An article at the Wall Street Journal is headlined "Democrats Target High Earners to Help Fund Health Plan."
I wonder how much of this is a Marxist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, and how much of this is politicians pandering to the masses: "Vote for me, and I'll get you stuff with other people's money!"
It's sick is what it is. No one has the right to another person's property, and this proposal amounts to little more than legally sanctioned plunder.
Obama is a bandit not in the likes of Robin Hood (who stole not from the rich but from the Lords who had unjustly taxed the peasantry). Obama is a bandit in the likes of Jesse James: no matter how beastly his actions, he will be loved by the simple folk.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Obama the Partisan
Obama is always talking about and extolling the virtues of bipartisanship, and yet, to him, bipartisanship is merely the other side either going along with his wishes or shutting up and getting out of the way.
He's a hypocrite of the first order. And yet he is so worshiped by so many.
There's room at the top, they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill.
--John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"
He's a hypocrite of the first order. And yet he is so worshiped by so many.
There's room at the top, they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill.
--John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Cheney Defends Torture
According to the Los Angeles Times, former VP Cheney takes offense at recent inquiries into whether the CIA might have broken anti-torture laws.
The Times quotes the former VP:
If Cheney can somehow prevent the looking into this issue, he and his cohorts can see to the complete suppression of all incriminating evidence. It makes me think of 1984:
Contrary to what he thinks, officials should have to worry about the consequences of their actions. It's when there is no worry at all that they become the most bestial. Which, I suppose, is exactly how Cheney wants it to be--so long as he's pulling the strings.
Note: If you read the whole Times article, you'll see near the end that Cheney says that he's OK with it if the interrogations were indeed illegal acts of torture.
The Times quotes the former VP:
I just think it's an outrageous political act that will do great damage long-term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say.However, the issue isn't if Obama's motives are political. They may well be (and probably are). The issue is did the CIA torture prisoners? In Cheney's lexicon, torture is just one of those "difficult decisions," and in his own words he wants the CIA to be able to do it freely "without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say" (i.e. without having to worry about consequences).
If Cheney can somehow prevent the looking into this issue, he and his cohorts can see to the complete suppression of all incriminating evidence. It makes me think of 1984:
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'What Cheney doesn't like is that he doesn't control the present right now, and that's what he's pretty much all about: control, power.
Contrary to what he thinks, officials should have to worry about the consequences of their actions. It's when there is no worry at all that they become the most bestial. Which, I suppose, is exactly how Cheney wants it to be--so long as he's pulling the strings.
Note: If you read the whole Times article, you'll see near the end that Cheney says that he's OK with it if the interrogations were indeed illegal acts of torture.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A Tribute (of sorts) to Elmo
Yes, it's been too long since I've posted. Frankly, I've been a bit tired since my return from Seattle. Nonetheless, I have something for you--for you specifically if you are or have ever been a parent whose child/children went through the dreaded "Elmo phase."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Grandma C. Rest in Peace
My grandmother died a few hours ago, shortly after I purchased a ticket to fly out to see her one last time. At least I won't have to see her in critical condition, but I will never see her again.
Food has tasted a bit bland since I heard the news. My wife says that it's grief. Who knew how bland grief tasted?
I would have pegged it for bitter.
She was a kind woman who spent the last several years battling several medical conditions. I hope her soul fares well, and I will miss her dearly.
Food has tasted a bit bland since I heard the news. My wife says that it's grief. Who knew how bland grief tasted?
I would have pegged it for bitter.
She was a kind woman who spent the last several years battling several medical conditions. I hope her soul fares well, and I will miss her dearly.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Giving the House to the Bank
I'm rather tired of people who say that they are "giving the house to the bank" instead of just admitting that their home is in foreclosure.
They shouldn't phrase it in such a way to make it sound any less than the bank is seizing your house because they have failed to make payments on their mortgages. They're not "giving" the house away. It's being taken away.
I'm not degrading anyone because they've fallen on hard times. I'm just annoyed with this sweet little phrasing that makes it sound like it's a choice and no big deal. It is a big deal.
I'm also tired of the state complaining that it is losing revenues right and left. These past few months, I've seen dozens of street construction projects that were not necessary. When money is tight, you're supposed to watch your spending. Instead, I just watch the state spending, and spending, and spending. Hearing the state complain about revenues is like hearing a compulsive gambler complain about having to give his house to the bank.
I'm also irked by the notion uttered by politicians like Sen. Arlen Spector that those in vocal opposition to the government's health-care plan are not representative of the people. Yes, their are millions of Americans who do not have health care insurance, but this does not mean that they are not able to receive health care. Furthermore, these millions of uninsured Americans do not make up the majority of Americans, so perhaps it is politicians like Sen. Spector who are not representative of the people.
And now I tire.
They shouldn't phrase it in such a way to make it sound any less than the bank is seizing your house because they have failed to make payments on their mortgages. They're not "giving" the house away. It's being taken away.
I'm not degrading anyone because they've fallen on hard times. I'm just annoyed with this sweet little phrasing that makes it sound like it's a choice and no big deal. It is a big deal.
I'm also tired of the state complaining that it is losing revenues right and left. These past few months, I've seen dozens of street construction projects that were not necessary. When money is tight, you're supposed to watch your spending. Instead, I just watch the state spending, and spending, and spending. Hearing the state complain about revenues is like hearing a compulsive gambler complain about having to give his house to the bank.
I'm also irked by the notion uttered by politicians like Sen. Arlen Spector that those in vocal opposition to the government's health-care plan are not representative of the people. Yes, their are millions of Americans who do not have health care insurance, but this does not mean that they are not able to receive health care. Furthermore, these millions of uninsured Americans do not make up the majority of Americans, so perhaps it is politicians like Sen. Spector who are not representative of the people.
And now I tire.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama: Government Run Health-Care Will Suck (paraphrase)
At Free Advice, Bob links to this video showing Obama poorly defend his health care plan. To the argument that the so-called "public option" would threaten the solvency of private insurance companies, Obama says that insurance companies have nothing to worry about by comparing how the post office is always in trouble but private companies like FedEx and UPS thrive.
In other words, private companies shouldn't fear government competition because government competition sucks.
True, very true; however, government coercion remains to be feared, and this government is more coercive than ever before.
In other words, private companies shouldn't fear government competition because government competition sucks.
True, very true; however, government coercion remains to be feared, and this government is more coercive than ever before.
Opposition to Government-Run Health Care Heats Up
Claire McCaskill, a U.S. Senator from Missouri, faced an angry crowd recently as she stumped for government-managed health care.
Also astounding was the vandalism on representative David Scott's office sign.
I'm not quite certain what message the perpetrators intended, for I'm not able to see the connection between this debate and the infamous Nazi symbol. Perhaps it was made by educated (albeit foolish) well-wishers (before the Nazis adopted the swastika, it symbolized good luck). Then again, I'll bet that the perpetrators are indeed supporters of Scott and the government's health care plan, their aim being to portray their opposition as members of a fringe hate-group--as if only ignorant thugs could possibly disapprove of the government's plans.
If the swastika is indeed the work of a defiant opposition, then I am rather upset because it does nothing to help those of us who oppose the government reasonably. But of course, anyone who thinks that the swastika is a great symbol is too much of an idiot to know any better.
McCaskill admonished the rowdy crowd, saying "I don't understand this rudeness. I honestly don't get it." (source: msnbc)I'm certain that Lords Greenville, Townshend, North, and King George III uttered similar sentiments when the colonists protested the various acts of parliament that were designed to fleece the Americans in the decade prior to the American War for Independence.
Both loyal supporters of English authority and well-established colonial protest leaders underestimated the self-activating capacity of ordinary colonists. By the end of 1765 … people in the streets had astounded, dismayed, and frightened their social superiors. (Gary Nash, 59)It is rather astounding when politicians react disbelievingly towards increased-tax opposition.
Also astounding was the vandalism on representative David Scott's office sign.
I'm not quite certain what message the perpetrators intended, for I'm not able to see the connection between this debate and the infamous Nazi symbol. Perhaps it was made by educated (albeit foolish) well-wishers (before the Nazis adopted the swastika, it symbolized good luck). Then again, I'll bet that the perpetrators are indeed supporters of Scott and the government's health care plan, their aim being to portray their opposition as members of a fringe hate-group--as if only ignorant thugs could possibly disapprove of the government's plans.
If the swastika is indeed the work of a defiant opposition, then I am rather upset because it does nothing to help those of us who oppose the government reasonably. But of course, anyone who thinks that the swastika is a great symbol is too much of an idiot to know any better.
Friday, August 07, 2009
My Birthday Tomorrow
When my wife asks me what I want for my birthday, I usually announce something too expensive as my primary wish. That way, my second choice looks way more attractive and plausible.
P.S. Breathe a word of this to my wife, and you're toast.
P.P.S. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
P.S. Breathe a word of this to my wife, and you're toast.
P.P.S. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Obama and Historic Approval Ratings
There is much talk of how Obama's approval numbers have been declining some, that while he is still liked as a person, many are becoming less and less content with his policies. Now we have all these Obama people jumping around, desperate to explain all of this, as if lower (that's lower, not low) approval ratings now will destroy his historical legacy.
Before Obama's supporters give themselves ulcers, they should pay attention to American history, enought to see that the most disliked--and most destructive--president in history is still considered one of the best.
Abraham Lincoln was so disliked (both as a man and for his policies) that eleven states seceded from the Union and sacrificed an entire generation of their young men (and a great many of their older men as well) in hopes of being independent of the man and his policies.
Rest assured, Obamanites, history can still look fondly upon your man, even if he gets lower approval ratings and even if he wrecks the hell out of the country (look out, Atlanta).
Before Obama's supporters give themselves ulcers, they should pay attention to American history, enought to see that the most disliked--and most destructive--president in history is still considered one of the best.
Abraham Lincoln was so disliked (both as a man and for his policies) that eleven states seceded from the Union and sacrificed an entire generation of their young men (and a great many of their older men as well) in hopes of being independent of the man and his policies.
Rest assured, Obamanites, history can still look fondly upon your man, even if he gets lower approval ratings and even if he wrecks the hell out of the country (look out, Atlanta).
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
A Learned Man Came to See Me Once--By Stephen Crane
This poem feels so current...A learned man came to me once.Was Crane foreseeing America's waltz into Obamanomics?
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."
--Stephen Crane
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
You Owe No Taxes
I just read that (terrible) actor Nicholas Cage "owes" the federal government 6.5 million in unpaid taxes and penalties.
However,"owe" is the wrong verb.
Since the federal government does not solicit your consent for its "services," you are under no moral obligation to pay it anything. Your legal obligation to pay has the moral equivalent to your obligation to pay a mugger.
The fact that we are taxed by elected representatives does not change the fact that I have not consented to be taxed. Imagine that some guy just up and mowed your lawn (badly) and presented you with a $1000 bill. You'd be outraged. You'd point out what a crappy job he did, how ridiculously expensive is his fee, and on top of everything that you never gave the guy permission. He cannot justify his bill by saying, "Well, I asked your neighbors, and they said it was OK."
If you don't pay taxes, then the government will bring upon you much harm. That means that you had better pay your taxes, but it doesn't mean that you owe them.
However,"owe" is the wrong verb.
