Analytic Disturbance -- Reason from Chaos?

California voting

2008-10-20T19:54:00.002-06:00

This post is merely a transplant of a discussion begun in another forum concerning arguments of voting in California. The discussion begins as follows, and follow up comments and points can be made in the Comments section. Comments will not be moderated or deleted, provided basic standards of civility are maintained. Names have been truncated for privacy of those who have not yet consented for their comments to be made public. All comments from the other forum have been pasted word verbatim, with no editing (including spelling errors) or censorship. Hopefully I got all the "... Read More"s out. Enjoy!

Nate just received my voting packet for California. Now he'd better decide on how to vote. Any persuasive arguments?

Mike: Do you like socialist health care? Do you want to be conscripted for mandatory "Volunteer" political activism? Do you enjoy paying taxes? Do you think the Government knows how to run the economy better than individuals and business owners do? Do you think scary looking guns that almost never get used in crimes should be banned? Do you think it's okay for the courts to shove gay marriage down our throats? If you like all those things, vote Obama.

If you think having a leftist Democrat president and a Democrat super majority in Congress, under the current leadership (which currently enjoys about a 6% approval rating) is a scary proposition, vote McCain.

Mike: Whatever you do, since you're voting in CA, vote YES on Prop 8. Nobody's exaggerating when we say this decision is probably MORE important than the presidential election.

Katie: Vote yes for proposition 8!!!
Oh and vote for Palin. I mean, McCain. ;)

Shirin: does voting yes for prop 8 mean that you are admiting that you are homophobic? and is that as bad as being racist, sexist, and a biggot?

Mike: Nope. It simply means that you wish marriage to mean the same thing it has meant since the dawn of time, and that you don't want some judge that thinks he's smarter than the entirety of human history and civilization to change that.

Shirin: hmm... what ever happened to separation of church and state? and should we keep things like slavery too.. since we had that at the dawn of time?

Mike: Separation of church and state is irrelevant here. Even if it were a strictly religious issue, it still does not violate the Establishment Clause, because EVERY religious tradition of any consequence both now and in ancient times has agreed that marriage is between man and woman. Some have allowed polygamy or polyandry, but even those instances are in the minority, and fundamentally, a marriage was defined between man and woman, NEVER man and man, or woman and woman.

Additionally, EVERY civilization in history also defines marriage as between man and woman. No, the Greeks did not practice gay marriage. Homosexual activity in that culture, to the extent that it existed, was recreational, non-binding, and co-existed with "marriage" which was one man and one woman.

Slavery is irrelevant to this discussion.

Craig: i would ague that you should find out how that first guy is voting, then do the exact opposite

Mike: And I thought liberals were supposed to be champions of independent thought? What is independent or thoughtful about simply doing the opposite of someone else? A childish display of rebellion that ultimately leaves the actor a slave to someone else's decisions. Nate is a thoughtful guy, and will make up his own mind about what he believes is right according to his values. I'm sure he would be appreciative if you contributed something of value to the discussion, Craig.

Craig: everything you argued for is the opposite of what i would tell thoughtful nate. i was just trying to be concise.

Mike: So let's hear it. I provided specific points, details, reasons, and examples, and I have plenty more to back up what I already wrote. Let's hear what you have. Stand behind something and back it up. I'm happy to have a discussion, but simple opposition requires no thought and is never taken seriously by serious people.

Mike: Point of order though, it might be more prudent to point the discussion to an alternate location such as a blog or actual message board, where space and formatting are not so constrained.

----END OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE AT THE TIME OF THIS POST----

Campus concealed carry and my response

2008-09-26T23:34:00.004-06:00

In responding to the comments on this article, I posted the following:

"Gun Regulation or GUN freedom is not the issue...The issue is the PEOPLE committing the crimes"

It is true that the people are the problem. People commit crimes. People kill people. HOWEVER! Simply saying that neither total gun regulation or total freedom will fix the problem is stupid. The notion that the only acceptable course of action is the perfect solution simply ensures nothing gets done. It takes no courage or wisdom to say "Everyone's wrong, now let's all be nice to each other and find a better way." That's what we call Utopian Idealism. It didn't work in Kindergarten, and it doesn't work in the real world either.

Policies, actions, etc, can be divided into four categories:

1. Things which produce good results
2. Things which do NOT produce good results
3. Things which produce negative results
4. Things which do NOT produce negative results

Notice that 1 and 4 are not the same thing, nor are 2 and 3. Some items MAY occupy multiple categories, but not necessarily.

So what? Here's what: Excessive gun control at BEST falls into category number 2. There is no good that comes of it in terms of reducing crime. I don't think I need to be specific here in the interest of space, but I'll back this claim up to anyone who challenges it. Apart from doing no good, it is fairly easy to make the case that gun control DOES HARM to the effort of reducing crime. Numerous interviews of felons in and out of prison confirm this: Unarmed victims are targeted because it's easier to do whatever to them. Criminals prey SPECIFICALLY on the weak,
un-armed, and otherwise vulnerable.

On the other hand, allowing good people (we'll restrict this to Concealed Carry Permit -CCP- holders for now) to have access to guns falls into one or more of the other two categories: 4. This does no harm because it doesn't actually effect the criminal population at all. When is the last time someone with criminal intent bothered to get a CCP? And category 1: This actually makes the situation better (note I didn't say SOLVE or FIX. The emphasis is on improvement, positive difference. Not perfection) by creating uncertainty and doubt in the mind of would-be criminals. It also gives the responsible CCP holder something besides a textbook or a chair to throw at an active gunman. No guarantee, no, that's true. But the odds of a positive outcome are greater. Without opposition (CCP holder), there IS however, a guarantee that the crowd is at the gunman's mercy or lack-thereof. The choices here are "Line up to be shot" or "Let's fight it out and maybe the good guys
will win". NOBODY is saying the second option is desirable in and of itself. We don't want people shooting each other. That said, what the pro-freedom folks are arguing is that no matter now messy the second option is, it's still night and day better than the first one because it offers the OPPORTUNITY for a better outcome.

By all means, continue trying to address the root causes and start clubs and get students involved. Get police and security up to snuff on what to do, make disaster plans, teach people what to do. These are GOOD things.. But ALSO allow those who choose to take responsibility for their own lives do so. These are two options that are most definitely NOT either/or.

EDIT: 23:47

In listing the four categories for policies and actions. Notice that intent has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what you intended when you supported an idea, or set a policy. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, after all. What matters is the RESULTS. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16) The only question that matters is "Does this accomplish good?" If not, strike it out.

Assumptions of Intention

2008-09-07T22:43:00.004-06:00

I had an exchange with an old friend (We'll call him Joe. Not his real name) that made me think. I was responding to the following comment:

Joe is upset that the republicans think it is ok to use palin's daughter and her baby-daddy for their own political gain. All of a sudden teen pregnancy is cool.

As a Palin supporter, naturally, I took exception to this. I responded,

It doesn't have anything to do with political gain or scoring points. They only made the announcement when they did to head off some nasty lying accusations that her 5-month old son was really her grandson. Besides, the knowledge would have become public soon enough anyway with all the attention (good and bad) the family is getting right now. Nobody's saying directly or indirectly that teen pregnancy is cool. You may not like Palin, but at least dislike her for honest reasons.

I was mostly content to leave it at that, I neglected the inherent cynicism involved in such a statement:

I am not saying in any way that it should, or should not have been released. Oh no, I'm saying that they are using this pregnancy for their own political gain, all the way to the teenage father of her baby being glad-handed by a presidential candidate right in front of a staged media event.

Well, okay. So it's about a campaign move? Showing off for the cameras? Fair enough. Campaigns can be slimy things, but I don't think that's what this is:

Eh. Maybe. I don't read into it too much, and like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you get cynical, it's possible to make the argument that everything that happens on a campaign is a calculated political move. And that road goes both ways. I'd rather concentrate on stuff that matters instead of nitpicking and over-analyzing what may very well be irrelevant, or assuming meaning where there is none. Life's too short to worry about conspiracies and manipulation under EVERY rock.

And then a response so simplistic that I actually found it hard to respond to. I can see a certain truth to it, but as a way of thinking of things, I believe unhelpful at best because it completely reduces a complex issue to a worthless platitude, effectively dismissing further discussion:

Everything in a campaign is a calculated political move, regardless of sides.

Barring of course complete and actual knowledge of what went on behind the scenes, which frankly, I doubt is ever going to be public knowledge. After all, how could it? We don't know the private family discussions leading up to and discussing the announcement, or the arrangements for the fiance to be included in public appearances. How arrogant to assume there was not family discussion and consent, especially with how proactive McCain/Palin were in this. The teenage daughter and fiance were NOT dragged into the spotlight by the media. Although there is little doubt they would have been exposed and attacked eventually anyway, given the flood of slash and slander aimed at the Palins in recent days. My final response thusfar:

Even if true, that doesn't mean "everything" is significant or relevant to everybody or anybody, or that actual intentions are immediately clear, or correctly reported. "Political gain" is too generic; a useless platitude, being that it doesn't really tell us anything without being supported with additional information including an explanation of why it's a good or bad thing. Also, you have to consider what factors, attitudes, and circumstances unknown to you are driving decisions. Was the announcement and subsequent inclusion done with the express and sole intention of gaining political favor? That seems to be the assumption you're working from. Is that fair? Or is it also likely that both the announcement and the appearance at the convention more a statement of "You're going to find out anyway, so you might as well find out from us that we have nothing to hide. Here we are. This is what we are. Come what may."? Two completely different but valid outlooks on the same events.

