11 hours ago
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
You'd never know it, but Malthus was proved wrong long ago.
Thomas Robert Malthus, economist and philosopher in the late 1700s, posited that "population increases in a geometric ratio, while the means of subsistence increases in an arithmetic ratio;" in other words, that humans were a drain on the world's resources.
Malthus was proved completely wrong with the advent of modern farming techniques. You'd never know it, however, if you listened to the religious fanatics of the environmentalist movement.
I don't doubt that there will, eventually, be a tipping point; however, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the idea that the earth is pure, and human beings are nothing more than a self-perpetuating pollutant (I've personally heard us compared to a virus). Nor do I believe that we'll run out of the ability to feed all of the people--modern farming techniques, from biological engineering done since the dawn of time (you didn't really think that wild grains have as high a yield, did you? or that food animals are exactly the same in the wild as they are on farms?) to careful and scientific application of plowing and fertilizing techniques to pest control, will see to that. Nor do I believe that we'll turn the earth into a polluted, barren chunk of rock orbiting our sun.
No, I believe the tipping point will come when we simply crowd ourselves off the planet. I also believe that, by that point, we'll have viable space travel, multiple colonies where the best and brightest, stifled by Earth's transnational progressivist, Marxist communist, self-chosen elite, will choose to relocate to, and all that'll be left on this particular planet will be the Darwinian rejects.
You know, the ones like we currently have sitting in congress and the White House.
Read Heinlein. And Kratman.
Malthus was proved completely wrong with the advent of modern farming techniques. You'd never know it, however, if you listened to the religious fanatics of the environmentalist movement.
I don't doubt that there will, eventually, be a tipping point; however, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the idea that the earth is pure, and human beings are nothing more than a self-perpetuating pollutant (I've personally heard us compared to a virus). Nor do I believe that we'll run out of the ability to feed all of the people--modern farming techniques, from biological engineering done since the dawn of time (you didn't really think that wild grains have as high a yield, did you? or that food animals are exactly the same in the wild as they are on farms?) to careful and scientific application of plowing and fertilizing techniques to pest control, will see to that. Nor do I believe that we'll turn the earth into a polluted, barren chunk of rock orbiting our sun.
No, I believe the tipping point will come when we simply crowd ourselves off the planet. I also believe that, by that point, we'll have viable space travel, multiple colonies where the best and brightest, stifled by Earth's transnational progressivist, Marxist communist, self-chosen elite, will choose to relocate to, and all that'll be left on this particular planet will be the Darwinian rejects.
You know, the ones like we currently have sitting in congress and the White House.
Read Heinlein. And Kratman.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
These won't be the only freedoms we lose.
Obama apologist CNN's Money page admits we'll lose a lot of freedom in choosing and using medical care under our Dear Leader's plans. Amongst those are keeping your plan to begin with, choosing what's in your plan (i.e., guys, you'll have to have maternity coverage, and women's coverage will have to include prostate exams), paying for your costs without having to subsidize others', and choosing which doctor you want to see.
Those aren't all. Read the whole thing, and think about what's not listed that we'll be losing.
Those aren't all. Read the whole thing, and think about what's not listed that we'll be losing.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Ominous...
On Thursday, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Judiciary broke federal law in an attempt to keep documents detailing loans to companies hurt by the economy under wraps. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Fox News was completely entitled to the documents they requested.
Well, not surprising. We haven't seen the President's long-form birth certificate or his college records, either.
Well, not surprising. We haven't seen the President's long-form birth certificate or his college records, either.
Monday, July 27, 2009
May common sense prevail.
Pelosi, et. al., in charge of the Dhimmicrats, and the RINOs they use for cover, claim that mandatory Medicaid will not pass without GOP support.
Bullshit. They just don't want to take full responsibility for the FUBARed situation that mandatory Medicaid would, by definition be.
Especially since the voters are beginning to realize that The One is trying to take our working system, and trade down for Canada's broken one, and decided that they want none of it.
Bullshit. They just don't want to take full responsibility for the FUBARed situation that mandatory Medicaid would, by definition be.
Especially since the voters are beginning to realize that The One is trying to take our working system, and trade down for Canada's broken one, and decided that they want none of it.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The interstate commerce clause is a great cover for a lot of tyrannical decisions.
In 1942, FDR's pet Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate farm production that was never intended to be sold across state lines, with the slim justification that, if Farmer Filburn grew his own wheat to feed his dairy cows, then he wasn't buying wheat from wheat-growers from out of state. Who probably lobbied for protectionism with campaign funds.
Alaska, Tennessee, and (I think) Montana have argued that the federal government has no business regulating firearms that are produced in-state, and sold only to residents of that state, to be used only within that state. Washington, D.C.'s anti-gun lobby--ahem, the Democrat-run federal government--has said "nope, hasn't worked that way since 1942."
Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wyoming claim that they will opt out of mandatory Medicaid. I suspect the same reasoning will be given for the federal government overriding these states' rights: that the private insurance they purchase will somehow be against the common good of those in other states who somehow should have had access to that money, just as Filburn cheated wheat-growers in other states out of his money by growing his own.
In any case, the federal government is stepping on individual rights, and using the interstate commerce clause--which is written in plain enough language that a normal person can understand what it means, but broadly enough that a lawyer can successfully use it to invent new powers--to do so.
Alaska, Tennessee, and (I think) Montana have argued that the federal government has no business regulating firearms that are produced in-state, and sold only to residents of that state, to be used only within that state. Washington, D.C.'s anti-gun lobby--ahem, the Democrat-run federal government--has said "nope, hasn't worked that way since 1942."
Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wyoming claim that they will opt out of mandatory Medicaid. I suspect the same reasoning will be given for the federal government overriding these states' rights: that the private insurance they purchase will somehow be against the common good of those in other states who somehow should have had access to that money, just as Filburn cheated wheat-growers in other states out of his money by growing his own.
In any case, the federal government is stepping on individual rights, and using the interstate commerce clause--which is written in plain enough language that a normal person can understand what it means, but broadly enough that a lawyer can successfully use it to invent new powers--to do so.
It's a culture thing.
Someone commented, over on Kickin' and Screamin', “People don’t choose to be born black, but they do choose to be niggers.”
Now, they were talking about Professor Gates, but it goes for this bunch, too. Four boys, aged 14, 13, 10, and 9, raped a little eight-year-old girl. And her father blamed her for it.
The little girl and her father, at least, were Liberian immigrants. The boys were more than likely all four black--the only one shown is the one being tried as an adult.
Not all black males are rapists. Not all black people are bad parents. It's not their race that makes them act like this.
Now, they were talking about Professor Gates, but it goes for this bunch, too. Four boys, aged 14, 13, 10, and 9, raped a little eight-year-old girl. And her father blamed her for it.
The little girl and her father, at least, were Liberian immigrants. The boys were more than likely all four black--the only one shown is the one being tried as an adult.
Not all black males are rapists. Not all black people are bad parents. It's not their race that makes them act like this.
Another interesting probability brought to you by Mandatory Medicaid!
A woman in Sydney, Australia (yet another place where socialized medicine has FUBARed the system), gave birth to a baby girl on her bedroom floor after a hospital sent her home because there were no beds.
Yeah. She was bleeding and in labor, and they sent her home.
I cannot help but compare this scenario with the care I received when I went to the hospital in labor with my son. In my case, my water broke eight weeks early, and I called the hospital. They told me to come in immediately, that they'd have someone take me down to labor and delivery right away.
Suffice it to say, my care was excellent. I have no complaints about the hospital food, much less the care I received from the staff. And I have suspicions that, should The One get his way with the health care reform he wants to ram up our collective ass, my care will not be anywhere near as good with my next child.
I cast no aspersions upon the doctors, nurses, aides, and techs, here, but upon the idea of rationed care.
Yeah. She was bleeding and in labor, and they sent her home.
I cannot help but compare this scenario with the care I received when I went to the hospital in labor with my son. In my case, my water broke eight weeks early, and I called the hospital. They told me to come in immediately, that they'd have someone take me down to labor and delivery right away.
Suffice it to say, my care was excellent. I have no complaints about the hospital food, much less the care I received from the staff. And I have suspicions that, should The One get his way with the health care reform he wants to ram up our collective ass, my care will not be anywhere near as good with my next child.
I cast no aspersions upon the doctors, nurses, aides, and techs, here, but upon the idea of rationed care.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A bit of perspective.
A 22 year old alcoholic died from advanced cirrhosis of the liver in Britain. He was denied a liver transplant. A lot of those who oppose Obama's health industry "reforms" cite this as an example of what will happen after the government takes over deciding who receives care or not.
Um...no it's not. He'd be denied a transplant here, too. He's an alcoholic, who, at age 22, had destroyed his liver. That means he is ineligible for a liver transplant in the United States just as he was in the United Kingdom.
There are other, better reasons to oppose mandatory Medicaid. Look at VA benefits, if you want to see where the rest of the country's health care is going.
Um...no it's not. He'd be denied a transplant here, too. He's an alcoholic, who, at age 22, had destroyed his liver. That means he is ineligible for a liver transplant in the United States just as he was in the United Kingdom.
There are other, better reasons to oppose mandatory Medicaid. Look at VA benefits, if you want to see where the rest of the country's health care is going.
Monday, July 20, 2009
I'm of two minds on this one...
Some of Bernie Madoff's fellow inmates--none of whom were victimized by his Ponzi scheme--have decided that they want to smack him around a bit.
On the one hand, I say, "He's just another criminal amonst criminals. He just so happened to land amongst the blue collar bunch rather than the white collar bunch. He screwed up; let him get the full effect of the punishment, including the same beatings other prisoners face."
On the other, however...the man's 71 years old. My father-in-law isn't much older. And those prisoners looking for street cred for beating up Madoff? Yeah, takes a lot of manhood to beat up someone who's likely 30-50 years older, and not in nearly as good of physical shape. Be about like beating up a woman or a kid.
Now, if they want to beat up people running a real Ponzi scheme, they need to find people working in the upper levels of the Social Security administration...
On the one hand, I say, "He's just another criminal amonst criminals. He just so happened to land amongst the blue collar bunch rather than the white collar bunch. He screwed up; let him get the full effect of the punishment, including the same beatings other prisoners face."
On the other, however...the man's 71 years old. My father-in-law isn't much older. And those prisoners looking for street cred for beating up Madoff? Yeah, takes a lot of manhood to beat up someone who's likely 30-50 years older, and not in nearly as good of physical shape. Be about like beating up a woman or a kid.
Now, if they want to beat up people running a real Ponzi scheme, they need to find people working in the upper levels of the Social Security administration...
I may be making assumptions, here, but...I think it's probably a reasonable assumption.
