Well, a new Osama tape has surfaced. Personally, I think that al-Qaeda is doing what the U.S.S.R. did when Stalin died. The Soviets let on that Stalin was still alive, until a suitable replacement could be found. In their desparation, it looks like they've found a double to be "Osama" (fake beard, anyone?). If these guys weren't dead serious, I would be laughing myself silly.
One segment of the tape purports that he's been following American politics closely. He said that it was our disapproval of the war that led to a Democrat-controlled Congress. Apparently, they were not paying that much attention. Look at how the Democrats won previously Republican seats in Congress; they jockeyed themselves into positions to the political right of the incumbents! The big issue that swung the election was border security, not the war.
Then comes the big sell: "Embrace Islam...There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent.” Hip, hip, horray! Sure, sharia law is replete with honor killings, gang rapes, and is a hell of a lot less tolerant than Judeo-Christian value systems. Look on the bright side, though: you don't have to pay taxes. All he needs to do is throw in universal healthcare, and he could be a Democratic Presidential candidate.
Thank God (not Allah) that I'm an infidel.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
I'll Bet Hillary Doesn't Like this One
I remember a whole lot was made of Forbes magazine publishing a favorable article about Mrs. Bill Clinton, a.k.a. "The Senator formerly known as Rodham-Clinton". Well, Forbes has just put out it's list of 100 of the world's most powerful women. At the top of the list is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who happens to be a -- brace yourself, gentle reader -- a conservative. That's right. The first woman Chancellor of Germany was a member of Helmut Kohl's cabinet. Why is this significant?
Well, from post WWII to 1989, East Germany was part of the Soviet bloc. When reunification took place, there were two very different socio-economic structures that had to become one again. West Germany had a healthy, capitalist economy. East Germany, under Soviet control, had a failing command economy with its citizens dependent on the government for subsistence. With the two halves put together, you had the former East Germans wanting a government safety net for their day-to-day needs, and former West Germans wanting their eastern compatriots to rise above their situation and assimilate into the western lifestyle. The government's process of reunifying took a couple of years. The socio-economic reunification was much slower, as evidenced by the Christian Democratic Union getting voted out of power in 1998.
The election of 1998 led to Gerhard Schroder, a member of the Socialist Democratic Party, becoming Chancellor. The SPD (the initials in German) ideologically embraces Marxism and the nationalization of industry, the very same economic theory that drove the Soviet Union into the ground (actually, it was that and the fact that Reagan wasn't a pansy). The rise of the SPD was a setback to the economic recovery of reunified Germany because they expanded government programs, and increased taxes to support this expansion. Look what happened when Germany joined the EU; on paper, they looked stable enough to be members without dragging the Euro down. Upon closer inspection (without the rose-colored glasses), one could see that a nation with a 30-hour work week and 40% income tax rate was not going to be as healthy as it let on. Seeing their lots unimproved, the German people spoke with their ballots and returned conservatives to head the government.
With all of the limp-wristed, weak-kneed featherheads we have in charge on this side of the pond, we may have to go through what Germany experienced before we as a nation get our heads back on straight. A lot of people don't how good we really have it. Does that mean there's not room for improvement? Hell no, it doesn't. Read my previous posts if you think that I'm satisfied with the status quo. The changes we need to make are not for the faint of heart; they require leadership, not focus-grouping. The initiative needs to come not just from our elected officials, but from each of us. We need to quit waiting on somebody else to make our decisions and stop buying into the idea that concensus makes everything alright. I would hope that after electing liberals to power in Congress, and seeing the aftermath, the American people wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It is time for there to be more strong men and women, both in government and in our everyday lives.
Well, from post WWII to 1989, East Germany was part of the Soviet bloc. When reunification took place, there were two very different socio-economic structures that had to become one again. West Germany had a healthy, capitalist economy. East Germany, under Soviet control, had a failing command economy with its citizens dependent on the government for subsistence. With the two halves put together, you had the former East Germans wanting a government safety net for their day-to-day needs, and former West Germans wanting their eastern compatriots to rise above their situation and assimilate into the western lifestyle. The government's process of reunifying took a couple of years. The socio-economic reunification was much slower, as evidenced by the Christian Democratic Union getting voted out of power in 1998.
The election of 1998 led to Gerhard Schroder, a member of the Socialist Democratic Party, becoming Chancellor. The SPD (the initials in German) ideologically embraces Marxism and the nationalization of industry, the very same economic theory that drove the Soviet Union into the ground (actually, it was that and the fact that Reagan wasn't a pansy). The rise of the SPD was a setback to the economic recovery of reunified Germany because they expanded government programs, and increased taxes to support this expansion. Look what happened when Germany joined the EU; on paper, they looked stable enough to be members without dragging the Euro down. Upon closer inspection (without the rose-colored glasses), one could see that a nation with a 30-hour work week and 40% income tax rate was not going to be as healthy as it let on. Seeing their lots unimproved, the German people spoke with their ballots and returned conservatives to head the government.
With all of the limp-wristed, weak-kneed featherheads we have in charge on this side of the pond, we may have to go through what Germany experienced before we as a nation get our heads back on straight. A lot of people don't how good we really have it. Does that mean there's not room for improvement? Hell no, it doesn't. Read my previous posts if you think that I'm satisfied with the status quo. The changes we need to make are not for the faint of heart; they require leadership, not focus-grouping. The initiative needs to come not just from our elected officials, but from each of us. We need to quit waiting on somebody else to make our decisions and stop buying into the idea that concensus makes everything alright. I would hope that after electing liberals to power in Congress, and seeing the aftermath, the American people wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It is time for there to be more strong men and women, both in government and in our everyday lives.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Engineering Humor
Actually, this is for anyone who's ever taken a math or science exam without the benefit of studying. Some of these guys must not have even attended class until test day. Too bad for them; there don't appear to be "style points".
Saturday, August 18, 2007
First CA Driver's Licenses, Now This.
Living in California all of my life (and thereby having more than my fill of "multiculturalism"), I thought I had seen and heard almost every product of political correctness known to humanity. Apparently, one must travel to Nebraska to see the latest in PC absurdity. Two Native American tribes are being investigated for selling tribal membership to illegals, under the auspice of providing legal documentation for these people. Neither of these tribes are recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (so they're kinda like Ward Churchill). Since the tribes are not federally recognized, simply being a member is not enough to prove U.S. citizenship. Two illegals were caught trying to procure passports with their tribal membership documents.
For those of my readers that do not know me personally, I am one-eighth Chippewa. Since I was born outside of the community were my tribe originates, my parents were supposed to fill out registration paperwork for me to be recognized as a tribe member. They didn't realize this, and so the registration period passed. My younger siblings were, however, registered within the allotted time. In spite of the fact that my mother and siblings were tribal members, I was not allowed to register until the tribal government had an "open enrollment" period. I was finally able to register...when I was twenty-five years old!
