Support Your Cause (Unless We Don't Like It)

It seems that financially supporting a cause is now a bad thing. In related news: Logic was recently hospitalized.

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|<.

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:

Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly
selected to take the test... was one which asked respondents to "name two countries that were our enemies during World War II."

About 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)

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|<.

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

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.

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.

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|<.

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:

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|<.

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:

"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|<.

For goodness' sake...

A new ad campaign is being initiated in the DC area. It's worthy of our attention:

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.

Need-to-know?

The Federal Reserve has has granted almost $2 trillion dollars in emergency loans, and refuses to identify the recipients.

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?

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|<

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:

"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.

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 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...

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|<