Since the federal government does not solicit your consent for its "services," you are under no moral obligation to pay it anything. Your legal obligation to pay has the moral equivalent to your obligation to pay a mugger.
The fact that we are taxed by elected representatives does not change the fact that I have not consented to be taxed. Imagine that some guy just up and mowed your lawn (badly) and presented you with a $1000 bill. You'd be outraged. You'd point out what a crappy job he did, how ridiculously expensive is his fee, and on top of everything that you never gave the guy permission. He cannot justify his bill by saying, "Well, I asked your neighbors, and they said it was OK."
If you don't pay taxes, then the government will bring upon you much harm. That means that you had better pay your taxes, but it doesn't mean that you owe them.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Obama Already Is Taxing the Middle Class
The New York Times reports that Obama plans to stick to his pledge not to increase the middle class's tax burden.
Sorry folks, have you looked at our government's policies? All this spending, money from nothing. What do you think are the consequences?
Inflation, an "invisible" form of taxation.
As our dollar weakens, we become poorer. The result is much the same as if the government simply took more dollars in taxes.
Every dollar spent by the government has to come from taxpayers. If it's not taxed directly or borrowed (e.g. bonds), then it hits us as inflation.
Obama's reckless spending policies make him potentially one of the worst presidents in regards to easing the middle class's burden.
But Obama will blame everything on eight years of Bush, and most of his supporters will buy it and cry, "Four legs good; two legs better!"
"Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."
--The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Sorry folks, have you looked at our government's policies? All this spending, money from nothing. What do you think are the consequences?
Inflation, an "invisible" form of taxation.
As our dollar weakens, we become poorer. The result is much the same as if the government simply took more dollars in taxes.
Every dollar spent by the government has to come from taxpayers. If it's not taxed directly or borrowed (e.g. bonds), then it hits us as inflation.
Obama's reckless spending policies make him potentially one of the worst presidents in regards to easing the middle class's burden.
But Obama will blame everything on eight years of Bush, and most of his supporters will buy it and cry, "Four legs good; two legs better!"
"Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."
--The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Saturday, August 01, 2009
No Stimulus?
On Friday, a local newspaper published with the headline "No Stimulus for Cops," and it was about how puzzled local leaders are that they didn't get any federal money for police.
What in the hell does that mean? We should be "stimulating" the police industry? We already have a massive (and massively expensive) program installed to "stimulate" the police industry.
It's called the drug war. It keeps crime high in cities so that citizens demand police.
Spending money on more police will not "stimulate" anything,
What in the hell does that mean? We should be "stimulating" the police industry? We already have a massive (and massively expensive) program installed to "stimulate" the police industry.
It's called the drug war. It keeps crime high in cities so that citizens demand police.
Spending money on more police will not "stimulate" anything,
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
See My (Crocodile) Tears for Brett Favre
According to this article, Brett Favre has turned down the chance to come out of retirement (again) and play for the Minnesota Vikings. He is quoted as referring to this decision as the hardest one he's ever made.
That's quite a string of hardest decisions: to retire from the Packers, to play for the Jets, to retire from the Jets...
I don't feel bad for him. I used it all up here and here when I was so moved by his first decision to retire.
Word of advice to the Vikings: Read my previous post. Don't gamble on Vick!
That's quite a string of hardest decisions: to retire from the Packers, to play for the Jets, to retire from the Jets...
I don't feel bad for him. I used it all up here and here when I was so moved by his first decision to retire.
Word of advice to the Vikings: Read my previous post. Don't gamble on Vick!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Michael Vick--Why No One Should Sign Him
Michael Vick may be heading to an NFL team near you.
The issue isn't if the NFL can prevent him from taking the field. Ever filled out a resume? Why do you think that companies ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony? Now in this case, the company in question (the NFL) isn't afraid of being ripped off by a crook. However, it is within their rights to exclude a convicted felon from their organization.
The question is should Vick be allowed to play in the NFL. To this, I say yes. Why not? Is it because he helped finance and run an illegal organization that killed scores of dogs?
Seriously?
Give me a break. He killed dogs--fighting dogs, not miniature poodles. I don't approve, but that's beside the point. He didn't harm or kill a person. He didn't steel anything. He just did something unsavory.
Next question, should any NFL team gamble on Vick by adding him to their roster? To this, I say no, and my answer has nothing to do with what he did to dogs. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that Michael Vick is the crappiest, most overrated quarterback in the last several decades.
He's fast, sure, but he's also an erratic passer and not much of a leader. A quarterback can be great if he's not fast, but he cannot be great if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well.
In fact, a quarterback cannot even be good if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well.
Actually, a quarterback cannot even be mediocre if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well,
If a quarterback cannot pass accurately or lead his team well, then he can only be a crappy quarterback.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Michael Vick.
*This post is dedicated to my father-in-law.
The issue isn't if the NFL can prevent him from taking the field. Ever filled out a resume? Why do you think that companies ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony? Now in this case, the company in question (the NFL) isn't afraid of being ripped off by a crook. However, it is within their rights to exclude a convicted felon from their organization.
The question is should Vick be allowed to play in the NFL. To this, I say yes. Why not? Is it because he helped finance and run an illegal organization that killed scores of dogs?
Seriously?
Give me a break. He killed dogs--fighting dogs, not miniature poodles. I don't approve, but that's beside the point. He didn't harm or kill a person. He didn't steel anything. He just did something unsavory.
Next question, should any NFL team gamble on Vick by adding him to their roster? To this, I say no, and my answer has nothing to do with what he did to dogs. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that Michael Vick is the crappiest, most overrated quarterback in the last several decades.
He's fast, sure, but he's also an erratic passer and not much of a leader. A quarterback can be great if he's not fast, but he cannot be great if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well.
In fact, a quarterback cannot even be good if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well.
Actually, a quarterback cannot even be mediocre if he cannot pass accurately or lead his team well,
If a quarterback cannot pass accurately or lead his team well, then he can only be a crappy quarterback.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Michael Vick.
*This post is dedicated to my father-in-law.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Robbie Pees (in the toilet)!
Robbie used the toilet to pee last night. It was his first time.
Dare I anticipate that the end of diapers is just over the horizon?
Dare I eat a peach.
No, peaches have too much fructose.
Dare I anticipate that the end of diapers is just over the horizon?
Dare I eat a peach.
No, peaches have too much fructose.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Extended Unemployment
The county in which I reside has just passed a resolution asking congress for more money to pay unemployment welfare (call it what it is; it's not a benefit, it's welfare, and what you "pay into it" when you're working is a tax--it's not a savings account for when/if you become unemployed).
If you extend unemployment welfare, you'll end up with people unemployed for an extended period of time.
I'm not being heartless here, so dispense with that argument. Paying people to be idle is not virtuous. It's time to stop waiting for the right job and time to take any job. If there are no jobs in this area, then people in need of jobs ought to consider moving elsewhere.
If you extend unemployment welfare, you'll end up with people unemployed for an extended period of time.
I'm not being heartless here, so dispense with that argument. Paying people to be idle is not virtuous. It's time to stop waiting for the right job and time to take any job. If there are no jobs in this area, then people in need of jobs ought to consider moving elsewhere.
Mark: The "Natural"
This is as much a blooper reel as a "highlight" reel.
C'mon, Aristos, it's his first season!
Yeah, but--
C'mon, Aristos, he's only six!
True, yet--
C'mon, Aristos, he's your son.
Yes. Yes he is. (sigh)
C'mon, Aristos, it's his first season!
Yeah, but--
C'mon, Aristos, he's only six!
True, yet--
C'mon, Aristos, he's your son.
Yes. Yes he is. (sigh)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tom Waits: Warm Beer, Cold Women
I've been a bit off lately, so I haven't been able to think of anything useful to post.
I caught this on my iPod during my drive home from work, and I thought that you just might find in it what I do.
My wife hates him, but I think that Tom Waits is a genius.
I caught this on my iPod during my drive home from work, and I thought that you just might find in it what I do.
My wife hates him, but I think that Tom Waits is a genius.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Can Anyone Spare $23 Trillion?
I just read at Bloomberg.com that taxpayers will be on the hook for close to $23 trillion for all this bailout/stimulus spending.
Our government is so far out of its constitutional limits that it's time to abolish one or the other.
Secession anyone?
Our government is so far out of its constitutional limits that it's time to abolish one or the other.
Secession anyone?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Murdock Takes a Leap of Faith
My good buddy, Howling Mad Murdock, went skydiving today. He just sent me a picture of a certificate stating that he "has successfully jumped from a perfectly good airplane." By the looks of the photograph, there's a bit more to this story...
Aristos: "Were you nervous?"
Murdock: "No, it's not like it was my first time."
Aristos: "You've been skydiving before?"
Murdock: "Oh, you meant the skydiving..."
I just called him and left a message saying that I am unimpressed. How does one unsuccessfully jump? I mean, am I supposed to marvel that my friend knows how to jump? In skydiving, it's not the successful jumping or even the successful landing that matters. What goes up must come down. What matters is the safe landing.
Howling Mad Murdock occasionally updates his blog Mindless Ramblings of a Howling Mad Mind, so there's a decent chance that he'll post about it before the year ends.
Hyperinflation Hits Cigarettes in New Hampshire
A recent article tells an interesting story. Remember the "Bank error in your favor" card in Monopoly? Here's the extreme reverse.
A man in New Hampshire bought a pack of cigarettes. Now we all know that cigarette prices have risen at quite a clip over the past decade, but this guy was pretty surprised when he checked his checking account balance and discovered that he had been charged over $23 quadrillion ($23,148,855,308,184,500).
What I found amusing was that it took over two hours for him to resolve the dispute with his bank and have his $15 overdraft fee repealed.
In classic fashion, the bank referred all reports' questions to Visa, and Visa referred all queries to the bank.
A man in New Hampshire bought a pack of cigarettes. Now we all know that cigarette prices have risen at quite a clip over the past decade, but this guy was pretty surprised when he checked his checking account balance and discovered that he had been charged over $23 quadrillion ($23,148,855,308,184,500).
What I found amusing was that it took over two hours for him to resolve the dispute with his bank and have his $15 overdraft fee repealed.
In classic fashion, the bank referred all reports' questions to Visa, and Visa referred all queries to the bank.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Biden Cops Out on the Economy
This article from the Washington Post, has Vice-President Biden answering critics of President Obama's economic plan, especially the effectiveness of the stimulus package in creating jobs.
Biden tells people that all one needs to do is to look around and see people working. To him, that's evidence that the stimulus package was helpful and necessary.
Is the vice president suggesting that when you look around and see people at work that those people owe their jobs to Obama and the stimulus package? That's what it sounds like. How does he prove this? Did no one have any jobs before the stimulus package?
And how about one of Biden's economic advisers saying, "The point of these programs on the jobs front is to cushion the blow."
So how exactly do we measure the extent of this "cushion"?
So how generally do we measure the extent of this "cushion"?
Is it even possible to measure the extent of this "cushion"?
All Biden and Obama have to do is say, "You think things are tough now, but--if it hadn't been for our ecnomic policies--things would be much worse."
Such a statement is impossible to verify or disprove. It's called a cop-out.
Biden tells people that all one needs to do is to look around and see people working. To him, that's evidence that the stimulus package was helpful and necessary.