The fact that I was not registered does not change the fact that I was still of Chippewa descent. It did affect my legal standing as such. Since I was not a registered member of the tribe, I was eligible for neither financial assistance for college, nor health insurance through the tribe. Likewise, paying a membership fee and a laminated card will not make you a Native American. I am sure we will hear Chicano studies majors all over the country saying, "Technically, Mexicans are the descents of Spaniards and Native Americans, so they are members of Native American tribes." Well, they're half-right; they're of Native American descent with regard to tribes found in Mexico (e.g. the Maya and Aztecs). I have blogged previously on why illegal immigration is bad for both law-abiding and the immigrants themselves. Sadly, this is further proof that I was correct.
For those of my readers that do not know me personally, I am one-eighth Chippewa. Since I was born outside of the community were my tribe originates, my parents were supposed to fill out registration paperwork for me to be recognized as a tribe member. They didn't realize this, and so the registration period passed. My younger siblings were, however, registered within the allotted time. In spite of the fact that my mother and siblings were tribal members, I was not allowed to register until the tribal government had an "open enrollment" period. I was finally able to register...when I was twenty-five years old!
The fact that I was not registered does not change the fact that I was still of Chippewa descent. It did affect my legal standing as such. Since I was not a registered member of the tribe, I was eligible for neither financial assistance for college, nor health insurance through the tribe. Likewise, paying a membership fee and a laminated card will not make you a Native American. I am sure we will hear Chicano studies majors all over the country saying, "Technically, Mexicans are the descents of Spaniards and Native Americans, so they are members of Native American tribes." Well, they're half-right; they're of Native American descent with regard to tribes found in Mexico (e.g. the Maya and Aztecs). I have blogged previously on why illegal immigration is bad for both law-abiding and the immigrants themselves. Sadly, this is further proof that I was correct.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Playing the Roman Fool
According to the latest report by the U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government is on the verge of collapse in a very similar manner to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (read the Financial Times article summarizing the report). "The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon." Walker, a Clinton appointee, raises some valid points, but is certainly not the final word on the matter.
At the time of its decline and fall, Roman citizens were paying more than 25% of their income to cover taxes. The holidays to celebrate and honor Roman deities were reduced to being an excuse to indulge in gluttonous behavior. The empire covered vastly different cultural and geographic regions. Government officials were emptying the coffers by building palaces and putting on diversions for the plebes (gladiators and public executions at the Coliseum, anyone?). Fast forward to the 21st century. We have redistribution of wealth through taxation and government programs, mention of God has been removed from our institutions, and newcomers to our country are not encouraged to assimilate into our culture. Our elected officials bring home the bacon for their constituents in the form of pork spending attached to legislation that's supposed to help the men and women of the armed forces and secure our borders.
I wholeheartedly agree with Walker's assessment that “declining moral values and political civility at home [...] and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government" have set us on the path toward self-destruction. I would have to take issue with Walker's additional citations of "slashed government services" and an "over-confident and over-extended military". Maintaining and expanding "government services", like starting government-run healthcare, go hand-in-hand with the fiscal irresponsibility that is the hallmark of "The Great Society". In the face of retiring, and presumably ailing, baby boomers Congress should reform Social Security and healthcare regulations so that we of younger generations will be better prepared for our own golden years. Currently, we bear the burden of footing the bill for today's benefit recipients. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are a result of the rising costs of practicing medicine and fewer individuals choosing this profession. Who can blame today's college students for being turned off by the threat of malpractice suits and dealing with HMOs? Even in the face of higher doctor's bills, we're still better off than nations with "socialized medicine".
As to our military operations overseas, it is necessary to protect ourselves from the enemies without, as well as within. The Visigoths were able to cross into the Roman Empire and ultimately sack Rome itself, due to weaken border defense. Enforcement of immigration laws in addition to routing the enemy abroad is the key to ensuring victory in the battle that will define us for centuries to come, while preserving our civil liberties. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather not have to fight al-Qaeda in my own backyard (though I wouldn't hesistate to take pot-shots from my kitchen window). If we do not vanquish the people who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of everything that America stands for, we won't have to worry about falling our own sword.
At the time of its decline and fall, Roman citizens were paying more than 25% of their income to cover taxes. The holidays to celebrate and honor Roman deities were reduced to being an excuse to indulge in gluttonous behavior. The empire covered vastly different cultural and geographic regions. Government officials were emptying the coffers by building palaces and putting on diversions for the plebes (gladiators and public executions at the Coliseum, anyone?). Fast forward to the 21st century. We have redistribution of wealth through taxation and government programs, mention of God has been removed from our institutions, and newcomers to our country are not encouraged to assimilate into our culture. Our elected officials bring home the bacon for their constituents in the form of pork spending attached to legislation that's supposed to help the men and women of the armed forces and secure our borders.
I wholeheartedly agree with Walker's assessment that “declining moral values and political civility at home [...] and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government" have set us on the path toward self-destruction. I would have to take issue with Walker's additional citations of "slashed government services" and an "over-confident and over-extended military". Maintaining and expanding "government services", like starting government-run healthcare, go hand-in-hand with the fiscal irresponsibility that is the hallmark of "The Great Society". In the face of retiring, and presumably ailing, baby boomers Congress should reform Social Security and healthcare regulations so that we of younger generations will be better prepared for our own golden years. Currently, we bear the burden of footing the bill for today's benefit recipients. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are a result of the rising costs of practicing medicine and fewer individuals choosing this profession. Who can blame today's college students for being turned off by the threat of malpractice suits and dealing with HMOs? Even in the face of higher doctor's bills, we're still better off than nations with "socialized medicine".
As to our military operations overseas, it is necessary to protect ourselves from the enemies without, as well as within. The Visigoths were able to cross into the Roman Empire and ultimately sack Rome itself, due to weaken border defense. Enforcement of immigration laws in addition to routing the enemy abroad is the key to ensuring victory in the battle that will define us for centuries to come, while preserving our civil liberties. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather not have to fight al-Qaeda in my own backyard (though I wouldn't hesistate to take pot-shots from my kitchen window). If we do not vanquish the people who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of everything that America stands for, we won't have to worry about falling our own sword.
The Quote of the Day!
"If you wake up every morning and need to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you have a pretty sorry existence." -- Karl Rove.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Those Muscles and Helmets are Just Fabulous!
In yesterday's Democratic debate, Mike Gravel stated that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality because men fight for the guy in the trenches next to them, not for love of country or an ideal. He mocks Der Schliekmeister's position of "don't ask, don't tell" as uneducated. I do believe that Senator Gravel needs to revisit his high school's class on western civilization. If that's not possible perhaps he needs to watch the History Channel.
From the time that a Spartan boy was six or seven years old, he was taken from his family and sent to live in military barracks. This was the beginnings of his education in the art of war. Rations were meager, so the boys had to steal food to stave off starvation. This practice was, in fact, encouraged to teach them how to forage. If caught stealing, the boys were beaten severely. The boys were also put to the test in war games, meant to sharpen their skills and toughen them for actual combat. There was no headgear or padding involved; if a blow was dealt by a more skilled opponent, the recipient could die. Another part of a Spartan warrior's training was to be "apprenticed" to a seasoned warrior.