That response actually went through a couple revisions. At first I included a couple sentences about needing to analyze cause/effect relationships. I removed it partly because of space constraints (I think I was limited to 250 characters or something), but mostly because I didn't think it was a very good way to say what I wanted to get across, and that was the need to think about driving motivations behind a decision. Similar idea to cause effect, which tied in like this: Did the political advantage cause the release of the information? Or did the release of the information for other reasons ALSO happen to have some political impact? My argument is the latter, but trying to frame the question in those terms is awkward at best, because the bit of truth in Joe's statement of "everything in a campaign is a calculated political move..." is that it is likely that whatever the McCain/Palin campaign's reasons for the actions they took, rest assured that they did NOT ignore the political ramifications of those actions.

So while it's true that just about everything a candidate does, and says (at least the stuff that's planned ahead of time) is calculated and analyzed, it does NOT mean that the results of that analysis are the primary decision drivers behind the actions. For instance, John McCain knows that politically, promoting campaign finance reform is harmful to him among the conservative base, he still does it. Case in point right there. Not all decisions are purely politically driven.

The Baby Boomer Generation... The root

2008-03-06T00:00:00.001-07:00

The reason the baby boomer generation is so spoiled... the baby boom generation itself tends to come from people who just recently endured both the Great Depression and World War 2.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that during the following years, from about 1947 on, that those who had experienced those terrible things would have realized that the source of happiness in the world lies in family life? This explains two things... one being how very much family and socially centered society was in the 50's, as a direct response to the horror of the previous 20 years. The parents raising children in this time would have gone to great lengths to make sure their kids never went through what they did...

But the push was too hard, too far... the spring was pulled too far by the depression/war, now the oscillation went the other way, too far... to the point of TV ads where, "Remember, the woman's place is in the home and dinner should be on by 5" (this could also be a direct backlash from the very necessary period during the war when all the men were off fighting, so the women manned the factories and shipyards).

This gave children two things... an overly protected, idealized childhood, encouraged by a society that, fresh out of war, was rightly determined to do their own personal part to give their children a peaceful life.

Second, by going too far in advertising and pushing family ideals, this paved the way for a NEW backlash, this time going the other way. The modern women's movement being one product (of many).

Except instead of going away or scaling back when it's perfectly good and respectable goals were accomplished, it unleashed, combined with the pampered, self-absorbed generation who never knew sacrifice or true evil in the world, an irresponsible fury that we now see manifest in the modern race, gender and sexuality "leaders" (Think Maureen Dowd, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson)

As it should be

2008-01-25T11:09:00.001-07:00

Watch the whole thing:

Editorials: Our View: Guns give meaning to protection | year, old, shot - Appeal-Democrat.com

2008-01-24T17:44:00.000-07:00

Editorials: Our View: Guns give meaning to protection | year, old, shot - Appeal-Democrat.com

One of those rare newspaper editorials that supports and affirms an individual's right to use force defensively. Note that this was NOT picked up in the NYT or any other major newspaper for that matter. (H/T: Alphecca)

Colorado Springs deserves an award. In three consecutive months, private citizens have taken responsibility to stop violent crime in its tracks, shooting five violent predators. They've sent a powerful message to criminals everywhere, and it goes like this: There's no easy prey in Colorado Springs.

...

Police can't be the only plan. It's not their primary role to enjoin crimes in progress — an unreasonable expectation of the public. Most cops would like to interrupt violent crime, but it's impossible in almost every case. What if the only hope of congregants at New Life had been the police? Many more could have died — even though the first police units arrived quickly.

Good YouTube clip about the Clinton AR ban

2008-01-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

The music may be a little over-done, but there's nothing factually incorrect or misleading about the clip. Well worth a watch, especially if you think the Assault Weapons Ban, commonly refered to as the Brady Bill, was a good idea and should be revived.

Manufacturing Hate Crimes

2007-12-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

I liked this passage from this Mike Adams Column about people who try to get offended or make up hate crimes...

In 1999, after a UNCW faculty member falsely accused a chair of sexual harassment, she too tried to invoke the language of hate crimes to garner sympathy from the university community. I tried to convince one of my liberal colleagues in the Faculty Senate to press for the punishment of faculty who manufacture false claims of harassment and “hate criminality.” This fell on deaf ears as he suspected that such measures would deter people from making real claims when actually victimized. I stopped short of asking him whether counterfeiting U.S. currency should be made legal lest it deter people from doing their jobs at the U.S. Treasury Department.

A small sampling from one source

2007-12-18T23:00:00.001-07:00

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Pasted from <http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html>

FBI Crime statistics:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Canada Statistics for last 5 years:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm

John Lott's website: Author of "More guns, less crime" and "The Bias against guns"

http://www.johnlott.org/

Current Issues Blog:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Op-Ed's

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/list.html

Academic Papers:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=16317

Confessions of a political junkie: How often do candidates do stuff like this without the press around?

2007-12-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting story I came across today:

Today I got an email via my dad that he got from an old high school friend of his. This friend, from Murray, Utah, was forwarding an email from her friend in California, specifically San Diego where fires raged just a short while ago. Apparently, a certain Reed Fisher, whose home and property were damaged by the fire, got a call from someone in the local LDS Church offering to help clean up. After telling them about a burnt tree with 20 year old roots that he had been unable to remove, the brother showed up at 7 AM on a Wednesday morning, along with his father, who turned out to be none other than Mitt Romney...minus the press corp.

Here's the link to the original story:
Confessions of a political junkie: How often do candidates do stuff like this without the press around?

The right to vote. Specifically in Florida

2007-08-31T09:54:00.000-06:00

Another placeholder post. I just wanted to capture this thought. Hopefully I'll come back to write more later...

Updated Link -- It's right this time...
"The Voting Rights Act... merely sets forth criteria that cannot be used to deny a vote to certain people if and when the state decides that a vote is going to be held. "

The Time Traveler and the Century War

2007-08-26T22:32:00.000-06:00

I wanted to post this, not because I know what I want to do with it or say about it, but I don't want to lose the reference, because I still think about the story occasionally. Heck, I may have already posted it. I'm not sure. I'll figure it out later.

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

2007-02-23T18:22:00.000-07:00

Saw the following comment on This editorial involving women using guns for self defense. I haven't laughed so hard all week. Enjoy!

"Stop, I've got a gun"...no,no,no

What should be said is something to the effect of:
"I've got a gun, keep coming."
"I've got a gun, make my day."
"What part of gun don't you understand."
"Put your fingers in your ears, this thing makes a hell of a racket"
"Which part do you want me to blow off first"
"The next flash you see will be followed by your arrival in hell"
"Let's see, at fifty cents per shot, you're soon going to be worth three dollars"
"Oh boy, a live target for a change"
My advice to all is shoot first and ask for more ammunition. I know, easy for me to say, but scumbag criminals are deserving of a dose of justice also, and since the courts are clogged with future POTUS candidates/lawyers filing frivilous lawsuits, its every citizen's duty to help lessen the backlog.Plan ahead, know that your home is your castle and NO ONE has the right to invade. Protect yourself because the police and courts aren't there when the scumbag is breaking in.Good luck and good shooting!I'm thankful three women are safe today, no thanks to the anti-gun 2A jerks.

Bill of non-rights

2006-10-04T20:16:00.000-06:00

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt
ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always willbe.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to
work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Governmentium

2006-07-13T19:32:00.000-06:00

GOVERNMENTIUM:

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium." Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected because it impedes every action with which it comes into contact. A second's worth of exposure to Governmentium will cause any action to take four hundred times longer to complete, and cost five times as much.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (aka Bureaucratium) - an element which radiates as much energy as the Governmentium, but has half as many peons and twice as many morons.

Rise and fall of a master

2006-03-19T12:45:00.000-07:00

Reason: Stand and Deliver Revisited: The untold story behind the famous rise -- and shameful fall -- of Jaime Escalante, America�s master math teacher.

If any of you are familiar with the movie, or perhaps have heard of Escalante's fabulous work, read this.

'Long war' is breaking down into tedium

2006-03-06T09:50:00.000-07:00

'Long war' is breaking down into tedium: "Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the 'vast majority' of Muslims are, of course, impeccably 'moderate.' So what? There were millions of 'moderate' Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them."

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Bogus rights by Walter E. Williams - Feb 8, 2006

2006-02-08T10:05:00.000-07:00

In a wonderful column by Walter E. Williams, he explains a few things about rights and why things like food, housing, and healthcare are not rights and thus cannot be found anywhere in the constitution.

Let's start with what defines a right:

The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another.