Here's another illustration of how gun-free zones work.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I wonder if contact with swine flu is the same as contact with pigs...
The swine flu is, not so ironically, attacking Muslims. On pilgrimage to Mecca.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Admissions and suspicions
A U.S. Army Reserve major challenged orders sending him to Afghanistan on the grounds that the orders were not lawful, because Obama is not actually eligible, due to being born outside of the U.S. or its territories, and not a citizen.
He won the challenge.
I argued, as this topic came up just after the election, that there was no way that a man who was not actually eligible could make it all the way through the primaries, and be named the party candidate. I mean, McCain demonstrated that, though he was born in Panama, he was born to two U.S. citizen parents, in territory basically owned by the United States.
Obama was not born to two U.S. citizens. And apparently, the army has doubts that his certificate of live birth in a Hawaiian hospital isn't valid. And no one has seen his official birth certificate.
The White House backpedaled awfully fast on the soldier's deployment for this to have no credibility. There hasn't been anything else said--not why, nor any punishment for the refusal to obey orders.
I suspect that we may well see our military take action to protect our Constitution, along the lines of what just happened in Honduras.
He won the challenge.
I argued, as this topic came up just after the election, that there was no way that a man who was not actually eligible could make it all the way through the primaries, and be named the party candidate. I mean, McCain demonstrated that, though he was born in Panama, he was born to two U.S. citizen parents, in territory basically owned by the United States.
Obama was not born to two U.S. citizens. And apparently, the army has doubts that his certificate of live birth in a Hawaiian hospital isn't valid. And no one has seen his official birth certificate.
The White House backpedaled awfully fast on the soldier's deployment for this to have no credibility. There hasn't been anything else said--not why, nor any punishment for the refusal to obey orders.
I suspect that we may well see our military take action to protect our Constitution, along the lines of what just happened in Honduras.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Just another illustration of government stupidity.
I knew it was happening, but it's nice to get confirmation.
Basically, when the government sets what they'll pay a doctor (typically about 60% of what they charge), the doctor has to recoup his/her costs somewhere.
That "somewhere" ends up being by charging more to everyone not on Medicaid.
And people wonder why medical care is so expensive, why optometrists and dentists won't accept Medicaid patients over the age of twelve, and why some doctors won't accept them at all.
Basically, when the government sets what they'll pay a doctor (typically about 60% of what they charge), the doctor has to recoup his/her costs somewhere.
That "somewhere" ends up being by charging more to everyone not on Medicaid.
And people wonder why medical care is so expensive, why optometrists and dentists won't accept Medicaid patients over the age of twelve, and why some doctors won't accept them at all.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Oh, hell no.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."--The Declaration of IndependenceIt's time, my friends. Our government no longer provides for our security, but has had us riding that long train of abuses and usurpations delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Not only has our own judiciary been acting in the same manner as King George III when the various pacifistic and loyal British men who lived on this side of the Atlantic realized that the British monarchy did not see them as British subjects equal to those living in the British Isles, but our President has ignored and broken his oath as required by Article 2, section 1, clause 8 of the Constitution: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
He has decided that it isn't against our interests to house known terrorists amongst our people.
He has decided that it is his duty to apologize to a world full of our enemies for our strength, and to reduce that strength both in appearance and in fact.
He has decided that it is within his power to take earned wealth from the few and give it to those who haven't earned it.
He has decided that it is within his power to revoke our God-given rights, by ignoring what limits are placed upon his power and the power of the legislature and judiciary by the Constitution of these United States and the amendments thereto.
I speak specifically of section 304 of the fully unconstitutional Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
This section refers to energy efficiency of buildings. All buildings, publicly or privately owned, businesses or residences. Common readings suggest that this bill would infringe upon private property rights to the point that no one would own their own home in more than name only.
After all, how much do you actually own if the government forbids you to alter it in whatever way you see fit, within common-sense building safety codes?
This is unconstitutional on many levels. Not only is it unconstitutional in that nowhere in the Constitution is the right to pass legislature like this enumerated (making it expressly forbidden, by the language of the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), but in several other amendments passed to protect private property rights from infringement and intrusion by the federal government:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Due process of law" in this case means specifically legal process against the individual, such as the determination of whether or not a crime was committed, and the punishment of said crime, not sweeping, unconstitutional legislation intended to deprive large groups, if not the entire citizenry of the United States of America, of rights to live as they please, in freedom, and with full rights to their own property purchased with money they earned, and improved with their own money, sweat, and blood.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment says that these rights are God-given, not government-granted by the Constitution or the amendments thereto, much less any legislation or treaty passed by the government that this document was designed to limit, and not empower. Which, again, means that the state does not and cannot tell you what to do with your own private property.
AMENDMENT XIV...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Again, "due process of law" refers to the legal determination of whether an individual committed a crime; however, this applies the Fifth Amendment (which had formerly only applied to the federal government's actions against its citizens) to the level of state government.
This particular section of the cap-and-trade bill violates every limitation of power that the Constitution places upon the federal government. As such, it is upon us to refuse to permit our government to remain in power.
By any means necessary.
And, as my forefathers swore, I will put my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor behind this stand.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Best Mother's Day present EVER. (Just today got to play with it.)
My other half took me to a small, local gun & pawn shop, just after Mother's Day. He wanted me to take a look at a gun, a Mosin-Nagant m44 carbine. I'd been looking for one--a good one--for a little over a year.
It was pristine, on the inside, at least. It looked like someone had bought it, shot it once, and dropped it on a concrete shooting bench when it kicked the shit out of them (there was a ding in the otherwise gorgeous stock).
So, that was my Mother's Day present. I hadn't wanted to say anything about it until after I'd gotten to take it out and play with it.
I got to take it to a friend's private range and play with it today, along with part of my fifth anniversary present (which happened to have been yesterday)--which worked better than advertised, wasn't visible at all (read further for funny story about this), and I highly recommend for women who like to shoot either large caliber rifles or shotgun. One caveat: trim the edge of the Velcro closest to the arm, or the corners will irritate the hell out of the shooter.
Back to the gun. I have one thing to say about it:
Oh. My. God.
It was MAGNIFICENT. I can barely see a target at a hundred yards (really poor vision, combined with the standard antique rifle's iron sights), and I hit the damn target all five times I shot the gun. Combine that with the fact that I really, really enjoy the roar of a large caliber rifle, as well as the feel of it coming back into my shoulder--well, let's just say I had a very good time.
Okay. Funny story as promised: the recoil pad my beloved other half got for me let me get someone else who was at the range today. Got 'im good. I was having a good time shooting my rifle, and asked him if he wanted to try out my new baby.
Well. All he could see was me having fun. He didn't see that I was wearing a pussy pad under my shirt, velcroed to my bra strap. So, he sat down at the bench, shouldered my new rifle, chambered a round, and took the shot. Without a recoil pad. And he did it twice, which was about as much as his shoulder could stand. And he didn't know I had a recoil pad until we were leaving, and I was taking it off my bra and out of my shirt. At which point, he told me that his shoulder still hurt.
Anyhow, it was a good day. Exactly what I've been needing for a while.
It was pristine, on the inside, at least. It looked like someone had bought it, shot it once, and dropped it on a concrete shooting bench when it kicked the shit out of them (there was a ding in the otherwise gorgeous stock).
So, that was my Mother's Day present. I hadn't wanted to say anything about it until after I'd gotten to take it out and play with it.
I got to take it to a friend's private range and play with it today, along with part of my fifth anniversary present (which happened to have been yesterday)--which worked better than advertised, wasn't visible at all (read further for funny story about this), and I highly recommend for women who like to shoot either large caliber rifles or shotgun. One caveat: trim the edge of the Velcro closest to the arm, or the corners will irritate the hell out of the shooter.
Back to the gun. I have one thing to say about it:
Oh. My. God.
It was MAGNIFICENT. I can barely see a target at a hundred yards (really poor vision, combined with the standard antique rifle's iron sights), and I hit the damn target all five times I shot the gun. Combine that with the fact that I really, really enjoy the roar of a large caliber rifle, as well as the feel of it coming back into my shoulder--well, let's just say I had a very good time.
Okay. Funny story as promised: the recoil pad my beloved other half got for me let me get someone else who was at the range today. Got 'im good. I was having a good time shooting my rifle, and asked him if he wanted to try out my new baby.
Well. All he could see was me having fun. He didn't see that I was wearing a pussy pad under my shirt, velcroed to my bra strap. So, he sat down at the bench, shouldered my new rifle, chambered a round, and took the shot. Without a recoil pad. And he did it twice, which was about as much as his shoulder could stand. And he didn't know I had a recoil pad until we were leaving, and I was taking it off my bra and out of my shirt. At which point, he told me that his shoulder still hurt.
Anyhow, it was a good day. Exactly what I've been needing for a while.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Spectacular.
The morality of carrying a weapon for self defense.
The blogger at The Blind Squirrel sums up neatly the way I feel.
The blogger at The Blind Squirrel sums up neatly the way I feel.
I'm sorry I wasn't just being paranoid.
According to an article in the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has declared that he wants to 'coerce people out of their cars.'"
This would explain two proposals that, given the financial difficulties faced by auto manufacturers, were previously inexplicable: increasing CAFE standards, and taxing miles traveled (as well as likely keeping the existing tax on gasoline).
Increased CAFE standards forces auto manufacturers to spend much more in research and development, which, in turn, raises prices on new cars. Given the built-in breakdown factor, that will more than likely put new cars out of the reach of many American families who carry debt, and some that don't.
And if that isn't enough, the government proposes to tax miles traveled, tracking your road usage with a GPS device in your car that reports how many miles you've driven between fill-ups, and you'll get a bill in the mail from Big Brother--er, the United States government.
The secretary of transportation says he wants people to use more public transportation to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Umm...newsflash, dipshit: public transportation only works in highly urbanized, high population density areas. Like Europe. And the United States is nothing like Europe.
Added up, I doubt this is an attempt to control enviornmental impact so much as it is an attempt to control the citizenry of the United States, by controlling their travel. I don't think it'll work out like they hope--it really isn't hard to get around computer programming, and we the people are citizens who do not appreciate government interference, rather than serfs that are subject to government control.
This would explain two proposals that, given the financial difficulties faced by auto manufacturers, were previously inexplicable: increasing CAFE standards, and taxing miles traveled (as well as likely keeping the existing tax on gasoline).
Increased CAFE standards forces auto manufacturers to spend much more in research and development, which, in turn, raises prices on new cars. Given the built-in breakdown factor, that will more than likely put new cars out of the reach of many American families who carry debt, and some that don't.
And if that isn't enough, the government proposes to tax miles traveled, tracking your road usage with a GPS device in your car that reports how many miles you've driven between fill-ups, and you'll get a bill in the mail from Big Brother--er, the United States government.
