'80s Montage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.”

But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.”

He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________

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

Seriously.

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

All quotes are from this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess so.

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

It's an Epidemic of Pandemic Proportions!

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

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

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

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

Semi-Literate Former Gold Prospector Given Own Cable News Show

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

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

Racism is Racism

This article blew me away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government Is Us?

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

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

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

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

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

Elton John--"Levon" (Live 1971)

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

Brilliant Onion Article

All hail, The Onion!

Old Crow Medicine Show: "My Next Go Round"

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

Murdock Hits the Jackpot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cartoon posted from here.

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

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

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

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

IRS=MF/SOB

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

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

Link to Free Advice Post: Obama on the Pesky Constitution

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

From the Mouths of "Terrorists"

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

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

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

Or from the Virginian, Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there's this bit of absurdity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stupak Out; Fool TBD In

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

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

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

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

Adios, Batista; hola Castro.

See you later, Friends. Welcome, Joey.

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

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

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

Quick Question

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

Classic Parking Ticket Dispute.

This is just too funny.

Tea Parties

Of the Tea Party movement, the AP dismissively says

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

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

Later in the article:

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

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

Sure, they never did anything of importance.

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

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

"The die is cast."

Where Are They

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're a moron.

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

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

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

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

So Ricky Martin announces that he is in fact gay.

Really?

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

My bad. I retract that last one.

A C.S.Lewis Quote

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

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

--In The Abolition of Man.

Common Sense

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

Destroy the system.

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

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

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

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

Faustian Politics

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

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

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

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

They are a blight, nay a curse upon us.

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

A Warning

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

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

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

And they must know this before the next stage.

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

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

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

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

Nemo me impune lacessit.

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

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

Fire and Ice--By Robert Frost

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

To BAR

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

Hope the van runs well.

Best Picture Material

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

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

The Hurt Locker--Best Picture By Default?

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

It was better than Avatar.

It was better than The Blind Side.

It was better than District 9.

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

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

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

An Ubi Sunt On Obama's Health Care Victory

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

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

Thoreau, Brown, Gandhi, and King knew it.

Ubi sunt? Where are they now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Untitled

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

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

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

Untitled

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

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

Until then, it will remain a mortal foe.

My Apology

No, I am not dead.

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

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

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

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

Forgive me.

An Anti-Statist Rant

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

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

Did the New Deal end the business cycle?

Did the Great Society end poverty?

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

Remember the Contract With America?

What about reductions in the cost and scope of government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not optimistic about what my neighbors will choose.

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

Do you recall the Constitution and its Bill of Rights?

"When I was a boy..."

Another Amusing Anecdote

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

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

"When you're older," I said.

To which he asked, "How old?"

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

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

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

An Anecdote With a Musing Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uh huh," he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I wrong to assign any meaning to this?
_____________________________________________________

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

Payton Manning: The Best QB Ever.

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

Great Song; Link to Video

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

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

Putting the Dog to Sleep; Bald Eagles for Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Ego

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

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

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

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

Avatar--Best Picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China Pisses and Moans

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

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

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

Pitiful Excuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbit Hunting

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

Aristos v. Murdock Part II

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

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

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

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

Aristos v. Murdock Part I

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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



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

What's New About the New Year?

What's new about the new year? To me, it seems that we celebrate the occasion as part of what Patrick Henry called "the delusive phantom of hope." Most people seem to think that a different number for the year means that things have really changed. They celebrate the holiday as a kind of pagan offering to Dionysus, never once considering that other than the passing of the solstice, there is no real difference between November passing to December and December passing to January and so forth (other than the fact that the Lions' season is in its final days).

It's not a new year that we need. The people and government that made 2009 suck are still in power, and even if parties change at mid-term elections, no real change will occur. I offer the presidency of GW Bush as proof of that.

No, we need something more. If you want change, then you need far more than a change from one old party to the other old party.

To heck with the New Year and our pagan way of offering the day as a bribe for better times to come.

And to answer your question, yes, I'm a bit on edge right now.

Monty Python: Philosophers World Cup

More Ominous Thoughts

The fact that God loves us does not spare us from tribulation, especially when tribulation is due.

There is a difference between "Change you can believe in" and change that I would prefer.