Many people have the misconception that this relationship was homosexual. This may have been the case for some, but it wasn't the rule. In the ancient world, the idea of romantic love was not the highest form of love between two people. This was because a woman was not viewed as an equal to a man. It was brotherly love, the love between equals, that was held in highest regard.
I know that Gravel served in the military, but I have to wonder what he did exactly during his service that would lead him to believe that encouraging homosexuality would improve our military's performance. In my studies of western civilization and battles that defined our culture, the bond forged between warriors in the throes of battle is one that transcends physicality. These brave souls, past and present, fight for more than survival and each other. Through strength of conviction, they are willing to lay down their lives to defend family, faith, and country.
Besides, they already tried to destroy the cowboy image with Brokeback Mountain. The least they could do is let me ogle the film version of King Leonidas.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Huh???
I believe I speak for everyone with half a brain when I ask the carefully crafted question in the the title of this post. What am I asking about, you wonder. Oh nothing special. Just the "Breck Girl" who, I might add has been featured on the cover of Esquire underneath the headline "Sexist Woman Alive" (methinks somebody in the cover art department had to clean out his desk this morning). I just got done watch the national news highlights, and I was treated to John "Two Americas" Edwards saying that his solution to ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home is to "turn up the heat on George W. Bush". This, in and of itself is not unusual to hear from today's liberal establishment, but it struck me as strange that this would be used as a selling point...in a Democratic Presidential debate.
I may be mistaken, but are we not having debates amongst potential candidates within their respective parties so that G.W. gets a replacement? Why then, would it make one iota of difference whether or not the current President's feet are going to be held to the fire at a later date? Does Edwards own a calendar? I could have sworn that Bush has only 18 more months in office. Someone needs to leave the Aqua Net alone (at least pre-debate).
Hat Tip: Christina for this video (made by people with more time than I).
I may be mistaken, but are we not having debates amongst potential candidates within their respective parties so that G.W. gets a replacement? Why then, would it make one iota of difference whether or not the current President's feet are going to be held to the fire at a later date? Does Edwards own a calendar? I could have sworn that Bush has only 18 more months in office. Someone needs to leave the Aqua Net alone (at least pre-debate).
Hat Tip: Christina for this video (made by people with more time than I).
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Senile Senators' Slumper Party (BYOB Senator Kennedy)
Just when political posturing (and emissions of CO2) couldn't get any more ridiculous, "Dingy Harry" Ried had to declare, along with his cohorts in the U.S. Senate, that they were pulling an "all-nighter" to cobble together a resolution to bring the troops home from Iraq. Oh, I'm sorry, the official language of the DNC is "redeploy" (kind of like Hitler's use of the word "relocate" to describe "rounding up and exterminating millions of Jews"). So, were the news cameras showing pages hauling in cases of Red Bull or their senator's energy drink of choice (and perhaps some Geritol for good measure)? Hell no! They were rolling in foldaway beds for our distinguished elected officials to take a nap. Senator Kennedy's pages must have been sneaking in the booze via the backdoor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was in college (two years ago) an "all-nighter" implied actually being awake and working all night powered by sugar, caffeine, and sheer will...and nicotine for a few of my classmates. You were considered "all-pro" if you could not only stay up, but be a fully-functioning student the following day (complete with class attendance). What a bunch of slackers our Senate has turned out to be.
I can see it all now. Ted Kennedy will be passed out on his cot, martini glasses strewn about, hugging a bottle of vodka, and hiccuping between snores. His junior counterpart will be hugging a bottle of ketchup, and have jumper cables hooked up to the bolts in his neck. Babs Boxer and DiFi will be giving each other quizzes from Cosmo magazine and playing MASH (each will be adorned with curlers and cold cream face masques). Senator Byrd will be busy with a pair of scissors, cutting eyeholes in all of the white pillowcases. Harry will be up in his seat, leaning back with drool coming out of the corners of his mouth. When morning comes, they'll all frantically wake up and try the cram the Cliff's Notes version of the bill that their collective staffs wrote in the night. Even if it's not worth the paper found in the restroom, it will be hailed as a stroke of genius by the MSM. Let's only hope that the producers at CSPAN have the good taste to blur out some of the images conjured in this paragraph.
Update: Wonder of wonders! The U.S. Senate has accomplished...absolutely nothing! I wonder how much money it cost you and I to have those rollaways brought in for them to not even be used (most of our distinguished senators went home in the wee hours of the morning to sleep it off).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was in college (two years ago) an "all-nighter" implied actually being awake and working all night powered by sugar, caffeine, and sheer will...and nicotine for a few of my classmates. You were considered "all-pro" if you could not only stay up, but be a fully-functioning student the following day (complete with class attendance). What a bunch of slackers our Senate has turned out to be.
I can see it all now. Ted Kennedy will be passed out on his cot, martini glasses strewn about, hugging a bottle of vodka, and hiccuping between snores. His junior counterpart will be hugging a bottle of ketchup, and have jumper cables hooked up to the bolts in his neck. Babs Boxer and DiFi will be giving each other quizzes from Cosmo magazine and playing MASH (each will be adorned with curlers and cold cream face masques). Senator Byrd will be busy with a pair of scissors, cutting eyeholes in all of the white pillowcases. Harry will be up in his seat, leaning back with drool coming out of the corners of his mouth. When morning comes, they'll all frantically wake up and try the cram the Cliff's Notes version of the bill that their collective staffs wrote in the night. Even if it's not worth the paper found in the restroom, it will be hailed as a stroke of genius by the MSM. Let's only hope that the producers at CSPAN have the good taste to blur out some of the images conjured in this paragraph.
Update: Wonder of wonders! The U.S. Senate has accomplished...absolutely nothing! I wonder how much money it cost you and I to have those rollaways brought in for them to not even be used (most of our distinguished senators went home in the wee hours of the morning to sleep it off).
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I'm So Confused!
All the hype over Live Earth and global warming and the rash of wildfires in the western U.S. has brought me into conflict with my annoyingly persistent memories of junior high, high school, and lower division college science classes. How can this be, you ask? Isn't there a concensus amongst those of the scientific community that global warming is a real threat? Didn't global warming cause those fires? Well, allow me to explain myself.
From sixth grade science through university level biology, all we children of the 80s and 90s have heard is that the Earth is always in delicate balance. That each bit of flora and fauna has its niche to fill and if the population of a particular species in any given part of the world is dying off, it throws the balance out the window. Even in my differential equations class we had word problems for the "predator-prey model". For my non-geek audience, "diff e-q" is a pain in the butt branch of mathematics that I've used maybe twice since I graduated. The "delicate balance" view is consistent with the environmental wacko's paradigm. It's basic premise is that we humans are destructive intruders and the best thing we could do for the Earth is just die off and leave the apes in charge. Small wonder that the vast majority of enviro-nuts are also pro-abortion, no?