The secretary of transportation says he wants people to use more public transportation to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Umm...newsflash, dipshit: public transportation only works in highly urbanized, high population density areas. Like Europe. And the United States is nothing like Europe.
Added up, I doubt this is an attempt to control enviornmental impact so much as it is an attempt to control the citizenry of the United States, by controlling their travel. I don't think it'll work out like they hope--it really isn't hard to get around computer programming, and we the people are citizens who do not appreciate government interference, rather than serfs that are subject to government control.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Big milestones.
My son is nine months old, today. He said his first word yesterday. It was "Daddy," if you were curious. Again, here he is with a stuffed monkey for size comparison, at four days:
And here's the same monkey with him at nine months.
And here's another, for good measure.
He is just an amazing little guy, and cracks me up on a regular basis.
And here's the same monkey with him at nine months.
And here's another, for good measure.
He is just an amazing little guy, and cracks me up on a regular basis.
The Marx brothers would be better on foreign policy than the clown in the Oval Office.
Not only does he remain silent on North Korea's flying the bird at us on our Independence Day, but he screws up by the numbers with Russia.
First of all, he makes the same mistake Wilson made with the League of Nations: he partnered with a foreign power to create a treaty that will reduce the nuclear armaments held by both the United States and Russia. This is a huge misstep on two fronts. First of all, the stupid idealist forgot that creating and signing treaties is not among his powers as enumerated by the United States Constitution (which he says is a deeply flawed document--guess this shows part of why he thinks that). Second of all, he trusts Russia to hold up their end of a bargain, when they've demonstrated, time and time again, that they are our enemies.
The other FUBAR is on a level with his 57 states gaffe: he referred to Prime Minister Putin as President. Now, granted: Putin does still hold the reigns of power; however, he holds them through his ventriloquist's puppet, Medevev.
Not just a spoiled, petulant child, then, but a spoiled, petulant, idiot child.
First of all, he makes the same mistake Wilson made with the League of Nations: he partnered with a foreign power to create a treaty that will reduce the nuclear armaments held by both the United States and Russia. This is a huge misstep on two fronts. First of all, the stupid idealist forgot that creating and signing treaties is not among his powers as enumerated by the United States Constitution (which he says is a deeply flawed document--guess this shows part of why he thinks that). Second of all, he trusts Russia to hold up their end of a bargain, when they've demonstrated, time and time again, that they are our enemies.
The other FUBAR is on a level with his 57 states gaffe: he referred to Prime Minister Putin as President. Now, granted: Putin does still hold the reigns of power; however, he holds them through his ventriloquist's puppet, Medevev.
Not just a spoiled, petulant child, then, but a spoiled, petulant, idiot child.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Independence Day.
We went to one of the tea party rallies, and (despite the rain) there was standing room only in and around the park pavilion. I'd guestimate that there were around 250-300 people there for the start, and more arriving as we were leaving with a sleepy, hungry baby. A lot of people are not only mad, but they're banding together to try to fix things.
It gives me a small measure of hope.
It gives me a small measure of hope.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Another reason mandatory medicaid is a bad idea...
I don't have anything against doctors or nurses, or any other medical staff whose primary job is patient care. I do not want anyone to mistake me in that. My beef with the government's healthcare plan, which I term mandatory Medicaid, stems from the cost-cutting methods the government espouses as far more important than patient care.
Proponents of mandatory Medicaid trot out the figure of 46 million uninsured, and whinge about "we need to do it for the children."
Well. The scare tactic statistic has been broken down into more honest numbers: about 10-12 million of those are illegal aliens. Wetbacks and Canuks alike, often here for emergency care that they cannot get in their own countries. Another 16-20 million are the idiots under 25, whose employers don't write insurance into their benefits, and they'd rather buy the next X-Box game than purchase their own. Many of the rest are simply between jobs.
As for the children...anyone ever heard of WIC? I cannot believe it's unique to my state, though it may be called something else somewhere else. It's where women who are pregant, who fall under a certain income level, recieve not only Medicaid for the duration of their pregnancy, but their children receive Medicaid until they're 12, or until their parents income comes up. The children are already eligible.
Speaking of "for the children," government run medical insurance that's only concerned with cutting costs (often by rationing care by restricting supply) frequently hurts children. Two specific cases--one in Canada, the other in Britain--come to mind.
In the Canadian case, a baby born 14 weeks early had to be shipped to Buffalo, New York, for treatment because there were no NICU beds open anywhere in the province (for comparison, my son was born eight weeks early, and was 3 pounds 13 ounces) . Her parents aren't able to be at her side, yet--neither has a passport.
If Canada's system ran on captialism's supply and demand, rather than socialism's arbitrary cost cutting measures, that baby would have not only found a bed in the province but likely the same hospital she was born in, and her parents could be there with her.
I've read bloggers who are proponents of the Canadian system trying to justify that by pointing out that "at least she's guaranteed care." I won't link to him because he's a self-riteous moron: anybody who's that sick in the U.S. is guaranteed care, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, it is an empty argument made by a socialist apologist that has an even emptier head.
The British case is perhaps a little worse. A little three year old girl was born with an underdeveloped aorta, leading to all sorts of problems for her. She has had several relatively minor surgeries already, but needs major surgery to correct the problem. She's already suffered a stroke at the ancient age of three years, for God's sake. Her parents have been told that she could drop dead of this condition at pretty much any time.
And she hasn't had the surgery yet. It's been scheduled three times, but canceled every time because of a lack of beds in the ICU for her recovery.
Were she in Canada, her doctors would likely have sent her over the border to us for surgery immediately upon discovery of the condition.
So, how, precisely, can the proponents of similar systems being imposed upon us say that similar results will not occur?
Again, I do not speak ill of doctors. Most of the doctors I've ever met will move heaven and earth for their patients. Most hospital administrators, while they're less devoted to the patients' wellbeing, are not heartless. A government which rations how many beds per capita there are in any given department without taking the actual people who will need to use them into account, on the other hand...
Proponents of mandatory Medicaid trot out the figure of 46 million uninsured, and whinge about "we need to do it for the children."
Well. The scare tactic statistic has been broken down into more honest numbers: about 10-12 million of those are illegal aliens. Wetbacks and Canuks alike, often here for emergency care that they cannot get in their own countries. Another 16-20 million are the idiots under 25, whose employers don't write insurance into their benefits, and they'd rather buy the next X-Box game than purchase their own. Many of the rest are simply between jobs.
As for the children...anyone ever heard of WIC? I cannot believe it's unique to my state, though it may be called something else somewhere else. It's where women who are pregant, who fall under a certain income level, recieve not only Medicaid for the duration of their pregnancy, but their children receive Medicaid until they're 12, or until their parents income comes up. The children are already eligible.
Speaking of "for the children," government run medical insurance that's only concerned with cutting costs (often by rationing care by restricting supply) frequently hurts children. Two specific cases--one in Canada, the other in Britain--come to mind.
In the Canadian case, a baby born 14 weeks early had to be shipped to Buffalo, New York, for treatment because there were no NICU beds open anywhere in the province (for comparison, my son was born eight weeks early, and was 3 pounds 13 ounces) . Her parents aren't able to be at her side, yet--neither has a passport.
If Canada's system ran on captialism's supply and demand, rather than socialism's arbitrary cost cutting measures, that baby would have not only found a bed in the province but likely the same hospital she was born in, and her parents could be there with her.
I've read bloggers who are proponents of the Canadian system trying to justify that by pointing out that "at least she's guaranteed care." I won't link to him because he's a self-riteous moron: anybody who's that sick in the U.S. is guaranteed care, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, it is an empty argument made by a socialist apologist that has an even emptier head.
The British case is perhaps a little worse. A little three year old girl was born with an underdeveloped aorta, leading to all sorts of problems for her. She has had several relatively minor surgeries already, but needs major surgery to correct the problem. She's already suffered a stroke at the ancient age of three years, for God's sake. Her parents have been told that she could drop dead of this condition at pretty much any time.
And she hasn't had the surgery yet. It's been scheduled three times, but canceled every time because of a lack of beds in the ICU for her recovery.
Were she in Canada, her doctors would likely have sent her over the border to us for surgery immediately upon discovery of the condition.
So, how, precisely, can the proponents of similar systems being imposed upon us say that similar results will not occur?
Again, I do not speak ill of doctors. Most of the doctors I've ever met will move heaven and earth for their patients. Most hospital administrators, while they're less devoted to the patients' wellbeing, are not heartless. A government which rations how many beds per capita there are in any given department without taking the actual people who will need to use them into account, on the other hand...
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Combining a tax with social engineering is stupid.
When people cease the behavior that the government taxes because it's "bad behavior," revenue falls, and they've got to find a way to make that up, right?
A good example is the per gallon fuel tax. As prices go up, and tax rates on gallons purchased go up even more steeply (one figure I read--forget where--mentioned that oil companies get about $.08 profit/gallon, while the government made $.35-.75 per gallon on fuel taxes, depending on state and type of fuel), people either buy more fuel efficient cars, or else they drive less. Which means that the government doesn't get the same size of bounty from their cut off the top. Which means that they have to find something else.
I think it's time to use that fictional constitutional "right to privacy" that permits women to murder their unborn children. They say "Keep your laws off my body." I say "Keep your noses out of my business."
Call me paranoid, but the Soviet Union restricted their serfs' travel. I think this tax may well be a not-so-veiled attempt to do the same.
A good example is the per gallon fuel tax. As prices go up, and tax rates on gallons purchased go up even more steeply (one figure I read--forget where--mentioned that oil companies get about $.08 profit/gallon, while the government made $.35-.75 per gallon on fuel taxes, depending on state and type of fuel), people either buy more fuel efficient cars, or else they drive less. Which means that the government doesn't get the same size of bounty from their cut off the top. Which means that they have to find something else.
I think it's time to use that fictional constitutional "right to privacy" that permits women to murder their unborn children. They say "Keep your laws off my body." I say "Keep your noses out of my business."
Call me paranoid, but the Soviet Union restricted their serfs' travel. I think this tax may well be a not-so-veiled attempt to do the same.
Obama's true colors are shining through.
And he appears to be, under the surface, nothing more than a petulant, spoiled child.
Why do I say that? Well, several reasons. First of all, he thinks the world is fundamentally a fair place, or should be, according to his definition of "fair." Second, since it's not a fair place where everybody shares and shares alike, he's going to use the government to make everybody share (whether the people that have less are willing to work for more or not). Third, when he's balked, he gets sullen and throws a fit. You can see that by just following the link.
A petulant brat should not be the one in the Chief Executive's office. America, you made a mistake.
Why do I say that? Well, several reasons. First of all, he thinks the world is fundamentally a fair place, or should be, according to his definition of "fair." Second, since it's not a fair place where everybody shares and shares alike, he's going to use the government to make everybody share (whether the people that have less are willing to work for more or not). Third, when he's balked, he gets sullen and throws a fit. You can see that by just following the link.
A petulant brat should not be the one in the Chief Executive's office. America, you made a mistake.
I know the story's about something else entirely...
...but when I saw the headline about the husband getting in trouble for spraying the wife with a hose because she was smoking, my first thought was "Why are they so mad at him for putting her out?"
Monday, June 29, 2009
Further proof that TIGHTER GUN CONTROL WORKS!!
Okay, done with the snark.
Truthfully, the only thing that gun control laws accomplishes is disarming the victims.
Truthfully, the only thing that gun control laws accomplishes is disarming the victims.
Brave little one.
A six-year-old escaped from a 26 year old would be rapist. Despite being chained up.
That son of a bitch needs his parts tied in a knot. Here's hoping he gets more than a couple of years.
That son of a bitch needs his parts tied in a knot. Here's hoping he gets more than a couple of years.
Utterly unsurprising.
And I bet that, had Iran's president been toppled by the people, just as Honduras has shed their dictator, Obama would have protested that, too. After all, communists must stick together. Or else each shall hang separately, strung up by their own oppressed.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Here's a giggle.
A good friend of mine who drank enough of the Kool-Aid to work on Obama's campaign has become quite disillusioned with him: "At this point, in my opinion, Obama's just another black man living in government housing on the public dollar."
Granted, my friend is angry because he thinks Obama should have already pushed through the mandatory Medicaid plan (which he hasn't, because he doesn't want the full blame for the shit that it will become to splatter Democrats only) and gay marriage (which Obama doesn't really agree with). It's still a huge step in the right direction.
Now, me? I agree with him on the statement, but not the reasons.
Granted, my friend is angry because he thinks Obama should have already pushed through the mandatory Medicaid plan (which he hasn't, because he doesn't want the full blame for the shit that it will become to splatter Democrats only) and gay marriage (which Obama doesn't really agree with). It's still a huge step in the right direction.
Now, me? I agree with him on the statement, but not the reasons.
We're the threat?
Chavez is on crack if he thinks that the United States with it's current pussy CinC is a threat.
Goodness, they're dropping like flies!
David Carradine, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson ('bout time, there, but I feel for his kids), and now, Billy Mays.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Meditations upon the last election.
"It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life."--Shepherd Derrial BookFor those who don't know, the first two quotes are from a character from the television show Firefly, created by the same man who gave America Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The second quote in particular comes from the movie, where the Shepherd (a wandering minister in the series) has settled down on a planet, and is speaking to another character, Mal Reynolds, about a danger he's in. The villain of the piece, the Alliance, had sent an assassin after another character under Mal's protection, an assassin who believed strongly that the Alliance was trying to create a world without "sin." The assassin would do anything to bring about that world; from the strength of his belief came the strength of a juggernaut, and no one that didn't believe could stand against him.
"I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it." --Ibid.
"You've got to stand for somethin' or you'll fall for anything."--Aaron Tibble
The Operative came close to winning, too; however, Mal found his belief. Mal believed, with all the strength of his soul, in freedom. That people had to be free to choose whatever path they wanted to take.
It was enough for him.
Funny. Seems America doesn't really stand for anything anymore, or at least our politicians don't. Out of all the twerps running for president last election cycle, from the very first part of the primary season (in 2006), it seemed as if none of them believed a single word they said. Oh, it sounded wonderful enough, for most of them (Joe Biden, ironically, was a shining example of a politician having his filter outside of his mouth, rather than between his brain and his mouth). But I never got the feeling--with any candidate--that they believed in what they claimed to believe in.
Except for one. And he got elected president.
I do not believe in any of the same things that President Obama believes. I don't believe that the Constitution is a sound, but fundamentally flawed document (except in that it permitted power-hungry self-chosen transnational progresives to take over the whole shebang). I don't believe that socialism is a better way of life--I certainly don't want to work my tail off to support someone who doesn't want to work at all, and I don't want anyone to give me charity. I don't believe that the government can understand everything I need better than I do, and can take better care of me than I can.
I do have to say this for him, though. Despite the fact that his core beliefs run totally opposite to mine (and have shown to run totally opposite to some of what he says), the fact that he has beliefs in the first place, believes them all the way down to his very soul, and is willing to act on those beliefs is something that I have to respect.
It is, after all, something that no one else in the campaign had going for him. Or her. And America saw that, and loved that ability to believe. They wanted to believe, too.
Here's hoping that the event that shows him just how fundamentally flawed his beliefs are is less horrible than that which shook the Operative's faith. For all our sakes.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Not sure why it's news, but it's funny.
Any time you have this quote from a president, it's hilarious: "You have urinated on my jacket."
It's even funnier when you find out it's the president of Zambia, and he's talking to a monkey.
It's even funnier when you find out it's the president of Zambia, and he's talking to a monkey.
Oh, yeah, like that's going to make a difference.
A dollar a day--in a college fund--is not going to stop girls from getting pregnant, no matter what the College-Bound Sisters would like to think.
College-Bound Sisters...I wonder what the second prerequisite for being a member might be. Hmm...could it be socio-economic background?
Naw. Watch the video.
College-Bound Sisters...I wonder what the second prerequisite for being a member might be. Hmm...could it be socio-economic background?
Naw. Watch the video.
A JDAM would solve the problem.
Threaten us? It's a problem.
At least, most Americans see it as such. Unfortunately, our fearless leaders see it as a signal that they need to spread wider and relax.
At least, most Americans see it as such. Unfortunately, our fearless leaders see it as a signal that they need to spread wider and relax.
I can suggest one reform to add gun control that I can get behind.
Check to see if the individual attempting to purchase a gun is a known terrorist.
What is the definition of insanity?
Barny Frank and one of his pals has requested Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relax regulations on mortgages again. Seriously, do they think it'll have a different effect this time?
Let me go over what happened:
1. Regulations were relaxed to allow those who didn't qualify for lending under the old rules (which determined who could borrow by who could afford to pay it back).
2. A whole lot of people took out loans for which they couldn't afford the payments.
3. A whole lot of people defaulted on their loans, which hit the banking and housing industries hard enough to make the entire economy go splat.
4. A whole lot of people who thought they could afford a home because they were told they could were victimized.
What will happen when the regulations are relaxed again, for people to be able to purchase condos? I mean, it certainly won't happen the same way the second time that action is taken, right?
Let me go over what happened:
1. Regulations were relaxed to allow those who didn't qualify for lending under the old rules (which determined who could borrow by who could afford to pay it back).
2. A whole lot of people took out loans for which they couldn't afford the payments.
3. A whole lot of people defaulted on their loans, which hit the banking and housing industries hard enough to make the entire economy go splat.
4. A whole lot of people who thought they could afford a home because they were told they could were victimized.
What will happen when the regulations are relaxed again, for people to be able to purchase condos? I mean, it certainly won't happen the same way the second time that action is taken, right?
I'm not so sure.
Obama says we'll have mandatory Medicaid this year. Granted, he announced this to the news outlet that's basically his bitch.
I doubt he'll accomplish it. I can't testify to the veracity of the news outlet, but CNSNews reported that a poll showing 72% supported Obama's health care reform ideas was stacked with his supporters.
Honestly, I wouldn't doubt this to be the case, either. Not everybody is a mouth-breathing Obama worshiper.
I doubt he'll accomplish it. I can't testify to the veracity of the news outlet, but CNSNews reported that a poll showing 72% supported Obama's health care reform ideas was stacked with his supporters.
Honestly, I wouldn't doubt this to be the case, either. Not everybody is a mouth-breathing Obama worshiper.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Just a taste of what the United States is headed for with manditory Medicaid.
For those who don't know, Medicaid is the government's "free" health care plan for the poor. It covers optical (every two years, if you can find an eye doctor that accepts it for adults), dental (you can't find a dentist that will accept Medicaid patients over the age of 12--and if you need dentures, sorry, that's not covered), and all major medical (again, if you can find a doctor--fewer are accepting it).
So, why are doctors refusing the government's money? Simple: the government sets their pay schedule at what their "experts" say things should cost, without taking the doctor's expenses into account. Medicaid usually pays about half of what doctors ask, when the price is "reasonable." They pay less if they deem the charges "unreasonable." They don't pay the full bill that even the stingiest private insurance provider pays. They say that even "reasonable" costs aren't "reasonable," without taking into account that the doctor has to pay for the building that the clinic is in, the utilities of that building, the salaries of all of the workers he/she has to hire to keep up with insurance billing paperwork, and for the worker that handles nothing but Medicaid/Medicare billing paperwork. The doctor likely also has a student loan load that's heavier than his/her mortgage.
But, of course, the doctors' expectations of making enough to cover their clinics' bills as well as their own isn't "reasonable," according to a government that voted to cap executive salaries, while giving themselves raises pretty much every year or two.
Where will this end up, should the government force through their mandatory Medicaid ideas?
Here. Here's a small, bitter taste of what's coming.
When the government decrees that there's only this amount of money for paying doctors, the doctors will likely quit doing the stellar job that has people from socialized medicine countries coming here for treatment. And when the government decrees that there will be no more private insurance, and that doctors are not to take payment from anyone but the government, where will all the poor British and Canadians go when they need heart surgery and hip replacements?
So, why are doctors refusing the government's money? Simple: the government sets their pay schedule at what their "experts" say things should cost, without taking the doctor's expenses into account. Medicaid usually pays about half of what doctors ask, when the price is "reasonable." They pay less if they deem the charges "unreasonable." They don't pay the full bill that even the stingiest private insurance provider pays. They say that even "reasonable" costs aren't "reasonable," without taking into account that the doctor has to pay for the building that the clinic is in, the utilities of that building, the salaries of all of the workers he/she has to hire to keep up with insurance billing paperwork, and for the worker that handles nothing but Medicaid/Medicare billing paperwork. The doctor likely also has a student loan load that's heavier than his/her mortgage.
But, of course, the doctors' expectations of making enough to cover their clinics' bills as well as their own isn't "reasonable," according to a government that voted to cap executive salaries, while giving themselves raises pretty much every year or two.
Where will this end up, should the government force through their mandatory Medicaid ideas?
Here. Here's a small, bitter taste of what's coming.
When the government decrees that there's only this amount of money for paying doctors, the doctors will likely quit doing the stellar job that has people from socialized medicine countries coming here for treatment. And when the government decrees that there will be no more private insurance, and that doctors are not to take payment from anyone but the government, where will all the poor British and Canadians go when they need heart surgery and hip replacements?
"All restaurants are Taco Bell."
I don't think I'll be buying Ford or Nissan when I eventually get a new car. Not now, and not ever. No more than I would Chevy or Chrysler.
I believe in the market dictating what sells, rather than the government. I believe in the market setting the wages, rather than the unions.
Sometimes it seems as if I'm one of the few.
I believe in the market dictating what sells, rather than the government. I believe in the market setting the wages, rather than the unions.
Sometimes it seems as if I'm one of the few.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Divider, not uniter.
The most recent Presidential job approval poll reveals some interesting numbers. Not only is Obama's approval rating the lowest it's ever been, but the disapproval rating is the highest. It's about an even split.
So much for his "I'm a uniter" rhetoric.
So much for his "I'm a uniter" rhetoric.
Irony sandwiches are tasty.
The manager for the Black Eyed Peas (a band I don't really like that does music I really hate) punched Perez Hilton! It's about time somebody punched the rude little twinkie.
The irony is that the band's manager gave Hilton a black eye.
The irony is that the band's manager gave Hilton a black eye.
If criminals obeyed the law...
...the rest of us wouldn't be so afraid to lose our second amendment rights.
However. The only people who believe that making guns illegal would remove all guns from criminals are either naive lefties who think that the only reasons criminals commit crime is because of social injustice, or lawmakers who want to exert more control over the average citizen's life.
Protective orders have never kept abuser away from abused. Guns, however, can prevent further abuse.
Let's say I have a stalker. A stalker who's proved dangerous. Maybe even one that has a criminal record. What can the police do? Arrest him, sure, but they've got to let him go once he posts bail. He'll probably come right back after me, just as soon as he's free. What do I do, then? I'm really not very big, nor am I very strong; however, I'm a pretty good shot. And I'm in a state that permits me to shoot to kill when someone breaks into my home, or when someone accosts me in public and I'm afraid they're going to hurt me very badly or kill me.
Another instance recently happened in Maryland: a woman shot and killed her abusive ex-husband who came after her in spite of the protective order she had against him. Thankfully, sense has prevailed, and she's not being charged with anything. I say "sense," because he was defying the law (as criminals tend to do), and had attacked her.
If she hadn't had that gun, things likely would have turned out much worse. An innocent would be dead, rather than just another creep.
However. The only people who believe that making guns illegal would remove all guns from criminals are either naive lefties who think that the only reasons criminals commit crime is because of social injustice, or lawmakers who want to exert more control over the average citizen's life.
Protective orders have never kept abuser away from abused. Guns, however, can prevent further abuse.
Let's say I have a stalker. A stalker who's proved dangerous. Maybe even one that has a criminal record. What can the police do? Arrest him, sure, but they've got to let him go once he posts bail. He'll probably come right back after me, just as soon as he's free. What do I do, then? I'm really not very big, nor am I very strong; however, I'm a pretty good shot. And I'm in a state that permits me to shoot to kill when someone breaks into my home, or when someone accosts me in public and I'm afraid they're going to hurt me very badly or kill me.
Another instance recently happened in Maryland: a woman shot and killed her abusive ex-husband who came after her in spite of the protective order she had against him. Thankfully, sense has prevailed, and she's not being charged with anything. I say "sense," because he was defying the law (as criminals tend to do), and had attacked her.
If she hadn't had that gun, things likely would have turned out much worse. An innocent would be dead, rather than just another creep.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Can't say as I blame her.
Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann says she won't complete the census paperwork under ACORN's management.
Well. I can't say that I blame her. I plan to purchase identity theft protection insurance before I fill out the census stuff for my family, and I plan to fill out nothing more than how many of what age live under this roof. The government has no need to know race, marital status, party alignment, education, or income levels.
Well. I can't say that I blame her. I plan to purchase identity theft protection insurance before I fill out the census stuff for my family, and I plan to fill out nothing more than how many of what age live under this roof. The government has no need to know race, marital status, party alignment, education, or income levels.
Hypocrites.
Each and every politician that claims that something they want is "for the children" is nothing but a hypocrite. They do nothing--nothing--to make sure that animals like this cannot get into the United States, and do nothing to really punish him for his crimes against children while he's here.
Seriously, the best punishment is neither punishment nor deterrent--men like this cannot keep themselves from re-offending. Best thing to do is store them in a steel box, 6 feet under. Since we can't do that, the best alternative is lock them up for life in a 10'x14' box.
Worst thing to do is what's likely to be done: send him back to his own country. They won't punish him, either, because they know he'll be gone (back here) within a week. As if we don't have enough of our own nasties without the addition of Mexico's.
Seriously, the best punishment is neither punishment nor deterrent--men like this cannot keep themselves from re-offending. Best thing to do is store them in a steel box, 6 feet under. Since we can't do that, the best alternative is lock them up for life in a 10'x14' box.
Worst thing to do is what's likely to be done: send him back to his own country. They won't punish him, either, because they know he'll be gone (back here) within a week. As if we don't have enough of our own nasties without the addition of Mexico's.
Friday, June 19, 2009
I asked myself, "Who needs this particular study to answer that question?"
The National Institute of Health spent $423,500 on a study researching why men don't like to use condoms. Beyond being a waste of federal money, I thought the answer was obvious.
And then I realized just who was likely doing the study: people who've likely never had sex, with or without condoms, and likely never will.
And then I realized just who was likely doing the study: people who've likely never had sex, with or without condoms, and likely never will.
Again, don't say I can't laugh at everybody.
Teflon Man flies again (but hopefully not over New York City, this time).
I think I'd've just left the son of a bitch.
A woman in Russia is in the ICU after having had her hymen restored for the sixth time.
Apparently, the first time was a wedding gift for a husband who was upset that he wasn't her first. And he liked it so much that he asked her to do it every year. This time, however, she got an infection that put her in the hospital.
Y'know, there are other games they could play that could give the same effect. In Victorian times, it was common for a young lady to use a small animal bladder filled with animal blood to simulate a maidenhead that she'd already lost, to fool a new husband in the marriage bed. And like the men who fell for that trick in Victorian Britain, I'm pretty sure that the Russian husband would never have known the difference.
Apparently, the first time was a wedding gift for a husband who was upset that he wasn't her first. And he liked it so much that he asked her to do it every year. This time, however, she got an infection that put her in the hospital.
Y'know, there are other games they could play that could give the same effect. In Victorian times, it was common for a young lady to use a small animal bladder filled with animal blood to simulate a maidenhead that she'd already lost, to fool a new husband in the marriage bed. And like the men who fell for that trick in Victorian Britain, I'm pretty sure that the Russian husband would never have known the difference.
I almost want to cut my hands off, but..
...I gotta agree with Barbara Boxer: the general should have been calling her "Senator" from the get-go.
After all, even a REMF is superior to a United States Senator (or Representative) from the United Democratic People's Socialist Republic of California.
(Though it would have been beyond all reasonable expectation to ask Senator Boxer to return the favor, and call the Brigadier-General by his title.)
After all, even a REMF is superior to a United States Senator (or Representative) from the United Democratic People's Socialist Republic of California.
(Though it would have been beyond all reasonable expectation to ask Senator Boxer to return the favor, and call the Brigadier-General by his title.)
It's official.
You know how you can tell the difference between a redneck and white trash? You look at their parties. Yeah, both will involve a grill that costs more than their house. Both will involve booze. Both will involve a bonfire. Both will lose control of that bonfire...and that's where the difference comes in. Rednecks will go for the hydrant and hose to put the fire out. White trash will surround it and pee on it.
The Obamas make white trash look classy.
The Obamas make white trash look classy.
It's more warning than we had in 1941.
Japan has told us that North Korea plans to launch a missile at Hawaii on Independence Day.
Of course, North Korea's only doing missile tests. They won't really hit us. It's only a precaution against their technology failing that we're sending anti-missile technology to Hawaii.
I'll bet anything that their orders will be "do not fire, even if fired upon." This is going to be a lot bloodier than Mogadishu.
Of course, North Korea's only doing missile tests. They won't really hit us. It's only a precaution against their technology failing that we're sending anti-missile technology to Hawaii.
I'll bet anything that their orders will be "do not fire, even if fired upon." This is going to be a lot bloodier than Mogadishu.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The bovine excrement is so deep on this that the U.N. enviornmentalists need to impose fines.
Putin says that Russia might abandon its nukes, if other nations (*cough* United States *cough*) do so first.
Of course they will. They'll "abandon" a few in our airspace, a few in Poland's, a few in England's...
You get the picture. They'll "abandon" their nukes, as soon as they're sure they can launch without reprisals.
Of course they will. They'll "abandon" a few in our airspace, a few in Poland's, a few in England's...
You get the picture. They'll "abandon" their nukes, as soon as they're sure they can launch without reprisals.
Let's draft Jon Voight for President, 2012
I like that he speaks his mind, straight out and blunt, and regardless of possible consequences.
I also like that he's capable of writing his own speeches, and delivering them without a teleprompter.
I also like that he's capable of writing his own speeches, and delivering them without a teleprompter.
Who's responsible?
The guy who shot two soldiers (killing one) in Arkansas says he doesn't think it's murder. He says that, because they were soldiers, and because the army is over in the Middle East, and because he's Muslim, that it wasn't murder when he shot and killed a young man fresh from boot camp.
Who is responsible for this attitude? Cindy Sheehan and her crowd of twits clinging to their Vietnam-era, lazy, filthy hippie, women-are-communal-property, anti-soldier ideas?
Or maybe the radical Islamofacist Imam that recruited the murderer in prison?
Who is responsible for this attitude? Cindy Sheehan and her crowd of twits clinging to their Vietnam-era, lazy, filthy hippie, women-are-communal-property, anti-soldier ideas?
Or maybe the radical Islamofacist Imam that recruited the murderer in prison?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Well, it's not like they're not already trashed, by this point.
The government is planning to sell the FEMA trailers occupied by Katrina "victims" since the actual hurricane 4 1/2 years ago to the people they can't get out of them for $1-5.
I really don't have much objection to this plan. I mean, first of all, it would be a complete public relations nightmare for the new administration (kind of like closing charter schools in DC). Second, what are they going to do, evict people by force? ACORN would just help them break back in. Last, the trailers are probably trashed after four and a half years of occupancy by the professional "victims" that won't even try to stand back up without government assistance. If anything, I object to the price tag of $1-5.
They're probably not worth that much by this point.
I really don't have much objection to this plan. I mean, first of all, it would be a complete public relations nightmare for the new administration (kind of like closing charter schools in DC). Second, what are they going to do, evict people by force? ACORN would just help them break back in. Last, the trailers are probably trashed after four and a half years of occupancy by the professional "victims" that won't even try to stand back up without government assistance. If anything, I object to the price tag of $1-5.
They're probably not worth that much by this point.
So, what makes a Libertarian?
I don't know how they get the grants for stupid stuff like this, but scientists think that those who tend to be squeamish about "gross" stuff, like bugs, blood, gore, and dirt are far more likely to be conservatives. They suggest that conservatives are likely to have clean, well organized workspaces, as opposed to the colorful, stylish, and cluttered workspaces favored by liberals. They suggest that there's a biological element to political makeup.
I sincerely doubt that. I think that, rather than nature, it's a case of nurture forming the politics. I think that children either follow in their parents' footsteps or rebel so hard that they go in the opposite direction.
In any case, how would they explain Libertarianism? Y'know, the people who strongly and sincerely believe that the government should get out of the social safety net business, and stick to the limits set by the Constitution of the United States? The people who truly don't care what their neighbors think or do, so long as they're left alone?
I sincerely doubt that. I think that, rather than nature, it's a case of nurture forming the politics. I think that children either follow in their parents' footsteps or rebel so hard that they go in the opposite direction.
In any case, how would they explain Libertarianism? Y'know, the people who strongly and sincerely believe that the government should get out of the social safety net business, and stick to the limits set by the Constitution of the United States? The people who truly don't care what their neighbors think or do, so long as they're left alone?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
When do we get issued our fuzzy hats and cheap vodka??
I mean, Soviet Russia's national newspaper wrote about us screwing ourselves with our current acceleration down the slippery slope into communism.
The writer even details how it's happened without the purging of hundreds of millions of individual citizens to get to the point where the government owns GM and Chrysler now, and will own Citigroup shortly.
I, as a college composition instructor, can speak to this. I commonly use tons of classical references in everyday speech--alluding to everything from the Bible to Shakespeare to classical mythology (i.e., Greco-Roman), to historical documents, to--well, anything that seems to suit the situation.
Most of the time, no one catches what I'm saying. A telling example of this happened in grad school, when a classmate a year ahead of me dressed as a pimp for Halloween. I didn't recognize him, until he called after me, asking about a reading assignment. I responded, "Oh, I'm sorry. I took thee for a fishmonger(referring to Ophelia's father as a pimp)." Without remembering the next line ("Would thou wert so honest a man"--he didn't do his work, and used a criticism jargon-loaded vocabulary to hide it), said classmate, who was writing his thesis on Shakespeare, took it as a compliment: "Oh, you recognized what I was dressed as."
Statistics say that some three-quarters of students entering college need remediation in math before they can do basic level algebra, and two-thirds need remediation in English before they can write a full paragraph. I don't doubt this. Many of my students can barely read, and remediation does not seem to do those who've had that not-for-credit English class any good in forming sentences or paragraphs.
And the highest authority is not the government of the land.
I understand, on an intellectual level what the ten commandments say. I understand, on an intellectual level, that there are gray areas in the continuum of right and wrong, but I also understand (even if only on the same, intellectual level) that there are moral absolutes also on that continuum. That it is absolutely wrong to commit murder. It doesn't matter if you're an individual citizen drunk in a brawl, or a mother-to-be on an abortion doctor's table, or a serial killer stalking your profile victim (your mother, usually, or maybe sometimes your father. It is absolutely wrong to steal. It doesn't matter if you steal through sneaking into someone's house while they're not home, through holding a gun to their head, or through someone who isn't willing to work using the government to take money from someone who is by voting in new social safety net spending.
In any case, there are moral absolutes beyond what the government mandates. Communists don't like there being anyone having authority besides thier own self-appointed elite. Especially not God.
This, quite frankly, is appalling and terrifying--especially in that last clause. I'm sure most of my readers are familiar with the term "Weimar Republic," but may not be able to place it in historical context right off the top of their heads. Let me refresh your memories of relatively recent history:
Germany, 1935.
In other words, I'm pretty sure what we're accellerating toward is not Marxism, but national socialism. The parallels are there: a relatively young, charismatic politician that nobody knows anything about elected by violent hoodlums and ignorant twits that bleat for change? Check. Vicious and accellerating recession, heading straight into depression? Check. Nationalizing key industries? Check. Check. And check. Teaching our children that nothing (especially not core knowledge gathered by dead, white males) is important but social justice? Very much check.
We're fucked, people. The common populace has realized that it can vote itself bread and circuses.
The writer even details how it's happened without the purging of hundreds of millions of individual citizens to get to the point where the government owns GM and Chrysler now, and will own Citigroup shortly.
"First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics."
I, as a college composition instructor, can speak to this. I commonly use tons of classical references in everyday speech--alluding to everything from the Bible to Shakespeare to classical mythology (i.e., Greco-Roman), to historical documents, to--well, anything that seems to suit the situation.
Most of the time, no one catches what I'm saying. A telling example of this happened in grad school, when a classmate a year ahead of me dressed as a pimp for Halloween. I didn't recognize him, until he called after me, asking about a reading assignment. I responded, "Oh, I'm sorry. I took thee for a fishmonger(referring to Ophelia's father as a pimp)." Without remembering the next line ("Would thou wert so honest a man"--he didn't do his work, and used a criticism jargon-loaded vocabulary to hide it), said classmate, who was writing his thesis on Shakespeare, took it as a compliment: "Oh, you recognized what I was dressed as."
Statistics say that some three-quarters of students entering college need remediation in math before they can do basic level algebra, and two-thirds need remediation in English before they can write a full paragraph. I don't doubt this. Many of my students can barely read, and remediation does not seem to do those who've had that not-for-credit English class any good in forming sentences or paragraphs.
"Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different 'branches and denominations' were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the 'winning' side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another."Karl Marx himself said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Communists, those who don't believe in anything but their own power and privilege, and who use those who believe in the ideals, sneer at religion in general, and at Christianity in specific. Why? I believe it is because Christianity in specific calls for moral absolutes set by someone other than the government.
And the highest authority is not the government of the land.
I understand, on an intellectual level what the ten commandments say. I understand, on an intellectual level, that there are gray areas in the continuum of right and wrong, but I also understand (even if only on the same, intellectual level) that there are moral absolutes also on that continuum. That it is absolutely wrong to commit murder. It doesn't matter if you're an individual citizen drunk in a brawl, or a mother-to-be on an abortion doctor's table, or a serial killer stalking your profile victim (your mother, usually, or maybe sometimes your father. It is absolutely wrong to steal. It doesn't matter if you steal through sneaking into someone's house while they're not home, through holding a gun to their head, or through someone who isn't willing to work using the government to take money from someone who is by voting in new social safety net spending.
In any case, there are moral absolutes beyond what the government mandates. Communists don't like there being anyone having authority besides thier own self-appointed elite. Especially not God.
"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."
This, quite frankly, is appalling and terrifying--especially in that last clause. I'm sure most of my readers are familiar with the term "Weimar Republic," but may not be able to place it in historical context right off the top of their heads. Let me refresh your memories of relatively recent history:
Germany, 1935.
In other words, I'm pretty sure what we're accellerating toward is not Marxism, but national socialism. The parallels are there: a relatively young, charismatic politician that nobody knows anything about elected by violent hoodlums and ignorant twits that bleat for change? Check. Vicious and accellerating recession, heading straight into depression? Check. Nationalizing key industries? Check. Check. And check. Teaching our children that nothing (especially not core knowledge gathered by dead, white males) is important but social justice? Very much check.
We're fucked, people. The common populace has realized that it can vote itself bread and circuses.
Friday, May 29, 2009
About damn time.
Moderate Muslims everywhere should follow the example set for them in England, where they pushed the extremist protest against British soldiers off the street.
I still stand by my assertion that until the moderate Muslims get radically intolerant of the radically intolerant, but at least the process has begun.
Next step: ban radical fundamentalist recruitment--Christian, Muslim, or otherwise--in prisons.
I still stand by my assertion that until the moderate Muslims get radically intolerant of the radically intolerant, but at least the process has begun.
Next step: ban radical fundamentalist recruitment--Christian, Muslim, or otherwise--in prisons.
I've never thought it was a good idea.
The vow of celibacy, that is. It only causes good men to ignore a call to the priesthood because they want a family, break their vows once they're there because God places their soul mate in their path, or enables a monster who wants to use the reputation of a man of God to put them beyond accusation when they rape children.
Not to mention, a priest who isn't married doesn't have the tools provided by personal experience to be a marriage counselor. It's like asking your maiden aunt about sex.
Not to mention, a priest who isn't married doesn't have the tools provided by personal experience to be a marriage counselor. It's like asking your maiden aunt about sex.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Gah.
Global warming activists can't make up their damned minds. First, they say that humans and human activities are killing Mother Gaia (funny, the only problem they seem to have with Christianity is that, in the words of one of my friends, the Jew came back [though, not the very next day]). Then, they bewail and bemoan that global warming kills 315,000 per year (mostly in France, where people leave their elderly relatives at home while they go on vacation to cooler climes).
What they don't seem to think about is what's bound to happen when the pendulum swings the other way. I somehow get the feeling that they'll stop congratulating themselves for averting catastrophically high sea levels once they realize that the cycle of climate change dictates that it's time for another ice age, and the death rate quintuples.
What they don't seem to think about is what's bound to happen when the pendulum swings the other way. I somehow get the feeling that they'll stop congratulating themselves for averting catastrophically high sea levels once they realize that the cycle of climate change dictates that it's time for another ice age, and the death rate quintuples.
It's not paranoia when car dealerships' franchises are being revoked for partisan reasons.
Vilmar at Kickin' and Screamin' mentioned the possibility that Chrysler was revoking dealer franchises based on who the dealerships' owners donated money to in the last political season. The blog post I read on 22 May mentioned six or seven specific cases in which a profitable dealership was losing its manufacturer's franchise with Chrysler because the owner had donated to a Republican rather than to the curent POTUS.
Despite the ring of truth, I thought Vilmar was just being paranoid. I wanted to think that Vilmar was just being paranoid. There was more about it posted over there today. With a whole lot more documentation. Drudge picked up on it, too.
It's not paranoia when there actually is someone out to get you. In other words, Vilmar's not the only one that's noticed what's being done.
I won't speculate about who's behind the orders. I have my suspicions, but will not make accusations that I cannot back up with proof--especially since I don't have the time to go looking for that proof.
Still. I wonder how long it'll be before every new car sold in the United States is required by law to be made by Government Motors. It worked so well for the Soviets with the Lada, after all.
Despite the ring of truth, I thought Vilmar was just being paranoid. I wanted to think that Vilmar was just being paranoid. There was more about it posted over there today. With a whole lot more documentation. Drudge picked up on it, too.
It's not paranoia when there actually is someone out to get you. In other words, Vilmar's not the only one that's noticed what's being done.
I won't speculate about who's behind the orders. I have my suspicions, but will not make accusations that I cannot back up with proof--especially since I don't have the time to go looking for that proof.
Still. I wonder how long it'll be before every new car sold in the United States is required by law to be made by Government Motors. It worked so well for the Soviets with the Lada, after all.
And yet another reason to oppose Sotamayor's nomination.
She does not favor freedom of speech when it's a high school student versus government officials, specifically her school's superintendent and other school officials.
I understand that most school administrators would rather cut off possible problems at the pass, but I do not believe that referring to the school officials as "douche bags" on an off-campus, non-school-related personally owned and written blog should be grounds for barring a senior in high school from running for student body president. Like as not, the senior in question was being honest and accurate.
In any case, it not only seems as if this judge ruled in violation of a young adult's constitutionally protected rights, but that the ruling implied that she might well apply similar politically correct (i.e., you can't offend anybody with your words) reasoning in other first amendment cases.
And that, as much as her "empathy," scares me.
I understand that most school administrators would rather cut off possible problems at the pass, but I do not believe that referring to the school officials as "douche bags" on an off-campus, non-school-related personally owned and written blog should be grounds for barring a senior in high school from running for student body president. Like as not, the senior in question was being honest and accurate.
In any case, it not only seems as if this judge ruled in violation of a young adult's constitutionally protected rights, but that the ruling implied that she might well apply similar politically correct (i.e., you can't offend anybody with your words) reasoning in other first amendment cases.
And that, as much as her "empathy," scares me.
Only in California.
A pastor and his wife have been ordered, in direct violations of their first amendment rights (specifically, freedoms of assembly and religion) to cease and desist holding bible study classes in their home, or else prepare to pay "escalating fines."
California's reasons for believing that they're permitted to abridge this couple's God granted first amendment rights? "[U]nlawful use of land." Inviting family and friends to THEIR OWN PRIVATE RESIDENCE for private worship is an "unlawful use of land."
Of course, they could shell out mere tens of thousands of dollars for usage fees, environmental impact studies, etc. ad naseum, to be permitted by the government of the People's Democratic Republic of California to practice rights enumerated as BEYOND GOVERNMENT REACH.
Bottom line? California's bankrupt. Financially, politically, and morally. That means they're looking for any possible way to screw its (few remaining financially solvent) citizens out of funds to try to prop themselves up for long enough to find the next sucker.
Oh, and fuck over Christians while they're at it.
California's reasons for believing that they're permitted to abridge this couple's God granted first amendment rights? "[U]nlawful use of land." Inviting family and friends to THEIR OWN PRIVATE RESIDENCE for private worship is an "unlawful use of land."
Of course, they could shell out mere tens of thousands of dollars for usage fees, environmental impact studies, etc. ad naseum, to be permitted by the government of the People's Democratic Republic of California to practice rights enumerated as BEYOND GOVERNMENT REACH.
Bottom line? California's bankrupt. Financially, politically, and morally. That means they're looking for any possible way to screw its (few remaining financially solvent) citizens out of funds to try to prop themselves up for long enough to find the next sucker.
Oh, and fuck over Christians while they're at it.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Oh. My. Lord.
Even the Vice President makes fun of the President's reliance on teleprompters.
God have mercy on us--we elected two of the biggest idiots we've ever elected.
God have mercy on us--we elected two of the biggest idiots we've ever elected.
Too late now, idiots.
Russia now fears that North Korea will start a nuclear war. Given that the whole North Korea/South Korea thing was a direct offshoot of the First Cold War, and that if not for Russian Communisim and their brothers in China, North Korea wouldn't be an issue right now, it serves them right to have to fear what they have wrought.
Especially since it's very likely that Japan will probably also go nuclear, out of self defense.
No one trusts the new POTUS, with his bowing, scraping, and ass kissing to vicious dictators the world over, and his scramble to re-label everything from terrorism to the conflict in the Middle East. Everyone believes that he'll duck and dodge, verbally bobbing and weaving, and refuse to deal with a nuclear attack.
I don't trust him not to adequately respond to a nuclear attack (i.e., declare war, with nothing but unconditional surrender and regime replacement, if not total annihilation). Not on South Korea. Not on Japan. Not on Israel. Nor even upon us.
Especially since it's very likely that Japan will probably also go nuclear, out of self defense.
No one trusts the new POTUS, with his bowing, scraping, and ass kissing to vicious dictators the world over, and his scramble to re-label everything from terrorism to the conflict in the Middle East. Everyone believes that he'll duck and dodge, verbally bobbing and weaving, and refuse to deal with a nuclear attack.
I don't trust him not to adequately respond to a nuclear attack (i.e., declare war, with nothing but unconditional surrender and regime replacement, if not total annihilation). Not on South Korea. Not on Japan. Not on Israel. Nor even upon us.
This should have put her out of the running.
Our Dear Leader's pick for the SCOTUS has had 60% of her decisions reversed by a higher court.
This tells me a couple of things: one, that she ignores constitutional law; and two, that she is unjust in her decisions.
President Obama made much of his pick: she's Latina, she has diabetes, and most importantly, she is a woman. He said that she would rule with empathy, once confirmed to the highest court of the land.
Were I in a position to oppose her nomination, I would do it. I do not give a damn what race she is, or that she's a fellow female. I care that she's shown herself to be willing to legislate from the bench, and that she's shown herself to rule against some parties because of their race.
Put together, this woman looks like another grave threat to the rule of constitutional law.
This tells me a couple of things: one, that she ignores constitutional law; and two, that she is unjust in her decisions.
President Obama made much of his pick: she's Latina, she has diabetes, and most importantly, she is a woman. He said that she would rule with empathy, once confirmed to the highest court of the land.
Were I in a position to oppose her nomination, I would do it. I do not give a damn what race she is, or that she's a fellow female. I care that she's shown herself to be willing to legislate from the bench, and that she's shown herself to rule against some parties because of their race.
Put together, this woman looks like another grave threat to the rule of constitutional law.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Nooo...really??
"An elephant: a mouse built to government specifications."--Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Our Dear Leader has told us that we've run out of money.
Given that both Obama and Bush spent like drunken sailors without regard for whether or not we had it in the treasury, and given that spending on credit and living above one's means (whether as an individual or a nation) has been what's been pushed by all of the financial industry for pretty much my entire lifetime, it's absolutely not surprising.
I think, however, what the government will find surprising is that increasing taxes on individuals and small businesses will do nothing but slow the inflow of money.
Why?
Simple. If, say, I wanted to open a small business, I'd probably do my best to avoid the top tax brackets. Which means that, were I honest, I'd simply not try to be as successful as I could be, because, in my perception, success is punished by the government (unless it's the upper echelons of union management). Therefore, I wouldn't be paying the government more than I absolutely had to, and I'd be spending a good chunk on accountants to minimize that as much as possible. After all, it's my money, I earned it, and I want to manage where it goes--including which charity it goes to (in other words, as an ant, I don't want to subsidize grasshoppers' song and dance).
Were I dishonest, I'd be taking a lot of payment for my goods and/or services in cash. I'd be taking payment in kind, if cash weren't available. I'd likely keep records on about a third of the business I actually did. And I would not report more than I had records on as income. Again, my money, my charitable contribution choices.
Obama says he's going to raise taxes on the "rich." The "rich" will cut back their businesses because they can't afford to keep them going at the same rate with the same number of employees (who, incidentally, pay income taxes on their paychecks). They fire employees (who quit paying income tax and start drawing unemployment), and slow production. Their prices go up, but at the same time, their income drops because they won't be doing as much business. That means they also pay less in taxes.
That doesn't mean that government spending slows, though. It's an example of the same lack of common sense as the farmer had when he killed the goose.
In any case, that's all a moot point. Obama has openly stated that it doesn't matter that cutting taxes has shown to bring in more money, because cutting taxes for the "rich" isn't "fair."
To be perfectly honest, "fair" is a bad idea. "Fair" would be presenting each individual over the age of 18 as of January 20 with a bill for their share of the national debt, and telling them that they have a limited amount of time to pay their share.
Israel?
Syria's delusional, as always. Assad says Israel is the "greatest obstacle" to peace in the Middle East.
In all honesty, it's probable that the outside enemy that Israel provides for the various governments in the region is all that keeps the rival tribes from killing each other. In other words, had Israel not ever been reborn, or if Iran is successful in wiping it off the map, the tribes in the Muslim nations would be busy killing each other.
Seen that way, Israel's existence has preserved the lives of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Muslim terrorists.
Pity.
In all honesty, it's probable that the outside enemy that Israel provides for the various governments in the region is all that keeps the rival tribes from killing each other. In other words, had Israel not ever been reborn, or if Iran is successful in wiping it off the map, the tribes in the Muslim nations would be busy killing each other.
Seen that way, Israel's existence has preserved the lives of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Muslim terrorists.
Pity.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Glad I'm not a literalist.
This proves that the first chapters of Genesis are metaphor.
Of course the Bible has important messages in it. Of course it contains the word of God.
However.
Since it was filtered through generations of fallible humans in an oral tradition, and filtered through more as it was written down, and still more when it was translated, we Christians cannot take it literally when we read. What we're reading for is a focus through which the present-day voice of God can make itself heard through the rebellious children sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you, God! Are you trying to talk to me? Oh, well, guess I'll do what I want, since He's not telling me I can't."
And still, most of us don't listen. And that's the gift He's given us: the choice of whether or not to listen
Of course the Bible has important messages in it. Of course it contains the word of God.
However.
Since it was filtered through generations of fallible humans in an oral tradition, and filtered through more as it was written down, and still more when it was translated, we Christians cannot take it literally when we read. What we're reading for is a focus through which the present-day voice of God can make itself heard through the rebellious children sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you, God! Are you trying to talk to me? Oh, well, guess I'll do what I want, since He's not telling me I can't."
And still, most of us don't listen. And that's the gift He's given us: the choice of whether or not to listen
Absolute coolness.
I'm a huge fan of Star Trek. The original series and Deep Space Nine, mostly--The Next Generation, was a bit too idealistic and blindly optimistic about human nature and the nature of peace, and Voyager had a great premise with lousy execution. Like any fan, I've got my favorite characters and episodes.
What made it all possible was Roddenberry's imagination, and his imagination included a new type of faster-than-light travel, called warp travel. This, in the imaginary world of Star Trek, worked by taking a chunk of the space-time coninuum, and warping it to where it was in a different dimension--subspace.
Apparently, this isn't quite so far-fetched as we all thought. Scientists are now saying that making such a breakthrough--the warp engine--is merely difficult, not impossible.
I have two words for that:
Fucking.
AWESOME.
What made it all possible was Roddenberry's imagination, and his imagination included a new type of faster-than-light travel, called warp travel. This, in the imaginary world of Star Trek, worked by taking a chunk of the space-time coninuum, and warping it to where it was in a different dimension--subspace.
Apparently, this isn't quite so far-fetched as we all thought. Scientists are now saying that making such a breakthrough--the warp engine--is merely difficult, not impossible.
I have two words for that:
Fucking.
AWESOME.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Huh. Interesting.
Astrophysicists have noted that the sun is dimmer and less active than at any time during the past hundred years. I guess that would explain the unusual weather.
Although, I wish they'd keep their agenda and predictions out of it, and just put the facts out there--they're careful to state that this won't make a difference to global warming, and that carbon dioxide, which we all exhale every time we breathe, is still increasing.
Umm. Duh. So's the earth's population. Get over it.
I mean, either the earth will get warmer, or it will get cooler. It's a normal cycle, and we can't do as much about it as we think we can.
That's not to say I think we should damn the pollution, full speed ahead on industry. Nor do I think that the "carbon offset credits" are anything other than the modern version of the Medieval Catholic Church's buyable absolution for sin (given that simply breathing seems to be a sin for some environmentalists--see what I said about carbon dioxide), or the "cap and trade" legislation is anything other than a new tax in disguise.
Shut up, guys, and let the actual weather tell us what the results of lower solar activity will be.
Although, I wish they'd keep their agenda and predictions out of it, and just put the facts out there--they're careful to state that this won't make a difference to global warming, and that carbon dioxide, which we all exhale every time we breathe, is still increasing.
Umm. Duh. So's the earth's population. Get over it.
I mean, either the earth will get warmer, or it will get cooler. It's a normal cycle, and we can't do as much about it as we think we can.
That's not to say I think we should damn the pollution, full speed ahead on industry. Nor do I think that the "carbon offset credits" are anything other than the modern version of the Medieval Catholic Church's buyable absolution for sin (given that simply breathing seems to be a sin for some environmentalists--see what I said about carbon dioxide), or the "cap and trade" legislation is anything other than a new tax in disguise.
Shut up, guys, and let the actual weather tell us what the results of lower solar activity will be.
Monday, May 4, 2009
This is sad.
Police had to rescue a man from a rooftop in Sydney, Austrailia. They immediately arrested him, because the idiot had had to call for help while attempting to rob the factory under the roof he was trapped on.
Apparently, rainy weather and a steep angled roof is far more effective than a burglar alarm at preventing crime.
Apparently, rainy weather and a steep angled roof is far more effective than a burglar alarm at preventing crime.
I guess the question would be "Who would you rather be screwed by?"
A rather attractive young woman is considering a run against an incumbent United States Senator from Louisiana. The kicker is that Stormy Daniels is not only no politician, but is a part of the industry that has damaged Senator David Vitter's credibility with voters.
She's a porn star.
So, since all politicians will screw you in one way or another, the question is who would you rather be screwed by? A goofy looking politician who frequents the professionals? Or a gorgeous example of one of those professionals, who could probably make sure almost anyone enjoyed it?
Just when I thought that our Senate was self-parodying...I was proved right.
She's a porn star.
So, since all politicians will screw you in one way or another, the question is who would you rather be screwed by? A goofy looking politician who frequents the professionals? Or a gorgeous example of one of those professionals, who could probably make sure almost anyone enjoyed it?
Just when I thought that our Senate was self-parodying...I was proved right.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Futility of acting on a miscalculation
Recently, the GOP leadership realized just how bad of a mess they're in. They've realized that the people they're supposed to represent are becoming angrier and angrier that they aren't doing the job they were hired to do. They're "launching an outreach initiative" to try to hide the chasm they've dug between themselves and their voters.
They'll fail. They'll fail because they're operating under a whole host of wrong assumptions.
The Democrats are, if anything, worse, depending on the issue. In my opinion, what they've done with and to their voters--i.e., removing the option of choosing schools from families that cannot afford private school tuition, encouraging dependency upon government programs, and telling one of the key blocs of their voters (the blacks) that they cannot get ahead without government assistance because of racism--is far worse, because the majority of their voters don't even see the chasm.
Frankly, I'm unhappy with both sets of congresscritters. I don't appreciate half of the elected Republicans assuming that the nation is swinging left on all issues. I don't appreciate the other half of the elected Republicans (and many Democrats) assuming that the majority of the nation are narrow-minded bigots.
I think many Americans think the way I do: that smaller government is the way to go.
The Republican party assumes that the majority of Americans are socially conservative. If, by that, they mean that most Americans believe in family, and believe in parents loving and teaching their children, they're right. Honestly, I don't think there's a politician out there that doesn't understand that family, however each voter defines it, drives voting. Where I think the Republicans get it wrong is the values they think Americans ascribe to.
Most American voters don't give as much of a damn about the social issues as the Republicans think they do. We aren't so much against civil unions as we are against loud, obnoxious activists that want not equality but special treatment, and as we are against judges usurping the powers of the legislature with their rulings.
The thing is, no one can tell you that you're not married if you feel you are, and no piece of paper can make you feel that way if you don't in the first place. Hence, the rates of infidelity and divorce amongst straight couples.
All that piece of paper does is get your name change filed in records, and permit you to claim certain privileges. Privileges, not rights. A right is something you're born with, and gays have exactly the same rights as straight people do. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have the rights the government is forbidden to mess with by the first ten amendments. They have the right to be offended, or to choose not to be offended, by small-minded creeps--just the same as I have, or as my husband has.
They don't have some government granted privileges, true. And I have no objection to them being granted the same privileges I have, as a married woman. (God knows if they're allowed the government recognition the rest of us have, the marriage penalty in filing taxes would never be an issue again, no matter who's in charge at the federal level.) And I don't think that most Americans feel that differently. It's the word "marriage" that seems to get so many up in arms--on both sides--yet no one realizes that the government doesn't do "marriage," and hasn't since the advent of the easy divorce on a whim laws.
So, no, going farther right into bigotry or farther left into wishy-washy isn't going to fill the chasm. America doesn't care as much about the social issues as the Republicans think it does.
What most of us care about is our individual rights, about fiscal policy (specifically, our taxes and the way the money's spent, about the national debt and ginormous budget deficit) and about foreign policy. Most of us who feel as if we have no representation in Congress believe that the Federal government has taken too much power from both the state and especially from the individual with the laws passed criminalizing everything from driving without a seatbelt to smoking in your own car with the windows cracked if your kids happen to be with you.
I think that what the Republican party forgets is that we hired them to work for us, to represent us in the composition of new laws and the imposition of new taxes. The Republican party forgets that most of us that vote for them are voting for them to prevent the levying of new taxes, or the increase of taxes we already pay (the huge cigarette tax hike is a good example of where they failed to represent us). They forget that we hired them to make sure the federal government doesn't trample our rights as stated in the first ten amendments any further than it already has.
And they all, Republican and Democrat alike in their zeal to increase the size of government through programs the government was never authorized by the United States Constitution to create, forget that we hired them to prevent the federal government from spending us into international debtors' prison.
The Republican party is killing themselves through not understanding that most of us are closer to classic Liberalism than to either Liberal Progressivism or Social Conservatism.
I'll be writing on classic Liberalism next week, just for clarification of what I mean by that.
They'll fail. They'll fail because they're operating under a whole host of wrong assumptions.
The Democrats are, if anything, worse, depending on the issue. In my opinion, what they've done with and to their voters--i.e., removing the option of choosing schools from families that cannot afford private school tuition, encouraging dependency upon government programs, and telling one of the key blocs of their voters (the blacks) that they cannot get ahead without government assistance because of racism--is far worse, because the majority of their voters don't even see the chasm.
Frankly, I'm unhappy with both sets of congresscritters. I don't appreciate half of the elected Republicans assuming that the nation is swinging left on all issues. I don't appreciate the other half of the elected Republicans (and many Democrats) assuming that the majority of the nation are narrow-minded bigots.
I think many Americans think the way I do: that smaller government is the way to go.
The Republican party assumes that the majority of Americans are socially conservative. If, by that, they mean that most Americans believe in family, and believe in parents loving and teaching their children, they're right. Honestly, I don't think there's a politician out there that doesn't understand that family, however each voter defines it, drives voting. Where I think the Republicans get it wrong is the values they think Americans ascribe to.
Most American voters don't give as much of a damn about the social issues as the Republicans think they do. We aren't so much against civil unions as we are against loud, obnoxious activists that want not equality but special treatment, and as we are against judges usurping the powers of the legislature with their rulings.
The thing is, no one can tell you that you're not married if you feel you are, and no piece of paper can make you feel that way if you don't in the first place. Hence, the rates of infidelity and divorce amongst straight couples.
All that piece of paper does is get your name change filed in records, and permit you to claim certain privileges. Privileges, not rights. A right is something you're born with, and gays have exactly the same rights as straight people do. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have the rights the government is forbidden to mess with by the first ten amendments. They have the right to be offended, or to choose not to be offended, by small-minded creeps--just the same as I have, or as my husband has.
They don't have some government granted privileges, true. And I have no objection to them being granted the same privileges I have, as a married woman. (God knows if they're allowed the government recognition the rest of us have, the marriage penalty in filing taxes would never be an issue again, no matter who's in charge at the federal level.) And I don't think that most Americans feel that differently. It's the word "marriage" that seems to get so many up in arms--on both sides--yet no one realizes that the government doesn't do "marriage," and hasn't since the advent of the easy divorce on a whim laws.
So, no, going farther right into bigotry or farther left into wishy-washy isn't going to fill the chasm. America doesn't care as much about the social issues as the Republicans think it does.
What most of us care about is our individual rights, about fiscal policy (specifically, our taxes and the way the money's spent, about the national debt and ginormous budget deficit) and about foreign policy. Most of us who feel as if we have no representation in Congress believe that the Federal government has taken too much power from both the state and especially from the individual with the laws passed criminalizing everything from driving without a seatbelt to smoking in your own car with the windows cracked if your kids happen to be with you.
I think that what the Republican party forgets is that we hired them to work for us, to represent us in the composition of new laws and the imposition of new taxes. The Republican party forgets that most of us that vote for them are voting for them to prevent the levying of new taxes, or the increase of taxes we already pay (the huge cigarette tax hike is a good example of where they failed to represent us). They forget that we hired them to make sure the federal government doesn't trample our rights as stated in the first ten amendments any further than it already has.
And they all, Republican and Democrat alike in their zeal to increase the size of government through programs the government was never authorized by the United States Constitution to create, forget that we hired them to prevent the federal government from spending us into international debtors' prison.
The Republican party is killing themselves through not understanding that most of us are closer to classic Liberalism than to either Liberal Progressivism or Social Conservatism.
I'll be writing on classic Liberalism next week, just for clarification of what I mean by that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