Alas, it's time for a reckoning. The bills say "In God We Trust," but not even God will float a fiat currency forever.

While Time Magazine worships its golden calf (i.e. Bernake), we will reap the whirlwind.

And when it comes, who will stand to account for it?

Not those responsible for it. It will be you and me. All of this Wall Street v. Main Street nonsense has to go. It's us v. Pennsylvania Avenue.

Forboding Thoughts

The republic becomes an empire when power is centralized and the concerns of the people are subordinate to the whims of an emperor or oligarchical ruling class.

Look at all that has been done in the name of "national security."

Look at the supposed health care "reform."

Everywhere, it's the same thing. You and your rights become smaller and ever less significant a player.

How's your goose step, folks? Because you'll need it unless you awake from your slumber, discard your soma, see the slogans for the propaganda that they are, and the demagogues for the tyrants they are. It is time to act!

A peaceful revolution at the ballot boxes would be my ideal scenario. However, civil disobedience ala Thoreau (think "counter-friction") isn't beyond my inclinations.

I cannot envision a scenario when a violent revolt will result in anything good. It may come to that, simply because we cannot accomplish any other option and cannot stand to remain idle. If it does, however, then I bow my head in regret.

Two Things: Bernake and Terrorists

First, Ben Bernake wins Time Magazine's Person of the Year Award.

From the article:

Time claims,

He knew how the passive Fed of the 1930s helped create the calamity — through its stubborn refusal to expand the money supply and its tragic lack of imagination and experimentation.

And later,

He wishes Americans understood that he helped save the irresponsible giants of Wall Street only to protect ordinary folks on Main Street.

Basically, Time claims that Bernake's Fed made sure that the inevitable recession was much less worse than it could have been. They site the current unemployment rate of10% to be better than 25%, which suggests that if Bernake had done something different then the unemployment rate would be two and a half times worse.

Really, Time? This is a bold and ironic claim since Fed policy actually created the recession in the first place, and its current policies will ensure future hardships. Please note that history does not confirm Time's assessment, nor is Time's assessment even possible to confirm.

Don't believe me? Read some history on it by an author whose goal is not to support an oligarchical political economy. Bob Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Of course, you might first want to look at the same author's Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism.

If you wonder why Dr. Murphy's research verifies claims that are not taught in public schools and universities, consider the fact that Murphy's research verifies claims that suggest reducing the power of the organization in charge of dictating what gets taught at public schools and universities.

If you like it, consider reading other economists of the "Austrian School": Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is another very good start. If you don't want to pick it up from Amazon, then download it free in PDF form here.

Of course, Time hasn't always honored good men with this award. In 1938, they recognized Adolf Hitler as "Man of the Year." However, in fairness to Time, they did not honor Hitler by bestowing upon him the award. They simply recognized him as the most man with the most significant impact on world events,and they identify this impact as unsettling.

In light of this, perhaps Bernake deserves to be recognized as "Person of the Year," but not for the reasons cited by Time.

Second, a terrorist tried to ignite a fire on board a Delta plane en route to Detroit. However, he was foiled by passengers when he ignited his chemical concoction.

The man made it past the TSA inspectors even though he had contraband and the feds had been warned of this man's dangerous inclinations.

So, all of these new powers to the federal government to save us from terrorists, and its the guy in an adjacent seat who stops what could have been a devastating attack on Christmas.

Way to go, federal government! If it hadn't been for all of your powers, regulations, and copious funding...it would have turned out exactly the same way.

My Wee Ones

An Odyssey (not "The Odyssey," but an Odyssey Nonetheless)

On Tuesday morning, about 1 A.M., my two year old woke us up with a tapping on his door, as is his custom, though he does not usually rise until between 7:30 and 9 A.M.

I opened his door and found him in some kind of distress. I picked him up and patted his back, but I could not console him. I brought him into bed with me, where he proceeded to toss and turn so relentlessly that my wife elected to move onto the couch.

I couldn't get the little tyke to settle down, He kept thrashing about as if in extreme discomfort, so I pulled him to my chest and held him tight. Just as he seemed to be settling down, his head popped up, he said something unintelligible, and then abruptly vomited on my chest.