The "delicate balance" view is taught right alongside Darwinism, which in a nutshell teaches "survival of the fittest". The theory of evolution puts forth that species will evolve, either behaviorally or physically, to adapt to changes in their environment. According to scientists that monitor the finches on the Galapagos Islands (the same finches that Darwin observed over 150 years ago), this adaptation can occur as rapidly as three years. Keep in mind, however, that new species are not evolving from old species. The characteristics of the finch species are changing, but the genome of the finch species is not. Don't know what a genome is? Look it up. If you really want to get the goat of a rabid Darwinist, just mention the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and the conspicuous lack of intermediate species (species that evolved...and flopped like that Mariah Carey movie Glitter).
Now, to my point of contention: the recent wildfires, regardless of catalyst, were dramatically escalated by dry, dead vegetation. Brush and dead trees that private citizens and members of the Forest Service are not permitted to clear out because this dead undergrowth provides habitat for endangered and threatened species. In Utah's Milford Flat fire, the moisture in the vegetation was at zero percent, while the humidity was at three percent! In the Angora Fire (near South Lake Tahoe), the fire was fueled by vegetation that was mandated undisturbed by state and local agencies to control erosion and maintain water quality in Lake Tahoe.
Won't the ash and debris running off into the lake cause more damage to water quality? How about all of those noxious "greenhouse gases" and their damage to the ozone? Nevermind the damage done to wildlife habitat (click here for a satellite photo of the burn area). Why would nature not have taken its course if people, in the interest preventing raging wildfires, had cleared out the dead vegetation? Since fires caused by lightning strikes are acts of nature, how is this not seen as overthrowing the "delicate balance"? Are we required to cover "acts of God" (to use the insurance companies' lingo) by the purchase of carbon offsets from Algore's company?
So many questions! Luckily, I hold firmly with the idea of Intelligent Design. Our Creator in His infinite wisdom made the Earth idiot-proof, much to the consternation of liberals. I'm by no means advocating wanton destruction of the Earth's natural (God-given) beauty. I merely believe that we need to be good stewards by using and maintaining our resources. To not use the bounty of the earth is to waste potential, and the only losers are all of humanity. Don't believe me? Take it from someone who lives in one of the most impoverished regions of the world.
From sixth grade science through university level biology, all we children of the 80s and 90s have heard is that the Earth is always in delicate balance. That each bit of flora and fauna has its niche to fill and if the population of a particular species in any given part of the world is dying off, it throws the balance out the window. Even in my differential equations class we had word problems for the "predator-prey model". For my non-geek audience, "diff e-q" is a pain in the butt branch of mathematics that I've used maybe twice since I graduated. The "delicate balance" view is consistent with the environmental wacko's paradigm. It's basic premise is that we humans are destructive intruders and the best thing we could do for the Earth is just die off and leave the apes in charge. Small wonder that the vast majority of enviro-nuts are also pro-abortion, no?
The "delicate balance" view is taught right alongside Darwinism, which in a nutshell teaches "survival of the fittest". The theory of evolution puts forth that species will evolve, either behaviorally or physically, to adapt to changes in their environment. According to scientists that monitor the finches on the Galapagos Islands (the same finches that Darwin observed over 150 years ago), this adaptation can occur as rapidly as three years. Keep in mind, however, that new species are not evolving from old species. The characteristics of the finch species are changing, but the genome of the finch species is not. Don't know what a genome is? Look it up. If you really want to get the goat of a rabid Darwinist, just mention the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and the conspicuous lack of intermediate species (species that evolved...and flopped like that Mariah Carey movie Glitter).
Now, to my point of contention: the recent wildfires, regardless of catalyst, were dramatically escalated by dry, dead vegetation. Brush and dead trees that private citizens and members of the Forest Service are not permitted to clear out because this dead undergrowth provides habitat for endangered and threatened species. In Utah's Milford Flat fire, the moisture in the vegetation was at zero percent, while the humidity was at three percent! In the Angora Fire (near South Lake Tahoe), the fire was fueled by vegetation that was mandated undisturbed by state and local agencies to control erosion and maintain water quality in Lake Tahoe.
Won't the ash and debris running off into the lake cause more damage to water quality? How about all of those noxious "greenhouse gases" and their damage to the ozone? Nevermind the damage done to wildlife habitat (click here for a satellite photo of the burn area). Why would nature not have taken its course if people, in the interest preventing raging wildfires, had cleared out the dead vegetation? Since fires caused by lightning strikes are acts of nature, how is this not seen as overthrowing the "delicate balance"? Are we required to cover "acts of God" (to use the insurance companies' lingo) by the purchase of carbon offsets from Algore's company?
So many questions! Luckily, I hold firmly with the idea of Intelligent Design. Our Creator in His infinite wisdom made the Earth idiot-proof, much to the consternation of liberals. I'm by no means advocating wanton destruction of the Earth's natural (God-given) beauty. I merely believe that we need to be good stewards by using and maintaining our resources. To not use the bounty of the earth is to waste potential, and the only losers are all of humanity. Don't believe me? Take it from someone who lives in one of the most impoverished regions of the world.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
It's Alive!
Yes, I am still to be counted among those who have not "assumed room temperature". Granted, there are days when it feels like I'm close to achieving that end, particularly trudging through the brush with surveying equipment in triple digit heat. Hey, I grew up on the coast; I'm a sissy when it comes to extreme temperatures.
Anyway, more posts to follow.
Later.
Anyway, more posts to follow.
Later.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Oh, No! I've Been Tagged!
No, not as in graffiti "tagged". Christina tagged me to answer the following:
How many books do you own?
I have not counted, but I do have a separate room in my house for a study/guest room. The books take up every available surface, with the exception of the bed and a little patch of desk where the lamp sits.
Book(s) I am reading now:
1. Blood and Thunder, by Hampton Sides
2. The Colonel and Little Missie, by Larry McMurtry
3. Act of Treason, by Vince Flynn
Books I've read recently:
(In no particular order)
1. Godless: The Church of Liberalism, by Ann Coulter
2. Madame Bovary, by Gustave Flaubert
3. No Retreat, No Surrender, by Tom DeLay
4. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis*
*No, I don't think he's related to Jefferson Davis.
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me:
1. The Catechism
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. The Harper Anthology of Poetry
4. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (a huge leather bound tome that could give one a concussion or a badly bruised foot).
5. A small, untitled book that has recipes from my grandmother and great-grandmother
How many books do you own?
I have not counted, but I do have a separate room in my house for a study/guest room. The books take up every available surface, with the exception of the bed and a little patch of desk where the lamp sits.
