.
Only governments or those hoping to create governments wage war. Left alone, it is in the interests of people to cooperate/trade voluntarily. Therefore, a world without governments is a world without wars.
This is not to say that a world without governments is a perfect world. It's to say that governments make the world worse than it needs to be. Sure, individuals hurt, rob, and shoot each other; and people may die by the hundreds, even thousands under such circumstances
Without governments, the amount of violence would decisively decrease--at least in the United States, where much violence is associated with "The Drug War," which would cease to be waged were there no government. Again, there would still be violence, but it would be less violence.
Consider that in human history, the only way that the number of dead due to violence has ever reached the millions per year is when governments are involved.
For generations, governments have promised to eradicate all forms of evil. They have failed to do so in every respect, but people still turn to governments for solutions.
Of course, that means that people are pretty stupid, which means that democracy--supposedly the safest of all governments--is stupid as well (i.e. a government elected by stupid people must be stupid).
Of all the forms of government tried in the past, say several thousand years, which have really worked? The answer, of course, is none. In the end, all governments manage to tyrannize their subjects.
The trend seems constantly toward more government. This is an inane trend--if you truly wish the best for people, for more government equals less freedom.
For once, why don't we try very little, or even, dare I say, no government.
Hey, argue with Thomas Jefferson before you argue with me. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence who said, "The government that governs least governs best."
Henry David Thoreau perfected Jefferson's sentiment with "The government that governs least governs not at all."
I am annoyed by the constant ridicule of Hamas for not confronting the Israeli military directly.
Seriously, the a-holes in Hamas are not insane. They know that, in a pitched battle, Israeli forces (also a-holes) will kick the tar out of them. Hamas's only option--in terms of accomplishing its ends--is to hit and run to places where Israel doesn't dare to strike with the force of which it is fully capable.
Let the record show that I support neither Israel nor Hamas--nor the virus of nationalism that inevitably leads to such blood feuds.
Both sides have their arguments. However, both sides have acted in ways so atrocious as to invalidate both of their arguments, morally speaking at least.
It does not have to be that Israel is right and Hamas is wrong, or Israel is wrong and Hamas is right. It can be that both Israel and Hamas are wrong, but they cannot both be right--at least not logically (and if you cannot think logically, then please click on the X in the upper-right corner of your web browser).
When you look at how and why both sides are wrong, the issue always comes to that of a powerful state that can control the lives of those within its borders: Israel wants a Jewish state; Hamas wants a Muslim state.
The real evil isn't the nation of Israel or the nation of Palestine. The real evil is the idea of the nation-state of Israel or the nation-state of Palestine. Without devotion to nationhood, people would cooperate freely in order to get what they want and need. The very idea of nationhood alone has led to countless wars, all of which result in diminishing the prosperity of both sides of the conflict.
Only governments or those hoping to create governments wage war. Left alone, it is in the interests of people to cooperate/trade voluntarily. Therefore, a world without governments is a world without wars.
This is not to say that a world without governments is a perfect world. It's to say that governments make the world worse than it needs to be. Sure, individuals hurt, rob, and shoot each other; and people may die by the hundreds, even thousands under such circumstances
Without governments, the amount of violence would decisively decrease--at least in the United States, where much violence is associated with "The Drug War," which would cease to be waged were there no government. Again, there would still be violence, but it would be less violence.
Consider that in human history, the only way that the number of dead due to violence has ever reached the millions per year is when governments are involved.
For generations, governments have promised to eradicate all forms of evil. They have failed to do so in every respect, but people still turn to governments for solutions.
Of course, that means that people are pretty stupid, which means that democracy--supposedly the safest of all governments--is stupid as well (i.e. a government elected by stupid people must be stupid).
Of all the forms of government tried in the past, say several thousand years, which have really worked? The answer, of course, is none. In the end, all governments manage to tyrannize their subjects.
The trend seems constantly toward more government. This is an inane trend--if you truly wish the best for people, for more government equals less freedom.
For once, why don't we try very little, or even, dare I say, no government.
Hey, argue with Thomas Jefferson before you argue with me. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence who said, "The government that governs least governs best."
Henry David Thoreau perfected Jefferson's sentiment with "The government that governs least governs not at all."
College Sports Suck
I suppose that I understand why the alumni of certain colleges/universities tend to be die-hard fans of those schools' football teams. However, I cannot grasp how so many who didn't even attend the school are so "Yes! the U of ____" or " Yes! ____ State!"
I have two brother-in-laws. One is a huge MSU fan, though he never attended a single class at MSU. The other is a huge UM fan, though he never attended a single class at UM.
I can understand respecting a certain team at a certain time (e.g. this group of guys really plays with heart), but I reject the notion that it's logical to be a non-alumnus fan and still, regardless of everything, stand by that team.
It's different if it's a professional organization. An NFL team is nothing but a business built around the football business.
Colleges are supposed to be based around the academic business. Who give a crap if U of ? has a bad football team? Would that mean that U of ? doesn't offer a good education?
Basically, I hate college sports in general. I especially hate college football because everyone assumes that I must like it since I am both a former football player, current football fan, champion fantasy football owner, and football coach for the past nine years.
Why do I hate college sports?
How about the fact that most of the guys in college football wouldn't have made it into college at all if not for their athletic abilities. Watch the post-game interviews to see what I mean.
Should admission to a college hinge upon athletic ability? Of course not
Nonetheless millions of dollars in scholarships are spent to recruit people based merely upon their athletic ability.
That would be fine, I guess, if colleges were funded privately (i.e. voluntarily--like Hillsdale College). But the big colleges are funded by tax dollars, which are involuntary (just ask Willie Nelson and Wesley Snipes).
Consider that, when you're rooting for a college football team. Much of your tax dollars are spent so that those guys can play--Lord knows that few of them actually study (just watch the post-game interviews), and some of those guys will become rich at your (and my) expense.
What do you get out of it? A shirt, hat, and an oversized foam hand (index finger extended) that you had to buy at ridiculous prices.
Meanwhile, intelligent--but non-athletic--people need to borrow money to attend college (or not even attend college because they cannot even borrow the money).
Ergo, college sports are lame.
P.S.: Sure, you might say that the fun that you get out of watching college sports exceeds the tax dollars that are spent supporting such programs. However, remember that, when you support such things, you're not just saying that your money should go to this school. You're saying that everyone in the state should have to pay for your pleasure.
P.P.S.: If you still support such measures, then you are a thief and a proponent of tyranny.
P.P.S.: Q--Who did I root for in the Rose Bowl? A--The Confederacy.
P.P.P.S.: "Damn"
I have two brother-in-laws. One is a huge MSU fan, though he never attended a single class at MSU. The other is a huge UM fan, though he never attended a single class at UM.
I can understand respecting a certain team at a certain time (e.g. this group of guys really plays with heart), but I reject the notion that it's logical to be a non-alumnus fan and still, regardless of everything, stand by that team.
It's different if it's a professional organization. An NFL team is nothing but a business built around the football business.
Colleges are supposed to be based around the academic business. Who give a crap if U of ? has a bad football team? Would that mean that U of ? doesn't offer a good education?
Basically, I hate college sports in general. I especially hate college football because everyone assumes that I must like it since I am both a former football player, current football fan, champion fantasy football owner, and football coach for the past nine years.
Why do I hate college sports?
How about the fact that most of the guys in college football wouldn't have made it into college at all if not for their athletic abilities. Watch the post-game interviews to see what I mean.
Should admission to a college hinge upon athletic ability? Of course not
Nonetheless millions of dollars in scholarships are spent to recruit people based merely upon their athletic ability.
That would be fine, I guess, if colleges were funded privately (i.e. voluntarily--like Hillsdale College). But the big colleges are funded by tax dollars, which are involuntary (just ask Willie Nelson and Wesley Snipes).
Consider that, when you're rooting for a college football team. Much of your tax dollars are spent so that those guys can play--Lord knows that few of them actually study (just watch the post-game interviews), and some of those guys will become rich at your (and my) expense.
What do you get out of it? A shirt, hat, and an oversized foam hand (index finger extended) that you had to buy at ridiculous prices.
Meanwhile, intelligent--but non-athletic--people need to borrow money to attend college (or not even attend college because they cannot even borrow the money).
Ergo, college sports are lame.
P.S.: Sure, you might say that the fun that you get out of watching college sports exceeds the tax dollars that are spent supporting such programs. However, remember that, when you support such things, you're not just saying that your money should go to this school. You're saying that everyone in the state should have to pay for your pleasure.
P.P.S.: If you still support such measures, then you are a thief and a proponent of tyranny.
P.P.S.: Q--Who did I root for in the Rose Bowl? A--The Confederacy.
P.P.P.S.: "Damn"
Dear John Doe: We Recognize your son, John Doe, As a Hero in the War Against Terror...
The army is sorry for sending "John Doe" letters to the families of fallen soldiers. Now that they've apologized for the mishap, I suppose that everything is all right for the families who must know that all would have been well had their sons/husbands/brothers/fathers not been deployed in the first place.
Does "Oops, my bad!" work for a murderer at his sentence?
Can I punch a guy in the face and then excuse myself with a "Sorry, man, I thought that you were someone else"?
Can I crap in my pants and excuse myself with a mere "Damn, you know that I just ate at White Castle, don't you?"
Well, on the latter one, the answer might actually be "Yes." But for the others, c'mon.
I like how the army tries to blame this on a private contractor. Do the families not see the subtext: We so appreciate your son's/husband's/brother's/father's sacrifice that we have paid someone else to write this letter of respect to you, Mrs. John Doe.
The army is a wing of the federal government. It does crap like that described above, and many people would prefer that it took over the health care industry.
WTF?
Dear Mr. John Doe:
Your wife recently died due to liver failure. While there was indeed a liver available for transplant, we did not have forms B, C, and E submitted in triplicate. Therefore, we could not, under legislative act 13257.8543.2416 approve the transplant.
You can rest assured, John Doe, that the nation appreciates the sacrifice of Jane Doe and your family.
P.S. Don't forget that you owe us a third of your income by April 15--or else.
Does "Oops, my bad!" work for a murderer at his sentence?
Can I punch a guy in the face and then excuse myself with a "Sorry, man, I thought that you were someone else"?
Can I crap in my pants and excuse myself with a mere "Damn, you know that I just ate at White Castle, don't you?"
Well, on the latter one, the answer might actually be "Yes." But for the others, c'mon.
I like how the army tries to blame this on a private contractor. Do the families not see the subtext: We so appreciate your son's/husband's/brother's/father's sacrifice that we have paid someone else to write this letter of respect to you, Mrs. John Doe.