I'll spare you the gory details, but it should suffice to say that it wasn't a cute little spit-up. It had a great deal of mass and volume to it.

Oh, and it smelled of strawberries.

Rotten, putrid, stinking strawberries.

Although it was against my typical instincts, I tried to keep it coming on me in order to spare the sheets and bedspread. As there was a great deal of splashing and squirming, I was not successful in this endeavor.

I called for my wife, but even her relatively quick response was nowhere near quick enough. I handed Robbie over to her and sat up. I nearly tossed my own cookies when I felt chunks of partially digested food fall from my chest to my lap, but I held fast and managed to get undressed so as not to drip anything on the floor.

I rushed to the shower and washed both me and the boy. I changed my clothes and stripped the bed, all the while my wife held and rocked Robbie--who, as it turned out, wasn't done puking.

I agreed to call in sick for work if my wife would stay up with Robbie. This turned out to be a pretty good deal, since she was up with him until 5 A.M., and I was able to catch a few winks before the older kids had to be roused for school. Even better, Robbie seemed to be in good health the next morning. He took an awfully long nap to boot.

But this is not the happy ending that you might have suspected.

Fast forward to Wednesday night, around 9 P.M. My wife and I are settling down to watch Criminal Minds, a show that irritates me because it involves FBI agents who work almost exclusively outside of their jurisdiction. Also, they're just supposed to be profilers, but the show has them executing search warrants, arresting and interrogating suspects. But I digress.

Mark (age 6) had gone to bed complaining of a stomach ailment, but he seemed to be doing all right. I also felt a bit off, but not remarkably so. I figured that I was just tired. I had no idea of what was coming. As proof of this, I had just made arrangements with BAR to drop him off at the office in the morning. Still, asCriminal Mindsworked up to its climax, so did my queasiness. Unfortunately, Mark had the "puke bowl," so I was left to lunge for the kitchen sink.

What transpired was a lesson in the communicability of viruses. Whatever had stricken Robbie had stricken me. I spent the next hour in the bathroom with (shall we simply say) duel stomach maladies. About half-way through my ordeal, from my porcelain vantage I heard a sudden ruckus in Mark's room. What sounded at first like a cough degenerated into an all too familiar sound.

Showers again, and an uncomfortable sleep followed. Mark and I shared my bed, and we were both plagued by alternating sweats and chills. We spent most of Thursday in bed, and only this morning felt anything resembling normal.

So why haven't I posted in nearly a week? Now you know.

And knowing is half the battle.

Just The Facts

Word of advice: when you don't consume fermented beverages for six months and then have several at a company party, it goes to your head.

That said, I have no post today.

The Onion Report: Most College Males Admit To Regularly Getting Stoked

Oh my goodness. I just laughed so loud that I woke my kids up.


Report: Most College Males Admit To Regularly Getting Stoked

WSJ Opinion on Climategate

The WSJ published this opinion on Climategate. Either I read it while driving down a bumpy road, or I really was just nodding that much.

The Daily Show Clip: Obama Sends 30,000 More Soldiers to Afghanistan

I found this clip at Free Advice, but since I don't think that any of my regular readers (other than BAR) ever read Bob's blog, I figured I'd re-post it here.

Jon Stewart on Obama's decision to send 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. Didn't he just win the Nobel PEACE prize? Who says that you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Watch the whole thing.

Seriously.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
30,000
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Pro-Capitalism Article on MSN Money

I can't believe it. I actually found a decent article on MSN Money.

The best way for government to create jobs? Get out of the way. It's also dirt cheap. Actually, it would reduce the cost of government, thereby easing budget problems.

So why isn't it even going to be discussed at Obama's "Jobs Summit"?

I think that you know the answer to that. Anything that results in less power for the federal government is pretty much off the table. And judging by so many of the comments posted below the article, too many people are either grossly misinformed, utterly ignorant, or flat out evil--and Socialism consists of all three. Orwell demonstrates as much in Animal Farm.

Jews Defend Muslims (in Switzerland)

The Swiss recently voted to ban the construction of minarets (tower-esque spires) typical to mosques.

Jewish groups have stepped up to defend Muslims against what is clearly a form of religious and cultural discrimination. (As if the Jews have some kind of special knowledge about what happens when Europeans vent their fears and frustrations out on a distinctive religious minority).