Book(s) I am reading now:
1. Blood and Thunder, by Hampton Sides
2. The Colonel and Little Missie, by Larry McMurtry
3. Act of Treason, by Vince Flynn
Books I've read recently:
(In no particular order)
1. Godless: The Church of Liberalism, by Ann Coulter
2. Madame Bovary, by Gustave Flaubert
3. No Retreat, No Surrender, by Tom DeLay
4. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis*
*No, I don't think he's related to Jefferson Davis.
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me:
1. The Catechism
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. The Harper Anthology of Poetry
4. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (a huge leather bound tome that could give one a concussion or a badly bruised foot).
5. A small, untitled book that has recipes from my grandmother and great-grandmother
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Mouse Wants a Glass of Milk!
Many people that support civil unions for homosexual couples claim that the end is not to redefine "marriage". Civil unions would permit same-sex couples to have the same legal rights that a man and woman enjoy in the state of matrimony. They argue that civil unions permit couples to share equally in property, health care and retirement benefits, and in terms of adopting children. In Connecticut, they already gave the mouse a cookie.
According to a Reuters article eight same-sex couples, who are already joined in civil unions, are before the state's supreme court arguing that their unions should be called...marriages! So it's not about financial and legal equality? Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005, through their legislature. The civil unions allow for protection under state law, but not federal law. Of course, given that each state determines the criteria for eligibility for marriage licenses, that would make sense. Also, according to Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the civil union legislation denies the couples "equality as couples and families". He went on further to say that marriage "is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals." The state confers this status? Yes, you obtain a license from the state in which you are to be married, but most people are married in some sort of religious context.
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper to the majority of people. In the case of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrament and one of the ways that we can experience God's grace. How insensitive these people must be to want to trivialize something that means so much to so many. Of course, because Christianity is so "intolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle, most members of the gay and lesbian community do not see any need to exhibit tolerance themselves. Are same-sex couples going to begin demanding that they be allowed to marry in religious ceremonies, even when said religion, in no uncertain terms, teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Talk about a violation of the separation of Church and State!
Would you please do me a favor? Go grab a dictionary and look up the word "marriage". Here is the dictionary.com definition. Given that the very definition states "a man and a woman", it certainly looks like these activists are using the courts to overrule the will of the people as exercised by their elected representatives. There is no law against these people using words like "marriage" or "husband" or "wife". They can take it upon themselves to exercise their First Amendment rights and use whatever words they want to describe their life choice and their significant others. Rather than do that, they feel it is necessary to make everyone, including the government, to redefine the very meaning of marriage. This, like all political correctness, is all about hypersensitivity and control over other people. A few people get themselves worked up about words, rather than behavior or actions. Have you ever stopped yourself from saying something amongst your acquaintances because you're afraid it might offend? I know that I have, but here's the thing: even if you decide to trade euphenisms, people who are looking to be offended will be offended by the most innocuous things. So, we'll see if the Connecticut State Supreme Court starts pouring the glass of milk.
According to a Reuters article eight same-sex couples, who are already joined in civil unions, are before the state's supreme court arguing that their unions should be called...marriages! So it's not about financial and legal equality? Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005, through their legislature. The civil unions allow for protection under state law, but not federal law. Of course, given that each state determines the criteria for eligibility for marriage licenses, that would make sense. Also, according to Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the civil union legislation denies the couples "equality as couples and families". He went on further to say that marriage "is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals." The state confers this status? Yes, you obtain a license from the state in which you are to be married, but most people are married in some sort of religious context.
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper to the majority of people. In the case of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrament and one of the ways that we can experience God's grace. How insensitive these people must be to want to trivialize something that means so much to so many. Of course, because Christianity is so "intolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle, most members of the gay and lesbian community do not see any need to exhibit tolerance themselves. Are same-sex couples going to begin demanding that they be allowed to marry in religious ceremonies, even when said religion, in no uncertain terms, teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Talk about a violation of the separation of Church and State!
Would you please do me a favor? Go grab a dictionary and look up the word "marriage". Here is the dictionary.com definition. Given that the very definition states "a man and a woman", it certainly looks like these activists are using the courts to overrule the will of the people as exercised by their elected representatives. There is no law against these people using words like "marriage" or "husband" or "wife". They can take it upon themselves to exercise their First Amendment rights and use whatever words they want to describe their life choice and their significant others. Rather than do that, they feel it is necessary to make everyone, including the government, to redefine the very meaning of marriage. This, like all political correctness, is all about hypersensitivity and control over other people. A few people get themselves worked up about words, rather than behavior or actions. Have you ever stopped yourself from saying something amongst your acquaintances because you're afraid it might offend? I know that I have, but here's the thing: even if you decide to trade euphenisms, people who are looking to be offended will be offended by the most innocuous things. So, we'll see if the Connecticut State Supreme Court starts pouring the glass of milk.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
What Came First: The Weather or the Weatherman?
Environmental "scientists", such as Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David are fond of pointing to our wacky weather as evidence of man-made global warming. The headlines have been trumpeting ecological armageddon with the tornado that destroyed Greensburg, KS and the heat wave that has hit California. Today, the first named hurricane to form in the Atlantic this season is causing the drive-bys to embrace their inner Chicken Little.
I have a question for the "experts": did the Native Americans name hurricanes, too? How long have we been actually keeping records of weather trends here in the U.S.? If they had paid attention in junior high and high school western civ class, they would realize that we humans have not been around very long on this earth. In the lifetime of the earth, our existence has been the equivalent to the blink of an eye. We have always had extreme weather on this continent. That is how tall tales such as the stories of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill came into being; they were the American equivalents to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Weird natural phenomenon was explained by these tall tales.
When I took a class in state water policy and law, we had to read Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert. While I did not agree with much of what was stated in his book, he made a few interesting points. One of which was the exploration of the Southwest from the conquistadores to the Americans. The Spaniards, and later Mexicans, discovered that weather in the western part of the continent was erratic at its best, and deadly at its worst. The San Joaquin Valley, home to the vast majority of farming in California, was by turns a lush valley and a flat desert surrounded by mountains (depending on the amount of annual precipitation). Sudden torrential rains would wash away villages (and trees) sending the debris toward the Pacific Ocean. Father Junipero Serra, the man responsible for founding the system of missions on the coast, made sure to locate each mission near a reliable source of water and space them within a day's ride of each other. John Wesley Powell, a former military engineer who served has chief of artillery in the Union Army's 17th Corps, led an expedition on Green and Colorado Rivers, even rafting through the Grand Canyon. During his expedition, he encountered nature's beauty and its cruelty. Rapids wreaked havoc on the group and seasonal flooding from snowmelt and monsoons swelled the Colorado River to monstrous proportions.
The notion that we, insignificant mortals that we are, can irrepairably damage the earth is born of two ideas. The first is that this life is all that there is; there is no Creator, and this all happened by chance. The second idea is that because there is no Creator, it is we who are all powerful and we can make or break the "delicate balance" of nature. What the global warming experts fail to recognize, however, is that nature is adaptable and the forces of nature will work, whether we like it or not.