Is the vice president suggesting that when you look around and see people at work that those people owe their jobs to Obama and the stimulus package? That's what it sounds like. How does he prove this? Did no one have any jobs before the stimulus package?
And how about one of Biden's economic advisers saying, "The point of these programs on the jobs front is to cushion the blow."
So how exactly do we measure the extent of this "cushion"?
So how generally do we measure the extent of this "cushion"?
Is it even possible to measure the extent of this "cushion"?
All Biden and Obama have to do is say, "You think things are tough now, but--if it hadn't been for our ecnomic policies--things would be much worse."
Such a statement is impossible to verify or disprove. It's called a cop-out.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Government Debt.
Didn't Obama promise to make the government more fiscally responsible? And yet this article from Bloomberg.com says that the budget deficit has surpassed one trillion dollars (+$1,000,000,000,000) in the first nine months of the fiscal year. Last month's deficit was a record, and "The June deficit compares with a surplus of $33.5 billion in the same month a year earlier."
And
This is relevant because "Total public debt outstanding exceeds $11.5 trillion, according to the Treasury’s July 9 statement on the government’s cash balance."
Did you get that? Whose debt? Public debt. Your debt. My debt. Were this government a man in business, it would be in jail alongside Bernie Madoff.
No, I take that back. This government needs a maximum security prison, and it more than deserves to lose a confrontation in the showers.
"A man in debt is so far a slave."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
And
"For the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, the Office of Management and Budget forecasts the deficit to reach a record $1.841 trillion, more than four times the previous fiscal year’s $459 billion shortfall."
This is relevant because "Total public debt outstanding exceeds $11.5 trillion, according to the Treasury’s July 9 statement on the government’s cash balance."
Did you get that? Whose debt? Public debt. Your debt. My debt. Were this government a man in business, it would be in jail alongside Bernie Madoff.
No, I take that back. This government needs a maximum security prison, and it more than deserves to lose a confrontation in the showers.
"A man in debt is so far a slave."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Those Who Can't Do Sometimes Really Do Teach
A young friend of mine is taking an on-line course in macroeconomics at the local community college. He recently sent me a note quoting one of his midterm exam topics with a request for my thoughts on it.
The topic was
11. The presence of market failures implies that:
A. money is not an effective tool for exchange in a market system.
B. there is an active role for government, even in a market system.
C. individuals and firms should strive to be self-sufficient rather than specialize.
D. command systems are superior to market systems in the allocation of resources.
My friend's dilemma was knowing the distinction between the correct answer--as in what his professor wanted him to select--and the correct answer--as in the truthful one. That the truthful answer was not even an option made this dilemma all the more annoying.
The professor, of course, wanted answer B: "The presence of market failures implies that there is an active role for government, even in a market system."
While my friend knew that he could simply select B and claim the point on the exam, he boldly decided to protest on principle.
He sent the professor an email saying
In their telephone conversation, the professor explained how fiscal policy can correct market failures, and when my friend took him to task on this, noting that there are alternate approaches to the issue.
One thing that he could have mentioned (and I don't know if he did do so) is that the only time that a change in fiscal policy can correct a market failure is when when bad fiscal policy in the first place disrupted the economy and caused the market failure, and the new fiscal policy is a good or at least better one.
What people call "market failures" are really "market adjustments," whereby the market retools itself to operate under new conditions. Through the Federal Reserve System, the government attempts to boost the economy with its monetary policies, but in doing so creates the "boom" that leads to the "bust" in the "boom-bust" cycle. Then the government blames the bust on the market and says that it (the government) needs more regulatory power over the market in order to protect the people from market failure.
Since most people don't understand how markets work and how fiscal policies disrupt the market and force it to readjust to new conditions, they accept the government's/politicians' line. The politicians who tote the line do so either because
After several minutes of debate, my friend's professor fell back to "Well, yes, it depends what school of thought you are from" (obviously not the school of thought that warns against ending a sentence with a preposition).
With this statement, my friend knew that he had drawn blood, for it forced the professor to accept that it was possible that all choices on the topic could be wrong (depending, of course, upon your school of thought--e.g. Keynesian or Austrian).
However, instead of conceding the point, the professor came out with "OK, so you get marked down one point if you get this wrong, big deal."--to which I am near to exploding with rage.
Hell yes it is a big damn deal. It may only be one point on an exam, but the issue here is that this guy is forcing students to select incorrect answers if they wish for a good grade. If a professor at a medical school taught that bloodletting was the best option for curing influenza, and then required students to answer accordingly on exams (or risk losing points and earning lower grades), then this guy would be tarred and feathered by the media, the courts, and the medical school.
If my friend's professor wanted to phrase the topic fairly, he would have said, "According to the Keynesian school of thought..."
However, doing so would have suggest that there are alternate schools of thought. Inquiring students might then look into those schools of thought and agree with them. Not wishing for this, the professor worded the topic as he did, and for that he is dishonest. Even if the professor believes that government intervention will protect markets from failing (and I'll wager that he does believe this), this doesn't get him off the hook--it merely makes him a dishonest fool. He's so unequipped to refute his opposition that he pretends as if his opposition doesn't exist.
My friend was more polite than I would have been. When the professor gave his "It's only one point" excuse, my friend only said, "I know what answer you want me to choose I just think the question gives students the wrong idea."
The professor said, "OK is that all?"
"Yes," I said.
"Then have a nice day."
What an a-hole.
The topic was
11. The presence of market failures implies that:
A. money is not an effective tool for exchange in a market system.
B. there is an active role for government, even in a market system.
C. individuals and firms should strive to be self-sufficient rather than specialize.
D. command systems are superior to market systems in the allocation of resources.
My friend's dilemma was knowing the distinction between the correct answer--as in what his professor wanted him to select--and the correct answer--as in the truthful one. That the truthful answer was not even an option made this dilemma all the more annoying.
The professor, of course, wanted answer B: "The presence of market failures implies that there is an active role for government, even in a market system."
While my friend knew that he could simply select B and claim the point on the exam, he boldly decided to protest on principle.
He sent the professor an email saying
I don't believe any of these choices are correct. If the intended answer is B, which I think it is, I believe that would be a matter of opinion and not fact. First, "market failures" may not simply be attributed to the market itself and even so, this would not imply [necessarily] that the solution would be the government taking an active role. I just found the question to be misleading and the answer selections to all be false. If I was misled could you please offer some clarification.The professors replied "CALL ME ASAP" (yes, in all caps).
In their telephone conversation, the professor explained how fiscal policy can correct market failures, and when my friend took him to task on this, noting that there are alternate approaches to the issue.
One thing that he could have mentioned (and I don't know if he did do so) is that the only time that a change in fiscal policy can correct a market failure is when when bad fiscal policy in the first place disrupted the economy and caused the market failure, and the new fiscal policy is a good or at least better one.
What people call "market failures" are really "market adjustments," whereby the market retools itself to operate under new conditions. Through the Federal Reserve System, the government attempts to boost the economy with its monetary policies, but in doing so creates the "boom" that leads to the "bust" in the "boom-bust" cycle. Then the government blames the bust on the market and says that it (the government) needs more regulatory power over the market in order to protect the people from market failure.
Since most people don't understand how markets work and how fiscal policies disrupt the market and force it to readjust to new conditions, they accept the government's/politicians' line. The politicians who tote the line do so either because
- They are ignorant of how markets function and naively hope that their well-intended policies will make things better.
- They are ignorant of how markets function but arrogantly assume that they know better for producers and consumers than producers and consumers themselves.
- They are informed of how markets function but can use "market failures" as opportunities to enhance their own power and prestige.
After several minutes of debate, my friend's professor fell back to "Well, yes, it depends what school of thought you are from" (obviously not the school of thought that warns against ending a sentence with a preposition).
With this statement, my friend knew that he had drawn blood, for it forced the professor to accept that it was possible that all choices on the topic could be wrong (depending, of course, upon your school of thought--e.g. Keynesian or Austrian).
However, instead of conceding the point, the professor came out with "OK, so you get marked down one point if you get this wrong, big deal."--to which I am near to exploding with rage.
Hell yes it is a big damn deal. It may only be one point on an exam, but the issue here is that this guy is forcing students to select incorrect answers if they wish for a good grade. If a professor at a medical school taught that bloodletting was the best option for curing influenza, and then required students to answer accordingly on exams (or risk losing points and earning lower grades), then this guy would be tarred and feathered by the media, the courts, and the medical school.
If my friend's professor wanted to phrase the topic fairly, he would have said, "According to the Keynesian school of thought..."
However, doing so would have suggest that there are alternate schools of thought. Inquiring students might then look into those schools of thought and agree with them. Not wishing for this, the professor worded the topic as he did, and for that he is dishonest. Even if the professor believes that government intervention will protect markets from failing (and I'll wager that he does believe this), this doesn't get him off the hook--it merely makes him a dishonest fool. He's so unequipped to refute his opposition that he pretends as if his opposition doesn't exist.
My friend was more polite than I would have been. When the professor gave his "It's only one point" excuse, my friend only said, "I know what answer you want me to choose I just think the question gives students the wrong idea."
The professor said, "OK is that all?"
"Yes," I said.
"Then have a nice day."
What an a-hole.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Congress and Health Care Benefits
Whenever Congress raises the tax on tobacco, it justifies the raise--in part--because more expensive tobacco will mean fewer people using tobacco.
Now the debate is over Congress taxing health care benefits. What is it that Congress wants, fewer people having health care benefits?
Some people might actually say yes, that there is a faction that wishes for fewer people to have adequate and affordable health care coverage--the reason being that this same faction can thus justify sweeping in with its national health care plan to help solve a "crisis" that it created and gradually enhanced.
I'm sick and tired of Congress thinking that my pockets are a perfectly natural place for its hands. I want its hands out of my pockets, and I think that we would be wise to get a little archaic on them for their thievery--a constitutional amendment that limits their taxation and spending abilities. How do you stop a malicious and incorrigible pickpocket? Cut off his hands.
Now the debate is over Congress taxing health care benefits. What is it that Congress wants, fewer people having health care benefits?
Some people might actually say yes, that there is a faction that wishes for fewer people to have adequate and affordable health care coverage--the reason being that this same faction can thus justify sweeping in with its national health care plan to help solve a "crisis" that it created and gradually enhanced.
I'm sick and tired of Congress thinking that my pockets are a perfectly natural place for its hands. I want its hands out of my pockets, and I think that we would be wise to get a little archaic on them for their thievery--a constitutional amendment that limits their taxation and spending abilities. How do you stop a malicious and incorrigible pickpocket? Cut off his hands.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Obama's Ambitous Agenda
An acquaintance of mine and I were having a political discussion, and I wasn't altogether surprised to hear him praise Obama directly and the democratic-party controlled congress indirectly (he is, excepting when I set him straight, utterly ignorant of history, the constitution, economics--pretty much all of what we call social studies/social science). However, he reads the USA Today and watches The Daily Show With John Stewart, so he considers himself quite informed.
At one point, he tried to reason with me by saying, "Your politics aside, you have to admit that it has been a long time since a president has had such an ambitious agenda."
I took a moment to wonder which pundit fed him those lines before asking him, "Does the degree of ambition in the agenda indicate the quality of the agenda?"