Of course I found it ironic that Al Jazeera had the gall to ask that we

Imagine the furor that would certainly ensue should a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population be asked to vote on whether its small Christian community should be allowed to build their churches according to a particular design or method, or whether they would rather do without the church bells sounding from time to time.

Yes, because predominantly Muslim countries are so renowned for their tolerance of other religions. And you're right, Al Jazeera. Muslim countries don't vote on that kind of thing because Muslim countries don't tend to vote. Way to point out that tyrannies would never have such a flawed electoral process. Fight the absurd with the absurd.

Of course, it's also interesting that we have Jews defending Muslim rights as long as those Muslims do not live in the Jewish state of Israel. Muslims in Switzerland have rights. Muslims in Gaza--now that's a different story.

Climate Science, Irony, and the Root of All Evil

If you are not up to date on the row over unethical tactics and dishonest reporting of facts amongst the world's leading climate scientists, then you really won't get the context of this post. At Free Advice, Bob Murphy has done a splendid job of distilling the issue, so I suggest going there and checking out the "Climategate" posts of the last few weeks. You should, in fact, check Free Advice on a daily basis.

These climate scientists who blackmail editors, blacklist rivals, and fudge data must know now how the geocentrists felt in Galileo's wake.

The state was able to exert political pressure and force Galileo to retract his findings, for Galileo--by affirming Copernicus's proof of heliocentrism--had contradicted scientific and religious orthodoxy.

In exchange for his life, Galileo simply denied his "heretical" assertions--as if getting Galileo to take it back was the same as proving him wrong.

If the geocentrists had been so right in their view, shouldn't they have been able simply to contradict Galileo?

Of course they couldn't contradict him with anything resembling evidence, so they threatened him.

So the story goes. Now its the scientists who have the state's ear, and they're behaving as the Church did half a millenium ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By the way, Christopher Hitchens asserts that "Religion poisons everything." I've been picking my way through his book God Is Not Great, and--while I'm not yet ready to make anything resembling a critique--I can say that Hitchens's examples prove not that religion poisons everything, but that the coercive powers of a supposedly legitimate state poison everything. Religion is often used as an excuse--or as a cover, as Hitchens describes Milsovic's grab for territory in the 1990's--but that doesn't mean that religion is the issue.

The same is true in Ireland, Lebanon, Israel, etc. It's the existence and involvement of the state that corrupts and leads to widespread suffering.

It's actually quite obvious, when you look at it. It links all forms of tyranny: from your run-of-the-mill theocratic dictatorship (e.g. the Taliban) to an atheistic dictatorship (e.g. Communism).

Remove their ability to inflict violence, and the Taliban becomes an oddity not unlike the Amish. Take away a communist's access to coercive powers, and he becomes a disgruntled academic or something slightly worse.

The state is the most violent organization on the planet. Only it enables men to be cruel and tyrannical on a noteworthy scale.

Back to Galileo. If the Church hadn't had the state to act as its goon, then the worst that it could have done was excommunicate Galileo. While this might have emotionally devastated Galileo, it would not have harmed him physically.

But now it's the climate scientists who have the state's ear, and what they're trying to do in Copenhagen and elsewhere should alarm you. Once the Church of Climate Change has real political power behind it, you'll see what I mean.

Then again, you can just read some history. It's all happened before.

Rated "M"

Mark (age 6) has a theory about game ratings. My new game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, is rated "M" for "Mature."

Mark thinks that it must also mean rated "M" for "Man" because "There's lots of killing, and you've got to be a man to enjoy that kind of stuff."

Hmm. I'm thinking that I won't share this with his mother.

Thanksgiving

Let's cut to the meat of it. The Pilgrims did not host the first Thanksgiving in order to thank Squanto and his Wampanoag crew for helping them get through a hard season. The Pilgrims gave thanks to no one but God. They would not have given credit to a bunch of godless heathens. Even Squanto they called merely an instrument of God's will.

I would be remiss if I did not note that the two most important men in establishing Thanksgiving as a national holiday are Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

Politically, Lincoln needed people to think past the cold-blooded killing of anyone who would not submit to Federal power.