Looking at the planet as a thermodynamic system, we go through a cycle of heating and cooling. Because the planet does not change in mass, the pressure, temperature, and volume of the atmosphere must change in order to maintain equilibrium. The earth absorbs energy in the form of heat and radiation from the sun; however, only half of the earth is exposed to the sun. The other half is experiencing night and facing away from the sun. Just as the earth can absorb heat, it can also release heat (which is why temperatures are always lowest right before dawn). Also, consider this: the entire planet is the system, so any rain or snow that occurs anywhere on the planet is part of the heating and cooling process. Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it is not happening. Nature has its own way of healing itself. Saying that that is purely coincidence is a greater leap of faith than belief in God.
I have a question for the "experts": did the Native Americans name hurricanes, too? How long have we been actually keeping records of weather trends here in the U.S.? If they had paid attention in junior high and high school western civ class, they would realize that we humans have not been around very long on this earth. In the lifetime of the earth, our existence has been the equivalent to the blink of an eye. We have always had extreme weather on this continent. That is how tall tales such as the stories of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill came into being; they were the American equivalents to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Weird natural phenomenon was explained by these tall tales.
When I took a class in state water policy and law, we had to read Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert. While I did not agree with much of what was stated in his book, he made a few interesting points. One of which was the exploration of the Southwest from the conquistadores to the Americans. The Spaniards, and later Mexicans, discovered that weather in the western part of the continent was erratic at its best, and deadly at its worst. The San Joaquin Valley, home to the vast majority of farming in California, was by turns a lush valley and a flat desert surrounded by mountains (depending on the amount of annual precipitation). Sudden torrential rains would wash away villages (and trees) sending the debris toward the Pacific Ocean. Father Junipero Serra, the man responsible for founding the system of missions on the coast, made sure to locate each mission near a reliable source of water and space them within a day's ride of each other. John Wesley Powell, a former military engineer who served has chief of artillery in the Union Army's 17th Corps, led an expedition on Green and Colorado Rivers, even rafting through the Grand Canyon. During his expedition, he encountered nature's beauty and its cruelty. Rapids wreaked havoc on the group and seasonal flooding from snowmelt and monsoons swelled the Colorado River to monstrous proportions.
The notion that we, insignificant mortals that we are, can irrepairably damage the earth is born of two ideas. The first is that this life is all that there is; there is no Creator, and this all happened by chance. The second idea is that because there is no Creator, it is we who are all powerful and we can make or break the "delicate balance" of nature. What the global warming experts fail to recognize, however, is that nature is adaptable and the forces of nature will work, whether we like it or not.
Looking at the planet as a thermodynamic system, we go through a cycle of heating and cooling. Because the planet does not change in mass, the pressure, temperature, and volume of the atmosphere must change in order to maintain equilibrium. The earth absorbs energy in the form of heat and radiation from the sun; however, only half of the earth is exposed to the sun. The other half is experiencing night and facing away from the sun. Just as the earth can absorb heat, it can also release heat (which is why temperatures are always lowest right before dawn). Also, consider this: the entire planet is the system, so any rain or snow that occurs anywhere on the planet is part of the heating and cooling process. Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it is not happening. Nature has its own way of healing itself. Saying that that is purely coincidence is a greater leap of faith than belief in God.
Is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Apparently Comrade... er, President Vladimir Putin didn't see the declassified Soviet files regarding his own country's behavior between the Bolshevik Revolution and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Oh wait, he's a former KGB agent! He would know all about kidnapping, murdering, espionage, and stealing top-secret information. Putin has compared U.S. foreign policy to the Third Reich (read the International Herald Tribune article here). Of course, this is nothing new. We've had a poor excuse for a college professor from Colorado refer to the victims of 9-11 as "little Eichmanns". Even the former Chancellor of Germany (a member of the spin-off to der Fuhrer's political party) had called President Bush "Hitler". This is also not the first time that "our friend" has blasted U.S. policies abroad.
In a speech from Munich on February 10, Putin accused the United States of trying to establish itself as "one single center of power: One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign." First of all, if this were the case, we would have already conquered "Mother Russia", the Soviet satellite nations, and the entire Middle East...back when Reagan was President. We would have torn down the wall for Mr. Gorbechev (and spanked the Red Army in the process), dusted both Ayatollah Khomeni and Saddam Hussein, and put Kim Il Sung in a straight jacket. They'd all be English-speaking, Judeo-Christian, democratic societies, gas would be $0.50 a gallon, and we would all be vacationing in Cuba for Spring Break. Hugo Chavez ("Big Red"), Kim Jong Il ("Big Mac"), and Mahmood Ahmadenijad ("Small Fry") would not have had the opportunity to rise to the level of power that they have. Then again, we aren't bullies and would prefer the rest of the world to solve its own problems as peacefully as possible.
Secondly, does Putin even talk to Russia's ambassador to the United Nations? Is he getting the Cliff's Notes version of what goes on there, or is he taking a nap during the phone call? If there was ever a force at work in the world to establish One World Order, it would be the United Nations, and the Third World thugs that abuse the institution to line their pockets with foreign aid meant to feed their starving masses. They hate our guts, but love our money. It sounds like the kind of marriage that requires a pre-nup.
To top this off, Putin's largest point of contention appears to be our development of a missile defense system. What makes him think we don't already have it? It's not a new idea, and R&D is always a busy (and clandestine) business. Do we not have a right to defend ourselves and our allies? Or are we supposed to be like pre-WWII France and let our enemies roll through the nation's capital? Unfortunately, that may have to happen before people realize that this is real...and it's serious. "War is upon you, whether you'll risk it or not."
In a speech from Munich on February 10, Putin accused the United States of trying to establish itself as "one single center of power: One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign." First of all, if this were the case, we would have already conquered "Mother Russia", the Soviet satellite nations, and the entire Middle East...back when Reagan was President. We would have torn down the wall for Mr. Gorbechev (and spanked the Red Army in the process), dusted both Ayatollah Khomeni and Saddam Hussein, and put Kim Il Sung in a straight jacket. They'd all be English-speaking, Judeo-Christian, democratic societies, gas would be $0.50 a gallon, and we would all be vacationing in Cuba for Spring Break. Hugo Chavez ("Big Red"), Kim Jong Il ("Big Mac"), and Mahmood Ahmadenijad ("Small Fry") would not have had the opportunity to rise to the level of power that they have. Then again, we aren't bullies and would prefer the rest of the world to solve its own problems as peacefully as possible.
Secondly, does Putin even talk to Russia's ambassador to the United Nations? Is he getting the Cliff's Notes version of what goes on there, or is he taking a nap during the phone call? If there was ever a force at work in the world to establish One World Order, it would be the United Nations, and the Third World thugs that abuse the institution to line their pockets with foreign aid meant to feed their starving masses. They hate our guts, but love our money. It sounds like the kind of marriage that requires a pre-nup.