Going on,

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing...If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? ...So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

Furthermore,

Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: What Hamas teaches us about Islam, Iraq, and democracy by Ben Shapiro - Feb 1, 2006

2006-02-01T23:05:00.000-07:00

Townhall.com :: Columns :: What Hamas teaches us about Islam, Iraq, and democracy by Ben Shapiro - Feb 1, 2006

Hypocricy of life

2005-11-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

Haven't you noticed it's usually the same group of people who "mourn" every american soldier killed and obsess over the body count....the same people who will defend to the death the "right" of a pregnant woman to have her baby slaughtered for any reason whatsoever. Which is it?

Sick

Abstinence -- The final solution

2005-11-21T13:49:00.000-07:00

It is indisputable that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Therefore, I submit that this is where the majority of the effort should be spent in education.

Consider the following as logical consequences of a widespread total embrace of abstinence, even without any moral considerations:

Primary effects:

1. Unwed pregnancy and births would drop to zero (rape excepted, but we'll address that in a minute)
2. Because of #1, abortions would decline by 99+%
3. Within two generations (if not sooner) STD's would be all but eradicated

Secondary effects:

4. The pornography industry would all but die
5. Due to 4, the incidence of rape per capita would be reduced by 99+%
6. Due to 3, money currently being spent on STD research could be diverted into other endeavors, such as cancer research or refunded as tax cuts. The positive economic impact would be profound.
7. Health care costs across the board would decrease slightly, as doctors, specialists, funds, and resources currently tied up in treating victims of irresponsibility could be distributed back through the medical field and automatically we would have an upsurge in the supply side of medicine and healthcare.
8. Due to 1,2,3 overall quality of living for everybody (but especially the poor, who are hit hardest by the associated problems) would rise dramatically, relieving them almost completely of the burdens associated with single mother households and abusive family situations.
9. Due to 4, overall sadistic crime (sexual assault, murder, domestic abuse) would drop drastically, further contributing to a higher standard of living for all groups of people.

This is obviously not a comprehensive list, but it is all directly derivative of a simple concept that everybody already knows, but few are willing to accept.

Who's lying about Iraq?

2005-11-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

Lots of great references in this piece. It's long but well worth the read.

Commentary

GM Cuts 30,000 jobs

2005-11-21T10:18:00.000-07:00

FOXNews.com - Business - GM to Close Nine Plants, Lay Off 30,000: "GM has been grappling with high health-care and commodities costs, loss of U.S. market share to foreign rivals, and slumping sales of large sport utility vehicles that used to be its profit centers, but have now lost popularity due to high gasoline prices."

Comments?

Vonnegut talks about Terrorists - Updated

2005-11-19T10:06:00.000-07:00

Kurt Vonnegut, prominent author and anti-war commentator, has some rather inflammatory comments about terrorists...Or does he?

Upon reading this post at Espella Humanzee, I got to thinking about some of the knee jerk opposition to statements like Vonnegut's: Here's an example from E.H.

"He praised terrorists as "very brave people". I suppose he supports the murder of innocent men, women, and children, too?

I cannot wait for the morally bankrupt sixties generation and their "anti-heros" to pass away into the nothingness that spawned them.

While Vonnegut does add some anti-American, anti-Capitalist statements, I'm more interested in only his statements about the terrorists themselves, and not about the terrorists' reaction to the US, or their supposed purpose. For instance,

"I regard them as very brave people, yes."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

"They are dying for their own self-respect,"

I don't think those comments all by themselves signify support of terrorists...Think of it this way: Adolf Hitler, for as terrible as he was...He really was a great leader. He had a natural talent for stirring up excitement and passion in large crowds. That doesn't mean I support, admire, or condone anything about him, it's a statement of facts.

Any open, intellectually honest discussion must necessarily include a discussion of objective traits, and an honest evaluation. That said, however, I don't think Vonnegut is completely neutral, given his record of strong anti-bush, anti-war. Even still though, even in condemning terrorism, it's okay to recognize and understand some of the things Vonnegut talks about, maybe the anticipation of death, the "high"...Stuff like that...With the caveat that it cannot be allowed to alter the important conclusions of, "these people must not be allowed to do these things". It's all about recognizing what's important and what isn't, and separating what is significant from what is not.

The other parallel I can think of is using Nazi medical knowledge captured after liberating the death camps where these horrible experiments were performed. A good civilization would never perform those experiments, and, having knowledge of them, would move heaven, earth and hell to stop them...But after all efforts have been made, upon discovery of the completed work...There should be no reason not to integrate the knowledge into modern science. The simple mind believes that the method of collection dictates the use, but in reality, the method of collection and the data itself are unrelated.

Back to Vonnegut and objective characteristics of terrorists, there are three questions, "what motivates them?", "what do they do?", and "what should we do about them?". The first question is irrelevant to the other two, which are actionable.

Additionally, Vonnegut's statement, "They are dying for their own self-respect," I believe is true, but not for the reasons he cites. Ultimately all people are driven by a need to feel important, or respected. This is always variable depending on that person's hierarchy of values. For the suicide bomber, they're out to define themselves as dying for a cause they believe in. It doesn't matter if the cause is good, bad, or indifferent... The important thing to them is they believe it is, and derive their worth, self-respect and mission from it. Where I disagree with Vonnegut is in his assertion that it has been the USA corporations that have deprived these people of their self-respect. Nobody can take away another person's self respect without the consent of that person.

Update 11/21 10:46: I want to add comments and discussion directly to the original to get more exposure, because there is more to understand.

Comment from Espella Humanzee

I don't understand how blowing up an innocent Iraqi child into dozens of bloody pieces can be termed a brave act.
I can't comprehend how any human being can derive their self respect by exploding a bomb in the midst of joyous wedding party.
I won't explain away the act of beheading a young man as he is bound and screaming for his life.
Vonnegut uses methods and madness of the left to excuse barbaric inhuman behavior. These monsters don't need to be explained or understood. They need to be stopped.

Bravery and honor should not be used interchangeably. Usually they are used together, but when you stop and think about it, they are fundamentally different concepts. Blowing up a busload of children is evil, barbaric, and sadistic. I think "brave" would need more examination. The use of language is a delicate art, really. I think when we throw around words too much, they lose their real meaning. Such as the left calling everything they disagree with "hate speech". It has become so that the word "hate" has lost all real meaning. Similarly, bravery and honor are used together so often and so completely that when one is used, the other is assumed to be implied. Such is not always the case.
Keep in mind, I'm not "explaining away" or supporting Vonnegut or any of the left's defenses of terrorism, merely using them as a springboard for discussion on the use of language and precise definitions. Even when those definitions have connotations usually reserved for contradictory ideas.
One definition of bravery is, "a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain without showing fear."
By a strict definition, could the bombers be exhibiting bravery by facing death without fear? On a personal level (personal to the individual bomber), I think that could be an accurate descriptor. Does this imply honor or any form of goodness? Most certainly not. Perhaps as a general strategy (as applied to a group, the terrorists), bravery would have no application at all. As we know, the majority of the actual suicide bombers are young, naive recruits who are invigorated by rhetoric and indoctrination, who then show up at a camp and say, "I want to die for the glory of Allah." The USE of these young men has no shred of bravery, but does that necessarily mean bravery cannot be exhibited on an individual level?
On self respect, are not these same young men taught that it is respectful to die killing infidels? Few humans will act voluntarily in a manner inconsistent with their value systems, from which they decide what they feel is good and respectful and what is not. The fact that these people have horribly wrong, twisted, purely evil views, does not negate the fact that they feel what they are doing is good.
The important difference in analysis is in the belief that not all value systems are of equal value. Those who use this same language to excuse immoral behavior (or more accurately to demonize those who they mutually disagree with) believe that there is no such thing as good and evil, or that the feelings they are explaining are justified because of actions taken against the group in question. Whereas a different world view states that it even with an understanding of evil behavior, this behavior is still evil, and to come to the conclusion, "we are right and they are wrong", or more generally, "This behavior is evil and other behavior is good in and of itself, independent of the motivations behind it".

Update 2 11/21 11:13:

I also don't believe the goals of understanding and eradication are mutually exclusive. They may not be co-dependant, but that doesn't mean some of the characteristics can't be spoken of accurately. No praise is necessary, but I believe accuracy and clarity in describing both actions, and right/wrong is absolutely essential. Any time fact/truth has to be ignored to avoid weaking a popular position, the validity of the position needs to be evaluated, and/or the conclusions drawn from the facts need to be re-examined. Is that not the very concept we try to argue to liberals when they ignore things like the WMDs that have been found in Iraq, or that the senate voted to authorize war?

I'm not saying the conclusions need to change, I'm just saying that accurate description of motivations of terrorists does not affect the validity of the need to eliminate and/or restrain their ability to make the rest of our lives' miserable.

Update 3 11/21 11:44:
An exactly accurate description of something must necessarily agree with a perfect moral judgement. It does everyone a disservice to dismiss all discussion based on a pre-existing moral conclusion or vice versa. This is not to say the pre-existing conclusion is wrong, or that discussion can or should alter the conclusion, but what's wrong with understanding the world? My whole point is that it is possible to simultaneously make a moral judgement and an intellectual evaluation, and have both be 100% valid independent of one another.
The reason this doesn't happen much is because nobody on earth has a perfect knowledge of how to accurately evaluate all things, therefore percieved descrepencies in an objective evaluation vs a moral judgement must necessarily come from an incomplete understanding of one or the other. Or both.