"What do you mean," he asked.
"I mean, while not denying that Obama's agenda is indeed ambitious, I wonder if an ambitious agenda is necessarily a good agenda."
He kind of snarled at me--apparently I annoy him with such qualifications--and said, "By ambitious, I mean that he plans to get a lot of stuff done."
"Yeah, stuff." I said, adding "Ever ask yourself if it's the right stuff?"
"Well, a lot of stuff needs doing, and something's at least better than nothing. Besides, it's the same stuff that got us out of the depression," he replied--and thus indicated that he also reads an occasional issue of Time.
At this point, I began to lecture on how FDR and the New Deal actually made the Great Depression worse and last longer. He seemed somewhat impressed, but not convinced, so I offered him a deal.
"OK Dale, you read my copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and I'll read your copy of The Audacity of Hope."
"Deal," he said, and then muttered, "I don't have The Audacity of Hope."
Smiling, I said, "That's fine. I'll check it out at the library."
After a momentary beat, I noticed that Dale had a quizzical look on his face. It took me only a second to realize what troubled him.
"Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope," I revealed.
He nodded and smiled, saying "Sure, you read that. It's really good."
At one point, he tried to reason with me by saying, "Your politics aside, you have to admit that it has been a long time since a president has had such an ambitious agenda."
I took a moment to wonder which pundit fed him those lines before asking him, "Does the degree of ambition in the agenda indicate the quality of the agenda?"
"What do you mean," he asked.
"I mean, while not denying that Obama's agenda is indeed ambitious, I wonder if an ambitious agenda is necessarily a good agenda."
He kind of snarled at me--apparently I annoy him with such qualifications--and said, "By ambitious, I mean that he plans to get a lot of stuff done."
"Yeah, stuff." I said, adding "Ever ask yourself if it's the right stuff?"
"Well, a lot of stuff needs doing, and something's at least better than nothing. Besides, it's the same stuff that got us out of the depression," he replied--and thus indicated that he also reads an occasional issue of Time.
At this point, I began to lecture on how FDR and the New Deal actually made the Great Depression worse and last longer. He seemed somewhat impressed, but not convinced, so I offered him a deal.
"OK Dale, you read my copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and I'll read your copy of The Audacity of Hope."
"Deal," he said, and then muttered, "I don't have The Audacity of Hope."
Smiling, I said, "That's fine. I'll check it out at the library."
After a momentary beat, I noticed that Dale had a quizzical look on his face. It took me only a second to realize what troubled him.
"Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope," I revealed.
He nodded and smiled, saying "Sure, you read that. It's really good."
Sunday, July 05, 2009
How Unsafe Are We?
What is safe? I mean what is safe, as in the meaning of the word "safe." People watch, read, and listen to the news and feel unsafe. That is understandable. It doesn't take much for what passes as news to make one say, "What's this world coming to?"
But when have people been if not safe then safer? A very brief glance at any history of any people informs you that assault, tyranny, robbery, rape, murder, and terrorism are not new. Furthermore, in the past people were more vulnerable to diseases (e.g. smallpox, polio, bubonic plague--diseases that truly killed lots of people, as opposed to the presently dreaded swine and avian flu).
Just because somebody shot and killed former NFL quarterback Steve McNair doesn't mean that you and I are more vulnerable to violence. We're just more aware of it because of the media. We have such rapid and massive access to news that everything seems as if it's happening at once and everywhere. It just so happens that we feel like we know celebrities, so when something awful happens to them it feels closer than if it had happened to the neighbor of an acquaintance. McNair certainly isn't the first celebrity to die at the hands of an assassin--see Christopher Marlow, John Lennon, Sam Cooke, 2Pac, Sal Mineo, etc (by the way, the links take you to TruTV's Crime Library. Make sure you've got some free time, for it's a fascinating site).
Al Qaeda struck against Americans on American soil eight years ago, but are we less safe today than when the Soviets had nuclear missiles aimed at our major cities?
I would submit that human beings are never safe. We're not safe around strangers--who knows their intent. We're not safe alone--what if we need help? We're not safe in the wild--bears! We're not safe from death when we're just sitting around with our buddies--heart attack.
I would also submit that, given the advances in medicine, we are probably safer if not at least every bit as safe, as we were fifty years ago.
But when have people been if not safe then safer? A very brief glance at any history of any people informs you that assault, tyranny, robbery, rape, murder, and terrorism are not new. Furthermore, in the past people were more vulnerable to diseases (e.g. smallpox, polio, bubonic plague--diseases that truly killed lots of people, as opposed to the presently dreaded swine and avian flu).
Just because somebody shot and killed former NFL quarterback Steve McNair doesn't mean that you and I are more vulnerable to violence. We're just more aware of it because of the media. We have such rapid and massive access to news that everything seems as if it's happening at once and everywhere. It just so happens that we feel like we know celebrities, so when something awful happens to them it feels closer than if it had happened to the neighbor of an acquaintance. McNair certainly isn't the first celebrity to die at the hands of an assassin--see Christopher Marlow, John Lennon, Sam Cooke, 2Pac, Sal Mineo, etc (by the way, the links take you to TruTV's Crime Library. Make sure you've got some free time, for it's a fascinating site).
Al Qaeda struck against Americans on American soil eight years ago, but are we less safe today than when the Soviets had nuclear missiles aimed at our major cities?
I would submit that human beings are never safe. We're not safe around strangers--who knows their intent. We're not safe alone--what if we need help? We're not safe in the wild--bears! We're not safe from death when we're just sitting around with our buddies--heart attack.
I would also submit that, given the advances in medicine, we are probably safer if not at least every bit as safe, as we were fifty years ago.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Not Independence Day
September 3--not July 4--should be commemorated as the United States of America's day of Independence from Great Britain.
While the Declaration of Independence is dated July 4, 1776, declaring independence is not equal to acquiring independence.
Don't believe me? Then try this one. I have borrowed heavily from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. What I've added or changed is boldfaced...
In Congress, July 4, 2009, The unanimous Declaration of Aristos
When in the course of of human events it becomes necessary for one blogger to dissolve the political bands which have connected him with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of this Blogger; and such is now the necessity which constrains him to alter his former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For . . . altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For . . . declaring itself invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.In every stage of these Oppressions I have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have never been answered. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free blogger.
Nor have I been wanting in attentions to my American brethren. I have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over me. I have reminded them of the circumstances of my consent to be governed. I have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces my Separation, and hold them, as I hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
I, therefore, the finest Blogger in the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of my house, solemnly publish and declare, That my house, front and back yard are, and of Right ought to be a Free and Independent State, that it is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States of America, and that all political connection between it and the United States of America, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent State, it have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, I mutually pledge to whomever gives a rip my Life , my Pseudo-fortune, and my sacred Honor.
--Aristos
Now, if you think that the United States of America became independent on July 4, 1776, then I welcome you to my new country--The Aristoian Republic. Bring the whole family. The currency exchange rates are good, so tourists can enjoy the numerous sights and attractions--including a really big rose bush, a new 12' trampoline--and of course you'll get a chance to tour Independence Basement, where my Declaration of Independence was authored and approved.
Aristoian Currency --------------------- Really Big Rose Bush
12 Foot Trampoline -------------Workstation, Independence Basement
My point is that the United States did not acquire independence merely by declaring it. Independence was not achieved until Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783--and the USA accomplished this only after a long war. Similarly, the Aristoian Republic will not acquire until some future time in an alternate dimension.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Foreclose on California
The state of California will be issuing IOU's instead of cutting checks. Many of the IOU's will go to citizens expecting their tax refunds.
Question: Can the citizens send the state IOU's when they've blown all of their money? Can they send IOU's to cover their mortgages, utilities, etc.?
Answer: No, they cannot. When citizens owe money, they owe money and face dire consequences (fines, jail, foreclosures, property seizures, etc.) if they cannot pay up. The state of California is a large government entity, so it plays by a different set of rules.
Let's suppose that the state of California were to play a game of basketball. In this game, both sides must follow the rules--until the state starts missing shots. Then the team's coach/governator announces the implementation of special government rules. Under the new rules, the state can travel, hack, go out of bounds, and pretty much anything else until they've caught up to the regular folks.
California's government likes to think of itself as having some kind of special privilege to spend, and once governments start acting like they can break or bend the rules, the people are in trouble.
Question: Can the citizens send the state IOU's when they've blown all of their money? Can they send IOU's to cover their mortgages, utilities, etc.?
Answer: No, they cannot. When citizens owe money, they owe money and face dire consequences (fines, jail, foreclosures, property seizures, etc.) if they cannot pay up. The state of California is a large government entity, so it plays by a different set of rules.
Let's suppose that the state of California were to play a game of basketball. In this game, both sides must follow the rules--until the state starts missing shots. Then the team's coach/governator announces the implementation of special government rules. Under the new rules, the state can travel, hack, go out of bounds, and pretty much anything else until they've caught up to the regular folks.
California's government likes to think of itself as having some kind of special privilege to spend, and once governments start acting like they can break or bend the rules, the people are in trouble.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
I Return
Upon hearing of Michael Jackson's death I rushed downstairs to my computer in order to investigate the news and most likely post a comment on how the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" was no "King" (Le Roi de pop est mort--que l'enfer!, vive Elvis, le Roi authentique!)
Pardon my semi-literate (at best) French. Unless you're complaining because you are French, in which case va te faire mettre (pardon my French).
I pressed the button, but my computer declined to power up. I checked all the cables, but could identify no problem; so I took it to my personal geek squad, the chemical-engineer/technological savant, Drew, hoping that it was nothing more than a failed power supply (which is what I suspected/hoped but had no way myself to confirm).
As Drew tinkered around, we discussed a myriad of comments, from his views on the recent Battlestar Galactica series to the hazards of some form of chromium (hey, he's the chemical engineer, so that's the best that you'll get from me).
Sure enough, the power supply was shot, so I had to order a new one and wait. In the time between then and just a few hours ago, I haven't been able to blog or even check my email. I bristled over how dependent I have become on this machine and its connection to the world wide web (I only just found out that Billy Mays is dead!--God, I hope this doesn't mean more from the ShamWow DB).
Well, the new power supply arrived earlier this afternoon, and after a bit of confusion with some of the connections, I called Drew. By the time he arrived at my house, I'd figured out the problem, but it was a good thing that he dropped by, for I hadn't noticed that in my haste to get things up and going I hadn't reconnected the main hard drive and a fan.
Thanks to Drew, I'm back in business.
Thanks Drew.
Pardon my semi-literate (at best) French. Unless you're complaining because you are French, in which case va te faire mettre (pardon my French).
I pressed the button, but my computer declined to power up. I checked all the cables, but could identify no problem; so I took it to my personal geek squad, the chemical-engineer/technological savant, Drew, hoping that it was nothing more than a failed power supply (which is what I suspected/hoped but had no way myself to confirm).
As Drew tinkered around, we discussed a myriad of comments, from his views on the recent Battlestar Galactica series to the hazards of some form of chromium (hey, he's the chemical engineer, so that's the best that you'll get from me).