Similarly, Roosevelt needed people--in the midst of the Great Depression--to dwell on and be thankful for what little they had. However, he in no way at all intended them to consider what they were losing as his New Deal went into effect.

In this day and age, I am led to believe that I should be thankful for having anything at all, for the federal government stands poised to usurp all that it does not abolish.

Question: Was Brutas more Washington or Oswald?

I think that you know that answer to that, so what are the implications?

Thanks

The day after Thanksgiving is the day when millions flock to the stores in order to buy what they don't have because they aren't thankful enough for what they already do have.

That said, I'm going for a new TV because I am positively not thankful for the one that I have. Is it better than nothing? Sure it is. Just like having a dollar is better than having no dollar; but what are you going to get for a dollar once the Burger King is closed?

The Lost City: The Film and the Truth about Che

I recently watched The Lost City, an Andy Garcia film about family ties set against the backdrop of the communist revolution in Cuba.

There's plenty of nostalgia--even the title echoes Margaret Mitchell's portrayal of an idealized South being "Gone With the Wind"). However, as it tells its beautifully filmed story, The Lost City does not gloss over the abuses of Batista's government. It shows Batista's regime for what it was.

However, the film refuses to use Batista's tyranny as a justification for Castro's despotism. In many ways--and I am hardly the first to observe this--The Lost City is a breath of fresh air. Finally a film depicts Castro and his "revolutionaries" for what they were: goons.

Ernesto "Che" Guevera finally gets his. Under Garcia's direction, "Che" is portrayed as the arrogant, bloodthirsty, and overall loathsome piece of Marxist-Leninist filth that, for some odd reason, has resonated so romantically to college students (and professors) throughout the country.

In a nutshell, the dashing and daring "Che" can be summed up in his final moments: As Bolivian forces prepared to execute the captured agitator, he--he who had lined up so many to be shot--begged, "Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"

Nathan Hale he wasn't.

I've never believe in the "Che" that Hollywood and Berkley have portrayed, mostly because I have good reason to doubt the source. However, I've read a few things. "Che" like all Marxist revolutionaries, was a thug. He wasn't even a successful thug as, say, Stalin. Che's success has come as a martyr for a cause that most of his fans only vaguely (if even that much) understand.

From viewers of The Lost City:

I was happy to finally see a movie about the Cuban revolution that highlighted another side of the story. The only reason I did not give this a 5 star rating is because I would have like to have seen the non-Castro revolutionary side featured more and of course given more substance than what was shown in the movie. I was happy to see that the Che was NOT idolized in this movie. It was about time he was shown for what he truly became years after the "idealistic" Che portrayed in Motorcycle Diaries. If you are of Cuban heritage, even if you are a first generation American (like me), you will feel this movie.

My family and I were still in Cuba when Castro rolled in to Havana and Batista fled the country. We were not part of the upper class, but we watched in dismay how the revolutionaries acted towards anyone who owned even a house. My brother was arrested for protesting the militia's tactics and was thrown in jail for 3 years without a trial; my father was threatened not to reopen his small store; my mother was kicked out of our home when the government found out my sister and I had left the country. Other members of our family suddenly found their home invaded by strangers moving in - simply because they had a 3-bedroom home and the revolution deemed it "too imperialistic" to have such vast space for one family only. Andy Garcia deserves more than an Oscar for directing such a powerful movie. Perhaps to those who did not go through the revolution, the movie may come across as too "sentimental". To those of us who lived it, it was a painful and sad reminder of a moment in time that changed our lives, and a country, forever.

and

Politically, its about time someone gave an accurate portrayal of what happened in Havana and Andy did just that. Yes, the movie received negative reviews from the media. Had the film glorified the revolution and idolized the Che, perhaps the reviews would have been positive. In any event, it was refreshing to see the truth. Many families were torn apart as in the movie. The scene where the revolutionary brother evicts the uncle is real. My own father went to his office one morning to find soldiers at the door telling him that the spring water company that he built and nurtured was no longer his. He was not allowed to even take his personal belongings. This happened to most of the Cuban middle class. Many scenes evoked childhood memories for me. I gave it a 5 not only for the beautiful rendition of the Havana I remember. It deserves it for telling a truth seldom heard of the Havana so many of us exiles love and cherish.