The House thinks we're there to stay

2005-11-19T09:23:00.000-07:00

403 - 3.

That's the vote against immediate pullout from Iraq in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is a good thing, and might help undo some of the damage caused by that idiotic vote in the Senate earlier in the week.'

Update: Great commentary from Powerline

More on WMDs and Inspections

2005-11-19T00:05:00.001-07:00

Where the WMDs Went is an interview with Bill Tierney, "a former military intelligence officer...also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq."

You wanna know what the inspectors "didn't" find? read this article

New Iraq Documents and WMD info

2005-11-19T00:05:00.000-07:00

Espella Humanzee | Conservative Man: Playing with Grenades -- He found it first...but the direct link is just below:

Apparently the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team has found some incriminating documents adding to the list of evidence tying Saddam to Al Qaida, and proving that he actively hid WMD.

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California. By Richard Rushfield

2005-11-18T14:10:00.000-07:00

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California. By Richard Rushfield

Michelle Malkin: DUMB MSM EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY

2005-11-16T16:05:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin: DUMB MSM EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY

Good news....if only

2005-11-09T20:03:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't it be so nice to have a news channel where, 24/7 they reported good news? I think that would be a real great break from the body counts, the missing children, the murders, the environmental disasters, high gas prices, and all that stuff. I wonder what kind of capital expense it takes to start up a cable news channel? I know Fox News Channel was up and going for years before it ever really gained traction. Would people have to discover it on their own? Would other news networks cover it like everybody did when Air America Radio started up?

I don't know the first thing about creating a news channel, but if I could, I think I would. I'd make one that spent most of it's time on good news...focusing on what is good about America and the world, the successful aspects of the War on Terror, updates on good economic developments, encouragement from our neighbors, etc. I bet it could be done with the right combination of optimistic people, and some investment money.

So, anybody willing to lend me some money and see if it can be done? I'm willing to give it a shot.

Can't wait to see where this leads...

2005-11-09T16:53:00.000-07:00

Voters in San Fransisco voted to ban handguns outright (police and security guards excepted), and also to ban the sale, manufacture, distribution and transfer of all firearms and ammunition.

Here's what's going to happen: Law abiding citizens will turn in their guns...the criminals won't. Violent crime will increase because now the criminals know that the good people of SF will no longer have handguns with which to protect themselves, and those who have long guns will be unable to buy ammo within the city...

Liberal naivete is going to get more good people killed and robbed. Idiots.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Windfall profits by Walter E. Williams

2005-11-09T10:42:00.000-07:00

For those of you who think oil companies should "be held accountable" or "give back" their profits for the last few quarters, here's an explanation of how profits work in a supply and demand driven economy.

The short version is supply and demand, along with rising prices, help to bring supply to where a commodity is needed. Creating impediments to profit and supply side business only serve to create shortages and damage economic well being of a country, region or state.

Time out

2005-11-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

I'll be taking a couple days off from blogging and commenting and such for a business trip. Don't get too lonely without me! Nobody responded to my offer to analyze the G.A.O post-election report, so I'm going to assume nobody wants actual facts presented firsthand.

See y'all on Monday

The good news from Iraq is not fit to print - The Boston Globe

2005-11-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

The good news from Iraq is not fit to print - The Boston Globe

Read the article....I'll write about it later if I have time

Democrats' Poll numbers

2005-11-03T11:48:00.000-07:00

Hmm...looks like the President isn't the only one with low poll numbers...Check this out from Espella Humanzee

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey. Oct. 6-10, 2005. "Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?"
Approve 32%
Disapprove 48%
Unsure 20%

Liberals on Bush

2005-11-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager just made an interesting point on his radio show. Liberals and Democrats have worked to portray Bush as less than intelligent, yet they endow him with super human abilities to know things that nobody else knows, and to orchestrate massive PR campaigns, wars, etc.

Niger's Uranium

2005-11-03T11:29:00.000-07:00

From the State department: Niger's top exports are Uranium and livestock.

Saddam didn't go to Niger for cows. Whether or not he actually bought any yellowcake uranium from Niger is immaterial. The fact that he tried is proof that he was serious about his nuclear ambitions.

Uranium in Iraq

2005-11-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

From newsmax.com regarding the New York Times (of all places) reporting on Saddam's stockpile of Uranium:

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

UPDATE: From WSJ Editorial (free registration required),

Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or how about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Oil money

2005-11-02T17:32:00.000-07:00

I just heard on the radio that some people in congress are pushing a bill that would make oil companies pay a lot of money out to poor people who "can't afford their heating bill". Do you know what that's going to do? It's going to raise energy prices because energy companies are going to have to make up the lost revenue somehow.

Unbelievable

New Template Updates!!!

2005-11-02T12:39:00.000-07:00

For someone like me who isn't particularly well versed in HTML, it's exciting to add new features to my blog, in this case the biggest one is the new field, "Links to this post" which allows others to easily link to my posts in their posts. Whether or not anybody will do that is up to them, but the option's there, which is good. Now all I have to do is come up with something interesting enough to say that people will want to quote it!

On another note, I can't believe "Blog" isn't in Blogger's spellcheck database. How strange is that?!?!

Intellectually ignorant Left

2005-11-01T17:23:00.000-07:00

This column by Dennis Prager explains quite well something I'd been thinking about today as I was responding to a hateful, dismissive and abusive attack on me at another blog by a liberal who thinks I'm an evil heartless bastard or something to that effect.

I don't even remember the exact words...Well, here's what this person said to me:

How else could you possibly back up a statement like this: "No, I don't believe corporations should pay taxes." Good God... you give me the freakin creeps with every comment of yours I read... you are absolute pure unadulterated evil.

Is this person's sense of good and evil really THAT tied to how tax money is collected?

Anger and taxation

2005-11-01T09:10:00.000-07:00

All you hear anymore from the left is how "Angry" and "Outraged" they are at this or that in the government. It almost doesn't matter what it is, from not enough taxes on the hated rich, to a car accident some republican was in 20 years ago, to the whole Rove/Libby/Plame affair, to disaster response...And then in the same breath we hear that the government is running out of money, that there's a huge deficit and the way to fix it is to give the government more money. I ask this: If the government is so corrupt, so evil, so imperialist, so fascist (not my words), then why do liberals constantly lobby to transfer more and more and more of our hard earned money to them? Seems like the people should hold the government accountable for waste by not giving them any more until they've learned to use what they have. Instead it's more like, "Oh, the bucket is full of holes, we need to put more water into it faster to keep it from drying up" While any attempt to fix the holes is denounced as "Racist! Fascist! Bigot! You Hate the Poor! That Bucket has every RIGHT to be full of holes! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON THE BUCKET!"

TaxProf Blog: Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies' Profits

2005-10-31T16:30:00.000-07:00

TaxProf Blog: Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies' Profits

Minimum Wage, Taxes and Poverty

2005-10-31T14:43:00.000-07:00

The following is a response to this comment in a discussion of raising minimum wage.

Costco has a good business model. No dispute there. But that doesn't mean every company will or should operate that way. Costco's business model is based around a very specific market need (high volume non-retail distribution). Not very many other businesses enjoy the perks that come along with that market. For instance, it takes much less energy to operate one gigantic freezer than a hundred little ones...And so on. Business decisions are MUCH more complicated than wages and prices.

Questions about sweat shops and child labor are absurd, of course I don't support those things... people should open their minds enough to realize that there are perfectly viable options BETWEEN slave labor and a $22 minimum wage. Thinking in black and white "there's my way or the wrong way" will never accomplish anything. A well balanced combination of regulation and freedom is in everybody's best interest...When the scale tips too far to one side or the other, everybody gets screwed.

No, I don't believe corporations should pay taxes...Here's why: They don't anyway...Yet they waste billions upon billions of dollars every year just trying to comply with tax codes...Business decisions are based on how to minimize taxes, operations are moved overseas because it's cheaper to do business there because of oppressive tax compliance costs almost as much as the taxes themselves, which aren't coming out of a company's profits, they're coming from the consumer anyway. Corporations are nothing more than a conduit through which tax money flows and gets wasted in the mean time.

/that's the end of my response in that thread....

Going on, Karena is quite wrong in saying I see minimum wage as a tax. It isn't...It's a governmentally imposed lower limit on what an employee can be paid. The other major difference is, taxes are not voluntary. Minimum wage is. Any employer can refuse to hire someone, and thus not have to pay them anything. With a higher minimum wage, more employers will do this to keep their costs down, increasing the workload on the employed, and reducing the number of available jobs. The idea that "if the federal minimum wage were raised, nothing else would change" is atrociously ignorant, naive, or both.

More interesting commentary

2005-10-31T09:36:00.000-07:00

This should be self-evident, but it's really not for a lot of people, especially liberals. There is a difference between fact and opinion. A fact is that there are many poor people in the United States. An opinion is that raising minimum wage is the best way to help them. A fact is that raising minimum wage has problems of it's own, some of null effect, some of great long term effect. What I can't understand is people who believe that their solution to any given problem is correct because they feel good about it. What happened to analyzing any given situation and solution based on the individual pros and cons of the presented solutions, and working to combine or learn from various solutions to come up with a better solution? Yet all we hear are the same recycled arguments from both sides that their idea is best and the other idea will ruin the world, frighten children and bruise fruit.