Sure enough, the power supply was shot, so I had to order a new one and wait. In the time between then and just a few hours ago, I haven't been able to blog or even check my email. I bristled over how dependent I have become on this machine and its connection to the world wide web (I only just found out that Billy Mays is dead!--God, I hope this doesn't mean more from the ShamWow DB).
Well, the new power supply arrived earlier this afternoon, and after a bit of confusion with some of the connections, I called Drew. By the time he arrived at my house, I'd figured out the problem, but it was a good thing that he dropped by, for I hadn't noticed that in my haste to get things up and going I hadn't reconnected the main hard drive and a fan.
Thanks to Drew, I'm back in business.
Thanks Drew.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Ed McMahon, RIP
I wonder if, as Ed McMahon strode through the pearly gates, Johnny Carson stood off to the side and roared, "Here's Eddie!"
How cool would it be to see Jesus bantering with Johnny and Ed?
How cool would it be to see Jesus bantering with Johnny and Ed?
Iran's Government Shows True Colors
The Iranian government claims that recent elections were fair and legitimate, but it shows its true colors when dealing with detractors.
Iran has a government that threatens, harms, even kills its "citizens" (they seem more like subjects to me) for assembling in dissent.
Given the obviously malicious nature of the Iranian government, it is not hard to believe that it would run corrupt elections in order to maintain itself as it sees fit regardless of the people's will.
Iran has a government that threatens, harms, even kills its "citizens" (they seem more like subjects to me) for assembling in dissent.
Given the obviously malicious nature of the Iranian government, it is not hard to believe that it would run corrupt elections in order to maintain itself as it sees fit regardless of the people's will.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Whipped Up, Jitterbuggin' Brown Eyed Men: The Significane of the Zoot Suit
This is adapted from a piece that I wrote some time ago.
It has been said that much can be inferred about a man based upon what he carries with him—clothing included. Just as one might metaphorically take a walk in someone else’s shoes, analyzing the shoes themselves might likewise enlighten the situation. If how people dress says something about who they are, then Douglas Daniels’s assertion that “zoot marked the emergence of a specific urban identity” suggests that the zoot suit itself symbolized a specific departure from traditional social and cultural mores, to a representation of “concrete experience: growing up poor, urban, and often colored in the U.S. . . . [and thus] symbolized rebellion against society.”[1] That formation of a sub-culture, as symbolized in the zoot suit, occurred during a period of supposed nationalism is strikingly problematic. American nationalism of the 1940s was largely an Anglo-Saxon-American nationalism. Zoot culture thus arose as the product of a large minority’s alienation and self-actualization. In this way, both positive and negative factors account for the emergence of the zoot suit.
The term “zoot” or variations thereof (e.g. “zoot suit”) is ripe with connotation, but ambiguous in denotation. For the purposes of this study, “zoot” will be used both in reference to the image invoked of a distinct clothing fashion as well as the sub-culture associated with those who wore such garbs. [2]To understand how a style of dress contains such deep cultural meaning, one must understand the historical context from whence the zoot suit emerged, that is the early 1940s. America’s post-World War II memory tends to focus on the ties that bound its people during one of its most intense international struggles, but the zoot suit phenomenon and the controversy surrounding it at the time demonstrates clearly that the home-front was not always, if at all, so felicitous. Instead of uniting all Americans in a common endeavor, the conflict abroad, with its tendency to promote an “either you are with us or against us” mentality, often put minorities of race and ideology on the fringe.[3] Metaphorically, what was not apple pie became sauerkraut or sushi. Alienated by race and class from mainstream white America, black and Latino-American youths forged identities of their own, and thus castigated for “generally being more aggressive than a colored minority had a right to be."[4]
Nationalism is the hubris of a people. In its purest (or perhaps foulest) form, nationalism expounds the supremacy of a people over all others. It tends to classify people in bulk, and often adds a qualified or intense xenophobia. In times of war, such arrangements fit nicely in the popular mentality. Nations can boast “we are this, but they are that.” In the United States, nationalism usually accompanies a certain paradox due to its multiethnic demographics. In response to this, people have often referred to the United States as a great “melting pot,” in which diverse peoples become one. However, throughout its history, the United States has struggled with the immigration and assimilation of foreign identities, and whenever any specific minority group does not appear to conform, strife erupts.[5] This is what happened in the zoot suit and general race riots of the 1940s. Black and Latino-Americans, easily discernible by skin color, having been alienated by the nationalist climate of World War II, distinguished themselves with “a form of visual protest [for being] denied equality by the establishment. [6] Unaccepted by the majority, they developed their own expression of ego, like Stephen Crane’s man who “said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’”[7] Thus, while the nationalistic fever of World War II did “impede the perfectly normal process of group identity,” that blacks and Latino’s were not generally welcomed into the fold prior to and even after World War II must not be overlooked.
Since “zoot suiters” rejected prevailing social mores, many accused them of anti-patriotism [8] This goes back to the “us” and “them” mentality discussed previously. Ostensibly, zoot suiters were unpatriotic because they wore excessive fabric during a time of material conservation. [9] However, the hatred of the suit and those who wore it more reflected the latent—or not so subtle—animosity towards those who, in the language of the time, would not “Straighten up and fly right.”[10] Whites supposedly rioting against the zoot suit did not assault other whites who wore the despised clothing, and when violence broke out, those arrested were overwhelmingly colored. [11]
Whites hated zoot suits because zoot suiters were typically minorities who refused to play Uncle Tom or Sancho Panza. The phenomenon came to fruition during a time of intense nationalism, which invoked a sentiment that x is American, and whatever is not x is not American. Syllogistically, the formula is as follows: All people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes are good Americans. Zoot suiters are not people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes. Therefore, zoot suiters are not good Americans. [12] The zoot suit in fact was the result of reason following contemporary white attitudes, for in spite of black and Latino efforts, whites refused to recognize them as good Americans no matter how they dressed. On one side, it was a positive move for a struggling minority to establish an ego. On the other side, it was the negative result of years of racism, neglect, and second-class citizenship. Many of the sons of the men who first donned the zoot suit would be even more assertive in the 1960s through organized protest groups, such as the SCLC, SNCC, and later the Black Panthers. [13] The moral here is that nationalism breeds division as much as it does unity in a people, and the zoot suit, zoot suiters, and the zoot suit riots were living, historical
_________________
[1] Douglas Henry Daniels, “Los Angeles Zoot: Race “Riot,” The Pachuco, and Black Music Culture,” Journal of Negro Hstory, Volume 82, Issue 2 (Spring, 1997), 215.
[2] Daniels cites the Los Angeles Daily News: “There is no mistaking a zoot suit once you see it, there being nothing subtle in the style,” and offers a description of his own: “It was sometimes a suit, sometimes a sport coat and slacks, and always loosely fitting, except for the pants’ cuffs, whose narrow size made the trousers appear even baggier. Coats were often fingertip length; sometimes they reached to the knees, and invariably they had shoulders more like epaulettes. Duck-tail hair cuts . . . among blacks, long watch chains, wide-brimmed hats with narrow crowns, perhaps adorned with a long feather, and in Southern California, thick-soled shoes accented the suits.” Ibid., 207.
[3] Ibid., 214-215.
[4] Ibid., 203.
[5] E.g. Irish immigrants of the mid-nineteenth century, and Southern European, Eastern European and Chinese immigrants of the late-nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
[6] Frank Marshall Davis, quoted in Daniels, 208.
[7] The poem in full reads “A man said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’ / ‘However,’ replied the Universe, / ‘The fact has not created in me / A sense of obligation.’” Although I cited the poem from memory, it can be found at http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/cranes3.html.
[8] Daniels, 205.
[9] Ibid., 204.
[10] The quote is from the song of the same name, written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills, and performed by many, though perhaps most notably by Nat King Cole himself in 1943.
[11] Daniels, 203.
[12] I have invoked an Aristotelian line of reason here. Typically, a syllogism reads “All X are Y. Z is X. Therefore Z is Y. But I have used a different, though equally valid argument that “All X are Y. Z is not X. Therefore, Z is not Y.
[13] SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC stands for Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.
It has been said that much can be inferred about a man based upon what he carries with him—clothing included. Just as one might metaphorically take a walk in someone else’s shoes, analyzing the shoes themselves might likewise enlighten the situation. If how people dress says something about who they are, then Douglas Daniels’s assertion that “zoot marked the emergence of a specific urban identity” suggests that the zoot suit itself symbolized a specific departure from traditional social and cultural mores, to a representation of “concrete experience: growing up poor, urban, and often colored in the U.S. . . . [and thus] symbolized rebellion against society.”[1] That formation of a sub-culture, as symbolized in the zoot suit, occurred during a period of supposed nationalism is strikingly problematic. American nationalism of the 1940s was largely an Anglo-Saxon-American nationalism. Zoot culture thus arose as the product of a large minority’s alienation and self-actualization. In this way, both positive and negative factors account for the emergence of the zoot suit.
The term “zoot” or variations thereof (e.g. “zoot suit”) is ripe with connotation, but ambiguous in denotation. For the purposes of this study, “zoot” will be used both in reference to the image invoked of a distinct clothing fashion as well as the sub-culture associated with those who wore such garbs. [2]To understand how a style of dress contains such deep cultural meaning, one must understand the historical context from whence the zoot suit emerged, that is the early 1940s. America’s post-World War II memory tends to focus on the ties that bound its people during one of its most intense international struggles, but the zoot suit phenomenon and the controversy surrounding it at the time demonstrates clearly that the home-front was not always, if at all, so felicitous. Instead of uniting all Americans in a common endeavor, the conflict abroad, with its tendency to promote an “either you are with us or against us” mentality, often put minorities of race and ideology on the fringe.[3] Metaphorically, what was not apple pie became sauerkraut or sushi. Alienated by race and class from mainstream white America, black and Latino-American youths forged identities of their own, and thus castigated for “generally being more aggressive than a colored minority had a right to be."[4]
Nationalism is the hubris of a people. In its purest (or perhaps foulest) form, nationalism expounds the supremacy of a people over all others. It tends to classify people in bulk, and often adds a qualified or intense xenophobia. In times of war, such arrangements fit nicely in the popular mentality. Nations can boast “we are this, but they are that.” In the United States, nationalism usually accompanies a certain paradox due to its multiethnic demographics. In response to this, people have often referred to the United States as a great “melting pot,” in which diverse peoples become one. However, throughout its history, the United States has struggled with the immigration and assimilation of foreign identities, and whenever any specific minority group does not appear to conform, strife erupts.[5] This is what happened in the zoot suit and general race riots of the 1940s. Black and Latino-Americans, easily discernible by skin color, having been alienated by the nationalist climate of World War II, distinguished themselves with “a form of visual protest [for being] denied equality by the establishment. [6] Unaccepted by the majority, they developed their own expression of ego, like Stephen Crane’s man who “said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’”[7] Thus, while the nationalistic fever of World War II did “impede the perfectly normal process of group identity,” that blacks and Latino’s were not generally welcomed into the fold prior to and even after World War II must not be overlooked.