The army is a wing of the federal government. It does crap like that described above, and many people would prefer that it took over the health care industry.
WTF?
Dear Mr. John Doe:
Your wife recently died due to liver failure. While there was indeed a liver available for transplant, we did not have forms B, C, and E submitted in triplicate. Therefore, we could not, under legislative act 13257.8543.2416 approve the transplant.
You can rest assured, John Doe, that the nation appreciates the sacrifice of Jane Doe and your family.
P.S. Don't forget that you owe us a third of your income by April 15--or else.
My One Lament On Alexander Hamilton's Death in 1804
Looking at the state of affairs today, I cannot help but think that the real tragedy of Hamilton and Burr's duel was not that Hamilton died in Weehawken, NJ, of the wound he received in 1804. It's that Burr didn't challenge Hamilton to the duel until 1804.
If Burr had killed Hamilton in, say, 1784, then things today would be far better.
"...Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption."
--Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, father of the University of Virginia, and third president of the United States of America.
If Burr had killed Hamilton in, say, 1784, then things today would be far better.
"...Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption."
--Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, father of the University of Virginia, and third president of the United States of America.
Ron Paul Hits the Nail on the Head
Bob posted this on Free Advice. It is awesome, though it made me a bit sad to once again hear from the man who should have been president.
If you haven't read the Austrian economists of whom Dr. Paul refers, you really need to do so. In my opinion, you should read them in the order in which he mentions them: Mises, Hayek, and finally Rothbard. Hell, while you're at it, check out some Bastiat and Menger.
And also, bar and I went rabbit hunting this past Saturday. I was successful. If he had a blog, then he could not say as much.
If you see him, then ask about when his dogs literally ran over the rabbit's carcass as they continued fruitlessly to follow its scent (minutes after I'd shot it).
How can you shoot a rabbit, you ask? It's easy, just lead them a bit more.
If you haven't read the Austrian economists of whom Dr. Paul refers, you really need to do so. In my opinion, you should read them in the order in which he mentions them: Mises, Hayek, and finally Rothbard. Hell, while you're at it, check out some Bastiat and Menger.
And also, bar and I went rabbit hunting this past Saturday. I was successful. If he had a blog, then he could not say as much.
If you see him, then ask about when his dogs literally ran over the rabbit's carcass as they continued fruitlessly to follow its scent (minutes after I'd shot it).
How can you shoot a rabbit, you ask? It's easy, just lead them a bit more.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Santa Visits
Santa Claus came to our home this morning, and--thanks largely to Mrs. Claus--the fat guy was more than generous.
Santa had an especially hard time figuring out exactly what Mark (age 5) wanted most because, when asked what he wanted, Mark always replied, "Everything."
When Mark woke up this morning, I looked him in the eyes and said, "Santa's been here, buddy!"
I could see the excitement begin to fester behind his eyes, so I added, "But he didn't bring you everything, just some things."
"Yeah," he replied, "that's probably because I was bad a few times this year."
Santa had an especially hard time figuring out exactly what Mark (age 5) wanted most because, when asked what he wanted, Mark always replied, "Everything."
When Mark woke up this morning, I looked him in the eyes and said, "Santa's been here, buddy!"
I could see the excitement begin to fester behind his eyes, so I added, "But he didn't bring you everything, just some things."
"Yeah," he replied, "that's probably because I was bad a few times this year."
Monday, December 22, 2008
Christmas Wishes Amended
In her post, Natalie wished that everyone's Christmas wishes come true. I would like to disagree.
If your Christmas wishes are good, then that is fine. However, if your Christmas wish is for something bad, like war or government intervention into the economy and/or personal liberties, then I say screw you.
Who in the heck would make such an awful Christmas wish? How about Barack Obama (I wish for everyone's money to be under my control), Dick "Dick" Chaney (If you wage war; I will come), Adolf Hitler (the Final Solution), or Fred Savage (If you have a sub-literate script, I will act in it)?
If your Christmas wishes are good, then that is fine. However, if your Christmas wish is for something bad, like war or government intervention into the economy and/or personal liberties, then I say screw you.
Who in the heck would make such an awful Christmas wish? How about Barack Obama (I wish for everyone's money to be under my control), Dick "Dick" Chaney (If you wage war; I will come), Adolf Hitler (the Final Solution), or Fred Savage (If you have a sub-literate script, I will act in it)?
Natalie Posts
Hi, I'm Natalie, and I posted this. My dad is right here because he won't let me post on my own.
Some of you might have heard about how well I did on my Iowa test. I scored in the 95th percentile. My dad keeps wondering how I was able to score in the 99th percentile in language usage and social studies. I told him it's because that's all that he talks about most of the time.
This was really important to me because maybe it will help me get a scholarship to college. I want to go to college at Hillsdale because that's where my parents went.
My dad just said to mention to Surrealist that he needs his DVDs of the Flight of the Conchords.
Merry Christmas, everyone. May all of your wishes come true, especially mine.
Some of you might have heard about how well I did on my Iowa test. I scored in the 95th percentile. My dad keeps wondering how I was able to score in the 99th percentile in language usage and social studies. I told him it's because that's all that he talks about most of the time.
This was really important to me because maybe it will help me get a scholarship to college. I want to go to college at Hillsdale because that's where my parents went.
My dad just said to mention to Surrealist that he needs his DVDs of the Flight of the Conchords.
Merry Christmas, everyone. May all of your wishes come true, especially mine.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Mark the Philosopher
My father-in-law recently had to renew his tabs at the Secretary of State. However, due to the heavy snow that morning, he was afraid to drive in his little Ford Ranger. He called to ask if I'd take him because I have a 4WD SUV.
Mark and I were out running errands when the call came in, so I said that we would by over within 30 minutes.
On the ride over to my father-in-law's house, Mark asked why we needed to pick up Opa, so I decided to teach an impromptu civics lesson.
I told Mark that the government was forcing Opa to give them money, otherwise--if he tried to drive his car--they would arrest him and hurt him by either taking more money or throwing him in jail. (Please note that this is pretty much exactly what goes on every time you renew your tabs).
Mark said that if the government ever does that to him, then he will call the police on the government.
When I told him that his plan was flawed because the police actually work for the government, he became exasperated.
"You mean the police are evil?" he asked.
"No," I said, "what I mean is that the police work for the government."
"Yeah, but if the government steals from people, then it is evil; and if the police work for the government then they have an evil boss, so the police are evil too." He fired back.
I was impressed by his ability to reason via hypothetical syllogisms. However, I explained that most policemen are good people whose job it is to help people in trouble.
"And kill bad guys," he added.
Mark and I were out running errands when the call came in, so I said that we would by over within 30 minutes.
On the ride over to my father-in-law's house, Mark asked why we needed to pick up Opa, so I decided to teach an impromptu civics lesson.
I told Mark that the government was forcing Opa to give them money, otherwise--if he tried to drive his car--they would arrest him and hurt him by either taking more money or throwing him in jail. (Please note that this is pretty much exactly what goes on every time you renew your tabs).
Mark said that if the government ever does that to him, then he will call the police on the government.
When I told him that his plan was flawed because the police actually work for the government, he became exasperated.
"You mean the police are evil?" he asked.
"No," I said, "what I mean is that the police work for the government."
"Yeah, but if the government steals from people, then it is evil; and if the police work for the government then they have an evil boss, so the police are evil too." He fired back.
I was impressed by his ability to reason via hypothetical syllogisms. However, I explained that most policemen are good people whose job it is to help people in trouble.
"And kill bad guys," he added.
Win-Win
What's better (but in the same category) than renting a really cool game for your XBox 360?
Renting that game for your son and getting all the credit for being an awesome dad.
Renting that game for your son and getting all the credit for being an awesome dad.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A Second Shoer
You've probably seen the video of the WMD deployed recently against president Bush.
What most people don't consider is the possibility of a second-shoe-thrower. While there's no footage of the grassy knoll, such a vantage point would have been an excellent place for a Nike marksman to take his best shot at the president. It goes without mention that Woody Harrelson's dad wears shoes everyday.
This Muntader al-Zaidi is nothing but a patsy, folks. Get with it. This was an attack orchestrated by the CIA.
(Which probably explains why no shoes managed to hit the president)
What most people don't consider is the possibility of a second-shoe-thrower. While there's no footage of the grassy knoll, such a vantage point would have been an excellent place for a Nike marksman to take his best shot at the president. It goes without mention that Woody Harrelson's dad wears shoes everyday.
This Muntader al-Zaidi is nothing but a patsy, folks. Get with it. This was an attack orchestrated by the CIA.
(Which probably explains why no shoes managed to hit the president)
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Contradictions
There cannot logically be proof in the contradictions, but so many exist that there must be something to them.
We rely upon nature such that we call her mother. However, today she battered me with winds and damn near froze me to death while looking for the perfect Christmas tree to display in our home as a symbol that in some way must at least tip the hat to the beauty and generosity of nature.
P.S. I wrote this on a whim in about 35 seconds. I will most likely regret not thinking more about it before writing it--just as I now regret doing karaoke at my work Christmas party after a few too many rum and diet Cokes.
I've always been "the loud guy."
Now I'm "the loud guy who sings way the hell out of key."
We rely upon nature such that we call her mother. However, today she battered me with winds and damn near froze me to death while looking for the perfect Christmas tree to display in our home as a symbol that in some way must at least tip the hat to the beauty and generosity of nature.
P.S. I wrote this on a whim in about 35 seconds. I will most likely regret not thinking more about it before writing it--just as I now regret doing karaoke at my work Christmas party after a few too many rum and diet Cokes.
I've always been "the loud guy."
Now I'm "the loud guy who sings way the hell out of key."
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Yes We Can (protect liberty)
What is a patriot to do when the country has gone wrong? Under such circumstances, the patriot actually opposes his country.
Many will therefore look upon the patriot as unpatriotic, but what is the truth?
Before July 4, 1776, a true patriot supplicated to the King of Great Britain.
At this point in America's history, if a patriot is defined as one in favor of limited government and maximum liberty, then a true patriot must oppose this government.
Of course there's always the important question: can individuals concerned about personal liberties make a difference if they speak up and work together (e.g. by subverting the current nonsensical "two-party system"), the ironic answer is "Yes we can!"
We can accomplish this by never again voting for republicans or democrats. Every incumbent, save for Ron Paul, should be thrown out and replaced by someone who can quote (or at least paraphrase) Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.