So go ahead and give The Lost City a shot. It's not the greatest film ever made, but it gives a good enough crash course in what happens when socialists control arsenals.


Oh, and screw Ernesto "Che" Guevera.

Get Your Hands Out of My Pockets

If you have the right to your property, then the government has no right to tax you.

To prove this, consider that, if the government does indeed have the right to tax you, your property "rights" would consist merely of what property the state allows you to keep, calling it "yours" until it wants more of it, under which circumstances it is theirs.

Under the above scenario, all property essentially belongs to the state. If you are loyal and work hard enough for the state, it will reward you with the privilege of property consignment.

Clearly this is absurd. You have the right to the fruits of your labor just as assuredly as you have the liberty to labor as you see fit. The government indeed has the power to tax you, but that is not the same as saying that it has the right to do so.

If you do not consider your property to be merely held in trust for when the state wants it, then you must agree that the government has no right to tax you.

Might makes right in only the nastiest of societies.

Funny Video

Man Made Morals (and other exercises in alliteration)

If morals are man-made, then they are merely preferences, not morals at all. While this assertion excites some, the truth is that this distinction carries with it consequences.

We're not just talking about sexual morality. We're talking about everything from the nasty extremes (e.g. murder and rape) through the mild "no big deals" (e.g. white lies and line cutting).

You cannot reasonably expect my preferences to match yours, and if you try to impose them upon me, then you are a tyrant who must resort to violence in order to achieve your ends. Without morality in the traditionally accepted and defined sense, there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil.

If you won't have morality as objective and trans-ego, then you cannot have morality at all. As T.S. Eliot observed, "If you will not have God you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin."

Just a Few Thoughts on the Climate Row Before I'm Off to Work

Last week, I found this on Bob Murphy's site, Free Advice. It wasn't the only or even original source for this issue, but it was where I started.

Then this.


In a nutshell, we're starting to glipse how baldly (and badly) these people lie and cheat their way into politics via so-called objective science.

This article says that scientists have "debunked" the theory of climate data manipulation, but they haven't debunked anything. They've denied it, sure, but that's not the same as debunking.

Can This Post Be More Rhetorical?

Why do so many people argue with nothing more than rhetorical questions? Can they not devise an actual argument themselves? Do they think that it's smug and clever sounding to phrase things interrogatively? Is it because they want take control of the debate by forcing you to answer (and often affirm) their questions?


On another note, there are those who simply deny or contradict everything that you posit, and they do so without offering adequate (if any) support/reason.




Heck, while you're at it, watch this one for fun.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Opa Ist Gestorben

I thought that the old man would get a kick out of it if I wrote this post in German, so here's my best shot.

Verzeihen Sie mir, wenn meine Worte peinlich sind. Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut.

Ich habe viel zu tun gehabt, aber ist nicht alles wie immer. Dieser Beitrag ist für Emil Sendek, meine Frau Großvater, der sich heute Morgen gestorben.

Wir sind sehr traurig, aber wir hoffe, dass er gut Tarife. Er war ein guter Mensch. Freundlich. Ein alter Herr, der Welt erster Ordnung.

In Wahrheit ist es genau so hart zu entblößen mein Herz in dieser fremden Sprache als in meiner eigenen Sprache. Das Herz hat Gefühle, die nicht ausgesprochen werden oder zum Ausdruck gebracht. Ich denke an meine eigene kürzlich verstorbenen Großeltern und kennen den Schmerz fühlte mich von meiner Frau, aber ich bin machtlos.

Und jetzt habe ich ganz sicher geschlachtet des Alten Sprache, obwohl er sicher wäre, zu lächeln und zu lachen mich jetzt.

Opa, grüßen Sie mein vater von mir--wenn man solche Dinge nicht im Himmel. Wir lieben dich, und wir sehen uns wieder: Gott lebt überm Sternenzelt. Wir werden für Sie hier nachschauen. Wir kümmern uns um Oma und Sasha. Mach dir keine Sorgen. Sie sind mit Gott, und keiner von uns werden Sie das Vergnügen gönnen.

Abschied, guter Mensch.

The Onion on Glenn Beck

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck