As the new year approaches, there is certainly no lack of stories to cover. (We have been taking a bit of a holiday break here at MC, thus the lack of coverage)
The Israel-Gaza situation seems to be the most urgent international crisis currently receiving MSM attention. Though, there is probably literally almost no way in the world of getting an objective account of what occurred, given the nature of the conflict.
The situation is akin to trying to heal a festering wound by wrapping it tightly in gauze and punching it occasionally, then ripping off the gauze expecting to see healthy skin. (amazingly enough, this ridiculous-at-best method of establishing peace has been tried repeatedly by foreign powers determined to "bring peace to the middle east".) And they actually give out nobel prizes for this! Though, I've long said that getting a Nobel Prize (except perhaps in scientific fields) is a sure sign that you have probably done things which will cause death and disaster.
Imagine you have a long-standing feud with another person. They have caused you and your family grievous harm, and you feel force is the only way to resolve the issue. Then some foreign leaders who have never been to your country (outside of maybe a tourist trip and/or short stay at the nearest Four Seasons), don't speak your language, etc, meet with some divisive figures from your part of the world, argue about semantics while eating food you will never be able to afford, all finally shake hands, and announce that they have solved your feud.
But, of course, nothing has changed for you. You just wait until another good opportunity, and strike out again. When this is done in a violent manner (as it tends to end up being), it leads to more violence, and more violence, until a pattern of conflict is established. When this pattern has occurred for decades in its present form, and centuries in other forms, it cannot change until the "hearts and minds" of the people involved change.
This sounds trite, but there is no other reality.
Actually, any attempt at a solution to the problem of violence in the Middle East that is based in a world view where people are seen as inherently good, is doomed to failure.
Which brings us back to this season. The only real hope for peace, is that which the angels proclaimed in Bethleham, so many years ago. "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to men on whom His favor rests..."
When Peace does not reign in the hearts of men, how can it reign in their land?
-()4|<.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
SXeasXon's XGreXetiXngs-Merry Christmas!!!
First off, I'd like to celebrate the day by thanking my mysterious co-contributors, WMR and CSM:
Both of you bring specific talents to this blog, and I've enjoyed keeping this going with you.
Here's to another year of fun writing. Thanks guys.
And to those few of you who read this:
Thank you, have a wonderful Christmas, and may your numbers multiply greatly in the coming year!
-()4|<.
Both of you bring specific talents to this blog, and I've enjoyed keeping this going with you.
Here's to another year of fun writing. Thanks guys.
And to those few of you who read this:
Thank you, have a wonderful Christmas, and may your numbers multiply greatly in the coming year!
-()4|<.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Mirrored Losses
I'm not sure why I thought about this today. But, it seems that the parties simply switched candidates for this past election. In 2004, the Democrats ran an aging, boring fellow with no clearly stated vision for the nation teamed with a spunky, though vapid, vice presidential nominee. The Republicans ran George W. Bush who was more charismatic and had a plan (vague though it might have been at the time) teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee. In 2008, the Democrats ran a charismatic Obama with a very vague plan of "change" teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee, and the Republicans ran an aging boring fellow who never really laid out a plan and teamed him with a spunky, though attractive, vice presidential nominee.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
Pirates! 2
In the latest development in the Somali pirates situation, China is sending a small naval detachment to help deal with the problem.
This is a new development for China, who historically has not had a navy prone to global actions. For a long period of Chinese history, there was basically no Chinese navy whatsoever, though at other times China held quite a firm grip on the seas around their borders. Ironically, those seas used to be scourged by Chinese pirates as well, but that's another story.
Meanwhile, as all eyes turn to see what the US Government's reaction will be, the official response was something along the lines of "Hm? Oh, whatever, that's fine.".
China has a vested interest in seeing that their cargo stays secure while passing through the area, doubtless. And it is a welcome relief to me to see that we don't feel an obligation to right the wrongs of the Gulf of Aden. More interesting is the fact that the local Muslim countries have up until this point done little to diminish it, let alone put a stop to it.
China's intervention may actually make a difference, as they have been heavily investing in Africa for a while now. Though, it has been made clear that Somalia is not really functioning as a nation right now. The "Somali Coast Guard" is actually a piratical organization as well.
-()4|<.
"We are making preparations and
arrangements to deploy naval ships to the Gulf of Aden for escorting
operations," [Foreign Ministry Spokesman] Liu said, without elaborating on details of the mission.
This is a new development for China, who historically has not had a navy prone to global actions. For a long period of Chinese history, there was basically no Chinese navy whatsoever, though at other times China held quite a firm grip on the seas around their borders. Ironically, those seas used to be scourged by Chinese pirates as well, but that's another story.
Meanwhile, as all eyes turn to see what the US Government's reaction will be, the official response was something along the lines of "Hm? Oh, whatever, that's fine.".
A U.S. State Department official said the U.S. has no problem with China "deploying its assets."
"China, like a number of other countries, has decided that we as an international community must act," the official said.
China has a vested interest in seeing that their cargo stays secure while passing through the area, doubtless. And it is a welcome relief to me to see that we don't feel an obligation to right the wrongs of the Gulf of Aden. More interesting is the fact that the local Muslim countries have up until this point done little to diminish it, let alone put a stop to it.
China's intervention may actually make a difference, as they have been heavily investing in Africa for a while now. Though, it has been made clear that Somalia is not really functioning as a nation right now. The "Somali Coast Guard" is actually a piratical organization as well.
-()4|<.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A little Christmas Cheer from Mother Russia
What better way to spread the love of Christmas than with the gift that gives on giving?
No, I don't mean fruitcake, but something even better:
10 MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighter Jets that Russia is providing to Lebanon free of cost.
Of course, it's a bit of a white elephant as well. One wonders where they will find qualified pilots for these advanced fighter jets. And the gift becomes token at best, really, when you remember that their southern neighbor Israel has arguably the world's best pilots plus top level fighter jets that they outfit with their own packages.
In the event of an air war, those MiG-29's would simply become the first targets.
No, Russia has not really changed the balance of anything in the region militarily speaking, what they are doing is stirring up trouble. First with the highly publicized trips to Venezuela and now Cuba, it seems they are looking to rekindle the frosty fires of the cold war. Of course, that won't happen, since Russia is actually doomed, demographically speaking.
Their birthrate is so low that unless a rapid change occurs somewhere, in a few generations they simply won't have the population to sustain a military large enough to matter. Their own healthy ministry is predicting that by 2011, the death rate there will equal the birth rate. (possibly due to the fact that their are more abortions than births in Russia) Coupled with the fact that their population has been declining by half a percent annually since the mid-90's, those figures spell bad news for Russia. Now, their population is projected to fall as much as a third by 2050, down to 85 million or so.
In summary, now might be a great time to visit Russia.
Who knows, maybe they'll give you a fighter jet.
Dos Vedanya, Tovaricham...
-()4|<.
No, I don't mean fruitcake, but something even better:
10 MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighter Jets that Russia is providing to Lebanon free of cost.
This is like upgrading from a .22 pistol to a shotgun for the less-than-formidable Lebanese Air Force:Russia gave Lebanon an early Christmas gift of 10 MiG fighter jets today in a deal to boost defence co-operation.
The MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters would be provided for free to Lebanon under an agreement on military-technical assistance, the head of Russia’s defence co-operation service said. Mikhail Dmitryev said that the jets would be taken from Russia’s existing stock.
The MiG-29s, one of Russia’s best fighter jets, will provide considerable additional firepower for the Lebanese air force, which currently has only five outdated Hawker Hunter jets and 16 helicopters.
Of course, it's a bit of a white elephant as well. One wonders where they will find qualified pilots for these advanced fighter jets. And the gift becomes token at best, really, when you remember that their southern neighbor Israel has arguably the world's best pilots plus top level fighter jets that they outfit with their own packages.
In the event of an air war, those MiG-29's would simply become the first targets.
No, Russia has not really changed the balance of anything in the region militarily speaking, what they are doing is stirring up trouble. First with the highly publicized trips to Venezuela and now Cuba, it seems they are looking to rekindle the frosty fires of the cold war. Of course, that won't happen, since Russia is actually doomed, demographically speaking.
Their birthrate is so low that unless a rapid change occurs somewhere, in a few generations they simply won't have the population to sustain a military large enough to matter. Their own healthy ministry is predicting that by 2011, the death rate there will equal the birth rate. (possibly due to the fact that their are more abortions than births in Russia) Coupled with the fact that their population has been declining by half a percent annually since the mid-90's, those figures spell bad news for Russia. Now, their population is projected to fall as much as a third by 2050, down to 85 million or so.
In summary, now might be a great time to visit Russia.
Who knows, maybe they'll give you a fighter jet.
Dos Vedanya, Tovaricham...
-()4|<.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
New York Insanity
Gov. Paterson of New York has decided that raising taxes is the best way to fill the gaps in the state budget. The theoretical yield of this expansion of taxes is $4,000,000,000. But, how will the state of New York get this money?
Placing a sales tax on taxi and bus service? Removing the state 8-cent-per-gallon tax limit? The concept of taxing such things is not new at all. It seems to be common in an era where the goal of 'progressive' government is to get people to drive less. Adding a tax on 'digitally delivered entertainment' (meaning downloaded music/movies/etc...)? The concept of adding a tax to an already controversially easily acquired item seems rather foolish to me. Increasing taxes on soft drinks simply because they are not healthy?
Hmm...less driving, increased taxes on stuff in general, a tax for being unhealthy? It seems New York is well on the way to liberal tax-topia.
Placing a sales tax on taxi and bus service? Removing the state 8-cent-per-gallon tax limit? The concept of taxing such things is not new at all. It seems to be common in an era where the goal of 'progressive' government is to get people to drive less. Adding a tax on 'digitally delivered entertainment' (meaning downloaded music/movies/etc...)? The concept of adding a tax to an already controversially easily acquired item seems rather foolish to me. Increasing taxes on soft drinks simply because they are not healthy?
Hmm...less driving, increased taxes on stuff in general, a tax for being unhealthy? It seems New York is well on the way to liberal tax-topia.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Badly Aiming Journalists
It seems that, with paper closures and bankruptcies exploding on the scene, journalists have been missing more than hitting these days. That was graphically illustrated in Iraq with a random shoe-throwing incident that clearly demonstrates their aim may be permanently off.
Clearly, this journalist needs work on both his pitch and his delivery, as the President nimbly avoided his bombardment and shrugged off the incident. And notice that the Premier moved to protect the President, and didn't dive off the stage to save himself. (in Iraq, shoes may be a huge insult, but they're probably the least destructive thing you're likely to have thrown at you.) This may actually be proof of how safe Iraq has gotten: the most dangerous thing being thrown now are size 10 loafers.