Any man or woman who can quote or paraphrase these parts of the Constitution must recognize that this government that we have today is an abomination.
Many will therefore look upon the patriot as unpatriotic, but what is the truth?
Before July 4, 1776, a true patriot supplicated to the King of Great Britain.
At this point in America's history, if a patriot is defined as one in favor of limited government and maximum liberty, then a true patriot must oppose this government.
Of course there's always the important question: can individuals concerned about personal liberties make a difference if they speak up and work together (e.g. by subverting the current nonsensical "two-party system"), the ironic answer is "Yes we can!"
We can accomplish this by never again voting for republicans or democrats. Every incumbent, save for Ron Paul, should be thrown out and replaced by someone who can quote (or at least paraphrase) Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.
Any man or woman who can quote or paraphrase these parts of the Constitution must recognize that this government that we have today is an abomination.
A Rather Awkward Moment
Before you read this post, you must watch this clip.
If NBC has killed the clip from youtube, then go to www.nbc.com by clicking here.
I, biobandit, and bar all thought that this sketch was hilarious. A mutual friend, let's call him "Marc" (because that's his name) has a similar sense of humor, and he is known to watch SNL. Knowing this, I planned to do my best Andy Samburg "Jizz in my pants" impression when we shook hands for salutations at this evening's company Christmas party.
I just knew that Marc would laugh his butt off when, while shaking his hand, I curled my lips up and shook at the waist.
However, it turned out that Marc hadn't seen the sketch. Therefore, he looked at me as if I was mentally incompetent at best.
It soon occurred to me that he had no idea as to what I was referring. I quickly explained what it was all about, but, in the end, I nonetheless ended up looking like a perverted idiot.
In case you missed it, here's the link again.
If NBC has killed the clip from youtube, then go to www.nbc.com by clicking here.
I, biobandit, and bar all thought that this sketch was hilarious. A mutual friend, let's call him "Marc" (because that's his name) has a similar sense of humor, and he is known to watch SNL. Knowing this, I planned to do my best Andy Samburg "Jizz in my pants" impression when we shook hands for salutations at this evening's company Christmas party.
I just knew that Marc would laugh his butt off when, while shaking his hand, I curled my lips up and shook at the waist.
However, it turned out that Marc hadn't seen the sketch. Therefore, he looked at me as if I was mentally incompetent at best.
It soon occurred to me that he had no idea as to what I was referring. I quickly explained what it was all about, but, in the end, I nonetheless ended up looking like a perverted idiot.
In case you missed it, here's the link again.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
My Recent Rants Explained
I saw BAR the other day, an he noted that I've been pretty down on Obama's campaign slogan/chant, "Yes we can!"
This I acknowledged but explained my reasons.
For one, it's purely a psychological/crowd pandering tool. It's like the "wave" at a football game.
Also, it's too general. We can what?
Let's push the clock back seventy years and head on over to Germany. Imagine Hitler asking his pumped-up crowd: "Und can vee solve der problem mit der Juden?" (This is my half-German, half-phonetically English-with-a-German-accent way of saying, "And can we solve the Jewish problem?"
Or Osama bin Laden asks his Al-Qaeda lieutenants, "Can we hurt the Americans?"
Both the Nazi masses and Islamo-fascists would respond, "Yes we can."
This is not to say that Obama supporters are Nazis or Islamo-fascists. It's to say that Obama's slogan is as useful to the evil as it is to the good.
I've never liked simple slogans. What if I lived according to Nike's "Just do it"? I'd have a dozen sexual harassment suits against me; I'd be in jail for punching out several jerks; and more likely than not I'd have shoplifting charges against me.
When the founding fathers waged war against the British empire, many chose the slogan "Don't tread on me."
This is a great slogan, for it cannot be misconstrued. Simply put, it means that the bearers of the slogan are not to be trampled upon. They are free men who will exercise and defend their liberties.
Patrick Henry created the motto, "Liberty or death." Again, this is short but chaste. It cannot be chanted sincerely by evil men.
"Yes we can," however is, at its essence, the motto of every tyrant who ever lived. Tyrants are also called dictators, from the Latin dictare, the infinitive of the verb "say." Whatever a dictator says is what goes. Therefore, if a tyrant/dictator says, "Yes we can," then damn it he intends that it will be done, no matter how many bodies need to fall in his wake.
When Obama has his minions chant, "Yes we can!" the real questions being asked are as follows:
1.) Can we utilize government's coercive powers beyond their constitutional limits?
(Yes we can!)
2.) Can we end the system of property rights as we know it?
(Yes we can!)
3.) Can we turn what was once a simple republic into a socialist republic?
(Yes we can!)
4.) Can we take steps to make things worse and, at the same time, make the masses excited about it?
(Yes we can!)
This I acknowledged but explained my reasons.
For one, it's purely a psychological/crowd pandering tool. It's like the "wave" at a football game.
Also, it's too general. We can what?
Let's push the clock back seventy years and head on over to Germany. Imagine Hitler asking his pumped-up crowd: "Und can vee solve der problem mit der Juden?" (This is my half-German, half-phonetically English-with-a-German-accent way of saying, "And can we solve the Jewish problem?"
Or Osama bin Laden asks his Al-Qaeda lieutenants, "Can we hurt the Americans?"
Both the Nazi masses and Islamo-fascists would respond, "Yes we can."
This is not to say that Obama supporters are Nazis or Islamo-fascists. It's to say that Obama's slogan is as useful to the evil as it is to the good.
I've never liked simple slogans. What if I lived according to Nike's "Just do it"? I'd have a dozen sexual harassment suits against me; I'd be in jail for punching out several jerks; and more likely than not I'd have shoplifting charges against me.
When the founding fathers waged war against the British empire, many chose the slogan "Don't tread on me."
This is a great slogan, for it cannot be misconstrued. Simply put, it means that the bearers of the slogan are not to be trampled upon. They are free men who will exercise and defend their liberties.
Patrick Henry created the motto, "Liberty or death." Again, this is short but chaste. It cannot be chanted sincerely by evil men.
"Yes we can," however is, at its essence, the motto of every tyrant who ever lived. Tyrants are also called dictators, from the Latin dictare, the infinitive of the verb "say." Whatever a dictator says is what goes. Therefore, if a tyrant/dictator says, "Yes we can," then damn it he intends that it will be done, no matter how many bodies need to fall in his wake.
When Obama has his minions chant, "Yes we can!" the real questions being asked are as follows:
1.) Can we utilize government's coercive powers beyond their constitutional limits?
(Yes we can!)
2.) Can we end the system of property rights as we know it?
(Yes we can!)
3.) Can we turn what was once a simple republic into a socialist republic?
(Yes we can!)
4.) Can we take steps to make things worse and, at the same time, make the masses excited about it?
(Yes we can!)
Thursday, December 04, 2008
No More Bail Outs!
Yes, there's an element of sincere "too bad" for the unskilled who must suffer at the demise of the Big 3.
However, while those in Detroit plead for money, who really thinks of from where this money comes?
Is it right that carpenters or street sweepers or basic freaking clerks in places as fare away from Detroit as Honolulu to Key West should have to forfeit their property to "bail out" the people of metro Detroit?
Should I have to lose because my next-door neighbor lost his job and is in foreclosure? If not, then the proposed "loans" to the Big 3 are wrong. If so, then you have no concept whatsoever of individual or property rights and should, according to T.S. Eliot, pay you respects to either Hitler or Stalin.
Yes, if the Big 3 fail, then many people will be without jobs. However, this is how economies improve. Imagine if the telegraph industry was propped up by the government. Would you utilize it, or would you say, "Why in the Hell are you even in business?"
When the fields dried up, the Okies moved away. Should they have stayed and grown scant crops on ruined soil?
You know the answer, Sentiment alone is what keeps you from admitting the solution.
However, while those in Detroit plead for money, who really thinks of from where this money comes?
Is it right that carpenters or street sweepers or basic freaking clerks in places as fare away from Detroit as Honolulu to Key West should have to forfeit their property to "bail out" the people of metro Detroit?
Should I have to lose because my next-door neighbor lost his job and is in foreclosure? If not, then the proposed "loans" to the Big 3 are wrong. If so, then you have no concept whatsoever of individual or property rights and should, according to T.S. Eliot, pay you respects to either Hitler or Stalin.
Yes, if the Big 3 fail, then many people will be without jobs. However, this is how economies improve. Imagine if the telegraph industry was propped up by the government. Would you utilize it, or would you say, "Why in the Hell are you even in business?"
When the fields dried up, the Okies moved away. Should they have stayed and grown scant crops on ruined soil?
You know the answer, Sentiment alone is what keeps you from admitting the solution.
More Johnny Cash ('Cause He's So Darn Good)
Sure, this isn't the first post with Johnny Cash videos--and some may be repeats--but listen again and feel his pain, feel his faith, feel his faith and talent.
This isn't the original--but it's cool!
This song makes me decide to attend mass.
This isn't the original--but it's cool!
This song makes me decide to attend mass.
Obama/Lincoln
Much has been said as to Obama's wisdom in appointing a "cabinet of rivals" similar in nature to that of Lincoln's.
Most seem to think that this is a good thing.
I remind these optimists that Lincoln waged war against what he considered his own country, and left 3/4 of a million dead, and many more permanently injured and/or destitute.
Can we destroy this country?
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"--Barack Obama.
Most seem to think that this is a good thing.
I remind these optimists that Lincoln waged war against what he considered his own country, and left 3/4 of a million dead, and many more permanently injured and/or destitute.
Can we destroy this country?
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"--Barack Obama.
Pirates!
In the United States' infant stages, piracy in the Mediterranean was a huge problem. Pirates based along the Barbary Coast in cities like Tripoli and Tunis attacked American merchant ships, seized cargo and held Americans for ransom.
For many years, the US government chose to pay these pirates tribute in exchange for the promise of safe passage.
However, everyone knows an extortioner/blackmailer's next step...
The Barbary Pirates began to up the amount of money for tribute. It took awhile until finally the third president, Thomas Jefferson, decided that enough was enough. He ordered the infant United States Navy and Marines to sail into the Mediterranean and, in the words of Commodore Stephen Decatur, "offer them liberal and enlightened terms, dictated at the mouths of our cannons."
The "negotiations" worked. After Decatur's bold exploits, the United States payed no more ransoms at all.
Similarly, when I was in 6th grade, an 8th grader named Mike, used to pick on me at the bus stop. He was relentless, and his friends used to laugh when he'd call me names and shove me around before the bus picked us up and after it dropped us off.