To top this off, Putin's largest point of contention appears to be our development of a missile defense system. What makes him think we don't already have it? It's not a new idea, and R&D is always a busy (and clandestine) business. Do we not have a right to defend ourselves and our allies? Or are we supposed to be like pre-WWII France and let our enemies roll through the nation's capital? Unfortunately, that may have to happen before people realize that this is real...and it's serious. "War is upon you, whether you'll risk it or not."
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Properly Celebrating May 1
The world over, people were celebrating today as May Day. The first day of May has evolved from being the first day of summer (in Celtic and Germanic tradition), to the first day on the month of the Blessed Virgin (marked with pageants and festas), to the Marxist day for protesting "the evils of capitalism". A Wikipedia search has unearthed some very ironic discoveries, in light of the Marxist connotation taken on by present-day May Day observances.
In 1921, May 1st was declared as "Americanization Day" to counter the internationally "celebrated" Labour Day. I write "celebrated" because to celebrate something implies that one is joyful about it (anyone who's watched liberals at May Day celebrations has not seen a jubilant people). In 1958, Congress made it an official holiday, calling it Loyalty Day. President Eisenhower then went a step further by issuing a Presidential Decree, declaring that May 1 was Law Day in the United States. The decree was codified into federal law in 1961.
Why do I say this is ironic? Well, here in the U.S., the second largest news item of the day was the illegal immigration rallies. Granted, this year's numbers were quite depleted from last year's, but it was enough to make it on the news. Most of the talking head and student/protester sound bites called for "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens currently residing here. Part of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America is taking the following oath:
How is it that one can take such an oath after already breaking it? Are we as a people supposed to trust the word of anyone who has? In the not-too-distant past, we had a President who was impeached and got disbarred for having perjured himself (in front of a grand jury, no less). Unfortunately, we didn't throw the bum out of office, but suffice it to say that he's still trying to do some post-Presidency legacy building so he doesn't go down...oops, poor choice of words...so he doesn't remain known as "Horn Dog in Chief".
In 1921, May 1st was declared as "Americanization Day" to counter the internationally "celebrated" Labour Day. I write "celebrated" because to celebrate something implies that one is joyful about it (anyone who's watched liberals at May Day celebrations has not seen a jubilant people). In 1958, Congress made it an official holiday, calling it Loyalty Day. President Eisenhower then went a step further by issuing a Presidential Decree, declaring that May 1 was Law Day in the United States. The decree was codified into federal law in 1961.
Why do I say this is ironic? Well, here in the U.S., the second largest news item of the day was the illegal immigration rallies. Granted, this year's numbers were quite depleted from last year's, but it was enough to make it on the news. Most of the talking head and student/protester sound bites called for "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens currently residing here. Part of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America is taking the following oath:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me
God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.”
How is it that one can take such an oath after already breaking it? Are we as a people supposed to trust the word of anyone who has? In the not-too-distant past, we had a President who was impeached and got disbarred for having perjured himself (in front of a grand jury, no less). Unfortunately, we didn't throw the bum out of office, but suffice it to say that he's still trying to do some post-Presidency legacy building so he doesn't go down...oops, poor choice of words...so he doesn't remain known as "Horn Dog in Chief".
Friday, April 27, 2007
Talking Animals and a Star Wars Music Video
Some light-hearted stuff to kick off the weekend. Talking animals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JAYKw-x6qE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCYaw5tGYAs
and Star Wars meets The Muppets shennanigans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMKfMIHxevk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JAYKw-x6qE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCYaw5tGYAs
and Star Wars meets The Muppets shennanigans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMKfMIHxevk
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Good Thing She was "Just Kidding"...
about reducing the use of "the important papers". It looks like she could use some right about now.
Kudos to Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, MO for standing up for what's right. Undoubtedly, there are going to be quite a few critics who will screech about how he would have turned down thousands of dollars in donations "to help the children", all so he could make a point. It is precisely because of his passion for helping children, born and unborn, that Archbishop Burke has resigned his chairmanship in protest of Sheryl Crow's appearance in a benefit concert for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation.
Please note, that the Reuters story points out that Ms. Crow is a "proponent of stem cell research". A more accurate description would have been to say she's a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the Michael J. Fox campaign ads, however, liberals have figured out that one has to drop the "E-word" when talking about stem cells. Incidentally, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in terms of curing diseases; research on using adult stem cells (such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia) has been the only research to show benefits. May be it's supposed to work that way? Just a thought.
Links to this post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Kudos to Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, MO for standing up for what's right. Undoubtedly, there are going to be quite a few critics who will screech about how he would have turned down thousands of dollars in donations "to help the children", all so he could make a point. It is precisely because of his passion for helping children, born and unborn, that Archbishop Burke has resigned his chairmanship in protest of Sheryl Crow's appearance in a benefit concert for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation.
Please note, that the Reuters story points out that Ms. Crow is a "proponent of stem cell research". A more accurate description would have been to say she's a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the Michael J. Fox campaign ads, however, liberals have figured out that one has to drop the "E-word" when talking about stem cells. Incidentally, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in terms of curing diseases; research on using adult stem cells (such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia) has been the only research to show benefits. May be it's supposed to work that way? Just a thought.
Links to this post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
More Idiocy out of the Bay Area
It's things like this that make my blood boil...and increase my yearning to leave this state.
About this time last year, there were protests all over the Southwest. Students walked out of class to stand in solidarity with the protesters in the streets. Where they protesting abortion? No. How about supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nope. What were they protesting? Our nation defending its sovereignty and actually enforcing it's immigration laws. People who are in favor of enforcement of the laws that are already in place have been portrayed as anti-immigration racists. I would argue that the opposite is true.
We are told that illegal aliens are brought to this country as a source of cheap labor. Why does it cost so much less to employ an illegal alien than a U.S. citizen? Is it really less expensive? Well, for starters, the illegal alien is not in the system; no Social Security number, no Green Card, and therefore, no obligation for the employer to pay into Social Security, worker's compensation, or health insurance. I would say that this is real exploitation. Since they are here illegally, and are being exploited thus, illegal aliens seek welfare benefits to supplement their under-the-table, cash income. In order to obtain these benefits, one must have a...you guessed it, government-issued ID. Illegal aliens are directed to people who are, in essence, identity thieves. They are given a SSN, or a driver's license number that may be real, but it's under someone else's name. Not only are illegals being exploited by their employers, they are being exploited by criminals!
"Well, that's why we need to grant amnesty to these people!" So, when we grant amnesty to all of these millions of illegals, are they going to stay in their current jobs? Why would anyone want to remain in a job that pays less than minimum wage? Are they going to still be hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot? I doubt it. It would be easier for them to find higher-paying jobs as citizens; good for them, bad for their former employers. This would leave people that typically employ illegal aliens with the task of getting more cheap labor. The vicious cycle would continue, and a perpetually impoverished class of people would be allowed to exist.