Spelling and habit

2005-10-31T09:33:00.000-07:00

I know how to spell the words, argument, realization, and government. Yet almost without fail every time I type them without thinking, it's arguement, realisation, and governmnet. Why is that? it's not just an error, it's a consistent error. What is it about typing or maybe quick thinking, or...I'm not sure. But there's gotta be some psychological reason or explanation, perhaps muscle memory?

Lesson 1: Don't lie

2005-10-30T23:37:00.000-07:00

The power of distributed intelligence is a new force to be reckoned with compared to the MSM...News cycles have been reduced from 24 hours to mere minutes...I long for the day when politicians won't even bother to lie anymore because there will be people like this guy to figure it out

Black unemployment and Government waste

2005-10-30T22:39:00.000-07:00

This post got me thinking about unemployment while I was reading the comments. While I'm all for helping people in need, I really don't think the government ought to be doing it. No honest person can say the U.S. government is especially good at managing domestic affairs. It seems that every time they create another department and cabinet position to respond to every little need, all it ends up doing is wasting the taxpayers' (my) money and giving little if anything in return.

Case in point: Transportation Security Administration -- Last time I flew, I arrived at the checkpoint with half a dozen or so other passengers, walked right up to the belt, started unpacking my laptop and noticed that there were no fewer than thirty TSA shirts walking around doing...mostly nothing. Is this the government's idea of creating jobs? I suppose in a literal sense, yes, these people have jobs...but what are they really accomplishing? I daresay that randomly strip searching every tenth person to walk through their gate has yielded few bombs out of how many million shoes they've inspected? It's a joke, really...

I say issue every passenger a .22 cal pistol with one round upon boarding the plane, collect it when they leave, and simply do away with the TSA entirely. This would solve two problems: One, all that talented labor will be freed up to contribute to society in more productive ways, and second, NOBODY is gonna try and hijack a an airline when every passenger is armed.

The only way a plane could be commandeered then, is if every passenger were in on the hijacking. In which case at least one of them would probably have their name red-flagged when they bought their e-ticket (but seriously, is a terrorist gonna use their own name when buying a ticket?), causing an automatic full background check of every passenger. This procedure would cost practically nothing compared to the real expenses of the TSA (a one time investment of several hundred thousand pistols and maybe a couple bucks a month per airport for ammo), and would completely elliminate the terrorist threat to our skys. Sure, there are some details that would need to be figured out, like how to keep a stupid person from firing that first shot...even though he'd be quickly removed from the gene pool by the REST of the passengers, that first individual victim is still...well, not enjoying the fruits of picking a fight over the little bag of salted peanuts.

Getting back to homelessnes though, with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens streaming into our country every year, all of them by definition homeless when they get here, how do so many of them manage to find jobs? Surely there has to be something more to homelessness than societal smearing...how many intelligent, coherent, get up and go type people do you see sleeping in the streets on a daily basis? Those who are resourceful and willing to take care of themselves will always make ends meet. Those who want everything handed to them...will keep complaining about the government as if anyone's listening. The problem is, people are, and all you hear is, "but what is the government doing for the homeless?" as they fly overhead in their $800,000 private jets with their personal makeup artist.

The problem I see with a lot of liberal arguments for government hand out programs is they're all based on compassion. Compassion in and of itself is a wonderful virtue, but it must be understood that in Washington by and large, the compassion of the voters is used and manipulated into vote buying programs to keep the politicians in power. Whenever someone objects, proponents of the spending scream "You don't care about the poor" or the homeless or whoever the target of the program is. The problem is, it's rarely true. Ironicly most of these programs backfire so badly they hurt those they are designed to "help". Another problem is, the "you don't care" argument has nothing to do with the objection, especially when the motive behind the opposition IS compassion...and a disagreement about how best to execute that compassion and gain the maximum effect.

Compassion without brains is not only useless, it gets people killed. Combine compassion with creativity and long term planning, and you can have a real winner. Also absent in the "you don't care about X" argument is the realization that there can be more than one solution to any given problem. Just because a solution has been proposed, does not mean it is the best, or even effective.

Iraqis show their thanks

2005-10-30T18:20:00.000-07:00

Most things people do to or for someone else are returned in kind. In the case of Iraq, here's a glowing example of how a newly liberated people responds with generosity towards those suffering.
Iraqi Soldiers Donate to Katrina Victims - DefendAmerica News Article

FEMA not required

2005-10-28T08:42:00.000-06:00

The World According to ME!: Amusing...

Up here in the Northern Plains we just recovered from a Historic event --- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 24" inches of snow and winds to 50 MPH that broke trees in half, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed all roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.
George Bush did not come.... FEMA staged nothing.... No one howled for the government... No one even uttered an expletive on TV... Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards..... No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.... No news anchors moved in.
We just melted snow for water, sent out caravans to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars, fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Aladdin lamps and put on an extra layer of clothes.
Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early... we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves. Everybody is fine.

Interesting notes about Jim Crow

2005-10-27T10:56:00.000-06:00

Thomas Sowell has the details

OT: Nigerian scam baiting

2005-10-27T10:48:00.000-06:00

When you click on this link it'll say the site's certificate has been revoked....ignore it and proceed...read everything, and I guarantee you'll fall off your chair laughing.

Tau Beta Pi Forums - View topic - your share of the $21.5 million Nigerian lost funds

"I gave them a sword"

2005-10-27T09:52:00.000-06:00

The bringing down of the Harriet Miers nomination will be a black mark on the republican punditry for a long time to come. They have abandoned what we fought for during the earlier judicial nominations: An up or down vote on the floor of the senate for all nominees. Despicable. Hypocrites.

When we love our children

2005-10-26T22:07:00.000-06:00

It cannot be stressed enough that the world will never be free of violence as long as there are people who hate their enemies more than they love their children. The girl here is a direct victim of senseless violence that seeks only to destroy, not in self defense, but raw murder. A civilized man will never do anything to endanger his family, and will do everything to protect them.

Iran Calls For Destruction of Israel, Palestinians Try to Oblige.

Iraq Democracy Stronger Than Ever

2005-10-26T21:28:00.000-06:00

In a historic moment, the people of Iraq spoke 78% in favor of the new constitution. Morale for the terrorists has never been lower. They see their power and ability to frighten and terrorize slipping away replaced by fear for their lives as Iraq's security forces grow ever more powerful by the day, while those of the terrorists are slowly whittled down to nothing. There is cause for all Americans to celebrate, for we have won the war.

Austin Bay via Real Clear Politics tells us a story of the democratic revolution as it takes hold in Iraq and wins the hearts and minds of the people there.

There will always be setbacks to progress. Nothing good has ever come without a price. But make no mistake, Iraq is a victory in every sense of the word. A war executed and soundly won in near record time (six day war excepted, Go Israel!), a brutal and murderous dictator replaced by a functioning democracy with higher voter turnout than most U.S. States, and a growing standard of living unparalleled in the region. It is a proud day to be an American, standing side by side with our new friends, the people of democratic Iraq.

Conspiracies and coincidence

2005-10-26T13:25:00.000-06:00

I got to thinking about all the various conspiracy theories out there, specifically ones that take every tenth word out of a letter someone wrote to find a hidden meaning, for instance. The architects of the English language (and probably others, but I only speak English), most noteably God probably have an interesting sense of humor. After all, He made me... But back to language, it's actually kind of fun to find the little things such as anagrams of Princess Diana = End is a car spin, or Year Two Thousand = A Year to shut down.

Yet when you think about each of those, Princess Diana has 13 letters. That's why she was unlucky, right? Mathematically, you could rearrange those letters 13! ways (ignoring spaces and assuming duplicate letters like "s" to be distinct), which multiplies out to 6,227,020,800 possible combinations. The chances are good that many of those will make some kind of sense in just about any language, and of those, probably a few will have something in common with the original subject.

Following similar analysis, something like a speech, news article, or other written text, often has hundreds, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of words. With every added word, letter, phrase or sentence, the mathematical complexity of such a construct would grow very quickly to being unimaginably complicated. In the world of computer encryption, using a key composed of 1's and 0's (that's two possible characters) that is 128 bits long, has a complexity of 2^128. This is considered unbreakable. If someone were to encode a secret message using only letters of the english language, the same 128 character key would be more than fifty orders of magnitude more complex. (an order of magnitude is basically adding a zero on the end, essentially multiplying by 10). Compound that with say... a 14,000 word English dictionary... With all those innumerable possibilites, I'm sure someone could find a code that translates this very post you're reading into a section of the communist manifesto, or a recipie for making mosquito bread.

In short, it's laughably easy to conceal information, and it's even easier to find things that aren't there.

Some thoughts on New Orleans

2005-10-26T11:09:00.000-06:00

Nicole Gelinas has a great article about some of the real problems facing New Orleans, as well as some of the successes. For all those two cry racism was the cause of poverty, Nicole notes, "New Orleans has a 28 percent poverty rate, and yes, New Orleans is 67 percent black. But nearly two-thirds of New Orleans’s blacks aren’t poor." Just as important a contributor to that city's social status is the horrible murder rate. 59 murders per 100,000 people, compared to New York City's seven. That's eight times the national average for those of you keeping track. And if that's not bad enough, durring Katrina rescue efforts, "The coroner’s early report implies that the murder rate among those stranded in Katrina’s aftermath was at least five times New Orleans’s normal murder rate. This real, not imagined, violence prevented New Orleans from getting the level of volunteer and professional help it needed after Katrina."

The whole article is long, but a wonderful read. Definitely take the time to read it in it's entirety.

UPDATE: Another section that's a must read in case you don't read the whole thing:

Before Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department took much of the blame for the rising murder rate. The force is not up to professional standards of interrogating witnesses and suspects and of collecting evidence for prosecution. Worse, just a week before Katrina hit, one cop was arrested for alleged rape and kidnapping; ten others have been arrested on criminal charges over the past two years, “ranging from shoplifting to conspiracy to rob a bank,” the Times-Picayune reports.

But federal officials and outside observers say that in fact the department, before Katrina, was a vastly improved force compared with the pre-Pennington era. Moreover, a dysfunctional prosecutor’s office and a dysfunctional state judicial system, in which only one in four murder arrests ends in a conviction, undermine the force. Only 32 percent of felony drug distributors go to jail after conviction, compared with 66 percent nationwide. Some judges mysteriously and repeatedly release violent-crime suspects on bail. From improper collection of evidence to poor prosecution to lenient and inconsistent sentencing, New Orleans cannot keep its drug dealers and violent criminals behind bars. “The perception is that the state judicial system has failed,” says James Bernazzani, the FBI’s special agent in charge of New Orleans.

Clearly the system has failed here. My question is, where did so much corruption and systematic breakdown begin? That's an open ended question, I really don't know. It seems like it would take quite a lot for an entire police force to lose the will to enforce the law. I have some guesses, some involving political correctness and other liberal accidental suicide plots. Or maybe it's just good old fashioned corruption. Either way, something's not working.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Mr. Smith Has Returned to Washington and His Name is Tom Coburn by Mark Tapscott

2005-10-24T08:29:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Mr. Smith Has Returned to Washington and His Name is Tom Coburn by Mark Tapscott

Support Parental Notification

2005-10-23T00:29:00.000-06:00

California has a proposition on the ballot this November that would make it mandatory for a doctor performing an abortion to give parental notification 48 hours in advance of the procedure. Great idea.

Matt makes a good point in this post when he comments,

I mean, how can it be that a student could be suspended or expelled from high school for bringing aspirin to school, but that same student is allowed to placed under anesthesia and have surgery without supervision?

Froggy Ruminations: How to Know What Ballot Initiative to Vote For in California

Get this man into the white house

2005-10-22T23:27:00.000-06:00

Potential '08 contender Romney takes N.C. swing - Boston.com

Transparent Aluminum Oxynitride - The future of glass

2005-10-21T14:07:00.000-06:00

In yet another example of how military innovation creates the best of the best, the Air Force is testing new transparent armor.

This is too cool. vastly more scratch resistant than glass, and much stronger, this stuff has potential to make much better automotive windshields, industrial armor (trying to observe a machine through a piece of old, scratched and cracked safety glass is no picnic)...the possibilities are great. Sure the stuff's expensive now, but it will be further refined and developed. After all, when the laser was new, nobody had any idea of what to do with it.

Now THIS is Racism

2005-10-21T11:39:00.000-06:00

From Mike Adams' column, Dr. Kamau Kambon said the following on Oct 14th at Howard University:

And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we're not thinking about a solution to the problem. We're thinking about all these other things, but we're not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16 or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.

Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people. (Emphasis added)

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Exterminating Whitey by Mike S. Adams

Anyone who agrees with what Dr Kambon said or even thinks he has a shred of honesty is a racist. Pure and simple.

I really like Tom DeLay

2005-10-21T11:05:00.000-06:00

This guy's a master, really. Who thinks to dress up in a suit for a mugshot? Either he has a really twisted sense of humor, or he's just really smart. Way to go!!!

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today's Nuze

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Myths About Gun Control By John Stossel

2005-10-19T10:19:00.000-06:00

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Myths About Gun Control By John Stossel

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Colleges to avoid, Part I by Mike S. Adams

2005-10-12T09:45:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Colleges to avoid, Part I by Mike S. Adams

Alligator vs. Python

2005-10-07T10:54:00.000-06:00

See what happens when a 13' python tries to eat a 6' alligator

"The Hysterics of Political Correctness" by Gary Waltrip

2005-10-03T22:23:00.000-06:00

"The Hysterics of Political Correctness" by Gary Waltrip

Masculinity and the Twisted Feminist mind

2005-10-03T16:37:00.000-06:00

While browsing blogs today, I came across an interesting blurb responding to some teacher that resigned over punishing two male students by making them hold hands and calling them gay...well, good riddance for that teacher... but that's not the point...What I was more interested in was this blogger's reaction and explanation of the punishment itself. And I find entrenched a twisted, sexist world view that says that men who are offended by being called women are so because they hate women. Here is my reply:

Your conclusion from your linked previous post is wrong about why being called gay or girly is offensive to a man. It is not that said men hate women, it is because such an insult attempts to strip a man of the very thing that makes him who he is, his masculinity. Gender is such a fundamental aspect of a person's identity that the real threat is not that they abhor the idea of being a woman, it's that they can't stand being stripped of their identiy as a man. I know the feminist movement for some time now has prided itself on becoming more masculine, so the concept that a person's identity as either a man or a woman is absolute, and as much if not more so a part of who they are as anything else, is a foreign idea to most feminists and related thinkers. In their quest to demonize men without attempting to understand them, they find false cause and try to convince themselves that a given behavior stems from a hatred of women, instead of a profound respect and love for them.

Put another way, the insult/embarassment comes not from the man's hatred of women, but from the attempted nullification of his LOVE for women.

UPDATE: The response:

I like anyone, male or female, who is honest, compassionate, and not ignorant by choice. In my own life, that would include a number of men.

By saying that the feminist movement has become "more masculine," you have given yourself away, I'm afraid.

And I stand by my original statement: Really homophobic men have such intense feelings because they have a projected fear of becoming, in a sexual sense--the worst thing they can think of--a woman. Not because woman is the "other" and these men would cease to retain their natural masculine identity, as you say, but because they perceive women as passive receptacles whose role is to submit.

And my response:

Given myself away to what? It's a statement of fact that the feminist movement is interested in removing all societal distinctions between men and women, and they're doing it by forcing or perhaps coercing women into more masculine roles and activities. I'm by no means saying that everybody has to do what is "traditional," I recognize that individual circumstances necessitate adaptation... Just one example, women a hundred and fifty years ago were expected not to use crude language. They as a group decided that they wanted to swear and be gross just like the men.

There was once a time when men would be horribly ashamed to belch in the presence of a lady because women were regarded as too good for that kind of behavior.

All around we see left wing womens' advocacy groups saying, "we want to do everything men do" (even the horrible stuff) Once upon a time it was taboo for women to be sluts. Now it seems to be praised. Women, through the feminist movenemt have lowered themselves from the elite, respected class to participating in all the social garbage that has generally been restricted to men.

Two things that I believe are genuine positive developments of the feminist movement are a woman's right to vote and to own property. Maybe there are a couple more things I can't think of right now, but by and large, the Women's advocacy movement has been more and more concerned with replacing men in society with women. Whereas there is no corresponding movement by any men (none that are taken seriously by anybody outside of their own bubble, that is) to replace women as bearers and nurturers of children and as supremely important in keeping men's less refined tendancies from destroying the world.

Real men and sensible women know and understand that we need each other, and that each is a wonderful and essential part of any sort of meaningful life.

I do agree with you about liking people who are honest, compassionate and not willfully ignorant. I think that's a good point.

But what you have is an unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong about men, particularly when addressing someone who loves everything about women, holds them in extremely high regard, fights for thier honor, and will kill anyone who tries to castrate him.

Surprise for Supreme Court

2005-10-03T11:12:00.000-06:00

So Bush has nominated Harriet Miers, his White House Counsel. I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but I'm going to incline more towards Hugh Hewitt's optimistic outlook on the situation. Sadly most conservatives are blasting the nomination pretty hard, although it's interesting because most of the criticism and outright dismissal comes from a lack of information, as opposed to any significant reason to oppose her nomination. I think it's significant that President Bush has promised to nominate strict constructionists (people who think the constitution means what it says) to the supreme court, and at the moment there is no reason to believe this is not what he has done. There is nothing in the constitution that says a supreme court nominee must be a judge, it's simply the norm.

There are two possibilities I see here, one that the President has made a mistake in nominating a "crony" to the court...although personally I think that's extremely unlikely because George W. Bush is no idiot. After all, he did win two elections and two wars. I don't think he would nominate a "crony" just for that reason, because he must know that if that were the overriding reason, there's virtually no chance that person would be confirmed, with the Democrats scraming at the top of their lungs that he's playing favorites and putting his friends into power, and Republicans screaming that they want a proven conservative (both of which are happening, by the way). No, there must be something else at work here, and I'm willing to reserve judgement until we at least have more information.

The second possibility is that The President is playing a new game entirely. We all saw what happened with the Roberts nomination, going through practically uncontested (sure there was a lot of rhetoric and outright hatred of him, but when it mattered, he was confirmed easily by a super majority vote). This may be another absolute coup by the Bush Administration against the status quo, by the manipulation of the very nature of it's politically correct nature, ie, nomination of a woman, and also someone against whom nobody is prepared to fight.

This nomination reminds me of John Bolton's nomination to the U.N. In a way, what Bush is doing is nominating someone to the top level of an organization, who is previously outside the organization, and not already entrenched in the inherent problems of that organization. Also, as some have suggested, Miers would bring to the Supreme Court a unique perspective that could serve as an equalizing force within The Court and bring knowledge of what really goes on and why certain decisions are made.

Additionally, the fact that Miers is a good friend of Bush may not be a bad thing. Those that scream "Cronyism!" should step back and think for a bit what that means. It means that The President knows her very well, in a way that the other three hundred million of us do not. It is likely that they have had many, MANY conversations about the Court's decisions and judicial policy, since after all, she is among his closest advisors. Those who support our President, step back for a minute and give him the benefit of the doubt, less you become supporters in name only, and when the going gets rough or uncertain, you turn tail and run or jump on the disapointment bandwagon without going through all the possibilities. Yes Michelle, Lawrence, David, that means you.
I'm so sick of self-righeous extremists on both the left AND the right that believe that they, and they alone know what is right for the country, and anything that doesn't exactly match their view of how things should be is a "betrayal" as if anyone owes THEM anything. People like that disgust me to no end.

For the Christian / Conservative perspective, check out this series of posts over at World Mag Blog:

Pro 1
Pro 2
Pro 3
Pro 4
Pro 5
Con 1
Her Pastor's Opinion

Mr. Completely: Very Cool Machine Gun Video

2005-10-02T12:39:00.000-06:00

Mr. Completely: Very Cool Machine Gun Video

Internet sales tax project gets underway

2005-10-02T05:54:00.000-06:00

I love the last line..."Revenue starved governments"...and the $50,000,000 federally funded "gay and lesbian ethnic minority" museum has nothing to do with the budget problems? What passes for thought in some people's minds is truely astounding. Some days it's really hard to have faith in humanity.

Internet sales tax project gets underway

At least they're creative

2005-10-02T05:46:00.000-06:00

But that's where the acknowledgement ends and the mocking begins. Why? Well, there's this group called the Brady Coalition going around at Florida's airports handing out fliers warning visitors about a new law in Florida that gives property owners additional self defense rights. The insanity and intellectual dishonesty of these people is absolute. It's not difficult to infer that they believe all gun owners are psychotic killers who just want to shoot people for any reason. From the Miami Herald talking specifically about the fliers:

The new law ''may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities,'' the one-page flier reads. The ads will warn that after Oct. 1, visitors ''face a greater risk of bodily harm in Florida,'' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based advocacy group.

The fliers urge tourists to take precautions, such as: ''Do not argue unnecessarily with local people,'' and ''keep your hands in plain sight'' if you are involved in a traffic accident or a near-miss.

Then Hamm totally reveals either his ignorance, naivete, or dishonesty by saying, "We are not trying to scare people, the Florida Legislature scared people."

Jumping slightly off topic for a second here, I wonder if this is the group that was behind the so-called "assault weapons ban" aka the Brady Bill. Same name. Same group? If anyone knows, post a comment.

The whole effort of this coallition is a waste of breath. The bill was passed 94-20 in the Florida House and unanimously in the state Senate, so it's not likely any of them are going to repeal it. Besides, the only change that I'm aware of to the existing law is it removes the absurd requirement that you have to retreat from your own house if someone's breaking in. Do these people actually think would-be rapists, murderers, burglers and other illegal intruders should have the right of way and be PROTECTED BY LAW when comitting their crimes? I'm glad these people are, for the time being, a small minority.

Read the original article here

Update 12:07: Michelle Malkin has a letter from a reader correcting and clarifying the factual description of the law, and also the history behind it. Worth reading, definitely. The essence of the correction is that the law allows the use of deadly force in response to an attack threatening death or severe bodily harm anywhere the victim has a right to be, and not limited to his own property. What the law does NOT do is make it leagal for someone to shoot an attacker in the back after a minor offense like purse snatching, for instance.

Liberal Fact Lists usually aren't

2005-10-02T04:50:00.000-06:00

I was browsing blogs today, and found someone who was celebrating the indictment of Tom DeLay and one of the comments on the post links to this page listing "facts" about DeLay's...shall we say less than stellar actions. Read it if you must, but the following is my direct response to it, or rather, to the commenter, Helen who is apparently incapable of distinguising between facts (ie. evidence, details, numbers, law citations) and editorial statements when trying to make a point.

#1-3 I'm not going to bother with because I don't have time to sort it all out. If we assume all three opinions so stated are true (which isn't likely to be a good assumption when the facts (notice, no quote marks) are investigated more completely)...the rest of the article is nothing but an editorial hack job...and here's why:

#4 The closest thing that might be considered "fact" is the bit about the travel expenses for the korean trip. While it's true that "everybody does it" is no justification for wrongdoing...everybody does it. I defy you to find one senator who's never taken a free trip or slipped money around from various organizations. In the whole boat of the Senate, this is a laughable, if not insignificant charge. Even at that, there's a difference between criminal law and senate rules. If you're going to go on a witch hunt, let's get that murder charge up there for Teddy Kennedy, eh?

#5. Okay, so he raised some money. Hillary raises money for Democratic action comittees every week...What's the point? The "evidence" provided doesn't contain any details about what happened to "disenfranchise" voters (undefined term in this case), what (if any) charges were made, whether or not DeLay was involved with decision making or ordering actions that were illegal.

Oh, and #6 is a good one, too...DEMOCRATS were getting in the way of Texas state senate proceedings and you're getting worked up over DeLay tracking a plane down. And you know what? If a bunch of Republicans were being whiney cry-babies and walking out on senate sessions just to get in the way, I'd want them slapped back into their jobs that I, a taxpayer have comissioned them to do. But not to get too far off topic here...What was probably a 5 minute phone call, while under a strict interpretation of "federal resources" it fits, but the political purposes needs further clarification, because as stated, from the site itself "Democratic members of the Texas State Legislature, who had taken a plane out of the capital city of Austin as a way to prevent a quorum in the House". It seems more like the Texas legislature was trying to get some work done, and the Dems walked out. Partisan? Maybe. But a drop in the ocean nonetheless.

#7 is a matter of pure political disagreement, nothing more.

#8. Who really cares? Small business owners have a right to say "no thanks" if they want to. That's why America's such a great place.

#9. Then that lobbiest should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that the lobbiest screwed people and probably broke the law does not mean that by giving DeLay money, it caused him to break the law (unless there's a law against accepting contributions from bad people). It's stupid, sure...but not illegal. Although I'm unfamiliar with the details...perhaps you could direct me to the text of the law that handles such things?

And #10. Smoking in a public place? well, sure that's illegal...punishable by a fine...And your point is...?
There's nothing illegal about having a bad attitude. You may not like it, but if attitude were a criminal offense, most of dailykos and democraticunderground readers would be writing their comments from prison.

Power Line: Busted!

2005-10-02T02:32:00.000-06:00

Power Line: Busted!

"helpers" will devastate the poor they claim to "help"

2005-09-26T19:06:00.000-06:00

This is why liberals and their "compassion" for those they hold in contempt should be stripped of their power and influence. Single minded thinking gets people killed.

Trashing insurance contracts in Mississippi

Best laugh I've had in awhile

2005-09-15T00:04:00.000-06:00

cut on the bias: December 2002 Archives

New Orleans -- Man Made Disaster

2005-09-07T22:14:00.000-06:00

Dennis Prager: The rejection of materialism (Part XXI)

2005-08-23T15:59:00.000-06:00

Dennis Prager: The rejection of materialism (Part XXI)

Carpooling to the impound

2005-07-14T08:41:00.000-06:00

Thank Heaven we live in the United States where the local bus company doesn't try to sue us for carpooling.

Remember, the New Europe -- Reminding us why our ancestors left the Old Europe

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Bus firm takes car sharers to court

Wonderful quote from Jefferson

2005-07-05T21:14:00.000-06:00

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

- Thomas Jefferson

Good news from Iraq: Part 30

2005-06-27T11:53:00.000-06:00

Yes, that's right, good news... Chrenkoff reports

Enemies of today vs yesterday

2005-06-26T21:19:00.000-06:00

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction.

This was the overriding principle that governed actions and military buildup during the Cold War era. The idea that if either side attacked the other directly, there would still be enough time to launch a full spread of thermonuclear tipped missiles in response, thus ensuring that it would be impossible for anybody to "win" the war.

The war on Terror isn't the cold war.

There are a number of fundamental differences. The only thing that hasn't changed is that our enemy hates us for who we are and the freedom we enjoy here in this great country. One big difference between the Soviet Union and the terrorist networks we face today is that fundamentally, the terrorists do not value life on any scale, and are not deterred by threat of force. While much of the rethoric is the same "you drop your gun first" the evil we face today cannot be trusted to act in their own self-interest, such is the fury of blind hatred and a wish for nothing short of total annihilation of everything we as Americans value, and will view negotiations and appeasement only as weakness and an invitation to attack more furiously than the last time.

Sorta off topic, but this is just too cool

2005-06-23T15:51:00.000-06:00

The folks over at Spark Fun Electronics have made an old-fashioned, rotary cell phone...go check it out

MAKE: Blog: Portable Rotary Phone - pre-review

Whaddya mean Artists are nuts?

2005-06-22T17:49:00.000-06:00

Look no farther...

The constitution says what?

2005-06-19T19:10:00.000-06:00

BlogMeister USA: Daily Kos: Gitmo a Violation of US Constitution

A refutation of charges that our soldiers are violating our constitution. worth reading

pack of women

2005-06-18T16:53:00.000-06:00

Anyone who underestimates women tends to get the short end of the stick...like this guy wh learned the hard way, "Never rob a beauty college"

The Left doesn't really care about torture

2005-06-13T12:19:00.000-06:00

If they did, they'd be praising the United States as the liberator of 50 million people and condemning the murderous thugs in Africa and the middle east who make a living out of making others' lives' hell.

Quran desecration crock a win for Jihad spin docs: "go ahead, close Gitmo and wait for the rave reviews from the media -- right after the complaints that it's culturally insensitive to rebuild the World Trade Center when it's the burial site of 10 revered Muslim martyrs."

People like this don't deserve to have children

2005-06-13T12:00:00.000-06:00

Mother shut boy in basement to protect him from pit bull / 12-year-old was killed by family dog; owner sees loss as tragic accident but defends breed as making good pets

Mitt Romney -- Serious contender?

2005-06-02T22:04:00.000-06:00

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt yesterday and he mentioned this weekly standard article which raises the question, "Could Mitt Romney, an extremely successful republican governer, with a solid history of moral character, amazing leadership qualities, and above average fiscal management ability be elected President of the United States even though he is LDS?"

Political Fan weighs in on the subject with this conclusion:

I admire Chuck Colson and believe that he sees in Mitt Romney what many see in President Bush. He sees a man of faith who has character and is a social conservative on most of the issues that are important to evangelicals. I believe that many evangelicals will choose a candidate on the basis of character and social agenda. Too many people now know that the social war rages on and to eliminate a well-qualified candidate on the basis of some small theological issue that will never be an issue as president, is a self-inflicted wound.

Especially important to America's next president will be economic and tax policy. This country under the current president has gone into a fast downward spiral as spending rises out of control leaving us with a huge budget deficit. I won't say it's the largest ever because while I can't any hard figures at the moment, I know it isn't, particularly when adjusted for inflation. Does anyone know what the exact figures are? In any case, Romney has proven himself in two instances that I'm going to mention here:

Romney took charge of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, turning a disaster into a smashing success. From Terry Eastland's column,

In 1999 the event already was $379 million in debt, and there were allegations of bribery involving top officials. Romney was asked to head up the games. Under his leadership, they turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million.

After this was accomplished, Romney ran for (and was elected) governer of Massachusetts, which anyone knows is one of THE MOST liberal, democratic states in the union. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, #1 and #2 liberal senators have both been re-elected to their senate seats in that state for several elections running. And yet Romney's superior leadership and unconquerable financial discipline made possible his republican administration there.

Some republicans or evangelicals might balk at statements that Romney is pro-choice. It's not that simple...Romney is a social conservative on every issue. He belives that abortion should be "safe, legal and [most importantly] rare" It is irresponsible to say in black and white terms that abortion is right or wrong. I would ask those people, have they ever told an 11-year old victim of sexual assault that she must carry her baby to term? But this is beside the point. Romney is NOT pro-choice in the traditional sense of the word. He is pro-life and pro-family.

Get those firewalls up to date!!!

2005-06-02T08:46:00.000-06:00

New virus on the loose with very dangerous implications. All would be well advised to take this seriously and make sure you are using top-grade firewall and anti-virus software.

Pay up or the PC gets it

Zone Alarm is a great free firewall (there's a paid version with additional features as well) and can be found at http://www.zonelabs.com

Also AVG Free Edition is an excellent Anti-virus program. This can be found at http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1

Good news from a soldier in Iraq-Truth!

2005-05-31T17:24:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't heard much lately, here's a confirmed (that means it's real) letter from a soldier in Iraq just after the "end to major combat operations"

Additionally, a snapshot from January of this year of good news from Iraq

Similar report of good news, but from today

Latest terrorist plot: Suicide dogs

2005-05-31T08:30:00.000-06:00

Animal rights advocates take note: NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

2005-05-24T08:28:00.000-06:00

Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

Walter E. Williams: How not to be poor

2005-05-11T09:16:00.000-06:00

Walter E. Williams: How not to be poor

David Limbaugh: False promises of academic freedom

2005-05-08T22:27:00.000-06:00

David Limbaugh: False promises of academic freedom

Gwinnett teacher who refused to alter grade is fired | ajc.com

2005-05-06T14:02:00.000-06:00

This is outrageous. They have gone too far.

Gwinnett teacher who refused to alter grade is fired | ajc.com

Sleeping grade

2005-05-06T13:02:00.000-06:00

Here's a story about a teacher who was banned from school property for refusing to change a student's grade. At first, it might seem like this is unfair, or that this teacher is being harshly punished. I wonder though? Here's a predicament where I honestly don't know which side is more right, because I think they're both right...well, one is right in principle and one is right on technicality. The story is this: A student fell asleep in class, and was marked down on an assignment assigned that day. "Of course," you say, right? Well, not so fast. The student did in fact complete the assignment on time and with a perfect score. The school district has a policy that teachers are not permitted to use grades as disciplinary tools or rewards for non-academic performance. This teacher, "Doc" as he is called, IS in violation of the policy by a strict interpretation of the rule.

My question is, should he have been banned? For that matter, why did it get that serious? I strongly suspect there is more going on here than is reported in this article. Even mean hard-nosed people usually don't go to extreme measures without some cause.

Here's the challenge....What should have happened? I mostly agree with the guy's policy, that if you sleep through class, you are penalized. But I've also been on the other end of that, where I've been in a position to excel in a class mentally and academically, where I was getting 100% on all the tests, but I'd stay up too late and couldn't make it through class all the way. And then there are the lectures that, no matter how interesting the subject, there's no way in creation anyone can stay awake...the ones where you'd learn more by reading a blank phone book.

So there are two camps here, the one that says a person should be objectively evaluated on their performance only, and the one that says people should be subjectively evaluated on their potential or intentions or attitude. So what should it be here? one? the other? some combination of both? If both, who decides what the balance should be? how do you enforce uniform standards for balance?

Offense

2005-05-05T10:18:00.000-06:00

The greatest description I've heard about Political correctness, is "just because somebody is offended by something, does not make that thing offensive or wrong" Truer words have not been spoken.

Moral indifference

2005-05-04T15:47:00.000-06:00

So twisted is the liberal mind that, in their view, so long as people have
free healthcare and education, it doesn't matter that they starve. You know
the last group of people to recieve free education and health care in this
country? Slaves...that's right...slaves. How about today?
Cuba...nevermind that it's a horrible dictatorship under which the people
are not free to think or act, but at least they have education, right?

Is there a boundary to Political Correctness?

2005-05-03T11:44:00.000-06:00

And since when can "Political" even have a "correct"? Ditionary.com defines political correctness as:

Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background.

A question to educated people: Where in the constitution of the United States of America does it say anywhere that protecting people from being offended is a good thing? We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice this does not say we have a "right to happiness" or "right to never be offended". Nobody can give another person happiness, or for that matter, with life and liberty, nobody can take away the happiness of a person who has it.

There are two typs of offense. One is when someone is being offensive. The other is when a person is offended. Both of these can exist without the other, and while it may seem like a good idea to try and protect people from being offended, anything that could ever succeed at doing that would be keeping people from interacting with one another in any way, shape, or form. Liberty: Goodbye

Power gained by silencing opposition is nothing more than smokescreen for weakness... A refuge for a feeble mind. The effect this has on a person's mind and soul is similar to what happens to a person's body if they sit on the couch and have all their food brought to them. Stagnation. Atrophe. Decay. Shielding a person or group from all opposition does several things: One, it displays contempt. The message is clear, "I have decided you are not able to take care of yourself. You are too fragile to be on your own. I will protect you". Not only is this insulting and degrading, but forces that person or group into a state of burden for their fellows. Not only now do people have to worry about their own problems, they have to double time to pick up the scraps of the "victims" of their saviors.

Second, it creates a self-centered, narcissistic class of victims who can think only of how they are deprived, discriminated against, or how they deserve more. More than what? They already get preferential treatment in the sense that everyone rushes to protect them from the "evil" aggressors. Deserve to...do less work? Alright, that's been done, it's called Affirmative Action.

Third, it strips the victims of thier individuality and all concept of personal responsibility or accomplishment. Examples are everywhere with people demanding money from corporations because they are flat out stupid. Or people deciding that because their skin is a certain color that everyone else must be racist. Anything bad that happens cannot be the individual's responsibility, after all, they are oppressed, and therefore not responsible for their actions -- someone made them do it.