An alternate account, involving more dialogue on the part of the shoe-chucker, (not to say shoe-bomber...) can be found here. In this version, his dialogue is even worse:
On a more serious note, the situation is sadly ironic. Here is power being peacefully transitioned over. (to what will sadly not be a particularly efficient or corruption-free ruling party, but at least they're not abducting, raping, torturing, and gassing their citizens now) Iraqis now have some say in their own government. Untold numbers of terrorists have been wiped out. Whether or not you agree with our reasons for going in, this event should be at least a moderately happy one for everyone but Al-Sadr and Al-Qaeda, setting the stage for some troop withdrawals in the near future.
Had this man thrown shoes at a visiting leader while Saddam was in power, he probably would have been thrown in a pit somewhere and starved to death. The very freedom of this man to doff his footwear and toss it at the leader of the most powerful nation on earth (and subsequently -not- be beaten to a pulp by his security force, to whom Bush signalled to stand down as the man was subdued) demonstrates that, contrary to his apparent views, victory in Iraq really is a reality. It seems the wait is over; the other shoe really has dropped.
-()4|<.
An Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes and an insult at George W. Bush, without hitting him, as the US president was shaking hands with the Iraqi premier at his Baghdad office on Sunday.As the two leaders met in Nuri al-Maliki's private office, a journalist sitting in the third row jumped up, shouting: "It is the farewell kiss, you dog," and threw his shoes one after the other towards Bush.
Maliki made a protective gesture towards the US president, who ducked and was not hit.
Clearly, this journalist needs work on both his pitch and his delivery, as the President nimbly avoided his bombardment and shrugged off the incident. And notice that the Premier moved to protect the President, and didn't dive off the stage to save himself. (in Iraq, shoes may be a huge insult, but they're probably the least destructive thing you're likely to have thrown at you.) This may actually be proof of how safe Iraq has gotten: the most dangerous thing being thrown now are size 10 loafers.
An alternate account, involving more dialogue on the part of the shoe-chucker, (not to say shoe-bomber...) can be found here. In this version, his dialogue is even worse:
"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the journalist shouted (in Arabic), Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times reported in a pool report to the White House press corps.
Myers reported that the man threw the second shoe and added: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
On a more serious note, the situation is sadly ironic. Here is power being peacefully transitioned over. (to what will sadly not be a particularly efficient or corruption-free ruling party, but at least they're not abducting, raping, torturing, and gassing their citizens now) Iraqis now have some say in their own government. Untold numbers of terrorists have been wiped out. Whether or not you agree with our reasons for going in, this event should be at least a moderately happy one for everyone but Al-Sadr and Al-Qaeda, setting the stage for some troop withdrawals in the near future.
Had this man thrown shoes at a visiting leader while Saddam was in power, he probably would have been thrown in a pit somewhere and starved to death. The very freedom of this man to doff his footwear and toss it at the leader of the most powerful nation on earth (and subsequently -not- be beaten to a pulp by his security force, to whom Bush signalled to stand down as the man was subdued) demonstrates that, contrary to his apparent views, victory in Iraq really is a reality. It seems the wait is over; the other shoe really has dropped.
-()4|<.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
WWII and the Future of Cyber Warfare
For decades, Sci-Fi writers have frantically written the future, attempting to nail it down before it arrived. Pending the mass production of flying cars or psychic internet surfing, however, we who live in the increasingly less mundane present can sometimes catch a glimpse of it.
There was, for example, the cyber-barrage unleashed by Russian hackers that effectively disrupted Estonia's government for a number of days.
(For those interested in such things, Wired magazine has several articles describing how it went down in their archives, and some of it is fascinating.)
Far more troublesome for us here, though, have been the Chinese hackers.
They have caused massive (and under-reported) trouble to defense websites, emails systems, and gotten away with some restricted information. And that's just what has been made public.
Now, it seems the French are learning about this difficult-to-counter expression of Chinese disapproval, after Sarkozy dared to meet with the Dalai Llama. Shortly after, the French embassy in Beijing's website went down.
China, of course, denies it was any official move by their government, which may actually be more or less true. In the infinite web of personal connections within Chinese culture, nearly nothing need be official in a literal sense. However, that doesn't mean they weren't directly responsible either, and I suspect there is some incentivizing going on for Chinese hackers.
Lately I have been slowly digesting a tome recounting WWII, the Pacific Front, and it's been incredibly interesting. One thing that stands out again and again is how American code-breakers supplied the crucial intelligence we needed to form effective strategies and keep ahead of the opponent.
In today's information-based warfare, this edge is no longer a bonus, but absolutely crucial. China's invasive hacker force is a standing liability, as we've seen from their attacks on defense networks.
In the event of a diplomatic or even military stand-off (over Taiwan, exports, China trying to sink our economy by massive debt off-loading, etc)
this resource could be used with great effectiveness.
What are we doing to counter this threat? Making little feints and false-starts in various directions, as usual. If history is any guide, it will take a massive cyber-coup drastically reducing our effectiveness before the military gets serious about starting a force to combat this threat. So far the Air Force has been on the forefront of these efforts, but has not been going about it in either a consistent or particularly logical manner.
The future remains to be seen, but with the world becoming daily a more interesting place, I hope we don't have to suffer a digital Pearl Harbor before we get our act together and take real steps to counter this threat. Right now, it's open season.
-()4|<.
There was, for example, the cyber-barrage unleashed by Russian hackers that effectively disrupted Estonia's government for a number of days.
(For those interested in such things, Wired magazine has several articles describing how it went down in their archives, and some of it is fascinating.)
Far more troublesome for us here, though, have been the Chinese hackers.
They have caused massive (and under-reported) trouble to defense websites, emails systems, and gotten away with some restricted information. And that's just what has been made public.
Now, it seems the French are learning about this difficult-to-counter expression of Chinese disapproval, after Sarkozy dared to meet with the Dalai Llama. Shortly after, the French embassy in Beijing's website went down.
China, of course, denies it was any official move by their government, which may actually be more or less true. In the infinite web of personal connections within Chinese culture, nearly nothing need be official in a literal sense. However, that doesn't mean they weren't directly responsible either, and I suspect there is some incentivizing going on for Chinese hackers.
Lately I have been slowly digesting a tome recounting WWII, the Pacific Front, and it's been incredibly interesting. One thing that stands out again and again is how American code-breakers supplied the crucial intelligence we needed to form effective strategies and keep ahead of the opponent.
In today's information-based warfare, this edge is no longer a bonus, but absolutely crucial. China's invasive hacker force is a standing liability, as we've seen from their attacks on defense networks.
In the event of a diplomatic or even military stand-off (over Taiwan, exports, China trying to sink our economy by massive debt off-loading, etc)
this resource could be used with great effectiveness.
What are we doing to counter this threat? Making little feints and false-starts in various directions, as usual. If history is any guide, it will take a massive cyber-coup drastically reducing our effectiveness before the military gets serious about starting a force to combat this threat. So far the Air Force has been on the forefront of these efforts, but has not been going about it in either a consistent or particularly logical manner.
The future remains to be seen, but with the world becoming daily a more interesting place, I hope we don't have to suffer a digital Pearl Harbor before we get our act together and take real steps to counter this threat. Right now, it's open season.
-()4|<.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Feminism Schmiminism.
A real feminist.
Many people would read that and immediately think unshaven armpits, bra burning, and blasting "I'm an independent woman" music from Beyonce, Joan Jett, Sapphic poems, and...Hilary Clinton?
Hilary Clinton the feminist.
Hilary Rodham-Clinton, in fact.
A real feminist always hyphenates her husband's name and her own--a gesture that shows remarkable "I don't bow to the man" independence.
Hilary is heralded for having so much independence and feminist qualities.
So much independence that even after he had several affairs on her...
So much that even after he completely embarrassed her and ruined any trust that not only she, but the country had in him...
So much. That even though she had the "credentials" and "experience" to "make it" on her own as a politician...
She stays with him?
How so "feminist" of her to "Stand by her man."
Or, well...not.
Being a feminist means more than hyphenating your name.
Much like true conservatism (the past few years), feminism has lost its true meaning.
Feminism is about promoting women as equals to men--not shoving "rights to choose what to do with my own body" and "I can buy my own diamonds and keep my last name" down every man's throat.
"I believe in the rights of women — that we can do anything. My philosophy is based on 200 years of feminism that supports the rights of all human beings...Feminism properly defined is about the rights of all human beings, and that genuine equality doesn't come at the expense of anybody else. It was originally about the expansion of rights of people and that included the rights of the unborn, to-be-born. The early feminists talked about abortion in the most scathing terms as a reflection of women's weakness."
(I couldn't say it better than that, so I just quoted it.)
"Also, abortion violates the tenets of feminism, which are non-violence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. The National Organization for Women replaced a patriarchy which the early feminists would have chosen to reject, with a matriarchy that said women were more important than men. It wasn't even that men and women were equal for the feminists of the early 70's. Women were more important because if you have life-and-death decision-making over your child and you don't have to include the father in that decision-making, then you have total control. This is illusion. In reality we know that women have abortions out of desperation, not because women are in control."
Why then do women feel that killing the world's daughters makes them independent and "in control?"
India and China make up over 40% of the world's population--and every day many babies are killed JUST because they are female babies. Girls are discarded, left to die because families prefer male babies.
A real feminist would find this as a cause to support. Instead of promoting the philosophy that these babies should be adopted and accepted into society, they prefer to allow the women to choose to terminate these lives?
While women are forced (by men) to give up their children in these countries, women express their independence in the U.S. by killing their child(ren) just because it's their "right?"
How many women are in Congress? Senate? So...it's MEN that are giving women these rights?
Here's a few excerpts I found at http://www.feministsforlife.org/ :
(All quotes on this blog were taken / borrowed from this website)
How did feminism go from being pro-child to pro-abortion?
The number one goal of feminism in the '70s was to have equal rights with men in the workplace. Initially, Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson had been going around the country saying that they wanted to repeal outdated anti-abortion laws. I don't even know if they knew that the anti-abortion laws that were enacted in 48 states were the result of work by feminists. The male-dominated medical profession and the media got together in the 1800s to make these consumer protection laws for women, as well as for children, because women were being coerced into abortions. [Also], because they believed in the rights all human beings, including the unborn, to-be-born. Women were very loud, especially in the 1800s about how abortion was wrong and at this was an evil crime. These two thought that anti-abortion laws should be revoked — Nathanson because he had seen botched abortions and Lader because [of a fear of overpopulation].
"I remember my mom told me that there were these two kooks running around saying that women should be able to kill their unborn babies. Because they weren't getting anywhere and were seen as pariahs by the governors, they went back to the drawing board. They went to these woman and told them, "If you want rights like a man, you have to pass like a man in the workplace." They basically sacrificed their children to gain entrance to the executive washroom. When Betty Friedan started hearing that 100,000 women had died from illegal abortion she said, "Oh, then we'd better do it to have it safe." That number was simply made up by Larry Lader and Nathanson after they met with resistance from Betty Friedan initially. I mean, we notice when 36 kids die of a car seat that was not installed properly. We would have noticed 100,000 dead people. But nobody questions this stuff."
So back to my original point.
Is Hilary Clinton really a feminist?
I'll let you be the judge.
Just because Sarah Palin doesn't hyphenate her last name--and she stands up for the rights of unborn daughters around the world does not mean she is betraying the feminist cause.
If anything, she is promoting female equality.
These feminists are killing their own cause by "raking her through the coals." With every insult, with every low, untrue blow, these extreme abortion-supporting feminists are ruining their cause, and instead proving the "hormonal woman" Mean Girls stereotype.
Many people would read that and immediately think unshaven armpits, bra burning, and blasting "I'm an independent woman" music from Beyonce, Joan Jett, Sapphic poems, and...Hilary Clinton?
Hilary Clinton the feminist.
Hilary Rodham-Clinton, in fact.
A real feminist always hyphenates her husband's name and her own--a gesture that shows remarkable "I don't bow to the man" independence.
Hilary is heralded for having so much independence and feminist qualities.
So much independence that even after he had several affairs on her...
So much that even after he completely embarrassed her and ruined any trust that not only she, but the country had in him...
So much. That even though she had the "credentials" and "experience" to "make it" on her own as a politician...
She stays with him?
How so "feminist" of her to "Stand by her man."
Or, well...not.
Being a feminist means more than hyphenating your name.
Much like true conservatism (the past few years), feminism has lost its true meaning.
Feminism is about promoting women as equals to men--not shoving "rights to choose what to do with my own body" and "I can buy my own diamonds and keep my last name" down every man's throat.
"I believe in the rights of women — that we can do anything. My philosophy is based on 200 years of feminism that supports the rights of all human beings...Feminism properly defined is about the rights of all human beings, and that genuine equality doesn't come at the expense of anybody else. It was originally about the expansion of rights of people and that included the rights of the unborn, to-be-born. The early feminists talked about abortion in the most scathing terms as a reflection of women's weakness."
(I couldn't say it better than that, so I just quoted it.)
"Also, abortion violates the tenets of feminism, which are non-violence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. The National Organization for Women replaced a patriarchy which the early feminists would have chosen to reject, with a matriarchy that said women were more important than men. It wasn't even that men and women were equal for the feminists of the early 70's. Women were more important because if you have life-and-death decision-making over your child and you don't have to include the father in that decision-making, then you have total control. This is illusion. In reality we know that women have abortions out of desperation, not because women are in control."
Why then do women feel that killing the world's daughters makes them independent and "in control?"
India and China make up over 40% of the world's population--and every day many babies are killed JUST because they are female babies. Girls are discarded, left to die because families prefer male babies.
A real feminist would find this as a cause to support. Instead of promoting the philosophy that these babies should be adopted and accepted into society, they prefer to allow the women to choose to terminate these lives?
While women are forced (by men) to give up their children in these countries, women express their independence in the U.S. by killing their child(ren) just because it's their "right?"
How many women are in Congress? Senate? So...it's MEN that are giving women these rights?
Here's a few excerpts I found at http://www.feministsforlife.org/ :
(All quotes on this blog were taken / borrowed from this website)
How did feminism go from being pro-child to pro-abortion?
The number one goal of feminism in the '70s was to have equal rights with men in the workplace. Initially, Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson had been going around the country saying that they wanted to repeal outdated anti-abortion laws. I don't even know if they knew that the anti-abortion laws that were enacted in 48 states were the result of work by feminists. The male-dominated medical profession and the media got together in the 1800s to make these consumer protection laws for women, as well as for children, because women were being coerced into abortions. [Also], because they believed in the rights all human beings, including the unborn, to-be-born. Women were very loud, especially in the 1800s about how abortion was wrong and at this was an evil crime. These two thought that anti-abortion laws should be revoked — Nathanson because he had seen botched abortions and Lader because [of a fear of overpopulation].
"I remember my mom told me that there were these two kooks running around saying that women should be able to kill their unborn babies. Because they weren't getting anywhere and were seen as pariahs by the governors, they went back to the drawing board. They went to these woman and told them, "If you want rights like a man, you have to pass like a man in the workplace." They basically sacrificed their children to gain entrance to the executive washroom. When Betty Friedan started hearing that 100,000 women had died from illegal abortion she said, "Oh, then we'd better do it to have it safe." That number was simply made up by Larry Lader and Nathanson after they met with resistance from Betty Friedan initially. I mean, we notice when 36 kids die of a car seat that was not installed properly. We would have noticed 100,000 dead people. But nobody questions this stuff."
So back to my original point.
Is Hilary Clinton really a feminist?
I'll let you be the judge.
Just because Sarah Palin doesn't hyphenate her last name--and she stands up for the rights of unborn daughters around the world does not mean she is betraying the feminist cause.
If anything, she is promoting female equality.
These feminists are killing their own cause by "raking her through the coals." With every insult, with every low, untrue blow, these extreme abortion-supporting feminists are ruining their cause, and instead proving the "hormonal woman" Mean Girls stereotype.
GM trying to load the dice?
Evidently it takes the looming prospect of bankruptcy and dire straits to get an apology from an American car company, as we can see in this open letter from GM:
Also:
MAGICAL MC TRANSLATION TOOL: "Yeah, we need your money, we're sorry we screwed up and lost your money, please be nice and give us more of your money."
I am not sure that requires an apology, except in a government-controlled market. In a free market, if your product is clearly inferior, you lose. Minimal damage is done, except to the employees, perhaps, who have to find new jobs. No apology to consumers necessary, they have already moved on to other products, which is why you are in trouble in the first place.
But with enough government interference, it's not a question of just changing to other products.
For example, our airline industry. If foreign carriers were allowed to compete for the US domestic air travel market, most US carriers would cease to exist. But stifling competition forces consumers to make do with their limited options.
Now that GM has apologized, I am waiting for others to follow. A liberal congress should respond well to this kind of thing, but public opinion is against the auto bail-out, so we'll see...
-()4|<.
“We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression,” said GM in the missive. “Just like you, we have been
severely impacted by events outside our control. Despite moving quickly
to reduce our planned spending by over $20 billion, GM finds itself
precariously and frighteningly close to running out of cash.”
Also:
“At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below
industry standards and our designs become lackluster,” wrote GM. “We
have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we
lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market.”
MAGICAL MC TRANSLATION TOOL: "Yeah, we need your money, we're sorry we screwed up and lost your money, please be nice and give us more of your money."
I am not sure that requires an apology, except in a government-controlled market. In a free market, if your product is clearly inferior, you lose. Minimal damage is done, except to the employees, perhaps, who have to find new jobs. No apology to consumers necessary, they have already moved on to other products, which is why you are in trouble in the first place.
But with enough government interference, it's not a question of just changing to other products.
For example, our airline industry. If foreign carriers were allowed to compete for the US domestic air travel market, most US carriers would cease to exist. But stifling competition forces consumers to make do with their limited options.
Now that GM has apologized, I am waiting for others to follow. A liberal congress should respond well to this kind of thing, but public opinion is against the auto bail-out, so we'll see...
-()4|<.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Coming soon to a location near you: Military Police
When both the ACLU and Cato Institute agree that something is a bad idea, that thing is certainly worthy of further review... unless, of course, you are a government in the process of consolidating power over its citizenry. What is it this time, you might ask?
Yay, we're safer! Oh, wait. No, we're not. We're just setting a dangerous precedent and opening a sort of Pandora's box, the contents of which remain to be seen.
When I was in the Philippines earlier this year, there was a heavy military presence. Going into pretty much any significant building involved getting my backpack searched and/or a metal detector pass-thru. I wouldn't have been surprised at all by finding a curfew had been established. I realize, of course, that they were having serious problems in the south part of the islands with some terrorist incidents, and had had a couple in Manilla as well, (where I was at the time) but I couldn't help feeling a little creeped out. Though a nominally free country, it felt much more like a junta under the early stages of martial law.
Now it would seem that our wonderful, useless, incompetent, apparently eternal congress wishes to strike out boldly in the same direction. Perhaps they'll change that awkward "Department of Homeland Security" moniker to a serene and simple "Ministry of Peace". Or even further, to a vaguely techy and soundbyteable "Minipax".
How will this play out? Well, once you grasp the idea that a crisis the gravity of which a newly-armed homeland security can declare through state-allied media companies is a valid excuse for infusing society with armed troops (while simultaneously pushing for more gun control), you will have a good idea of what's to come.
May it never be, but it's sure looking that way.
-()4|<.
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
Yay, we're safer! Oh, wait. No, we're not. We're just setting a dangerous precedent and opening a sort of Pandora's box, the contents of which remain to be seen.
When I was in the Philippines earlier this year, there was a heavy military presence. Going into pretty much any significant building involved getting my backpack searched and/or a metal detector pass-thru. I wouldn't have been surprised at all by finding a curfew had been established. I realize, of course, that they were having serious problems in the south part of the islands with some terrorist incidents, and had had a couple in Manilla as well, (where I was at the time) but I couldn't help feeling a little creeped out. Though a nominally free country, it felt much more like a junta under the early stages of martial law.
Now it would seem that our wonderful, useless, incompetent, apparently eternal congress wishes to strike out boldly in the same direction. Perhaps they'll change that awkward "Department of Homeland Security" moniker to a serene and simple "Ministry of Peace". Or even further, to a vaguely techy and soundbyteable "Minipax".
How will this play out? Well, once you grasp the idea that a crisis the gravity of which a newly-armed homeland security can declare through state-allied media companies is a valid excuse for infusing society with armed troops (while simultaneously pushing for more gun control), you will have a good idea of what's to come.
May it never be, but it's sure looking that way.
-()4|<.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Klaus Ascendant
Proof that irony sometimes comes down on the good side, Vaclav Klaus is posed to become President of the EU.
Mainline Europeans' reaction is best described with a quote from the article:
"Oh God, Vaclav Klaus will come next," read a recent headline in the
Austrian daily Die Presse, in an article anticipating the havoc he
could wreak in a union of 470 million people already divided over its
future direction.
Klaus as the EU head is just a fun thought in general. This is something along the lines of Ron Paul somehow becoming head of the Democratic National Convention. He has, among other things, called for the EU to be scrapped, and said that the global warming crisis is not only contrived, but ridiculous. He is seemingly not well-liked in Europe, for numerous reasons, many of which are mentioned in the article. (though, I am skeptical of mass media descriptions of a man's personality, since they would also have us believe Bush is an idiot. )
His writings are a breath of fresh air, however. I highly recommend reading a few of his articles, I didn't realize such people still existed in Europe. (though I hear rumors that there are a number in Poland as well)
It will be interesting to see how this progresses... Speaking of ironies, who knew we could anticipate having a president of the European Union that is apparently a good deal more conservative than our own will be?
-()4|<.
Mainline Europeans' reaction is best described with a quote from the article:
"Oh God, Vaclav Klaus will come next," read a recent headline in the
Austrian daily Die Presse, in an article anticipating the havoc he
could wreak in a union of 470 million people already divided over its
future direction.
Klaus as the EU head is just a fun thought in general. This is something along the lines of Ron Paul somehow becoming head of the Democratic National Convention. He has, among other things, called for the EU to be scrapped, and said that the global warming crisis is not only contrived, but ridiculous. He is seemingly not well-liked in Europe, for numerous reasons, many of which are mentioned in the article. (though, I am skeptical of mass media descriptions of a man's personality, since they would also have us believe Bush is an idiot. )
His writings are a breath of fresh air, however. I highly recommend reading a few of his articles, I didn't realize such people still existed in Europe. (though I hear rumors that there are a number in Poland as well)
It will be interesting to see how this progresses... Speaking of ironies, who knew we could anticipate having a president of the European Union that is apparently a good deal more conservative than our own will be?
-()4|<.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Doomed to Repeat It
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently polled 2,500 people with questions from American history, government, and economics. These tests come up from time to time, of course, and the results are usually appropriately dismal.
In this case, random citizens scored an average of 49%. That's terrible, of course, but then we don't really honor history in a cultural sense anymore, and it's mangled, chopped up, and delivered in pre-packaged and propagandized pieces in public schools. (unless you had "that" awesome teacher, in which case you had something really valuable)
However, the more disturbing outcome of this was among elected officials, who on average scored lower, at 44%! Now, granted, the article lists these as "self-identified elected officials". That includes every level of responsibility, down to the nearly inconsequential. But to me the fact that people who seek out positions of authority are also those who (apparently) have even less knowledge of history than the average is both interesting and troubling.
I'd be curious to know if this holds true in federal office-holders as well as state, but given the remarkable tendency of senators to stay in office indefinitely, perhaps the test wouldn't have been challenging to them. For example, if we use 1776 as a general starting point for America as a nation, (I know, other years may be equally or more applicable, but work with me)
then America is 232 years old this year.
Senator Robert Byrd just turned 91. He has been alive for approx. 2/5 of America's national existence, and been a Senator for over 1/5 of it.
No doubt he would have gotten right (being in his 20's at the time) the question about WWII:
In this case, random citizens scored an average of 49%. That's terrible, of course, but then we don't really honor history in a cultural sense anymore, and it's mangled, chopped up, and delivered in pre-packaged and propagandized pieces in public schools. (unless you had "that" awesome teacher, in which case you had something really valuable)
However, the more disturbing outcome of this was among elected officials, who on average scored lower, at 44%! Now, granted, the article lists these as "self-identified elected officials". That includes every level of responsibility, down to the nearly inconsequential. But to me the fact that people who seek out positions of authority are also those who (apparently) have even less knowledge of history than the average is both interesting and troubling.
I'd be curious to know if this holds true in federal office-holders as well as state, but given the remarkable tendency of senators to stay in office indefinitely, perhaps the test wouldn't have been challenging to them. For example, if we use 1776 as a general starting point for America as a nation, (I know, other years may be equally or more applicable, but work with me)
then America is 232 years old this year.
Senator Robert Byrd just turned 91. He has been alive for approx. 2/5 of America's national existence, and been a Senator for over 1/5 of it.
No doubt he would have gotten right (being in his 20's at the time) the question about WWII:
Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomlyAbout 2/3 of the respondents knew the answer, 1/3 got it wrong. (and named an interesting list of countries they thought we had gone to war with. Britain, for example)
selected to take the test... was one which asked respondents to "name two countries that were our enemies during World War II."
But, then, some mistakes can be humorous:
Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to "supervise the first televised presidential debates."
(emphasis mine)
Kind of makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time...
-()4|<.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Obama's Cabinet
After the NY Times "semi-kinda-almost-got confirmation" from Hilary* on her selection as Secretary of State, and the announcing of Bill Richardson, all I have heard on the News is "What kind of 'CHANGE' did Obama mean?! How is he delivering this 'Chaaaaange' by dragging in the ideological struggle figures from the 90s?!" "How is this CHANGE if he is just dragging out the same people? With the same arguments!?" "...William Ayers!!!" (Okay, maybe not that last one. But you get the idea)
Now, as someone who completely disagrees with Obama on every platform (Trust me, I took the online quiz--ha, 98% DISAGREE, thank you! ;) ), I want to just voice this:
The man isn't in office yet. Why don't we save our criticism for when he has completely assembled his cabinet, and has attempted to follow-up on his expectations and promises. Let's see what his plans are. While I can agree with what is being said (about the recycling of the same people), I'm not going to do to Obama what so many did to Bush the past 8 years.
This man is going to be our President. As an American, I am willing to give him a chance.
(And no, that wasn't a sarcastic post, or a pessimistic "well, at least until they run the country into the ground! hahaha!" I do not expect failure, nor do I wish it. I hope that he does live up to his promises, and I hope he does make all the ills in this country better.)
* Please note that I am trying so much harder and I did refrain from referring to our supposed new Sec. of State as "Hitlery" or "Hellary" or "Hilary Rod-HamLegs" in this post. Until now...
Just a thought. I think Hilary accepted this position in hopes that Bill likes Secretaries as much as he likes Interns...
Okay, that was bad. I had to get that out of my system. I'm done.
-W
Now, as someone who completely disagrees with Obama on every platform (Trust me, I took the online quiz--ha, 98% DISAGREE, thank you! ;) ), I want to just voice this:
The man isn't in office yet. Why don't we save our criticism for when he has completely assembled his cabinet, and has attempted to follow-up on his expectations and promises. Let's see what his plans are. While I can agree with what is being said (about the recycling of the same people), I'm not going to do to Obama what so many did to Bush the past 8 years.
This man is going to be our President. As an American, I am willing to give him a chance.
(And no, that wasn't a sarcastic post, or a pessimistic "well, at least until they run the country into the ground! hahaha!" I do not expect failure, nor do I wish it. I hope that he does live up to his promises, and I hope he does make all the ills in this country better.)
* Please note that I am trying so much harder and I did refrain from referring to our supposed new Sec. of State as "Hitlery" or "Hellary" or "Hilary Rod-HamLegs" in this post. Until now...
Just a thought. I think Hilary accepted this position in hopes that Bill likes Secretaries as much as he likes Interns...
Okay, that was bad. I had to get that out of my system. I'm done.
-W
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Ownership
One of the pillars of conservatism is ownership. What you produce is yours. It belongs to you. Sure, you pay your taxes with the general goal to have services provided by the government (defense, roads, schools), but what you produce is yours. Your employer (even if it is yourself) has provided you with some payment for the goods or services you provided.
But, somewhere along the way, our congressional representatives have forgotten that they are supposed to work for the people. The money the government receives in taxes is not theirs. Even members of the presumably conservative Republican party are now failing to recognize that the money the populace earns belongs to the populace.
There is a serious problem when more and more of our leaders think that all of the money earned belongs to the government.
"It's not your money." Those words should set us on alert.
But, somewhere along the way, our congressional representatives have forgotten that they are supposed to work for the people. The money the government receives in taxes is not theirs. Even members of the presumably conservative Republican party are now failing to recognize that the money the populace earns belongs to the populace.
There is a serious problem when more and more of our leaders think that all of the money earned belongs to the government.
"It's not your money." Those words should set us on alert.
New New Deal just End of Old New Deal
Very good article on the looming auto-industry bailout, and the bailout situation in general. I recommend you go read it.
Of course, there was more than one "deeply false note" during Obama's campaign, but this was certainly one of them.
One of the most hypocritical lines coming out of DC during the beginning of the meltdown was that the free market had obviously failed, and government oversight was needed. (whereas in reality, government intervention had caused the problem, and they were now incompetently trying to solve it.)
Now it looks like more piles of taxpayer money will be thrown onto the bailout bonfire, this time to an auto-industry that has practically begged for bankruptcy and failure between its short-sighted strategies ("let's ignore the market and fuel prices, make the cars we want, and tell you to buy them") and stranglehold by the unions.
But:
I have great news... I just saved a load of money on my car insurance by switching-ok, ok. Sorry, couldn't help myself...
-()4|<.
Mr. Obama's one deeply false note during the campaign was his harping
on "deregulation" as if that were the source of current troubles. His
real problem is the crack-up of the world FDR built.
Of course, there was more than one "deeply false note" during Obama's campaign, but this was certainly one of them.
One of the most hypocritical lines coming out of DC during the beginning of the meltdown was that the free market had obviously failed, and government oversight was needed. (whereas in reality, government intervention had caused the problem, and they were now incompetently trying to solve it.)
Now it looks like more piles of taxpayer money will be thrown onto the bailout bonfire, this time to an auto-industry that has practically begged for bankruptcy and failure between its short-sighted strategies ("let's ignore the market and fuel prices, make the cars we want, and tell you to buy them") and stranglehold by the unions.
But:
I have great news... I just saved a load of money on my car insurance by switching-ok, ok. Sorry, couldn't help myself...
-()4|<.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Pirates!
Somali pirates have emerged as a threat... to shipping insurance rates, at least.
Whereas the attacks on merchant shipping vessels had been sporadic, they have greatly increased in recent months. This latest attack seized a 1000ft oil tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil. Ironically, the pirates have no refining capacity (and they would have a difficult time selling the oil), but they are holding the 25-member crew for ransom.
Apparently their plan of ransoming captured crew members has paid well:
Whereas the attacks on merchant shipping vessels had been sporadic, they have greatly increased in recent months. This latest attack seized a 1000ft oil tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil. Ironically, the pirates have no refining capacity (and they would have a difficult time selling the oil), but they are holding the 25-member crew for ransom.
Apparently their plan of ransoming captured crew members has paid well:
The strategy is effective: A report last month by a London-based think tank said pirates have raked in up to $30 million in ransoms this year alone.
In Somalia, pirates are better-funded, better-organized and better-armed than one might imagine in a country that has been in tatters for nearly two decades.
This is surely only a testiment to my youth and idealism, but somehow the knowledge that there are pirates to be fought in some part of the world is very encouraging.
The British Royal Navy has been involved in anti-pirate operations as well:
Pirates caught redhanded by one of Her Majesty’s warships after trying to hijack a cargo ship off Somalia made the grave mistake of opening fire on two Royal Navy assault craft packed with commandos armed with machineguns and SA80 rifles.
Their success has been due partly to that quality which has always allowed pirates to succeed: elusiveness.
Having to patrol an area as large as that which the pirates are currently operating in is too expensive, which allows the pirates opportunities to strike in areas where the merchant ships must rely on their own security forces. (knowing that they will be ransomed instead of killed no doubt discourages them from fighting to the last man)
Man, that article was fun to write!
-()4|<.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Oversight? With tax dollars? psh...
Not only is money being passed out from the Fed while they refuse to reveal its destination, but the bailout itself in progress is proceeding with no oversight or accountability.
$290 billion of the package has already been committed, but:
Hm, now that is highly encouraging. But, then, this is what happens when you give the government billions of tax payer dollars to solve problems that they themselves caused. Somehow, the money isn't allocated just like they said it would be. Pretty soon, it's gone, and they need -another- stimulus package. So many industries to bail out, so many Americans to pay for it, so many politicians to make sure they get a slice as it passes by. It's like filling a kiddie pool one bucket at a time, with people dipping it out with cups to drink as you go.
There is a famous Latin expression:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
("Who will watch the watchers?")
That, as the American people, is our job. The government cannot be trusted to watch itself, especially with our money. In this case, they don't even have watchers, let alone anyone to hold the watchers accountable. Anyone still wondering why congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's?
-()4|<.
$290 billion of the package has already been committed, but:
"Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fillthe independent oversight posts established by Congress when itapproved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Norhas the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed,though the initial deadline has passed.
"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department'sinspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout programuntil the newly created position of special inspector general isfilled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going todo proper oversight of this thing."
Hm, now that is highly encouraging. But, then, this is what happens when you give the government billions of tax payer dollars to solve problems that they themselves caused. Somehow, the money isn't allocated just like they said it would be. Pretty soon, it's gone, and they need -another- stimulus package. So many industries to bail out, so many Americans to pay for it, so many politicians to make sure they get a slice as it passes by. It's like filling a kiddie pool one bucket at a time, with people dipping it out with cups to drink as you go.
There is a famous Latin expression:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
("Who will watch the watchers?")
That, as the American people, is our job. The government cannot be trusted to watch itself, especially with our money. In this case, they don't even have watchers, let alone anyone to hold the watchers accountable. Anyone still wondering why congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's?
-()4|<.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
For goodness' sake...
A new ad campaign is being initiated in the DC area. It's worthy of our attention:
I should start out by saying I do not think these ads should be banned, or met with the outraged protests as these things sadly often are (exactly the response they are created to invoke). Free speech works both ways. Though it tends to be hypocritically invoked for one world view and not another, that is no reason to return flawed reasoning for flawed reasoning.
Also, the ad is so patently illogical that even people not accustomed to thinking critically must be given at least a pause.
"Be good for goodness' sake?" The line is, of course, from the song "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", but is here ironically twisted from the normal usage of the phrase. Normally the phrase "for goodness' sake" is used as an exclamation, or as an entreaty to correct behavior, as in "for the sake of all that is good...". It is also sometimes used as a substitute for "for God's sake", by those who do not wish to take His name in vain.
But the implication here is that one should be good for goodness' sake alone, or "be good, to benefit goodness". The statement is laughably irrational. One might as well say "eat food for food's sake", or "buy gas for gas' sake". We are not good for goodness' sake any more than we pay taxes for taxes' sake.
Goodness is behavior that conforms to a right Way, doing what we "ought" to do. In a Christian world view we acknowledge that way to be one that God has set forth for us to follow.
I am quite interested in hearing the American Humanist organization (the sponsor of these ads) explain on what basis they define the concept of good, and from what authority it is derived.
Of course, they can not do that, at least not with a definition that could hold water for five seconds.
But, the ad may actually accomplish alot of good. By phrasing the question "why believe in a god?" in this way, one is immediately by reflex drawn to defend the assertion. By extension the question quickly becomes "why do -you- believe in god?", and that opens up all kinds of productive lines of thought, especially for people who are avoiding the question, or who haven't thought about it. And for Christians, it reminds us to "always be ready to give a reason for the hope we have".
So, I actually see great potential in these ads. And the humanists are even paying for them for us. Thanks for helping out, guys!
-()4K.
Ads proclaiming, "Why believein a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington,D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. TheAmerican Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holidayad campaign Tuesday.
I should start out by saying I do not think these ads should be banned, or met with the outraged protests as these things sadly often are (exactly the response they are created to invoke). Free speech works both ways. Though it tends to be hypocritically invoked for one world view and not another, that is no reason to return flawed reasoning for flawed reasoning.
Also, the ad is so patently illogical that even people not accustomed to thinking critically must be given at least a pause.
"Be good for goodness' sake?" The line is, of course, from the song "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", but is here ironically twisted from the normal usage of the phrase. Normally the phrase "for goodness' sake" is used as an exclamation, or as an entreaty to correct behavior, as in "for the sake of all that is good...". It is also sometimes used as a substitute for "for God's sake", by those who do not wish to take His name in vain.
But the implication here is that one should be good for goodness' sake alone, or "be good, to benefit goodness". The statement is laughably irrational. One might as well say "eat food for food's sake", or "buy gas for gas' sake". We are not good for goodness' sake any more than we pay taxes for taxes' sake.
Goodness is behavior that conforms to a right Way, doing what we "ought" to do. In a Christian world view we acknowledge that way to be one that God has set forth for us to follow.
I am quite interested in hearing the American Humanist organization (the sponsor of these ads) explain on what basis they define the concept of good, and from what authority it is derived.
Of course, they can not do that, at least not with a definition that could hold water for five seconds.
But, the ad may actually accomplish alot of good. By phrasing the question "why believe in a god?" in this way, one is immediately by reflex drawn to defend the assertion. By extension the question quickly becomes "why do -you- believe in god?", and that opens up all kinds of productive lines of thought, especially for people who are avoiding the question, or who haven't thought about it. And for Christians, it reminds us to "always be ready to give a reason for the hope we have".
So, I actually see great potential in these ads. And the humanists are even paying for them for us. Thanks for helping out, guys!
-()4K.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Need-to-know?
The Federal Reserve has has granted almost $2 trillion dollars in emergency loans, and refuses to identify the recipients.
The article goes on to say that the Fed is resisting disclosure because transparency might lead to lack of confidence...
MAGICAL M.C. TRANSLATION TOOL:
"We're taking your money, and you're too stupid to appreciate how we're using it, so just sit tight and let us do our thing."
I am furious, and you should be too.
If your bank decided to take money out of your account, and not tell you why, what would you do? Change banks, at the bare minimum. Probably file a lawsuit, raise a ruckus, etc.
Now the Federal Reserve is doing essentially that, on a scale of billions. People have already given them the right to take money out of their accounts, as it were. Aren't you interested in knowing where your money that they're taking is headed?
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
The article goes on to say that the Fed is resisting disclosure because transparency might lead to lack of confidence...
"You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. "Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''
MAGICAL M.C. TRANSLATION TOOL:
"We're taking your money, and you're too stupid to appreciate how we're using it, so just sit tight and let us do our thing."
I am furious, and you should be too.
If your bank decided to take money out of your account, and not tell you why, what would you do? Change banks, at the bare minimum. Probably file a lawsuit, raise a ruckus, etc.
Now the Federal Reserve is doing essentially that, on a scale of billions. People have already given them the right to take money out of their accounts, as it were. Aren't you interested in knowing where your money that they're taking is headed?
Saturday, November 08, 2008
World Changer - No more power shortages.. ever
Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.
If this isn't an April Fool's joke (and April is a long ways off), we are talking about absolutely world-changing potential here. Nuclear fission is the safest, and vastly most efficient power technology we currently possess. This puts it in the hands of everyone, in a non-threatening format.
It doesn't produce radioactive waste, making environmentalists (honest ones, anyway) happy, and it's extremely low cost and plentiful energy for everyone. No more rolling black-outs in California, no more summer strains on the grid. Actually, the grid power can be freed up to be shifted around to wherever it's needed, with enough of these puppies planted in strategic spots.
In the longer term, it reduces a large part of our dependence on foreign oil and other forms of energy, and is a potential solution to our current economic woes. (imagine the economic boom that would roar forth if energy suddenly became practically free) It also provides a source of electricity for charging fuel cells for electric/hybrid vehicles.
All this, of course, means that it won't happen. At this point I have become totally convinced that the powers-that-be do not have the happiness, success or freedom of Americans at heart, rather the contrary. A populace worried by a looming energy crisis is a populace that is easier to control.
Something will happen to make this legally impossible, mark my words.
I can even see us banning it in this country, but selling it to another country, basically guaranteeing them economic prosperity and a firm foundation of global prominence.
But, it's nice to think that American ingenuity did indeed solve most of the major problems the country is facing in one fell swoop, a fact that won't be changed whether or not it ever gets implemented.
-()4|<
Friday, November 07, 2008
China: Heads, we pollute; Tails, you live on less.
China proves yet again they are the masters of hypocrisy.
"Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and a top UN official urged industrialised nations Friday to alter their lifestyles and not let the global financial crisis hamper climate change efforts."
This from a country that is trying its best to become rich while shunning any forms of restraint in the way of pollution, and strongly resenting any outside suggestions that they should be held accountable.
Now, I think we've been rather schitzophrenic in our approach to being environmentally conscious in this country. One on hand, we rant about how we're destroying the world through carbon emissions. On the other hand, we pass enough regulations to make it nearly impossible to build a nuclear power plant, which is the cleanest and most efficient form of power currently known. It's as if our ancestors had spurned the printing press and kept us in the Dark ages because books are flammable.
But, even if we threw restraint to the wind, and allowed companies to dump their waste in the nearest national park on a whim, we would have a hard time catching up to China, who is apparently building one coal power plant per week, and turning the Yellow River red.
Note the irony:
"Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and a top UN official urged industrialised nations Friday to alter their lifestyles and not let the global financial crisis hamper climate change efforts."
This from a country that is trying its best to become rich while shunning any forms of restraint in the way of pollution, and strongly resenting any outside suggestions that they should be held accountable.
Now, I think we've been rather schitzophrenic in our approach to being environmentally conscious in this country. One on hand, we rant about how we're destroying the world through carbon emissions. On the other hand, we pass enough regulations to make it nearly impossible to build a nuclear power plant, which is the cleanest and most efficient form of power currently known. It's as if our ancestors had spurned the printing press and kept us in the Dark ages because books are flammable.
But, even if we threw restraint to the wind, and allowed companies to dump their waste in the nearest national park on a whim, we would have a hard time catching up to China, who is apparently building one coal power plant per week, and turning the Yellow River red.
Note the irony:
"China has long resisted calls to join rich nations in setting targets for emissions cuts, saying its relatively low per capita emissions and recent emergence as a major source of greenhouse gases should exempt it from action.
Scientists said in September that China had leapfrogged the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the principal gases that cause global warming."
They only manage the low per capita rate by having more than a billion people. All of whom are trying their best to attain the "unsustainable" lifestyle of their western counterparts.
This is also just one example of why our current policy of sucking up to China totally baffles me.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The rumors of a poll surge have been greatly exaggerated?
So, according to a story on CNN, the voter turnout this year did not increase significantly over 2004. That seems to run contrary to massive voter registration reports, and predictions of unheard-of (80%, perhaps) percent turnout. Why might this be?
The story itself suggests that a lack of Republican turnout (not excited, doubtless, by McCain's gutsy middle-of-the-roadness or mavericky unconditional support of the bail-out plan) is one cause.
This sounds reasonable, actually. McCain was not a candidate to be excited over. Nearly all of his support was generated by simply running against Obama. This is comparable to Kerry's campaign against Bush. If Kerry, a Democrat, could lose against Bush, who was by no means popular even then, by running a campaign that consisted mainly of "I am not Bush", then how on earth did McCain, a Republican, lose, who ran a campaign that consisted mainly of... "I am not Bush". Oh, wait.
-()4|<
The story itself suggests that a lack of Republican turnout (not excited, doubtless, by McCain's gutsy middle-of-the-roadness or mavericky unconditional support of the bail-out plan) is one cause.
This sounds reasonable, actually. McCain was not a candidate to be excited over. Nearly all of his support was generated by simply running against Obama. This is comparable to Kerry's campaign against Bush. If Kerry, a Democrat, could lose against Bush, who was by no means popular even then, by running a campaign that consisted mainly of "I am not Bush", then how on earth did McCain, a Republican, lose, who ran a campaign that consisted mainly of... "I am not Bush". Oh, wait.
-()4|<
The once and future Czar
Perhaps this is the beginning of the time of testing that Biden so notably proclaimed. The only way to deal with Putin is to trust him like you'd trust a venomous cobra, and Obama appears, at least from previous statements, to be all about showing some cobra-love.
But we shall see...
In other news, we mourn the passing of Crichton. Whether or not you enjoy his works, you must acknowledge the genius of the man, and his accomplishments. Had he only written State of Fear, he would have been worthy of celebration...
But we shall see...
In other news, we mourn the passing of Crichton. Whether or not you enjoy his works, you must acknowledge the genius of the man, and his accomplishments. Had he only written State of Fear, he would have been worthy of celebration...
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Change Indeed
Having just finished watching the election coverage, I have a variety of thoughts, which I will allow to cool and coalesce before I actually write them down. At the moment, suffice to say that we are in for an interesting few years. Hopefully as uninteresting as possible, but clearly Obama has been given what is generally termed a mandate; we will see what he does with it.
However, that was not the change to which I was referring. There will be plenty to be said about that later. At the moment I would like to announce I am actually finally getting serious about this blog, and thus the level of posting in here should increase dramatically in the days ahead. (the posting of articles, that is. I can't say anything about whether we will actually obtain commenting readers, that is up to whomever wanders in and decides to check back occasionally!)
Here's to the days ahead. It will surely be an interesting ride.
-()4|<
However, that was not the change to which I was referring. There will be plenty to be said about that later. At the moment I would like to announce I am actually finally getting serious about this blog, and thus the level of posting in here should increase dramatically in the days ahead. (the posting of articles, that is. I can't say anything about whether we will actually obtain commenting readers, that is up to whomever wanders in and decides to check back occasionally!)
Here's to the days ahead. It will surely be an interesting ride.
-()4|<
Friday, October 17, 2008
Change?
As we near that day of significance, when millions of Americans will go cast their ballot for bad or worse, it would befit us to ponder the future. On the one hand, we have a candidate who claims that he will 'change the world'. On the other, we have a candidate who is accused of being merely a continuation of the previous administration.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves: With all this talk of change, what exactly about our government suggests that they are to any extent capable of -improvement-? Indeed, change seems to happen regardless of promises; illegal migrants change into potential citizens, budget surpluses change into bloated and failing stimulus packages stolen from our own bank accounts, freedom changes into faux security and increased surveillance, and the list goes on. Clearly, our government is quite good at change already. Do we really want more change from them?
Perhaps it's time for us to be the effectors of change in this equation. Let's change the congressmen who voted for the illegal bailout with a side of pork. Let's change the national debate from ignorant, fear-based blathering to asking why no new oil refineries or nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years. Let's change from being sheep into being human beings, with brains and sense and character.
It may be too late to change the course of our nation, as it sags to earth like a latter-day Hindenburg, laden with incomprehensibly burdensome debt and regulation. But if anything can, it is individual Americans uniting together to solve the problems of this country. And let us not forget to list our government, ever eager to offer self-serving solutions to self-generated problems, in a prominent place among them.
-()4|<
Perhaps we should ask ourselves: With all this talk of change, what exactly about our government suggests that they are to any extent capable of -improvement-? Indeed, change seems to happen regardless of promises; illegal migrants change into potential citizens, budget surpluses change into bloated and failing stimulus packages stolen from our own bank accounts, freedom changes into faux security and increased surveillance, and the list goes on. Clearly, our government is quite good at change already. Do we really want more change from them?
Perhaps it's time for us to be the effectors of change in this equation. Let's change the congressmen who voted for the illegal bailout with a side of pork. Let's change the national debate from ignorant, fear-based blathering to asking why no new oil refineries or nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years. Let's change from being sheep into being human beings, with brains and sense and character.
It may be too late to change the course of our nation, as it sags to earth like a latter-day Hindenburg, laden with incomprehensibly burdensome debt and regulation. But if anything can, it is individual Americans uniting together to solve the problems of this country. And let us not forget to list our government, ever eager to offer self-serving solutions to self-generated problems, in a prominent place among them.
-()4|<
Monday, September 15, 2008
Indignantly Unfree
Lately I have been hanging out on Vox Day's blog. (voxdaydotblogspotdotcom)
Some very interesting discussions have taken place there, I don't agree with Vox on everything but he can normally back up his opinions with hard reasoning, and being a Libertarian his issues with our current government and cultural situation are ones that I tend to have as well.
I want to share part of a comment I read there. It is one often heard, in various forms, and uttered by well-meaning people. It is also extremely dangerous, having the appearance of compassion but being in reality one of the quicker routes to tyranny that we are currently hurtling down.
I picked this one statement because it encapsulates the entire argument.
The answer to this question is a resounding YES.
In fact, it is imperative that the answer is yes. The fact that it is asked indignantly, as if it is a rhetorical question that could have but one answer, shows that the asker does not understand the concept of freedom.
Please consider:
Without the freedom to step over the dying man in the gutter, aiding the dying man in the gutter has no moral value. If you did not do it as a free, personal decision, you did it under compulsion. In so far as I am not free to refuse an action, that action ceases to be a morally commendable one when I do it.
Freedom gives us the ability to make moral choices. Morality can only exist in proportion to freedom. If I have infinite choice, I can be (potentially) infinitely good. If I have zero choice, I am neither good, nor bad, I merely follow directives.
This is how animals live. Apparently many people are more comfortable with the idea of us living a harmonious life in the zoo, with the government as our kind caretaker, always ensuring we play well with others, have enough food, and live happy lives.
Well forgive me, but I could never stomach the Soma.
-()4|<
Some very interesting discussions have taken place there, I don't agree with Vox on everything but he can normally back up his opinions with hard reasoning, and being a Libertarian his issues with our current government and cultural situation are ones that I tend to have as well.
I want to share part of a comment I read there. It is one often heard, in various forms, and uttered by well-meaning people. It is also extremely dangerous, having the appearance of compassion but being in reality one of the quicker routes to tyranny that we are currently hurtling down.
"As I said, this depends on how you define liberty... ...Does it mean having no accountability? No obligation to anyone? Does freedom mean being able to conduct free enterprise without regard for how it impacts the world and other people. Does it mean being free to step over other people dying in the gutter?"
I picked this one statement because it encapsulates the entire argument.
The answer to this question is a resounding YES.
In fact, it is imperative that the answer is yes. The fact that it is asked indignantly, as if it is a rhetorical question that could have but one answer, shows that the asker does not understand the concept of freedom.
Please consider:
Without the freedom to step over the dying man in the gutter, aiding the dying man in the gutter has no moral value. If you did not do it as a free, personal decision, you did it under compulsion. In so far as I am not free to refuse an action, that action ceases to be a morally commendable one when I do it.
Freedom gives us the ability to make moral choices. Morality can only exist in proportion to freedom. If I have infinite choice, I can be (potentially) infinitely good. If I have zero choice, I am neither good, nor bad, I merely follow directives.
This is how animals live. Apparently many people are more comfortable with the idea of us living a harmonious life in the zoo, with the government as our kind caretaker, always ensuring we play well with others, have enough food, and live happy lives.
Well forgive me, but I could never stomach the Soma.
-()4|<
Sunday, September 14, 2008
I can't believe I'm even writing about this. (My letter to Lindsay Lohan in response to her and her Girlfriend's blog)
So. It should come as no shock to you that most of the celebretards out there are Obama supporters. They usually come across as ignorant, biased, and...did I mention ignorant? I came across a blog online--and I can't believe this even made news...but let's dissect it for a second, shall we?
"I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be… Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she's FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land…. Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country."
Where to begin?
1. Aspirations to be a TV anchor. As an Obama supporter, I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot with bringing up the qualifications topic. Do you know how long the man you're sending your vote for was a senator before he decided to run for President of the US? One hundred and forty three days. That is less than half of a year, in case you can't do the math either.
2. She just got her passport in 2006. Kinda sad, I know. Especially compared to Obama...who has had his his entire life because...he hasn't lived in the US his entire life. Was he even born in the US? I haven't looked that up for sure. I don't want to make that claim...but just sayin'.
3. "She should DO IT IN HER OWN BACKYARD" Wow. This definitely shows how ignorant and idiotic you are. I recall that the House was having a vote on whether to do roll call vote to release the right to drill offshore (which, by the way you morons, is restricted heavily by the government. She could not start drilling due to endangered species ( " " For example, a rare ice worm that can maneuver through layers of ice! Too bad it's too small for the naked eye.) Anyway, yes. Roll call vote. And guess what the perfect uterus-bearing Speaker of the House "Third in Line" did? Yeah, she shut the House down, removed the Media, and shut off the lights. She did not even give the "narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe" Republicans you speak of (direct quote from later on in the blog) a chance to present the case or a chance to vote.
Now, being a celebrity, I'm sure the high gas prices haven't had any effect on you or your lifestyle. Heck, you definitely don't fill up your car much less drive it. (as you should considering the condition you've been in after a hardcore night of partying before you return to rehab the next day!)
There are environmental friendly ways to drill, you silly little actor...and whatever your girlfriend is. You should stick to what you know best--deceiving people and spending money. Not trying to sway people to vote.
"Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play…"
4. You said it for me. Thanks. I know EXACTLY how you feel.
"Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?"
5. Media Obsessed?! MEDIA OBSESSED?! What in the world?!
First of all, I think you might be a little jealous that another woman has taken a tabloid cover from you. Second of all...Obama. Have you seen how much of a media whore he is? Ignorant.
"I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice… I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the "lipstick on a pig" comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president…"
6. People do need to exercise their right to vote. The most intelligent thing you've said in the blog. I agree. Let's get down to the issues. What are Obama's? Let's discuss it.
"Change!"
Uh...is that really an issue? What does he believe? What does he stand for? Does anyone know?
I bet William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Sam Graham-Felsen, Senator James Meeks, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, The Black Panthers, Hezbolah, and countless other liars, extortionists, and terrorists know what he stands for.
"I feel it's necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman."
Of course you're not. You're both lesbians.
"Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that."
7. Yeah, that's where you get me. Palin is a woman. Palin is an attractive, intelligent, and strong woman. She is standing up for what she believes. I can even respect Hilary Clinton for that. Putting a woman down for believing something and taking a stand is negating it even more, you idiot. Why should you say "you're only helping the cause of women if you support abortion and the killing of innocent life and the numbing of an entire culture as to responsibility and motherhood." It's not okay to choose not to be a mother because it's inconvenient for you.
"Oh, and…Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!"
8. Again, I reiterate, Have you seen how many tabloids your man has been on the cover of? Just because she's a woman...means she has to stand behind McCain? Why aren't more people complaining about the Obamamania media craze?!
"And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it".."
9. Wow. Not only are you ignorant, but you're very classy, too.
" Lindsay- "I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!"
10. Yes. Our country is great. Make decisions based on your heart feeling. What a liberal statement. Why is it that most liberals I know consider themselves free-thinkers (most are atheists / agnostic / "logic tryer outers" / extreme open mindednessers) are so careless with the big stuff? They claim to be open minded and logic users. But then they ruin it by saying they're using their hearts to vote. No. If you thought about this man. His associations. How he can't speak without a teleprompter or a speech. His lack of experience. Logic would tell you to run the other way!
Obama is a socialist, by the way. If you want this country to go to ruin, go ahead, cast your ignorant, non-researched vote.
"Samantha- "I love this country- however i wasn't born here and don't have the right to vote- so i beg of you all to really do your research and be educated when you cast your vote this coming november…. and if you're in doubt- vote for obama! Mainly because if she gets elected my green card probably won't get renewed!!!" "
11) Thanks for giving me another reason to HAPPILY cast my vote for McCain / Palin.
Too bad you or your little girlfriend haven't fully done any research to be educated for this vote. I am grateful only one of you is allowed to vote.
"xoxo
Lindsay and Samantha
Currently listening :
Obama for President 2008 Portrait Keychain
By Barack Hussein Obama" "
12. I thought his middle name was outlawed? Why is it you can use it, but when I say it, I get shushed?
Eh. Okay, I don't know why I wrote it, but I did. Mainly because I'm tired of hearing about it, and this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Hope it either angered you or provided you some entertainment.
-W
"I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be… Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she's FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land…. Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country."
Where to begin?
1. Aspirations to be a TV anchor. As an Obama supporter, I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot with bringing up the qualifications topic. Do you know how long the man you're sending your vote for was a senator before he decided to run for President of the US? One hundred and forty three days. That is less than half of a year, in case you can't do the math either.
2. She just got her passport in 2006. Kinda sad, I know. Especially compared to Obama...who has had his his entire life because...he hasn't lived in the US his entire life. Was he even born in the US? I haven't looked that up for sure. I don't want to make that claim...but just sayin'.
3. "She should DO IT IN HER OWN BACKYARD" Wow. This definitely shows how ignorant and idiotic you are. I recall that the House was having a vote on whether to do roll call vote to release the right to drill offshore (which, by the way you morons, is restricted heavily by the government. She could not start drilling due to endangered species ( " " For example, a rare ice worm that can maneuver through layers of ice! Too bad it's too small for the naked eye.) Anyway, yes. Roll call vote. And guess what the perfect uterus-bearing Speaker of the House "Third in Line" did? Yeah, she shut the House down, removed the Media, and shut off the lights. She did not even give the "narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe" Republicans you speak of (direct quote from later on in the blog) a chance to present the case or a chance to vote.
Now, being a celebrity, I'm sure the high gas prices haven't had any effect on you or your lifestyle. Heck, you definitely don't fill up your car much less drive it. (as you should considering the condition you've been in after a hardcore night of partying before you return to rehab the next day!)
There are environmental friendly ways to drill, you silly little actor...and whatever your girlfriend is. You should stick to what you know best--deceiving people and spending money. Not trying to sway people to vote.
"Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play…"
4. You said it for me. Thanks. I know EXACTLY how you feel.
"Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?"
5. Media Obsessed?! MEDIA OBSESSED?! What in the world?!
First of all, I think you might be a little jealous that another woman has taken a tabloid cover from you. Second of all...Obama. Have you seen how much of a media whore he is? Ignorant.
"I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice… I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the "lipstick on a pig" comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president…"
6. People do need to exercise their right to vote. The most intelligent thing you've said in the blog. I agree. Let's get down to the issues. What are Obama's? Let's discuss it.
"Change!"
Uh...is that really an issue? What does he believe? What does he stand for? Does anyone know?
I bet William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Sam Graham-Felsen, Senator James Meeks, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, The Black Panthers, Hezbolah, and countless other liars, extortionists, and terrorists know what he stands for.
"I feel it's necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman."
Of course you're not. You're both lesbians.
"Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that."
7. Yeah, that's where you get me. Palin is a woman. Palin is an attractive, intelligent, and strong woman. She is standing up for what she believes. I can even respect Hilary Clinton for that. Putting a woman down for believing something and taking a stand is negating it even more, you idiot. Why should you say "you're only helping the cause of women if you support abortion and the killing of innocent life and the numbing of an entire culture as to responsibility and motherhood." It's not okay to choose not to be a mother because it's inconvenient for you.
"Oh, and…Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!"
8. Again, I reiterate, Have you seen how many tabloids your man has been on the cover of? Just because she's a woman...means she has to stand behind McCain? Why aren't more people complaining about the Obamamania media craze?!
"And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it".."
9. Wow. Not only are you ignorant, but you're very classy, too.
" Lindsay- "I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!"
10. Yes. Our country is great. Make decisions based on your heart feeling. What a liberal statement. Why is it that most liberals I know consider themselves free-thinkers (most are atheists / agnostic / "logic tryer outers" / extreme open mindednessers) are so careless with the big stuff? They claim to be open minded and logic users. But then they ruin it by saying they're using their hearts to vote. No. If you thought about this man. His associations. How he can't speak without a teleprompter or a speech. His lack of experience. Logic would tell you to run the other way!
Obama is a socialist, by the way. If you want this country to go to ruin, go ahead, cast your ignorant, non-researched vote.
"Samantha- "I love this country- however i wasn't born here and don't have the right to vote- so i beg of you all to really do your research and be educated when you cast your vote this coming november…. and if you're in doubt- vote for obama! Mainly because if she gets elected my green card probably won't get renewed!!!" "
11) Thanks for giving me another reason to HAPPILY cast my vote for McCain / Palin.
Too bad you or your little girlfriend haven't fully done any research to be educated for this vote. I am grateful only one of you is allowed to vote.
"xoxo
Lindsay and Samantha
Currently listening :
Obama for President 2008 Portrait Keychain
By Barack Hussein Obama" "
12. I thought his middle name was outlawed? Why is it you can use it, but when I say it, I get shushed?
Eh. Okay, I don't know why I wrote it, but I did. Mainly because I'm tired of hearing about it, and this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Hope it either angered you or provided you some entertainment.
-W
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Alabama Legislature is....well, retarded
There is an Alabama politician (I use that term instead of legistlator because politicians seem to have more selfish motivation than those that actually do their jobs) that wants to ban "obese" people from eating at restaurants.
....?!
First of all, let's get to the logistic law side of this matter.
Many of our restaurants (pretty much all of them) are not self operated. They use produce from other states or are near major roads. We have fast food chains whose bases are not located in Alabama. Because of this, I would say almost 100% of our restaurants fall under jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. This clause protects individual rights as far as the "protected groups" (the most protected group being race, religion, nationality, orgin, etc., the second protected group would be age and sex). Businesses cannot, under ICC, discriminate against said protected groups or deny their patronage because of their place in first or second protected group.
I said all this to ask the question:
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on basis of aforesaid. Why should we then allow our government to create laws that not only limit patronage (I'll get to this in a second), but discriminate against a "new protected group" (being size/weight)?
This also limits the rights of the individual AND the rights of the business.
Individual rights:
How are they going to determine who is obese and who is not? Are we going to have to carry around a BMI card as well? Take a BMI test in the restaurant? Step on a scale to determine whether we are fat? What will the BMI be set at to determine whether or not you are obese? Or will you just be able to tell by looking at someone?
Whoops. That last question...aren't we told over and over and over not to be prejudice because of what a person looks like? What about pregnant people? Where do they stand in this issue? If I looked at a pregnant lady, she wouldn't exactly be a twig. Would they allow "fat" pregnant ladies to eat in the restaurants?
If you think those questions were slightly ridiculous let me give you something a lawyer would say...lawyers seem to make crazy outside the box claims, but if you think about them, they're somewhere in the realm of true:
Knowing someone's BMI, or requiring it for the person to do patronage, violates that persons guarded personal medical rights as protected under HIPAA of 1996. In effect, forcing a patron to release information regarding their health and using it to determine whether a person should be allowed to contribute to a business governed by ICC that is not a place of medicine, violates the patron's right to privacy and protection of health records and current health status.
(I love being a pre-law student...)
Besides. Wouldn't it just be embarrassing to have to stand on a scale in order to get into McDonalds?
Business infringement of rights:
I believe that even under issues of smoking in restaurants, it is up to the restaurant to decide whether they prevent smokers, or even fat people from being patrons in their restaurants. While I do love eating my meal without choking to death from clouds of cigarette smoke, it is not the right of the people to smoke wherever they please, but the right of the business to decide whether they allow it or not.
This government-imposed infringement on behalf of restaurant owners violates their rights to run their business as they please. As long as they are not violating ICC, why should they have to let the government decide whether or not someone is healthy enough to eat in their restaurant?
Not only this, but (to be quite honest and frank) "obese" people are the ones that eat out the most. Without their patronage, many restaurants/places of food business would cease to exist. Also, if you want to get really deep in this, the governement will lose money because less taxes are being paid.
Last time I checked, there are some pretty heavy set politicians...Maybe we should pass a law that all policicians have to have a healthy BMI before running for office.
Or better yet. An IQ.
....?!
First of all, let's get to the logistic law side of this matter.
Many of our restaurants (pretty much all of them) are not self operated. They use produce from other states or are near major roads. We have fast food chains whose bases are not located in Alabama. Because of this, I would say almost 100% of our restaurants fall under jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. This clause protects individual rights as far as the "protected groups" (the most protected group being race, religion, nationality, orgin, etc., the second protected group would be age and sex). Businesses cannot, under ICC, discriminate against said protected groups or deny their patronage because of their place in first or second protected group.
I said all this to ask the question:
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on basis of aforesaid. Why should we then allow our government to create laws that not only limit patronage (I'll get to this in a second), but discriminate against a "new protected group" (being size/weight)?
This also limits the rights of the individual AND the rights of the business.
Individual rights:
How are they going to determine who is obese and who is not? Are we going to have to carry around a BMI card as well? Take a BMI test in the restaurant? Step on a scale to determine whether we are fat? What will the BMI be set at to determine whether or not you are obese? Or will you just be able to tell by looking at someone?
Whoops. That last question...aren't we told over and over and over not to be prejudice because of what a person looks like? What about pregnant people? Where do they stand in this issue? If I looked at a pregnant lady, she wouldn't exactly be a twig. Would they allow "fat" pregnant ladies to eat in the restaurants?
If you think those questions were slightly ridiculous let me give you something a lawyer would say...lawyers seem to make crazy outside the box claims, but if you think about them, they're somewhere in the realm of true:
Knowing someone's BMI, or requiring it for the person to do patronage, violates that persons guarded personal medical rights as protected under HIPAA of 1996. In effect, forcing a patron to release information regarding their health and using it to determine whether a person should be allowed to contribute to a business governed by ICC that is not a place of medicine, violates the patron's right to privacy and protection of health records and current health status.
(I love being a pre-law student...)
Besides. Wouldn't it just be embarrassing to have to stand on a scale in order to get into McDonalds?
Business infringement of rights:
I believe that even under issues of smoking in restaurants, it is up to the restaurant to decide whether they prevent smokers, or even fat people from being patrons in their restaurants. While I do love eating my meal without choking to death from clouds of cigarette smoke, it is not the right of the people to smoke wherever they please, but the right of the business to decide whether they allow it or not.
This government-imposed infringement on behalf of restaurant owners violates their rights to run their business as they please. As long as they are not violating ICC, why should they have to let the government decide whether or not someone is healthy enough to eat in their restaurant?
Not only this, but (to be quite honest and frank) "obese" people are the ones that eat out the most. Without their patronage, many restaurants/places of food business would cease to exist. Also, if you want to get really deep in this, the governement will lose money because less taxes are being paid.
Last time I checked, there are some pretty heavy set politicians...Maybe we should pass a law that all policicians have to have a healthy BMI before running for office.
Or better yet. An IQ.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Where Immigration Reform SHOULD Start:
As many of you know, I work in Human Resources at (I removed my place of employment because I realized some of the things I said about HR..). My main project right now is making our I-9s (the citizen/employment eligibility form you fill out once you're hired) compliant and working with headquarters to outsource our paperwork and E-verify (which is send it to a third party, have them run the Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, birth certificates, green cards, etc. through the government.)
Arizona passed a new bill requiring all businesses to E-Verify all of their employees--and terminating those that do not meet the verification criteria onthreat promise of fines and loss of business license (10 days for every illegal worker/unverified worker).
Personally, I think this is a great thing. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Why?
Well, see...what happens when you fill out an I-9 is as follows:
HR representative makes a big deal about you having all of your information on the date of hire.
You fill out the form.
You give said HR rep. your completed form and specified identification. If you do not have your identification, your HR rep. tells you to bring your identification (by law, has to be by the third day of employment or you can be terminated).
However, that's not the way it works most of the time. If you didn't bring your employment information, your paperwork is placed in a drawer somewhere among other neglected HR paperwork. HR rep. forgets.
However, if you are the good employee, you bring your identification on the date of hire/orientation date or within the alotted three days.
Copies of your identification are made.
Copies of identification are stapled to original paperwork.
Paperwork is then holepunched and placed in a binder (hopefully in alphabetical order, although obviously...not all the time -- ugh) and forgotten.
Those papers in the drawer...are eventually found covered in cracker crumbs and leftover strands of white out tape. But then to realize that the employee was terminated a year ago and the proper paperwork was never filled out.
So basically, this paperwork is never 100% verfied. Why go through the task of filling it out if the company could have illegals/unverified workers for several years and not even know about it until an audit--which rarely happens.
Why should we (as HR and employees) have to fill out paperwork that is never checked? The E-verification process is very helpful and very much needed in the workplace.
How the E-verification process works:
The company sends the paperwork that is already existing to a third party.
Third party types everything in.
New hires transmit everything electronically, and copies of identification are emailed or faxed to third party.
(This cuts out a lot of work on the HR end...(haa. opening the drawer, hole punching, and eating those crackers to leave crumbs on the discarded I-9s is a lot of work...)
The third party then submits all numbers to the government.
If employee is approved and verfied, they continue working.
If employee is not verified (aka red flagged as an illegal), they are then placed in limbo and their information is again put through ten days later.
Seems good enough. I like this idea.
However. (you knew that was coming)
We cannot verify employees before their hire date. So, the employees are trained regardless if their citizenship status/eligibility is confirmed or not. Meaning, they are trained, the company is notified they have been rejected, and then the employee continues to be trained until the second run through ten days later?
I say if the employee didn't run through the first time, send them home.
WHY ten days? Why not a month? A year? Never?
We run prescreening background checks and drug tests. Why can't we check their eligibility to work in this country before they're hired, too?! Is THAT not important? Yes. That's right. BY LAW no employer can run a check to see if someone is a citizen of the United States BEFORE they are hired...but employers CAN run drug tests and background checks.
Why is this? Does this make sense to anyone?
No frickin wonder so many businesses have illegal immigrants. Some companies sincerely do NOT know they do.
Even WITH the I-9 E-verify system, they cannot send the employee home during the 10 day waiting period, so they not only have to compensate the employee for the 10 days, but can be held responsible for hiring an illegal worker?
That's a complete waste of time and resources. And a breeding ground for lawyers. *shivers*
If every company would actually get their I-9 forms confirmed, illegal immigrants would go elsewhere for jobs. They're already leaving Arizona.
Arizona passed a new bill requiring all businesses to E-Verify all of their employees--and terminating those that do not meet the verification criteria on
Personally, I think this is a great thing. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Why?
Well, see...what happens when you fill out an I-9 is as follows:
HR representative makes a big deal about you having all of your information on the date of hire.
You fill out the form.
You give said HR rep. your completed form and specified identification. If you do not have your identification, your HR rep. tells you to bring your identification (by law, has to be by the third day of employment or you can be terminated).
However, that's not the way it works most of the time. If you didn't bring your employment information, your paperwork is placed in a drawer somewhere among other neglected HR paperwork. HR rep. forgets.
However, if you are the good employee, you bring your identification on the date of hire/orientation date or within the alotted three days.
Copies of your identification are made.
Copies of identification are stapled to original paperwork.
Paperwork is then holepunched and placed in a binder (hopefully in alphabetical order, although obviously...not all the time -- ugh) and forgotten.
Those papers in the drawer...are eventually found covered in cracker crumbs and leftover strands of white out tape. But then to realize that the employee was terminated a year ago and the proper paperwork was never filled out.
So basically, this paperwork is never 100% verfied. Why go through the task of filling it out if the company could have illegals/unverified workers for several years and not even know about it until an audit--which rarely happens.
Why should we (as HR and employees) have to fill out paperwork that is never checked? The E-verification process is very helpful and very much needed in the workplace.
How the E-verification process works:
The company sends the paperwork that is already existing to a third party.
Third party types everything in.
New hires transmit everything electronically, and copies of identification are emailed or faxed to third party.
(This cuts out a lot of work on the HR end...(haa. opening the drawer, hole punching, and eating those crackers to leave crumbs on the discarded I-9s is a lot of work...)
The third party then submits all numbers to the government.
If employee is approved and verfied, they continue working.
If employee is not verified (aka red flagged as an illegal), they are then placed in limbo and their information is again put through ten days later.
Seems good enough. I like this idea.
However. (you knew that was coming)
We cannot verify employees before their hire date. So, the employees are trained regardless if their citizenship status/eligibility is confirmed or not. Meaning, they are trained, the company is notified they have been rejected, and then the employee continues to be trained until the second run through ten days later?
I say if the employee didn't run through the first time, send them home.
WHY ten days? Why not a month? A year? Never?
We run prescreening background checks and drug tests. Why can't we check their eligibility to work in this country before they're hired, too?! Is THAT not important? Yes. That's right. BY LAW no employer can run a check to see if someone is a citizen of the United States BEFORE they are hired...but employers CAN run drug tests and background checks.
Why is this? Does this make sense to anyone?
No frickin wonder so many businesses have illegal immigrants. Some companies sincerely do NOT know they do.
Even WITH the I-9 E-verify system, they cannot send the employee home during the 10 day waiting period, so they not only have to compensate the employee for the 10 days, but can be held responsible for hiring an illegal worker?
That's a complete waste of time and resources. And a breeding ground for lawyers. *shivers*
If every company would actually get their I-9 forms confirmed, illegal immigrants would go elsewhere for jobs. They're already leaving Arizona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
It is true that the majority of scientists support the theory of global warming being primarily anthropogenic in nature. Now let's look at that fact for a minute.
1. The majority of scientists are not climatologists, or in any way qualified to comment on the efficacy of that theory one way or another.
2. There are obvious political and social (and by connection, financial) benefits to supporting this conclusion. We should look carefully at a scientific claim with such strong motivation to come down on one side.
3. I do not accept research that is published merely to justify a foregone conclusion. If I had publicly stated that anyone who disbelieves in my theory is a moron and not a scientists, and then happen to produce a study the next year that claims to scientifically state the same thing, my claims should not be swallowed blindly.
4. That the UN and other organizations have proposed a global tax to deal with this problem is very telling. Vaclav Klaus has brought this issue to light in a very articulate manner.
All these things do not say that humans are not contributing to global warming. I suspect to some extent we necessarily must be. But collectively, when considering all these things I must pause before I jump onto the bandwagon that says the climate is controlled by us, we have broken it, and we can fix it.
-()4|<