Since “zoot suiters” rejected prevailing social mores, many accused them of anti-patriotism [8] This goes back to the “us” and “them” mentality discussed previously. Ostensibly, zoot suiters were unpatriotic because they wore excessive fabric during a time of material conservation. [9] However, the hatred of the suit and those who wore it more reflected the latent—or not so subtle—animosity towards those who, in the language of the time, would not “Straighten up and fly right.”[10] Whites supposedly rioting against the zoot suit did not assault other whites who wore the despised clothing, and when violence broke out, those arrested were overwhelmingly colored. [11]
Whites hated zoot suits because zoot suiters were typically minorities who refused to play Uncle Tom or Sancho Panza. The phenomenon came to fruition during a time of intense nationalism, which invoked a sentiment that x is American, and whatever is not x is not American. Syllogistically, the formula is as follows: All people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes are good Americans. Zoot suiters are not people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes. Therefore, zoot suiters are not good Americans. [12] The zoot suit in fact was the result of reason following contemporary white attitudes, for in spite of black and Latino efforts, whites refused to recognize them as good Americans no matter how they dressed. On one side, it was a positive move for a struggling minority to establish an ego. On the other side, it was the negative result of years of racism, neglect, and second-class citizenship. Many of the sons of the men who first donned the zoot suit would be even more assertive in the 1960s through organized protest groups, such as the SCLC, SNCC, and later the Black Panthers. [13] The moral here is that nationalism breeds division as much as it does unity in a people, and the zoot suit, zoot suiters, and the zoot suit riots were living, historical
_________________
[1] Douglas Henry Daniels, “Los Angeles Zoot: Race “Riot,” The Pachuco, and Black Music Culture,” Journal of Negro Hstory, Volume 82, Issue 2 (Spring, 1997), 215.
[2] Daniels cites the Los Angeles Daily News: “There is no mistaking a zoot suit once you see it, there being nothing subtle in the style,” and offers a description of his own: “It was sometimes a suit, sometimes a sport coat and slacks, and always loosely fitting, except for the pants’ cuffs, whose narrow size made the trousers appear even baggier. Coats were often fingertip length; sometimes they reached to the knees, and invariably they had shoulders more like epaulettes. Duck-tail hair cuts . . . among blacks, long watch chains, wide-brimmed hats with narrow crowns, perhaps adorned with a long feather, and in Southern California, thick-soled shoes accented the suits.” Ibid., 207.
[3] Ibid., 214-215.
[4] Ibid., 203.
[5] E.g. Irish immigrants of the mid-nineteenth century, and Southern European, Eastern European and Chinese immigrants of the late-nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
[6] Frank Marshall Davis, quoted in Daniels, 208.
[7] The poem in full reads “A man said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’ / ‘However,’ replied the Universe, / ‘The fact has not created in me / A sense of obligation.’” Although I cited the poem from memory, it can be found at http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/cranes3.html.
[8] Daniels, 205.
[9] Ibid., 204.
[10] The quote is from the song of the same name, written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills, and performed by many, though perhaps most notably by Nat King Cole himself in 1943.
[11] Daniels, 203.
[12] I have invoked an Aristotelian line of reason here. Typically, a syllogism reads “All X are Y. Z is X. Therefore Z is Y. But I have used a different, though equally valid argument that “All X are Y. Z is not X. Therefore, Z is not Y.
[13] SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC stands for Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.
Adieu, Jon and Kate
Jon and Kate have filed for divorce.
Now this uncommon family has waded into all-too-common waters.
So what's next on TLC? Two series, back to back time slots: Jon Plus Eight, and Kate Plus Eight?
I hope not. I hope that they go and stay away.
Now this uncommon family has waded into all-too-common waters.
So what's next on TLC? Two series, back to back time slots: Jon Plus Eight, and Kate Plus Eight?
I hope not. I hope that they go and stay away.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Beast Within
It's there, hardly in the shadows now, no longer content to lurk but ready to emerge. It is vile. It is bestial. And it is there.
It's the part of me that does not favor peace. It's the part that would see my enemies humiliated, broken, and mangled.
It's the part of me that's getting ready for Fantasy Football!!!!!
It's the part of me that does not favor peace. It's the part that would see my enemies humiliated, broken, and mangled.
It's the part of me that's getting ready for Fantasy Football!!!!!
Eliminate Government Health Care
It seems whenever I point out the obvious flaws in socialized medicine--flaws terrible enough to eschew it forevermore rather than consider it once again (as both Republicans and Democrats are doing)--someone asks a variation of the question:
"Well, then what do you suggest as a policy to resolve the current crisis?"
The unfortunate truth is that most people who pose this question are not interested in even considering my answer; they simply retreat to it because they haven't a ready or viable defense for socialism.
There is nothing unique about what I think should be this government's health care policy. I cannot lay proprietary claim to the ideas behind my creed. To put it tersely, I think that the government should back off--back way off.
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe recommends four easy steps in this article from The Free Market. Click on either of the link to read more of his rationale.
Notice the action verbs that begin each of Hoppe's recommendations. Eliminate appears three times, and deregulate (meaning to eliminate regulation). That's because, as economist Stefan Karlsson points out ,
So, rather than doing more of the same--if you really wish for substantive change, that is--we should try something truly different. As Hoppe suggests, let's eliminate and deregulate the things that are the very source of the "crisis."
By the way, I think that the term "crisis" is inappropriately used to identify the problem(s) with health care in the United States. A crisis would be that there are no doctors, treatments, or medicines. That costs for doctors, treatments, and medicines are too high for many is not a crisis. At best it's a predicament, and only for those who cannot affort medical goods and services. Read Hoppe's article and do a little checking around yourself, and you'll see that the cost problem is not the health care industry's fault. It's the government that needs to change.
Here's a bit of an afterthought--far too often an afterthought for most people--Government health care is unconstitutional.
I know. Who cares about the constitution anymore?
I do. (I do...I do...I do...)--that's the sound of the echo in this lonely room.
There is nothing unique about what I think should be this government's health care policy. I cannot lay proprietary claim to the ideas behind my creed. To put it tersely, I think that the government should back off--back way off.
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe recommends four easy steps in this article from The Free Market. Click on either of the link to read more of his rationale.
1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.
3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.
Notice the action verbs that begin each of Hoppe's recommendations. Eliminate appears three times, and deregulate (meaning to eliminate regulation). That's because, as economist Stefan Karlsson points out ,
the real shortcomings that [the U.S. health care industry] does have are not the effect of its free market elements, but to various regulations and factors unrelated to the health care system.In fact, as Karlsson and others point out, is the socialism already inherent in the U.S. system that is the root of the problem. Currently, the government is funding nearly if not half of all medical spending in this country, "spending more per capita than any other OECD country, including those with socialist, government-funded healthcare." (click on the link to look at the graph).
So, rather than doing more of the same--if you really wish for substantive change, that is--we should try something truly different. As Hoppe suggests, let's eliminate and deregulate the things that are the very source of the "crisis."
By the way, I think that the term "crisis" is inappropriately used to identify the problem(s) with health care in the United States. A crisis would be that there are no doctors, treatments, or medicines. That costs for doctors, treatments, and medicines are too high for many is not a crisis. At best it's a predicament, and only for those who cannot affort medical goods and services. Read Hoppe's article and do a little checking around yourself, and you'll see that the cost problem is not the health care industry's fault. It's the government that needs to change.
Here's a bit of an afterthought--far too often an afterthought for most people--Government health care is unconstitutional.
I know. Who cares about the constitution anymore?
I do. (I do...I do...I do...)--that's the sound of the echo in this lonely room.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Health Care Costs
This seems to be a fairly common sentiment among those who think that the government must step in and reform the health care industry:
Really?
Can the government do anything inexpensively?
The government is only good at making things worse, and the irony is that it sets a heavy price tag for its "services."
You want to improve health care? Get the government out of it where it already is entrenched. Don't open the flood gates to regulation and bureaucracy.
"Well if we don't do something about it, then pretty soon no one will be able to afford to even go see a doctor."So you really think that bringing the government in will reign in costs?
Really?
Can the government do anything inexpensively?
The government is only good at making things worse, and the irony is that it sets a heavy price tag for its "services."
You want to improve health care? Get the government out of it where it already is entrenched. Don't open the flood gates to regulation and bureaucracy.
Iran Plays Both Ways With Numbers
Iran's "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has finally settled the disputed election by declaring that there was no fraud in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "definitive victory."
An article at msnbc.com quotes the dick-tator as citing the large margin of victory (11 million votes) as proof that the election was not rigged:
According to Ahmadinejad, then, the Zionists are quite skilled at large-scale fraud; but according to Khamenei the Iranian government really sucks at it.
Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's government was responsible for counting and reporting the vote. Unless they produce actual, physical, and verifiable ballots to prove that there was no fraud, then the reported number cannot stand up to scrutiny. It's not hard to add numbers to a ledger.
I now weigh 240 lbs. (down from 310 lbs. since October of last year!) I would like to weigh 200 lbs.
Since you cannot see me right now, how about this: I just lost 40 lbs. I now weigh 200 lbs.
The bottom line is that the margin of victory is neither an indication of or vindication against fraud. As Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."*
_______________
*My source says that this quote is attributed to Stalin, which means that he may not have actually said it. Nonetheless, it's a good saying, at least.
An article at msnbc.com quotes the dick-tator as citing the large margin of victory (11 million votes) as proof that the election was not rigged:
If the difference was 100,000 or 200,000 or 1 million, one may say fraud could happen. But how can one rig 11 million votes?So since the number is so high, then it must be true? But Ahmadinejad himself has used the argument that the holocaust didn't happen or at least didn't happen on such a scale as most westerners claim because the numbers are so high.
According to Ahmadinejad, then, the Zionists are quite skilled at large-scale fraud; but according to Khamenei the Iranian government really sucks at it.
Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's government was responsible for counting and reporting the vote. Unless they produce actual, physical, and verifiable ballots to prove that there was no fraud, then the reported number cannot stand up to scrutiny. It's not hard to add numbers to a ledger.
I now weigh 240 lbs. (down from 310 lbs. since October of last year!) I would like to weigh 200 lbs.
Since you cannot see me right now, how about this: I just lost 40 lbs. I now weigh 200 lbs.
The bottom line is that the margin of victory is neither an indication of or vindication against fraud. As Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."*
_______________
*My source says that this quote is attributed to Stalin, which means that he may not have actually said it. Nonetheless, it's a good saying, at least.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Obama the Great
My mother is out for a visit for the next ten days. This morning--the first of her visit--we were chatting over coffee when I told her and my wife of the whole PETA complaint over Obama assassinating a fly on television.
To my horror, my own dear mother said, "I know that you won't agree with me, but I really like him."
"Obama?" I asked.
"Yes," she clarified. "He seems to be a good man with a good family."
"What has he done as president that has been so good?" I challenged.
Her brilliant retort: "Well the economy was screwed up before he was president; it's screwed up now; and it'll most likely be screwed up after."
I noted silently that this did not identify a single good thing about Obama as president, but I didn't press her on it--she is, after all, my mother; and academically unprepared for such a debate. I simply agreed that the economy was and is bad, but added that pretty much everything Obama has said he will do to fix the problem will end up making it worse. I even offered her some excellent reading on the subject.
Still, it just bugs me. I ask what's so great about Obama as president, and I get "He didn't cause the economic problems that we have now."
Other great things about Obama as president:
To my horror, my own dear mother said, "I know that you won't agree with me, but I really like him."
"Obama?" I asked.
"Yes," she clarified. "He seems to be a good man with a good family."
"What has he done as president that has been so good?" I challenged.
Her brilliant retort: "Well the economy was screwed up before he was president; it's screwed up now; and it'll most likely be screwed up after."
I noted silently that this did not identify a single good thing about Obama as president, but I didn't press her on it--she is, after all, my mother; and academically unprepared for such a debate. I simply agreed that the economy was and is bad, but added that pretty much everything Obama has said he will do to fix the problem will end up making it worse. I even offered her some excellent reading on the subject.
Still, it just bugs me. I ask what's so great about Obama as president, and I get "He didn't cause the economic problems that we have now."
Other great things about Obama as president:
- Obama did not launch nuclear missles California and New Jersey.
- Obama did not bite off part of Evander Holyfield's ear.
- Obama did not rip off people in the nation's largest ever ponzie scheme.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama Murders a Fly--Oh the Inhumanity!
PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--is complaining because Barack Obama swatted (and killed) a fly.
Holy Mary, mother of God, are they serious?
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," says their spokesman. Leading me to assume that he must not bathe or brush his teeth, since doing so kills curiously small microbes with which I have the least sympathy.
Holy Mary, mother of God, are they serious?
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," says their spokesman. Leading me to assume that he must not bathe or brush his teeth, since doing so kills curiously small microbes with which I have the least sympathy.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Madoff Money
The SEC just banned Bernie Madoff from acting as an investment adviser.
Thank goodness! Otherwise I might have been tempted to solicit his services. But right now I'm busy trying to get Michael Jackson over to babysit my kids.
Thank goodness! Otherwise I might have been tempted to solicit his services. But right now I'm busy trying to get Michael Jackson over to babysit my kids.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Robot Chicken
If you're not familiar with Robot Chicken, it's a claymation show that spoofs pop culture. It airs late at night on Adult Swim.
Here's Robot Chicken's take on E.T.
Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek...
Click here for some funny takes on Star Wars.
Click here for a funny take on the Six Flags dancing old guy.
Here's Robot Chicken's take on E.T.
Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek...
Click here for some funny takes on Star Wars.
Click here for a funny take on the Six Flags dancing old guy.
North Korea
North Korea always seems to create crises in order to gain some kind of concession for them to back down, be that concession food for its leaders...I mean people, or something else.
It's time either to give them nothing at all and see if they make good on their threats, or it's time to give them something that is in no way, shape, or form a concession.
I'm torn between both ways.
It's time either to give them nothing at all and see if they make good on their threats, or it's time to give them something that is in no way, shape, or form a concession.
I'm torn between both ways.
Two Jokes, Both Bad, No Time to Post Anything Else
Why did the hypocrite cross the road?
Because he told you not to.
Why did Barack Obama cross the road?
To buy a pack of cigarettes after signing tobacco regulating legislation.
Because he told you not to.
Why did Barack Obama cross the road?
To buy a pack of cigarettes after signing tobacco regulating legislation.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
What I Hate
Originally, I called this blog "What I Hate," and I intended to use it as a vent for my frustrations that run the political, economic, and social spectra. However, after a month of posts exclusively on what I hated (e.g. those who would limit freedom of speech, taxes, global warming alarmists, and a few others), I realized that, as master of my domain (well, yes, technically Blogger.com is the master of this domain, but I digress), I could post on lighter themes--virtually anything that I wanted.
Hence the current title: "What I Think."
Essentially, this blog has no theme beyond what the title "What I Think" suggests. Since my thoughts rage from one extreme to the other and all around in between, it's an eclectic hodgepodge of anecdotes, rants, observations, and other miscellanea.
However, in a return to this blog's roots, allow me to note some things that I hate.
1) I hate having to pay for my daughter's dance lessons just so that I can pay to go to a 3-4 hour recital at which I watch her do two dances.
2) I hate the term "book smart," which is usually uttered by people who aren't "book smart", which is usually because they aren't very smart.
3) I hate American Idol. If I ever do forsake the first commandment, my idol will be a heck of a lot better than some guy (or gal--mine is an equal opportunity hatred) who just so happens to be really awesome at karaoke.
4) I hate people who justify an act of government on grounds that the constitution doesn't prohibit it. Read Amendment X.
5) I hate Vince, that Sham Wow guy. What's with the headset? You're not speaking to a crowd of slack-jawed yokels at a county fair; you're making an ad on television. Lose the headset. By the way, new from the makers of Sham Wow (not recommended for young readers)--The ShamPon.
Hence the current title: "What I Think."
Essentially, this blog has no theme beyond what the title "What I Think" suggests. Since my thoughts rage from one extreme to the other and all around in between, it's an eclectic hodgepodge of anecdotes, rants, observations, and other miscellanea.
However, in a return to this blog's roots, allow me to note some things that I hate.
1) I hate having to pay for my daughter's dance lessons just so that I can pay to go to a 3-4 hour recital at which I watch her do two dances.
2) I hate the term "book smart," which is usually uttered by people who aren't "book smart", which is usually because they aren't very smart.
3) I hate American Idol. If I ever do forsake the first commandment, my idol will be a heck of a lot better than some guy (or gal--mine is an equal opportunity hatred) who just so happens to be really awesome at karaoke.
4) I hate people who justify an act of government on grounds that the constitution doesn't prohibit it. Read Amendment X.
5) I hate Vince, that Sham Wow guy. What's with the headset? You're not speaking to a crowd of slack-jawed yokels at a county fair; you're making an ad on television. Lose the headset. By the way, new from the makers of Sham Wow (not recommended for young readers)--The ShamPon.
Friday, June 12, 2009
That's Me!
While at a work picnic this afternoon, one of my colleagues referred to me as "golden boy."
Hell yes!
Hell yes!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Poor Republicans
A recent headline for a cnn.com article reads "GOP has self-esteem issues, poll says
Some people are unnaturally insecure and suffer unjustly from low self-esteem. However, I think that the GOP has been such a steaming pile of crap for so long that it's only natural that it should have self-esteem issues.
The good news, if the poll is correct, is that maybe the GOP will take steps to redeem itself...
Dang, I almost typed that out with a straight face, but I just can't. It seems that Republican consultant Phil Musser thinks the solution to the GOP's problem is
Hey, Republicans, get this: It's not how you're delivering your message! It's the message.
Some people are unnaturally insecure and suffer unjustly from low self-esteem. However, I think that the GOP has been such a steaming pile of crap for so long that it's only natural that it should have self-esteem issues.
The good news, if the poll is correct, is that maybe the GOP will take steps to redeem itself...
Dang, I almost typed that out with a straight face, but I just can't. It seems that Republican consultant Phil Musser thinks the solution to the GOP's problem is
We need to be smarter about how we deliver our message and adopt the playbook essentially that's has been owned by the left -- about how we build grassroots movements using new and innovative technology standardsNo lesson learned here. It's not that the Republican Party is a hodgepodge of quasi-fascist warmongers and fiscal illiterates. It's that they don't Twitter!
Hey, Republicans, get this: It's not how you're delivering your message! It's the message.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Federalism? Naw!
The Feds are now investigating the killing of an abortionist in Kansas. According to the New York Times, they are interested in finding out if the assassin worked alone and whether or not the assassin violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Funny. I thought that murder was in the states' jurisdiction, and I'm pretty sure that shooting the doctor down in a church did not violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Federal marshals have been dispatched to make sure that no one disrupts the doctor's funeral.
Again, I don't quite see how that's in federal jurisdiction.
Funny. I thought that murder was in the states' jurisdiction, and I'm pretty sure that shooting the doctor down in a church did not violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Federal marshals have been dispatched to make sure that no one disrupts the doctor's funeral.
Again, I don't quite see how that's in federal jurisdiction.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Pro-Life / Pro-Death?
You may well know by now that a few days ago, May 31--to be exact--, a militant anti-abortionist shot and killed a doctor infamous for providing controversial "late-term" abortions of fetuses matured beyond 21 weeks (meaning that the fetuses were viable--that is they could live outside of the mother's womb).
I should like to take a moment to examine this case, and I waited these few days in order to measure the more frequent reactions to it before submitting my analysis.
First, it comes as no surprise that the assassin has been widely condemned--and not just from far-left/pro-abortion circles. As awful as any abortion is (and especially "late-term" abortions) it is also awful to imagine justifying the shooting an unarmed man at--ironically--church (or anywhere else, for that matter).
What I'd like to deal with now is the approach taken by a great many critics: that it is inconsistent to call oneself "pro-life" and either kill another person or even support the killing of another person.
Without advocating the killing of Dr. Tiller, I will nonetheless disagree with the above assertion.
Being "pro-life" doesn't necessarily require one to be a pacifist.
Resorting to violence in defense of oneself is perfectly justifiable, for it aims at the protection of innocent life from the unwarranted assaults of another. If a man broke into my home with intent or even just opportunity to do me or my family harm, then I would take whatever measures possible to stop him. If I have to tackle him and wrestle him to the ground while my wife calls 911, then that's what I'll do. If, during the struggle, I have the chance to get my hands around his throat, then I will squeeze. If that squeezing results in the man's asphyxiation, then so be it. He won't be a danger to me or my family any longer. If the situation calls for me to use a weapon, say a knife or a gun, then I will employ either with no hesitation. Dispatching with such a threat is not inconsistent with my opposition to murder. Nor would it be inconsistent with my opposition to abortion. Killing such a man and harboring no regrets would not make me one iota less "pro-life."
Furthermore, the applying term "pro-life" as an adjective to describe a person asserts neither the denotation nor the connotation of someone who supports life over death in all cases. A "pro-life" person is someone who is against abortion. Being "pro-life" doesn't mean that a person has to want everyone to live. A person who is identified as "pro-life" can celebrate when a dangerous man dies (as in the previous example). A "pro-life" person can be glad that Stalin is dead, and a "pro-life" person can hope for Osama bin Laden's death, be it natural or, shall we say, expedited.
The kind of killing that renders a "pro-life" person inconsistent with his or her beliefs is the intentional and unjustified killing of another person.* This kind of killing is called murder.
The issue is not a general question of whether a "pro-life" person can intentionally kill another person and still be considered "pro-life" (which, remember, is just a semantic phrasing of "anti-abortion").
The issue is specific to the killing of Dr. Tiller: By killing Dr. Tiller, did the suspect contradict his "pro-life" creed?
To solve this dilemma, we must first answer the following questions.
However, the second question is far more complicated.
From a legal standpoint, the shooting deprived the doctor of due process of law. Whatever the charges against him--and the charges are very grave if you believe that a human fetus is a human being--even the Nazi's had their day in court.
And this brings us to the sticky point. No matter what your persuasion is on the issue, humor me, please, and just suppose that a viable human fetus is a human being. Supposing this to be the case--remember, you're humoring me--then Dr. Tiller was in league with Dr. Mengele; like Mengele's Auschwitz, Tillers clinics were "death camps," and his victims were the epitome of innocents.
Still humoring me? Because this is my point. To the suspect in this case, the Dr. Tiller whom he shot is the Dr. Tiller described above. It all hinges on what a viable fetus is. If it's a human, then Dr. Tiller was indeed a monster who, if left alone, would have continued to murder many times more. The suspect felt that he had to act outside of the law because the law is, perversely, on the side of the abortionists. Just as Mengele acted under the full sanction of law during the Holocaust, Tiller acted under the full sanction of the law in Kansas. If you wish that someone had walked into Auschwitz and shot Mengele to death before he could murder more children or even just escape from the prosecutions at Nuremburg, then you have understand just a little bit what the suspect was thinking.
Of course, if you don't consider a viable human fetus a human being, then there's no question that the killing of Dr. Tiller was a despicable and cowardly murderer.
The whole case reminds me of John Brown. In the mid-1850's, Brown moved to Kansas in order to help establish the territory as a free-state. He condemned slavery, slave-owners, and those in support of slavery with the almost identical rhetoric used by those against abortion, abortionists, and abortion supporters. During Brown's time in Kansas, he was personally responsible for several killings. Murders, from a legal stand-point, but justified according to his principles.
In Dred Scott v Sanford (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal in all territories. Essentially, slavery was the law of the land except in the established states that had abolished the institution. The Dred Scott decision convinced Brown that he needed to be bolder, so he returned to New England and began planning a slave revolt that he hoped would spread throughout the South and lead to the end of slavery once and for all. In 1859, his raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, VA, failed to spark the slave revolt. He was captured, tried, and hanged.
Henry David Thoreau and a good many others noted that while what Brown did was in deed illegal and punishable by death, the problem wasn't what Brown did, per say, (and Thoreau was a true-blue pacifist) but that Brown felt that he had to do it. As Thoreau stated,
The 13th Amendment ended slavery. John Brown had been dead for over six years, and his revolt had failed. He didn't end slavery, and he died a criminal's death.
The solution to the abortion issue is not to be found in the assassination of abortionists, as the suspect in the present case seems to have concluded. He is as wrong as John Brown was. Rather, just as the solution to the slavery issue was the abolition of slavery, the solution to the abortion issue is the abolition of abortion.
In the darkness of his deeds, John Brown did indeed bring to light the need to end slavery. Perhaps in the darkness of his deeds, the suspect in the killing of Dr. Tiller might at least lead eventually to the end of abortion.
* By "unjustified killing," I mean that the victim did not pose a threat to the killer or other innocents. By "intentional . . . killing" I mean that the killer purposefully committed homicide. This is an important distinction, for a man can still properly be called "pro-life" if he kills another innocent person by some sort of accident, say a car crash.
I should like to take a moment to examine this case, and I waited these few days in order to measure the more frequent reactions to it before submitting my analysis.
First, it comes as no surprise that the assassin has been widely condemned--and not just from far-left/pro-abortion circles. As awful as any abortion is (and especially "late-term" abortions) it is also awful to imagine justifying the shooting an unarmed man at--ironically--church (or anywhere else, for that matter).
What I'd like to deal with now is the approach taken by a great many critics: that it is inconsistent to call oneself "pro-life" and either kill another person or even support the killing of another person.
Without advocating the killing of Dr. Tiller, I will nonetheless disagree with the above assertion.
Being "pro-life" doesn't necessarily require one to be a pacifist.
Resorting to violence in defense of oneself is perfectly justifiable, for it aims at the protection of innocent life from the unwarranted assaults of another. If a man broke into my home with intent or even just opportunity to do me or my family harm, then I would take whatever measures possible to stop him. If I have to tackle him and wrestle him to the ground while my wife calls 911, then that's what I'll do. If, during the struggle, I have the chance to get my hands around his throat, then I will squeeze. If that squeezing results in the man's asphyxiation, then so be it. He won't be a danger to me or my family any longer. If the situation calls for me to use a weapon, say a knife or a gun, then I will employ either with no hesitation. Dispatching with such a threat is not inconsistent with my opposition to murder. Nor would it be inconsistent with my opposition to abortion. Killing such a man and harboring no regrets would not make me one iota less "pro-life."
Furthermore, the applying term "pro-life" as an adjective to describe a person asserts neither the denotation nor the connotation of someone who supports life over death in all cases. A "pro-life" person is someone who is against abortion. Being "pro-life" doesn't mean that a person has to want everyone to live. A person who is identified as "pro-life" can celebrate when a dangerous man dies (as in the previous example). A "pro-life" person can be glad that Stalin is dead, and a "pro-life" person can hope for Osama bin Laden's death, be it natural or, shall we say, expedited.
The kind of killing that renders a "pro-life" person inconsistent with his or her beliefs is the intentional and unjustified killing of another person.* This kind of killing is called murder.
The issue is not a general question of whether a "pro-life" person can intentionally kill another person and still be considered "pro-life" (which, remember, is just a semantic phrasing of "anti-abortion").
The issue is specific to the killing of Dr. Tiller: By killing Dr. Tiller, did the suspect contradict his "pro-life" creed?
To solve this dilemma, we must first answer the following questions.
- Was the killing intentional?
- Was the killing justified? (As in "Did the victim pose a threat to lives of an innocent person?")
However, the second question is far more complicated.
From a legal standpoint, the shooting deprived the doctor of due process of law. Whatever the charges against him--and the charges are very grave if you believe that a human fetus is a human being--even the Nazi's had their day in court.
And this brings us to the sticky point. No matter what your persuasion is on the issue, humor me, please, and just suppose that a viable human fetus is a human being. Supposing this to be the case--remember, you're humoring me--then Dr. Tiller was in league with Dr. Mengele; like Mengele's Auschwitz, Tillers clinics were "death camps," and his victims were the epitome of innocents.
Still humoring me? Because this is my point. To the suspect in this case, the Dr. Tiller whom he shot is the Dr. Tiller described above. It all hinges on what a viable fetus is. If it's a human, then Dr. Tiller was indeed a monster who, if left alone, would have continued to murder many times more. The suspect felt that he had to act outside of the law because the law is, perversely, on the side of the abortionists. Just as Mengele acted under the full sanction of law during the Holocaust, Tiller acted under the full sanction of the law in Kansas. If you wish that someone had walked into Auschwitz and shot Mengele to death before he could murder more children or even just escape from the prosecutions at Nuremburg, then you have understand just a little bit what the suspect was thinking.
Of course, if you don't consider a viable human fetus a human being, then there's no question that the killing of Dr. Tiller was a despicable and cowardly murderer.
The whole case reminds me of John Brown. In the mid-1850's, Brown moved to Kansas in order to help establish the territory as a free-state. He condemned slavery, slave-owners, and those in support of slavery with the almost identical rhetoric used by those against abortion, abortionists, and abortion supporters. During Brown's time in Kansas, he was personally responsible for several killings. Murders, from a legal stand-point, but justified according to his principles.
In Dred Scott v Sanford (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal in all territories. Essentially, slavery was the law of the land except in the established states that had abolished the institution. The Dred Scott decision convinced Brown that he needed to be bolder, so he returned to New England and began planning a slave revolt that he hoped would spread throughout the South and lead to the end of slavery once and for all. In 1859, his raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, VA, failed to spark the slave revolt. He was captured, tried, and hanged.
Henry David Thoreau and a good many others noted that while what Brown did was in deed illegal and punishable by death, the problem wasn't what Brown did, per say, (and Thoreau was a true-blue pacifist) but that Brown felt that he had to do it. As Thoreau stated,
Though you may not approve of his method or his principles, recognize his magnanimity. . . . When a government puts forth its strength on the side of injustice, as ours to maintain slavery and kill the liberators of the slave, it reveals itself a merely brute force, or worse, a demoniacal force. . . . The only government that I recognize,--and it matters not how few are at the head of it, or how small its army,--is that power that establishes justice in the land, never that which establishes injustice. What shall we think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses? A government that pretends to be Christian and crucifies a million Christs every day! Treason! . . . High treason, when it is resistance to tyranny here below, has its origin in, and is first committed by, the power that makes and forever recreates man. When you have caught and hung all these human rebels, you have accomplished nothing but your own guilt, for you have not struck at the fountain-head. . . . Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good? Is there any necessity for a man's being a tool to perform a deed of which his better nature disapproves? Is it the intention of law-makers that good men shall be hung ever? Are judges to interpret the law according to the letter, and not the spirit? What right have you to enter into a compact with yourself that you will do thus or so, against the light within you? Is it for you to make up your mind,--to form any resolution whatever,--and not accept the convictions that are forced upon you, and which ever pass your understanding?To summarize Thoreau's apology of Brown, the state had assumed a monopoly on the justice industry, and its laws were on the side of the unjust. Brown may have been a traitor to Virginia, but he was a hero for humanity.
The 13th Amendment ended slavery. John Brown had been dead for over six years, and his revolt had failed. He didn't end slavery, and he died a criminal's death.
The solution to the abortion issue is not to be found in the assassination of abortionists, as the suspect in the present case seems to have concluded. He is as wrong as John Brown was. Rather, just as the solution to the slavery issue was the abolition of slavery, the solution to the abortion issue is the abolition of abortion.
In the darkness of his deeds, John Brown did indeed bring to light the need to end slavery. Perhaps in the darkness of his deeds, the suspect in the killing of Dr. Tiller might at least lead eventually to the end of abortion.
* By "unjustified killing," I mean that the victim did not pose a threat to the killer or other innocents. By "intentional . . . killing" I mean that the killer purposefully committed homicide. This is an important distinction, for a man can still properly be called "pro-life" if he kills another innocent person by some sort of accident, say a car crash.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Let's get this straight. Barack Obama DOES NOT have a plan to increase fuel efficiency in automobiles.
Barack Obama knows jack squat about designing cars. He does, apparently, know how to use the coercive powers of government (i.e. point guns at people and say, "do it"), and that's what he's doing. His plan is to threaten those who do engineer vehicles.
The thing is, if it was so easy to do (scientifically and economically), then the automakers would be doing it on their own. If consumers really demanded it, then the automakers would be working toward it.
Barack Obama knows jack squat about designing cars. He does, apparently, know how to use the coercive powers of government (i.e. point guns at people and say, "do it"), and that's what he's doing. His plan is to threaten those who do engineer vehicles.
The thing is, if it was so easy to do (scientifically and economically), then the automakers would be doing it on their own. If consumers really demanded it, then the automakers would be working toward it.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Demetri Martin "If I"
Watching these clips from Demetri Martin will require a time commitment, but it's worth it.
Greensky Bluegrass--Bottle Dry
A friend of mine tipped me on this band, Greensky Bluegrass. This is my favorite of their songs presented simply but with all of its soulfulness and sophistication.
Honorary Degree for Obama
What with all of this flap over Obama receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame (and being declined for an honorary degree from Arizona State University), I think that it would be freakin' sweet--just to show how stupid the idea of an honorary degree is--if ITT Tech gave Obama an honorary Associate's Degree in computer repair.
Hell, the guy doesn't seem to know how to fix the economy, but people seem to be willing to let him tinker here, there, and everywhere. Why not unleash him on our PC's as well?
Hell, the guy doesn't seem to know how to fix the economy, but people seem to be willing to let him tinker here, there, and everywhere. Why not unleash him on our PC's as well?
Monday, May 11, 2009
A Well Detailed Post
Not much posted lately...I know.
I have my reasons, and they will be made apparent.
Smile. The news is good.
The news is very good.
I have my reasons, and they will be made apparent.
Smile. The news is good.
The news is very good.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)