Finally, I snapped--not unlike Ralphie against Scott Fargas in A Christmas Story. We had just been dropped off, and Mike was at it again. I remember that he said something, but I just kept walking home. This seemed a decent plan since our homes were not in the same direction.
But he followed me, no doubt egged-on by his buddies.
After a dozen or so steps, he shoved me from behind. However, I was ready for it.
He pushed me, but I turned to the left at the exact moment that his hand touched my back. This caused him to fall forward a bit, such that he was utterly defenseless when I threw a fast right-hand punch into his left ear (sources later told me that Mike's ear rang for two days).
He went down, and I jumped on top of him. First, I pounded the back of his head. He rolled to his side, but I stayed atop of him and began to punch his face over and over.
He screamed. He cried. He begged me to stop.
I did not stop. I beat the hell out of him until someone's mother pulled me off and called me a "foul little rat."
As the mother lent forward to Mike and asked if he was all right, I noticed the blood pouring from his nose and lips. My first instinct was to yell something like, "See what it will getcha?" But instead I ran home.
Once home, I figured that Mike's mother would call mine, so I decided to tell my own mother exactly what had happened.
After the story was over, she simply asked "Did you really make him bleed?"
"Yeah," I confessed.
"Good," she said. "I'll bet you anything he won't be a problem from now on."
So I ask rhetorically: What shall we do with the Pirates off the eastern African coast?
Fight them and destroy them all AND everything that they're holding for ransom. That will send a message.
For many years, the US government chose to pay these pirates tribute in exchange for the promise of safe passage.
However, everyone knows an extortioner/blackmailer's next step...
The Barbary Pirates began to up the amount of money for tribute. It took awhile until finally the third president, Thomas Jefferson, decided that enough was enough. He ordered the infant United States Navy and Marines to sail into the Mediterranean and, in the words of Commodore Stephen Decatur, "offer them liberal and enlightened terms, dictated at the mouths of our cannons."
The "negotiations" worked. After Decatur's bold exploits, the United States payed no more ransoms at all.
Similarly, when I was in 6th grade, an 8th grader named Mike, used to pick on me at the bus stop. He was relentless, and his friends used to laugh when he'd call me names and shove me around before the bus picked us up and after it dropped us off.
Finally, I snapped--not unlike Ralphie against Scott Fargas in A Christmas Story. We had just been dropped off, and Mike was at it again. I remember that he said something, but I just kept walking home. This seemed a decent plan since our homes were not in the same direction.
But he followed me, no doubt egged-on by his buddies.
After a dozen or so steps, he shoved me from behind. However, I was ready for it.
He pushed me, but I turned to the left at the exact moment that his hand touched my back. This caused him to fall forward a bit, such that he was utterly defenseless when I threw a fast right-hand punch into his left ear (sources later told me that Mike's ear rang for two days).
He went down, and I jumped on top of him. First, I pounded the back of his head. He rolled to his side, but I stayed atop of him and began to punch his face over and over.
He screamed. He cried. He begged me to stop.
I did not stop. I beat the hell out of him until someone's mother pulled me off and called me a "foul little rat."
As the mother lent forward to Mike and asked if he was all right, I noticed the blood pouring from his nose and lips. My first instinct was to yell something like, "See what it will getcha?" But instead I ran home.
Once home, I figured that Mike's mother would call mine, so I decided to tell my own mother exactly what had happened.
After the story was over, she simply asked "Did you really make him bleed?"
"Yeah," I confessed.
"Good," she said. "I'll bet you anything he won't be a problem from now on."
So I ask rhetorically: What shall we do with the Pirates off the eastern African coast?
Fight them and destroy them all AND everything that they're holding for ransom. That will send a message.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Aloha?
My daughter just asked me if I knew how to say "Hello" and "Goodbye" in Polynesian.
I told her yes, and that it was the same word. Next, I asked her if she knew that word.
She affirmed by saying, "Aloha."
Overall, this was a rather unimpressive exchange, other than it got me thinking how stupid that Beatles song "Hello Goodbye" must sound when translated into Polynesian.
Are there times when it says, "You say hello, and I say hello?" or "You say goodbye, and I say goodbye"?
I told her yes, and that it was the same word. Next, I asked her if she knew that word.
She affirmed by saying, "Aloha."
Overall, this was a rather unimpressive exchange, other than it got me thinking how stupid that Beatles song "Hello Goodbye" must sound when translated into Polynesian.
Are there times when it says, "You say hello, and I say hello?" or "You say goodbye, and I say goodbye"?
Four Legs Good!/Yes We Can!
"Four legs good! Two legs bad!" = "Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Warning: The pigs will not save the farm!
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their styes with all their backing
They don't care around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.
--George Harrison and John Lennon, recorded by The Beatles.
Notice in the last line what the pigs are eating!
"It's people!"
--Charlton Heston in Soylent Green
Warning: The pigs will not save the farm!
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their styes with all their backing
They don't care around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.
--George Harrison and John Lennon, recorded by The Beatles.
Notice in the last line what the pigs are eating!
"It's people!"
--Charlton Heston in Soylent Green
Monday, December 01, 2008
A Poem
"A Learned Man Came to Me Once"
By Stephen Crane
A learned man came to me once.
He said, "I know the way, -- come."
And I was overjoyed at this.
Together we hastened.
Soon, too soon, were we
Where my eyes were useless,
And I knew not the ways of my feet.
I clung to the hand of my friend;
But at last he cried, "I am lost."
Am I the only one who sees how like Obama is to this "learned man"?
By Stephen Crane
A learned man came to me once.
He said, "I know the way, -- come."
And I was overjoyed at this.
Together we hastened.
Soon, too soon, were we
Where my eyes were useless,
And I knew not the ways of my feet.
I clung to the hand of my friend;
But at last he cried, "I am lost."
Am I the only one who sees how like Obama is to this "learned man"?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Same Ol' Same Ol'
A lot of credence is given to climate models. However, climate models--at least as far as I understand them--assume to know (or at least approximate) all variables.
Based upon what happened then, compared to what's happening now, this will happen next.
A height model of me, with data taken from ages two through eight and another from eight through 16, would project me as much taller than I am today (since I stopped growing at age 16--the fault of my mother's vertically challenged genes).
A model projection of casualties in the Civil War, taken after 1st Bull Run, Ft. Henry, and Ft. Donelson could never have foreseen the catastrophic losses of life at Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, or Cold Harbor.
The reason why these model projections would fail is because they do not account for unexpected changes and because they do not assess enough.
Climate is supposed to be about long-term weather/temperature patterns, and we have scientists talking about the last fifty years.
In the life-span of a human, fifty years is admittedly long-term. However, in the life-span of the Earth, it's not even a drop in the bucket.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. The most likely culprit for the most recent trend of warming is the same culprit for the warming that brought us out of the last Ice Age. Since that culprit could not have been man, this culprit cannot be man.
This truth sucks only for those who wish to coerce others into living their lives according to a strict "green religion" doctrine that will one day label me a heretic. Fortunately, they will not burn me at the stake, for I will certainly emit many "greenhouse gasses."
By the way, if methane is a greenhouse gas, then I just contributed to global warming.
Oops, I did it again.
And again.
And--damn, I've got to take a shower and change my shorts now.
Based upon what happened then, compared to what's happening now, this will happen next.
A height model of me, with data taken from ages two through eight and another from eight through 16, would project me as much taller than I am today (since I stopped growing at age 16--the fault of my mother's vertically challenged genes).
A model projection of casualties in the Civil War, taken after 1st Bull Run, Ft. Henry, and Ft. Donelson could never have foreseen the catastrophic losses of life at Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, or Cold Harbor.
The reason why these model projections would fail is because they do not account for unexpected changes and because they do not assess enough.
Climate is supposed to be about long-term weather/temperature patterns, and we have scientists talking about the last fifty years.
In the life-span of a human, fifty years is admittedly long-term. However, in the life-span of the Earth, it's not even a drop in the bucket.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. The most likely culprit for the most recent trend of warming is the same culprit for the warming that brought us out of the last Ice Age. Since that culprit could not have been man, this culprit cannot be man.
This truth sucks only for those who wish to coerce others into living their lives according to a strict "green religion" doctrine that will one day label me a heretic. Fortunately, they will not burn me at the stake, for I will certainly emit many "greenhouse gasses."
By the way, if methane is a greenhouse gas, then I just contributed to global warming.
Oops, I did it again.
And again.
And--damn, I've got to take a shower and change my shorts now.
Silver Lining
There is some hope in what Obama has thus far pledged to do. My wife dislikes my following line of argument because she finds it "just plain cynical." I say "cynics of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your cynicism!"
Here's why Obama's economic policy may bring hope.
What Obama has thus far suggested will lead to a further decline in the dollar's value. This will be coupled with an increase in taxes.
A decline in the dollar's value hurts people because it reduces their money's purchasing power.
Increased taxes hurt people because it reduces their overall supply of money.
As things get worse, Obama will order massive public works projects in order to employ people (this will be similar to the CCC of FDR's New Deal). This will add to the tax burden on the people or the debt burden on the government.
As the government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, the value of US currency and the marketability of US bonds will decline.
Here's where the hope comes in.
Since the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, all the blame should fall in their laps--just as blame for what's going on now is rightfully leveled against republicans (for republicans are wrong about the economy et al. as well).
One of two things must come from this. Either things get even worse--and we'll need to rent Mad Max for educational purposes--or people might actually consider that none of this government-intervention crap has worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it won't work in the future.
Sometimes it takes a case of cancer to make a smoker quit.
My wife dislikes that I seem to be actually rooting for things to get worse. However, I don't want things to get worse. I just think that they will, and I think that the worse times may become a catalyst for real change.
And now a question for Obama and his supporters:
Can you really screw up this country worse than it already is?
And they answer:
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Here's why Obama's economic policy may bring hope.
What Obama has thus far suggested will lead to a further decline in the dollar's value. This will be coupled with an increase in taxes.
A decline in the dollar's value hurts people because it reduces their money's purchasing power.
Increased taxes hurt people because it reduces their overall supply of money.
As things get worse, Obama will order massive public works projects in order to employ people (this will be similar to the CCC of FDR's New Deal). This will add to the tax burden on the people or the debt burden on the government.
As the government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, the value of US currency and the marketability of US bonds will decline.
Here's where the hope comes in.
Since the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, all the blame should fall in their laps--just as blame for what's going on now is rightfully leveled against republicans (for republicans are wrong about the economy et al. as well).
One of two things must come from this. Either things get even worse--and we'll need to rent Mad Max for educational purposes--or people might actually consider that none of this government-intervention crap has worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it won't work in the future.
Sometimes it takes a case of cancer to make a smoker quit.
My wife dislikes that I seem to be actually rooting for things to get worse. However, I don't want things to get worse. I just think that they will, and I think that the worse times may become a catalyst for real change.
And now a question for Obama and his supporters:
Can you really screw up this country worse than it already is?
And they answer:
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Friday, November 28, 2008
To Be A Man
It has been said that the primary difference between humans and other animals is intelligence. By far, human beings are more intelligent than other animals--yes, even dolphins (who haven't the wits to avoid tuna nets).
According to this logic, then, the more intelligent the man, the more human he is.
Hogwash.
While intelligence is a huge difference between humans and other animals, it is not the only thing--or even the most important thing--that sets them apart.
Human beings know the difference between good and evil. Blame it on Adam and Eve (especially Eve) if you like, but we've eaten from that tree, and we know.
When a bear kills a man in the woods and eats him, that bear should be considered dangerous, but no one calls the bear a murderer. When a man kills another man in the woods and eats him, that man is considered more than dangerous. He is a murderer--and even worse (what with having eaten his victim and all).
This is why ignorance is bliss. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then you are not accountable for your actions (or at least not as accountable).
Combined with the intelligence factor, we come to this. The more intelligent the human, the more good or evil he may be depending upon to what he sets his mind.
No one whom I know questions the intelligence of Barack Obama. However, its what he plans to do with his intelligence that will define him as a man.
For that matter, I tremble.
According to this logic, then, the more intelligent the man, the more human he is.
Hogwash.
While intelligence is a huge difference between humans and other animals, it is not the only thing--or even the most important thing--that sets them apart.
Human beings know the difference between good and evil. Blame it on Adam and Eve (especially Eve) if you like, but we've eaten from that tree, and we know.
When a bear kills a man in the woods and eats him, that bear should be considered dangerous, but no one calls the bear a murderer. When a man kills another man in the woods and eats him, that man is considered more than dangerous. He is a murderer--and even worse (what with having eaten his victim and all).
This is why ignorance is bliss. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then you are not accountable for your actions (or at least not as accountable).
Combined with the intelligence factor, we come to this. The more intelligent the human, the more good or evil he may be depending upon to what he sets his mind.
No one whom I know questions the intelligence of Barack Obama. However, its what he plans to do with his intelligence that will define him as a man.
For that matter, I tremble.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Civics Quiz
Bob Murphy posted a link to this Civics Quiz on his blog, Free Advice.
He notes from another source that elected officials who have taken the quiz average a mere 44%.
That's shocking, but it's not really surprising.
I scored 32/33 correct.
I missed the last one.
But I don't really understand why my answer was wrong.
Take the quiz and post your scores as comments.
He notes from another source that elected officials who have taken the quiz average a mere 44%.
That's shocking, but it's not really surprising.
I scored 32/33 correct.
I missed the last one.
But I don't really understand why my answer was wrong.
Take the quiz and post your scores as comments.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Irony
People seem to be content to concede power over the economy to the same people who planned the war in Iraq.
Why not set up Michael Jackson with an all-boys Junior High?
Why not set up Michael Jackson with an all-boys Junior High?
Mark's Question
My five year old son, Mark, asked yesterday, "Dad, how come alcohol doesn't kill grown ups?"
He asked this because I had just finished making rum and cokes (rum and Diet Coke for me--down 30 pounds in about 50 days)for some dinner guests.
I told him that alcohol can indeed kill grown ups, but since they're bigger it takes a lot more to do so.
"Well," he asked, "then how old do you have to be to drink whisky without dying?"
I told him that 21 is the legal drinking age.
"Is that how old you are when you grow hair around your penis?" he replied.
I nearly wet myself--hair and all.
He asked this because I had just finished making rum and cokes (rum and Diet Coke for me--down 30 pounds in about 50 days)for some dinner guests.
I told him that alcohol can indeed kill grown ups, but since they're bigger it takes a lot more to do so.
"Well," he asked, "then how old do you have to be to drink whisky without dying?"
I told him that 21 is the legal drinking age.
"Is that how old you are when you grow hair around your penis?" he replied.
I nearly wet myself--hair and all.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Oswald: Guilty
At msn.com, the newest big question is who killed JFK.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Why I Haven't Posted
I haven't posted in awhile, and some might wonder why. The answer is simple. There are only so many ways that I can say that the federal government caused this economic situation, and the government's policies to get us out of it will only make things worse.
How many times must I say that while we do indeed need change, Obama's brand of "change" isn't what we want or need? Hitler was a change for Germany. Enough said about "change" insofar as people think that it is intrinsically good.
If I were to post something now, it would be mean, nasty, and borderline seditious. Ergo, I defer.
How awful must it have been for the Russians to have to wish for the Soviet regime to fail? It's sad when patriots must actually oppose their country.
How many times must I say that while we do indeed need change, Obama's brand of "change" isn't what we want or need? Hitler was a change for Germany. Enough said about "change" insofar as people think that it is intrinsically good.
If I were to post something now, it would be mean, nasty, and borderline seditious. Ergo, I defer.
How awful must it have been for the Russians to have to wish for the Soviet regime to fail? It's sad when patriots must actually oppose their country.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Grizzly Man
I recently rented the film Grizzly Man. It's a documentary about a man, Timothy Treadwell, who--in my estimation--was desperate to find meaning in his otherwise meaningless life.
In his attempt to matter, Treadwell turned to Alaskan grizzly bears. Without a doubt, Treadwell was passionate for bears--in both protecting and understanding them. And all critics, myself included, must confess that he had an uncanny ability to socialize with them. That is until one of them killed and devoured much of him and his girlfriend.
The film consits mostly of footage shot by Treadwell himself, but this footage is intermixed with interviews of friends, family, associates, and wildlife experts.
Even before I saw the film, I had a feeling that it would be yet another chapter in the lengthy anthology of stories that depict naive environmentalist/wildlife enthusiasts who think of mother nature as kind, and man as the sole source of violence/problems in this world.
For proof that he was, at best, naive:
It made me recall Christopher McCandless , who renamed himself "Alexander Supertramp" and made his way into the Alaskan wilderness in order abandon the corruptions of society and to commune with nature. Hunters found his decomposing body months later.
Grizzly Man is definately worth watching. While I was not surprised that Treadwell died at the hands of the bears whom he loved, I was rather amazed at how long it took for it to happen. He lived with bears every summer for over a decade. He watched them. He named them. He interacted with them--even going so far as to touch them.
In the end, however, the lesson is clear. This romanticized view of nature is a fictional product of urbanization and especially sub-urbanization.
Enjoy this (you might remember it). Between me and the drummer from Def Leopard--three thumbs up!
Friday, November 07, 2008
The Will of the People!
I was never happy about this election. However, the people spoke overwhelmingly, so it must be good, right? Let's read this article from the New York Times and toast to the will of the majority.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Change?
I cannot be the only person who looks at the current economic situation and notices that the proposed "solutions" are little other than more--a lot more--of the same.
Chronic alcoholism has serious symptoms in people. The solution is not increased alcohol consumption.
The government's influence in the economy has been and currently is the problem. And yet, they're grasping for even more power.
What kind of person calls for more power, however undeserved? A tyrant. That's who.
Ever since the Panics of the late 1830s, ignorant people have called for more government in economic matters. History proves that this does not work. At best, the government seems to be able to create a very temporary "bubble" that inevitably "bursts," and ends up leaving things worse than before.
Isn't it about time we tried something else? Less government in the economy would be nice, but let's try no government in the economy. This hasn't been tried in the United States. Not ever.
However, the wealth in the United States correlates to the fact that, for the most part, people have had relative freedom in matters of trade. This means that the key to economic prosperity is less government involvement. Why not try the least government involvement? If it doesn't work, then we can always change.
By the way, "change" means--in verb form-- "do something different." In noun form, "change" means "something that is different." However, to most people who vote, it seems that "change" means to "do the same thing but more earnestly."
You can't change things by doing the same things, and you cannot vote for change by voting for the same lying bastards from the same lying parties who have been doing the same BS for decades.
Chronic alcoholism has serious symptoms in people. The solution is not increased alcohol consumption.
The government's influence in the economy has been and currently is the problem. And yet, they're grasping for even more power.
What kind of person calls for more power, however undeserved? A tyrant. That's who.
Ever since the Panics of the late 1830s, ignorant people have called for more government in economic matters. History proves that this does not work. At best, the government seems to be able to create a very temporary "bubble" that inevitably "bursts," and ends up leaving things worse than before.
Isn't it about time we tried something else? Less government in the economy would be nice, but let's try no government in the economy. This hasn't been tried in the United States. Not ever.
However, the wealth in the United States correlates to the fact that, for the most part, people have had relative freedom in matters of trade. This means that the key to economic prosperity is less government involvement. Why not try the least government involvement? If it doesn't work, then we can always change.
By the way, "change" means--in verb form-- "do something different." In noun form, "change" means "something that is different." However, to most people who vote, it seems that "change" means to "do the same thing but more earnestly."
You can't change things by doing the same things, and you cannot vote for change by voting for the same lying bastards from the same lying parties who have been doing the same BS for decades.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
My Leader?
In reference to Barack Obama, one of my local news programs just posted a promo asking what people from our state want from our new leader.
Let me make this clear. Barack Obama is not legally our leader. According to the Constitution, he is the head of the executive branch.
That's it.
He's a well-publicized cop, whose job is to enforce the laws passed by congress.
If you think that Obama is this country's leader, then you need to change your party affiliation to (M)--for monarchist.
For freaking sake, read Article II of the United States Constitution. That includes you, "aconservativeteacher," who has lent his pragmatic support to a candidate who does not value the constitutional limitations of a president (just look at what the guy said that he'd do as "president".)
Even if the president can be considered a leader, can he be considered my leader? I didn't vote for him! If government exists by the consent of the governed, then I don't have a freaking government because I don't freaking consent to it.
If you think that Obama is my leader nonetheless, then you must think of me as a slave who has no say in who his master is.
I decline to be a slave, and if you insist that I must be one, then I challenge you to a private meeting in a dark, out of the way place. I will defend my freedom, and you will know the meaning of the motto "Sic semper tyrannis."
This is not a boast. I dare you to try to make me a slave.
See what happens.
What's your defense--that he won the election? As if tyrants have never been elected! Check German political history. See that Adolf Hitler was ELECTED to the chancellorship.
Seriously, meet me in that dark, out of the way place. As far as I am concerned, it will mean one less tyrant for this world. My conscience can live with that.
Brutus was not a traitor. He was a hero.
This world didn't need a Caesar then, and it doesn't need a Caesear now. And if he looked at me and said, "Et tu, brute?" I would answer "Etiam!"
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Let me make this clear. Barack Obama is not legally our leader. According to the Constitution, he is the head of the executive branch.
That's it.
He's a well-publicized cop, whose job is to enforce the laws passed by congress.
If you think that Obama is this country's leader, then you need to change your party affiliation to (M)--for monarchist.
For freaking sake, read Article II of the United States Constitution. That includes you, "aconservativeteacher," who has lent his pragmatic support to a candidate who does not value the constitutional limitations of a president (just look at what the guy said that he'd do as "president".)
Even if the president can be considered a leader, can he be considered my leader? I didn't vote for him! If government exists by the consent of the governed, then I don't have a freaking government because I don't freaking consent to it.
If you think that Obama is my leader nonetheless, then you must think of me as a slave who has no say in who his master is.
I decline to be a slave, and if you insist that I must be one, then I challenge you to a private meeting in a dark, out of the way place. I will defend my freedom, and you will know the meaning of the motto "Sic semper tyrannis."
This is not a boast. I dare you to try to make me a slave.
See what happens.
What's your defense--that he won the election? As if tyrants have never been elected! Check German political history. See that Adolf Hitler was ELECTED to the chancellorship.
Seriously, meet me in that dark, out of the way place. As far as I am concerned, it will mean one less tyrant for this world. My conscience can live with that.
Brutus was not a traitor. He was a hero.
This world didn't need a Caesar then, and it doesn't need a Caesear now. And if he looked at me and said, "Et tu, brute?" I would answer "Etiam!"
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Don't Vote!!!
Although most of my readers will probably get this message after the fact, I am now nonetheless compelled by conscience to post it.
You don't have to vote for President.
If you don't like McCain or Obama--and you know, having read the Constitution, that neither one is philosophically qualified for the job--then you don't have to vote for one of them. You don't have to vote at all.
My friend, BAR, argues that you should in the least vote for someone else (e.g. Bob Barr or Ralph Nader) in order to demonstrate clearly that you vote but will not vote for the republican or democratic candidates.
I see his point.
You might abstain from voting as a form of protest over the absolutely repulsive choice of candidates, but that is not clear to others. You might not have voted simply because you were too lazy to get to the polls or because you figured that your one vote didn't count in the end.
The truth is, however, it's not important what the country thinks of your non-vote. What's important is that you did not support something bad. As Thoreau stated (and I quote it from memory--so it's probably more of a paraphrase) "It is not a man's duty to devote himself to the elimination of evil, but it is his duty to wash his hands of it."
Don't play a part in this farce. Don't vote for president if no man running fulfills the guidelines stated in Article II of the Constitution. (You'll find that both McCain and Obama can be elected constitutionally, but you'll also find--based upon what they've said that they're going to do if elected--that neither will be a constitutional president.
As Thoreau pointed out, the government has no right over you and your property excepting what you concede to it (another paraphrase/quote). If you vote, then you concede.
So I say don't vote for president.
And next time, when a candidate like Ron Paul comes around--a man who knows and respects the Constitution--for God's sakes lend him your support!
How sick is this country that so many laughed at and chided the man who based his platform upon the constitution?
You don't have to vote for President.
If you don't like McCain or Obama--and you know, having read the Constitution, that neither one is philosophically qualified for the job--then you don't have to vote for one of them. You don't have to vote at all.
My friend, BAR, argues that you should in the least vote for someone else (e.g. Bob Barr or Ralph Nader) in order to demonstrate clearly that you vote but will not vote for the republican or democratic candidates.
I see his point.
You might abstain from voting as a form of protest over the absolutely repulsive choice of candidates, but that is not clear to others. You might not have voted simply because you were too lazy to get to the polls or because you figured that your one vote didn't count in the end.
The truth is, however, it's not important what the country thinks of your non-vote. What's important is that you did not support something bad. As Thoreau stated (and I quote it from memory--so it's probably more of a paraphrase) "It is not a man's duty to devote himself to the elimination of evil, but it is his duty to wash his hands of it."
Don't play a part in this farce. Don't vote for president if no man running fulfills the guidelines stated in Article II of the Constitution. (You'll find that both McCain and Obama can be elected constitutionally, but you'll also find--based upon what they've said that they're going to do if elected--that neither will be a constitutional president.
As Thoreau pointed out, the government has no right over you and your property excepting what you concede to it (another paraphrase/quote). If you vote, then you concede.
So I say don't vote for president.
And next time, when a candidate like Ron Paul comes around--a man who knows and respects the Constitution--for God's sakes lend him your support!
How sick is this country that so many laughed at and chided the man who based his platform upon the constitution?
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Entitlements
If you don't grow, raise, or hunt your own food for a living, then you had better do something that can be traded for these things or exchanged for something that those who grow, raise or hunt food want.
Similarly, if you cannot or will not build your own home, then you had better do something that can be traded for the building of a home or exchanged for something that those who build homes want.
In the same way, if you are not a doctor, then you had better do something that can be traded...
This is only right. However, there are countless numbers of people who think that they are entitled to the goods and services of others without due compensation.
The last time in American history when a group of people thought that they were entitled to work without paying for that work, we were a nation of slaveholders.
Socialism is slavery. Obama has not come to set you free. He has come to tighten your chains.
McCain is no different, he just talks a gentler version of the same story.
Similarly, if you cannot or will not build your own home, then you had better do something that can be traded for the building of a home or exchanged for something that those who build homes want.
In the same way, if you are not a doctor, then you had better do something that can be traded...
This is only right. However, there are countless numbers of people who think that they are entitled to the goods and services of others without due compensation.
The last time in American history when a group of people thought that they were entitled to work without paying for that work, we were a nation of slaveholders.
Socialism is slavery. Obama has not come to set you free. He has come to tighten your chains.
McCain is no different, he just talks a gentler version of the same story.
I Know What the "F" in "FDA" Stands For
Somehow, the FDA claims to exist because it and only it can protect people from bad medicine (but not your love). This suggests the following: if the FDA disapproves, then it's bad. If the FDA approves, then it's OK.
Then why can't people sue the FDA for approving bad medicine?
The answer is simple. The FDA doesn't exist to protect the people. If that were the reason why it existed, then it would be accountable when it didn't.
If the FDA was a mere mall security company and it allowed burglers* to enter and exit with large amounts of merchandise, then that company would be held accountable. In the very least, it would be fired and replaced with a new company.
This is not true with the FDA or any government organization for that matter. When government organizations fail, we give them more money and power.
*In my original post, I left out the "r." It seems when I make typos, they're always ridiculous. Nice catch, Bob.
Then why can't people sue the FDA for approving bad medicine?
The answer is simple. The FDA doesn't exist to protect the people. If that were the reason why it existed, then it would be accountable when it didn't.
If the FDA was a mere mall security company and it allowed burglers* to enter and exit with large amounts of merchandise, then that company would be held accountable. In the very least, it would be fired and replaced with a new company.
This is not true with the FDA or any government organization for that matter. When government organizations fail, we give them more money and power.
*In my original post, I left out the "r." It seems when I make typos, they're always ridiculous. Nice catch, Bob.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Change Is Coming--Be afraid. Be very afraid
If only this didn't turn out to be an ad for Ralph Nader, it would be freaking perfect.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Double Standard?
I just read that a Catholic priest in India was beaten to death by Hindu extremists.
It goes without saying that if a Hindu priest in the United States had been beaten to death by Catholics, this would have been front page news.
It goes without saying that if a Hindu priest in the United States had been beaten to death by Catholics, this would have been front page news.
Monday, October 27, 2008
31 Years After His Death, Elvis Makes More Money in 12 Months Than You'll Make In a Lifetime (especially if you keep voting Republican or Democrat)
How awesome is/was Elvis Presley?
The guy has been dead for 31 years, but he still earned 12 million more than Madonna and 8 million more than Justin Timberlake did this year.
Goddamn, was he cool or what?
The guy has been dead for 31 years, but he still earned 12 million more than Madonna and 8 million more than Justin Timberlake did this year.
Goddamn, was he cool or what?
The Gipsy Kings--Hotel California
Well, if I'm going to post one Spanish language song (see below post), then I have to post my favorite.
You'll recognize it as a cover of the Eagles' "Hotel California."
You'll also notice that it's better.
Way better.
You'll recognize it as a cover of the Eagles' "Hotel California."
You'll also notice that it's better.
Way better.
Antonio Banderas and Los Lobos - Cancion del Mariachi
Terrible movie, no matter how hot Salma Hayek is in it. However, this song almost redeems the whole thing.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
College Sports
I played football from 4th grade through 12th grade, and I'm now on my 10th year as a coach (9 for pay+my first year as a volunteer). I have two fantasy football teams, and every Sunday (all day) and Monday (night) I am either glued to the television or at least close enough that I can hear what's going on in the NFL.
For this reason, many people are surprised to hear that I hate college football.
However, if you consider the fact that most of the people playing football on the top college teams probably don't even qualify for college, then you might understand why.
I don't care that college football brings a lot of money into the system. College is about higher learning.
Were it the case that colleges could only play students who actually qualified for their schools according to academic standards, then I would acquiesce on this point. However, listen to any post-game interview for the major universities, and you'll get my point.
The same is true for basketball, though I don't really follow the NBA.
Colleges that wish to excel in sports should have players equal to the colleges' reputations. That's why I don't follow the University of Michigan's sports teams. The UM passes itself off as a great learning institution, but its athletes do not usually reflect that.
For this reason, many people are surprised to hear that I hate college football.
However, if you consider the fact that most of the people playing football on the top college teams probably don't even qualify for college, then you might understand why.
I don't care that college football brings a lot of money into the system. College is about higher learning.
Were it the case that colleges could only play students who actually qualified for their schools according to academic standards, then I would acquiesce on this point. However, listen to any post-game interview for the major universities, and you'll get my point.
The same is true for basketball, though I don't really follow the NBA.
Colleges that wish to excel in sports should have players equal to the colleges' reputations. That's why I don't follow the University of Michigan's sports teams. The UM passes itself off as a great learning institution, but its athletes do not usually reflect that.
If You Have Nothing Nice to Say...
According to professor William Schenck-Hamlin, "The use of negative political ads has increased dramatically over the last 25 years."
Many people have noticed that this election has an awful lot of negative advertising.
Allow me to submit a reason: the candidates suck.
In social situations, if you haven't anything nice to say then the rule is to say nothing at all. However, in politics, if there's nothing nice to say about yourself, then you need to say something bad about your opponent.
Essentially, each candidate is saying that if even if you think of him as bad, the other guy is worse, and bad is preferable to worse.
Hmm. Any wonder why we end up with so many bad presidents?
Many people have noticed that this election has an awful lot of negative advertising.
Allow me to submit a reason: the candidates suck.
In social situations, if you haven't anything nice to say then the rule is to say nothing at all. However, in politics, if there's nothing nice to say about yourself, then you need to say something bad about your opponent.
Essentially, each candidate is saying that if even if you think of him as bad, the other guy is worse, and bad is preferable to worse.
Hmm. Any wonder why we end up with so many bad presidents?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Strangers Assessment
In a word, The Strangers was, at best, decent.
It offered nothing truly original. In many ways it wasn't much different than the movie Vacant, which appeared in theaters a year earlier.
At least it did not rely upon gore.
We'll see about that when the inevitable sequel comes about.
It started out good with a fine conflict, but there is something lacking to make the resolution important. Mostly, it just wasn't original enough.
It offered nothing truly original. In many ways it wasn't much different than the movie Vacant, which appeared in theaters a year earlier.
At least it did not rely upon gore.
We'll see about that when the inevitable sequel comes about.
It started out good with a fine conflict, but there is something lacking to make the resolution important. Mostly, it just wasn't original enough.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Strangers
I'm sitting down now to watch The Strangers. It's of the horror/suspense genre, of which I am quite affectionate.
If it is good or not, I will report.
If it is good or not, I will report.
Rob Lowe is (partially) Deaf? OMG!
I just read in a blurb-ish article posted at msn.com that actor Rob Lowe is deaf in one ear, possibly by the mumps, which he suffered from as a child (being born three years after the vaccine was invented).
People must care about this ridiculous "factoid," otherwise msn.com wouldn't have posted it on its homepage.
That's why people aren't terribly impressive.
Beethoven was deaf in both ears, and despite his miserable childhood and tragic adulthood managed to compose the single most beautiful and inspiring masterpiece of all time: his Ninth Symphony--specifically the "Ode to Joy" chorus.
Now that's impressive--that a completely deaf man can compose the finest music ever in the history of mankind.
Who in the hell cares that a man can act (badly) while being only partially deaf?
Ooh, I know! The same morons who will vote either for Barack Obama or John McCain.
Be honest--wasn't that an awesome turn of point?
Funny story:
When I was in high school, I worked at a video store. One day, a gruffly, bearded man walked in, picked out a movie, and approached me at the counter for the rental.
He gave me his membership card, and it came up as under a woman's name. I asked him for his name, and he said, "Rob." I looked at the screen and saw that "Rob" had permission to rent on the account, so I took his money and gave him the movie.
As he left, I looked to my right, and our assistant manager--I'll call her "Carrie" since that was her name--was reeling back and patting her chest. As "Rob" left the building, I asked "Carrie" what was wrong.
"Do you know who that was?" she said.
"Uh, Rob, I guess," I answered.
"Yeah, Rob Lowe," she fired back.
"No way," I said--though I quickly brought up the account, only to find that "Rob" was a permitted renter for a woman (whose first name I cannot recall) had the last name of Lowe.
"Holy *expletive*," I said.
And that's the story.
I never said it was interesting.
I also rented movies to Randy Johnson, Nate McMillan, James Doohan, and this guy named Karl who always rented porn.
People must care about this ridiculous "factoid," otherwise msn.com wouldn't have posted it on its homepage.
That's why people aren't terribly impressive.
Beethoven was deaf in both ears, and despite his miserable childhood and tragic adulthood managed to compose the single most beautiful and inspiring masterpiece of all time: his Ninth Symphony--specifically the "Ode to Joy" chorus.
Now that's impressive--that a completely deaf man can compose the finest music ever in the history of mankind.
Who in the hell cares that a man can act (badly) while being only partially deaf?
Ooh, I know! The same morons who will vote either for Barack Obama or John McCain.
Be honest--wasn't that an awesome turn of point?
Funny story:
When I was in high school, I worked at a video store. One day, a gruffly, bearded man walked in, picked out a movie, and approached me at the counter for the rental.
He gave me his membership card, and it came up as under a woman's name. I asked him for his name, and he said, "Rob." I looked at the screen and saw that "Rob" had permission to rent on the account, so I took his money and gave him the movie.
As he left, I looked to my right, and our assistant manager--I'll call her "Carrie" since that was her name--was reeling back and patting her chest. As "Rob" left the building, I asked "Carrie" what was wrong.
"Do you know who that was?" she said.
"Uh, Rob, I guess," I answered.
"Yeah, Rob Lowe," she fired back.
"No way," I said--though I quickly brought up the account, only to find that "Rob" was a permitted renter for a woman (whose first name I cannot recall) had the last name of Lowe.
"Holy *expletive*," I said.
And that's the story.
I never said it was interesting.
I also rented movies to Randy Johnson, Nate McMillan, James Doohan, and this guy named Karl who always rented porn.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Heresy
A Christian who acts outside of biblical axioms is a heretic.
An American who acts outside of constitutional axioms is a republican or a democrat.
Listen, folks. We don't need to burn them at the stake. We just need to form a new party to stop them.
Know that men such as McCain and Obama can cite scripture for their own purpose (as Shakespeare said of the Devil in The Merchant of Venice).
Listen to what both men said in their debates. Can you doubt that they would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
An American who acts outside of constitutional axioms is a republican or a democrat.
Listen, folks. We don't need to burn them at the stake. We just need to form a new party to stop them.
Know that men such as McCain and Obama can cite scripture for their own purpose (as Shakespeare said of the Devil in The Merchant of Venice).
Listen to what both men said in their debates. Can you doubt that they would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Economic Stimulus
If congress can actually improve the economy with a stimulus package, then why shouldn't it pass a stimulus package every year, month, week, or day?
The answer, of course, is that congress cannot actually improve the economy unless it stands out of the way.
That's right. The best stimulus package is no stimulus package and an unwillingness to meddle in economic matters.
It seems counter-intuitive that doing nothing is in fact doing something, but consider if everything that you do is wrong, then doing nothing is a good idea.
The answer, of course, is that congress cannot actually improve the economy unless it stands out of the way.
That's right. The best stimulus package is no stimulus package and an unwillingness to meddle in economic matters.
It seems counter-intuitive that doing nothing is in fact doing something, but consider if everything that you do is wrong, then doing nothing is a good idea.
End the Two-Party Madness
The fact that "Joe the Plumber" and "Joe Six-Pack" are issues in this election just goes to show why our system is sick. Indeed, the false two-party system is so sick that it needs to expire. Let both parties die, asphyxiated by their own crap.
What should replace them? If not a party dedicated to the principles of the Constitution, then nothing at all.
I'm sick of being told that if I don't support X, then I support Y. That's a ridiculous and baseless conclusion. Of course if I don't support X then I might support Y, but I might also support Z or A or B or any single or combination of letters ad infinitum.
What bugs me most is that people won't just let go. I am unwilling to bind others to my beliefs, but so many others are willing to use violence against me if I do not step to their time.
Listen to what the republican and democratic candidates for president say they are going to do, and compare it to what the president is actually supposed to do according to the Constitution.
These men are not running for president. They are running for king or for emperor, and if you vote for one of them then you are a traitor who must never say the part of the pledge of allegiance "and to the Republic for which it stands."
Does it not bother anyone else that the founding fathers would look upon our current system with the utmost disdain?
Who put us here? The answer is twofold: 1) The republicans and democrats; 2) The people who elect republicans and democrats.
Alas, how like a classical Greek tragedy is this country?
What should replace them? If not a party dedicated to the principles of the Constitution, then nothing at all.
I'm sick of being told that if I don't support X, then I support Y. That's a ridiculous and baseless conclusion. Of course if I don't support X then I might support Y, but I might also support Z or A or B or any single or combination of letters ad infinitum.
What bugs me most is that people won't just let go. I am unwilling to bind others to my beliefs, but so many others are willing to use violence against me if I do not step to their time.
Listen to what the republican and democratic candidates for president say they are going to do, and compare it to what the president is actually supposed to do according to the Constitution.
These men are not running for president. They are running for king or for emperor, and if you vote for one of them then you are a traitor who must never say the part of the pledge of allegiance "and to the Republic for which it stands."
Does it not bother anyone else that the founding fathers would look upon our current system with the utmost disdain?
Who put us here? The answer is twofold: 1) The republicans and democrats; 2) The people who elect republicans and democrats.
Alas, how like a classical Greek tragedy is this country?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Link to Article on the "Choice" this November
I found the link to this article on the "choice" between Obama and McCain at Free Advice.
I'm not trying to copy your stuff, Bob, but it's too good for me not to post.
I'm not trying to copy your stuff, Bob, but it's too good for me not to post.
Choices Schmoices
As a reply to a comment made on a previous post, I was very crass in my treatment of an argument made by someone calling himself "aconservativeteacher."
At the time, I thought that aconservativeteacher was my good friend, bar, who was commenting under another name. I believed that bar was trying to get my goat by making an argument that he knows irritates me.
Bar has since denied having made the comment, and that left me wondering who it was and realizing that it was probably sincere--which would cast my reply in a bad light (you see, I thought that I was being toyed around with).
Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that I know who aconservativeteacher is, and I am also pretty sure that he was sincere. This leaves me with some explaining to do.
The question should not be Will A be a better president than B? The question should be Will A make a good president?
If A will make a good president, then A should be president.
Another way to look at it is this:
If A will not make a good president, then A should not be president.
Let's allow A to represent John McCain.
If John McCain will not make a good president, then John McCain should not be president.
John McCain will not make a good president.
Therefore, John McCain should not be president.
What aconservativeteacher has offered us is a false dilemma. A dilemma is an argument pitting an A against a B in an either-or proposition.
Something like "Either John McCain or Barack Obama can be president. Whoever is better should be president. McCain is better. Therefore, McCain should be president."
The reason this dilemma is false is because there are other candidates running for the same office. Someone else can be elected. Of course there is a historical likelihood that either McCain or Obama will be president, but that' s only because so many people--like aconservativeteacher--are convinced that the two-party system is somehow carved in stone.
It's not coarved in stone. It's a myth, and a highly destructive one at that, for it has saddled us with poor policies and poor leadership for well over a century. aconservativeteacher argues that Obama is the equivalent to Hitler. Now I don't like Obama at all, but that comparison is quite ludicrous. However, I'll use aconservativeteacher's own exaggeration to reduce his argument to absurdity.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for Benito Mussolini.
OK, aconservativeteacher, it's your turn. You know well that both Hitler and Mussolini were tyrants. However, according to your implied position, you're going to vote for Mussolini because he's less of a tyrant than Hitler.
The thing is, we don't merely have to choose between German National Socialism and Italian Fascism. There are other options. Even if there were no other options, could you really lend your moral support to the fascists?
For my part, I will support neither Hitler nor Mussolini. If it means that I am boarded up in my moral castle, then from there I will make my stand. At least I will have no blood on my hands. I am responsible to my conscience, so I must preserve it at all costs, no matter how un-pragmatic that may be on a political level.
At the time, I thought that aconservativeteacher was my good friend, bar, who was commenting under another name. I believed that bar was trying to get my goat by making an argument that he knows irritates me.
Bar has since denied having made the comment, and that left me wondering who it was and realizing that it was probably sincere--which would cast my reply in a bad light (you see, I thought that I was being toyed around with).
Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that I know who aconservativeteacher is, and I am also pretty sure that he was sincere. This leaves me with some explaining to do.
The question should not be Will A be a better president than B? The question should be Will A make a good president?
If A will make a good president, then A should be president.
Another way to look at it is this:
If A will not make a good president, then A should not be president.
Let's allow A to represent John McCain.
If John McCain will not make a good president, then John McCain should not be president.
John McCain will not make a good president.
Therefore, John McCain should not be president.
What aconservativeteacher has offered us is a false dilemma. A dilemma is an argument pitting an A against a B in an either-or proposition.
Something like "Either John McCain or Barack Obama can be president. Whoever is better should be president. McCain is better. Therefore, McCain should be president."
The reason this dilemma is false is because there are other candidates running for the same office. Someone else can be elected. Of course there is a historical likelihood that either McCain or Obama will be president, but that' s only because so many people--like aconservativeteacher--are convinced that the two-party system is somehow carved in stone.
It's not coarved in stone. It's a myth, and a highly destructive one at that, for it has saddled us with poor policies and poor leadership for well over a century. aconservativeteacher argues that Obama is the equivalent to Hitler. Now I don't like Obama at all, but that comparison is quite ludicrous. However, I'll use aconservativeteacher's own exaggeration to reduce his argument to absurdity.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for Benito Mussolini.
OK, aconservativeteacher, it's your turn. You know well that both Hitler and Mussolini were tyrants. However, according to your implied position, you're going to vote for Mussolini because he's less of a tyrant than Hitler.
The thing is, we don't merely have to choose between German National Socialism and Italian Fascism. There are other options. Even if there were no other options, could you really lend your moral support to the fascists?
For my part, I will support neither Hitler nor Mussolini. If it means that I am boarded up in my moral castle, then from there I will make my stand. At least I will have no blood on my hands. I am responsible to my conscience, so I must preserve it at all costs, no matter how un-pragmatic that may be on a political level.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Mark LaRusso
Only two hours ago, I was sitting comfortably in my family room, reclining on one of our new-used chairs, and thoroughly engrossed in Casino Royale. Suddenly--just after Bond destroyed an embassy in Madagascar--Natalie (age 8) came bursting through the front door to tell me that Mark (age 5) had just kicked a neighbor boy, Michael (also age 5), and Michael was crying.
Oh Jeez, I thought to myself. Perhaps the Karate lessons weren't such a good idea.
I quickly went out side, and across the street two houses down. There sat Mark on the lawn, surrounded by several other neighbor children. He looked upset (like a boy who knew he was in trouble should look). Michael was nearby, clutching his left humerus and wearing a painful look.
I told Mark to go home and wait for me on the living room couch. He looked scared, but he obeyed. Next, I asked Michael if he was OK. Michael said that he was OK, but that Mark had kicked him in the arm and in the face. I told Michael that I was very sorry and that I would take care of it.
Before going home, I asked the eldest two of the kids present if they'd come with me for a minute. I asked both what had happened, and who had started it.
Both answered that Michael had taken Mark's hat, tackled, and hit Mark when he (Mark) had tried to recover his hat. That's when Mark kicked Michael once in the arm and once in the face.
I went inside and asked Mark what happened, and he told the same story.
Having the story confirmed as such, I did not think that any punishment was due to Mark beyond having him stay inside for the rest of the evening. Anyone who disagrees must think that Daniel san should have just let Johnny and the rest of the Cobra Kai have their way.
I did, however, explain that it would have been better for him to have come home and gotten me rather than duke it out. However, part of me wanted to tell him "Good job" because, man, I hate bullies--and I love when they get their due.
Oh Jeez, I thought to myself. Perhaps the Karate lessons weren't such a good idea.
I quickly went out side, and across the street two houses down. There sat Mark on the lawn, surrounded by several other neighbor children. He looked upset (like a boy who knew he was in trouble should look). Michael was nearby, clutching his left humerus and wearing a painful look.
I told Mark to go home and wait for me on the living room couch. He looked scared, but he obeyed. Next, I asked Michael if he was OK. Michael said that he was OK, but that Mark had kicked him in the arm and in the face. I told Michael that I was very sorry and that I would take care of it.
Before going home, I asked the eldest two of the kids present if they'd come with me for a minute. I asked both what had happened, and who had started it.
Both answered that Michael had taken Mark's hat, tackled, and hit Mark when he (Mark) had tried to recover his hat. That's when Mark kicked Michael once in the arm and once in the face.
I went inside and asked Mark what happened, and he told the same story.
Having the story confirmed as such, I did not think that any punishment was due to Mark beyond having him stay inside for the rest of the evening. Anyone who disagrees must think that Daniel san should have just let Johnny and the rest of the Cobra Kai have their way.
I did, however, explain that it would have been better for him to have come home and gotten me rather than duke it out. However, part of me wanted to tell him "Good job" because, man, I hate bullies--and I love when they get their due.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Not a Reason to Vote
How about that pro-Obama commercial in which people say why their going to vote?
There's the one where the person says something like, "I'm registering to vote because I make less than two gallons of gas an hour." Another says something like, "I'm registering because it cost more to fill up my tank than my mom makes in a day."
My question: What in the heck does the president have to do with this?
You're going to vote simply because a candidate promises you more money? That's essentially what this advertisement suggests that you should do.
Using the coercive powers of government to line your pockets (which won't happen anyway) is the same as pointing a gun at a stranger in the alley and saying, "Your money or your life."
There's the one where the person says something like, "I'm registering to vote because I make less than two gallons of gas an hour." Another says something like, "I'm registering because it cost more to fill up my tank than my mom makes in a day."
My question: What in the heck does the president have to do with this?
You're going to vote simply because a candidate promises you more money? That's essentially what this advertisement suggests that you should do.
Using the coercive powers of government to line your pockets (which won't happen anyway) is the same as pointing a gun at a stranger in the alley and saying, "Your money or your life."
My Vote 2008
I have decided not to vote for president. My reason is simple and just: no one running is good for the job--and yes, I've looked at third party candidates.
Bob Barr sounds pretty good, but I cannot forget things that he's said and done in the past.
On the bright side, I can honestly tell people that I have no part whatsoever in the crap to come.
On the darker side, there are millions of people who are more than willing to saddle me with their crappy president.
Bob Barr sounds pretty good, but I cannot forget things that he's said and done in the past.
On the bright side, I can honestly tell people that I have no part whatsoever in the crap to come.
On the darker side, there are millions of people who are more than willing to saddle me with their crappy president.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Patrick Henry on the Current Coup by the Federal Government (Sorta)
Newton's law--Every action as an equal and opposite reaction.
Right?
Now reason: For every power granted to or assumed by the state, the people are less that same amount of liberty.
And now a few words from Patrick Henry:
"[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Now consider how much power the federal government has assumed, but not just since the Civil War, New Deal, or Great Society. I mean in the past eight years. Hell, try the past four weeks.
Patrick Henry:
"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!"
It's not the time for a physical fight, and God willing it won't come to that. However, there are other meanings to the word.
Patrick Henry:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed. . . . Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
If you ask me, it's getting pretty near the time either to learn the goose step, hide in an attic, or prepare for le resistance.
Why the French? It's simple. We've surrendered our republic to the national socialists.
Right?
Now reason: For every power granted to or assumed by the state, the people are less that same amount of liberty.
And now a few words from Patrick Henry:
"[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Now consider how much power the federal government has assumed, but not just since the Civil War, New Deal, or Great Society. I mean in the past eight years. Hell, try the past four weeks.
Patrick Henry:
"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!"
It's not the time for a physical fight, and God willing it won't come to that. However, there are other meanings to the word.
Patrick Henry:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed. . . . Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
If you ask me, it's getting pretty near the time either to learn the goose step, hide in an attic, or prepare for le resistance.
Why the French? It's simple. We've surrendered our republic to the national socialists.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
I'm Agitated
All this talk of the bailout bill granting new powers to the Executive Branch has me really upset. Why am I the only one pointing out that a simple bill from Congress cannot create new executive powers.
Only a constitutional amendment can do this.
This usurpation of authority is the stuff of which rebellions are born. I mean, it's really getting on my nerves--to the extent that my thoughts nowadays aren't so much about how the government must be changed, but how it must be brought down. I don't just wish to see certain men defeated in elections. I want them brought up on charges of tyranny and treason.
The thing is, I don't wish to be the kind of guy who wants to "bring it all down." I want peace. I want a constitutionally limited government that is true to its charter: to protect the life, liberty, and property of each and every citizen.
I curse the men who have brought us here, and I despise the voters who have put those men in power.
It's time to be angry. It's time to be afraid.
Only a constitutional amendment can do this.
This usurpation of authority is the stuff of which rebellions are born. I mean, it's really getting on my nerves--to the extent that my thoughts nowadays aren't so much about how the government must be changed, but how it must be brought down. I don't just wish to see certain men defeated in elections. I want them brought up on charges of tyranny and treason.
The thing is, I don't wish to be the kind of guy who wants to "bring it all down." I want peace. I want a constitutionally limited government that is true to its charter: to protect the life, liberty, and property of each and every citizen.
I curse the men who have brought us here, and I despise the voters who have put those men in power.
It's time to be angry. It's time to be afraid.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain
Once they start jamming the chorus, check out the long-haired dude on the left. Cobain?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)