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