Rather than exploiting people that come here because their countries of origin have gone to hell in a handbasket, why not take a hint from The Netherlands? They contract out convicts for farm labor. We already have convicts picking up trash on the highways and clearing brush in state parks. Perhaps this may actually help deter would-be criminals; prision would be a punishment. Of course the ACLU may jump all over this idea, saying that the rights of the convicts are being violated.
About this time last year, there were protests all over the Southwest. Students walked out of class to stand in solidarity with the protesters in the streets. Where they protesting abortion? No. How about supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nope. What were they protesting? Our nation defending its sovereignty and actually enforcing it's immigration laws. People who are in favor of enforcement of the laws that are already in place have been portrayed as anti-immigration racists. I would argue that the opposite is true.
We are told that illegal aliens are brought to this country as a source of cheap labor. Why does it cost so much less to employ an illegal alien than a U.S. citizen? Is it really less expensive? Well, for starters, the illegal alien is not in the system; no Social Security number, no Green Card, and therefore, no obligation for the employer to pay into Social Security, worker's compensation, or health insurance. I would say that this is real exploitation. Since they are here illegally, and are being exploited thus, illegal aliens seek welfare benefits to supplement their under-the-table, cash income. In order to obtain these benefits, one must have a...you guessed it, government-issued ID. Illegal aliens are directed to people who are, in essence, identity thieves. They are given a SSN, or a driver's license number that may be real, but it's under someone else's name. Not only are illegals being exploited by their employers, they are being exploited by criminals!
"Well, that's why we need to grant amnesty to these people!" So, when we grant amnesty to all of these millions of illegals, are they going to stay in their current jobs? Why would anyone want to remain in a job that pays less than minimum wage? Are they going to still be hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot? I doubt it. It would be easier for them to find higher-paying jobs as citizens; good for them, bad for their former employers. This would leave people that typically employ illegal aliens with the task of getting more cheap labor. The vicious cycle would continue, and a perpetually impoverished class of people would be allowed to exist.
Rather than exploiting people that come here because their countries of origin have gone to hell in a handbasket, why not take a hint from The Netherlands? They contract out convicts for farm labor. We already have convicts picking up trash on the highways and clearing brush in state parks. Perhaps this may actually help deter would-be criminals; prision would be a punishment. Of course the ACLU may jump all over this idea, saying that the rights of the convicts are being violated.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
You Might be a Redneck If...
you cheer and get teary-eyed when you read this. Jeff Foxworthy has always been one of my favorite comedians. One of the many reasons is because anyone from a nine year old kid to a 90 year old grandma can appreciate his humor. He's not vulgar, like Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell. This hit the nail square on the head:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821089/posts
I hope that this makes headlines everywhere and that people are listening. Unfortunately, I know more than a few that will tune him out because he's not some slicked-up dude from the city. Oh well, their loss.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821089/posts
I hope that this makes headlines everywhere and that people are listening. Unfortunately, I know more than a few that will tune him out because he's not some slicked-up dude from the city. Oh well, their loss.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sorry, I Can't Help Myself!
In the wake of Sheryl Crow's announcement that we can all do our part to save the earth if we only use one square of toilet paper per potty break, I have decided to let my inner nerd run amuck. For those of you that don't know me, I am an engineer. So, I have decided to see if it would be actually possible from an engineering perspective, for one to actually get away with using only one 4.5" x 4.5" square of toilet paper. No, I am not enough of an empiricalist to rush home to try it out. I have chosen (for the sake of sanitation) to crunch the numbers.
Before we start plugging in numbers, we must first acknowledge the premise that we want to avoid having our hands come into direct contact with...well, you know. For the purposes of applying Newtonian physics, the "body in motion" is a square of toilet paper. The forces at work are the "wiping force" (Fwipe), a force perpendicular to one's posterior (Nbottom), and the force required to overcome the friction between one's backside and the toilet paper (f). In order to use the toilet paper without the paper breaking, the sum of the forces must be less than or equal to the tensile strength of the paper. Since forces are vector quantities (i.e. they have direction and magnitude), one can't just add up the numbers; one must also consider the direction of the force. A Google search revealed that the tensile strength of wet 2-ply toilet paper is 0.8 lb/inch and that 0.033 is the coefficient of friction (the Greek letter mu) of a toilet paper manufactured by Proctor & Gamble. However, the provided mu is only between skin and the toilet paper, not "substances" and toilet paper. Assuming a significant degree of adhesion, we can say that our assumed mu is actually 0.33.
For the average person, let's say that Fwipe is 0.5 lb along the surface and Nbottom is 2 lb against the surface. I realize that this varies with situation and individual, but an analysis of technique would be far too exhaustive for this particular entry. The friction force "f" is mu times Nbottom. This means that f is 0.825 lb in the same direction as Fwipe. The sum of the forces is 1.325 lb. The tensile strength of the toilet paper would not be 0.8 lb/inch*4.5 inches because the full 4.5 inches is not in contact with the surface. The "contact" length would be 1.5 inches, which gives a tensile strength of 1.2 lb. Because the tensile strength is less than the sum of the forces, the toilet paper will tear and you'll have a horrible mess on your hands (yes, the pun was intended). Said mess will then cause you to use even more toilet paper, as well the additional water and soap you will no doubt use to clean up after yourself.
There are a few things that I find interesting in the "nature Nazis" targeting of toilet paper. The first being that quite a few granolas that I know personally are germaphobic. Despite this, they are targeting one of the major sanitary developments of the 20th century. Materials previously used for this function are too bulky to fit through the plumbing of today's bathroom. The other interesting observation is that the enviro-wackos had previously targeted "inefficient" toilets, making it impossible to purchase a toilet that can actually take care of business in one flush. One must now use two flushes to adequately remove refuse, and in the process use more water than before the 1.7 gallon flush.
We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to preserve our way of life and share that way of life with others. There are complete nutcases running North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Nutcases who have the wealth (and weaponry) of entire nations at their disposal if they so wish to attack us. It is entirely possible that terrorist organizations are able to enter our country through woefully inadequate border security. All of this, and with what are we supposed to be concerned? According to Sheryl, we are supposed to be worried about conserving our most precious resource: toilet paper. Maybe it's so we can clean up all the crap we are going to be in if we as a nation don't start paying attention to more important matters.
Links to this Post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Before we start plugging in numbers, we must first acknowledge the premise that we want to avoid having our hands come into direct contact with...well, you know. For the purposes of applying Newtonian physics, the "body in motion" is a square of toilet paper. The forces at work are the "wiping force" (Fwipe), a force perpendicular to one's posterior (Nbottom), and the force required to overcome the friction between one's backside and the toilet paper (f). In order to use the toilet paper without the paper breaking, the sum of the forces must be less than or equal to the tensile strength of the paper. Since forces are vector quantities (i.e. they have direction and magnitude), one can't just add up the numbers; one must also consider the direction of the force. A Google search revealed that the tensile strength of wet 2-ply toilet paper is 0.8 lb/inch and that 0.033 is the coefficient of friction (the Greek letter mu) of a toilet paper manufactured by Proctor & Gamble. However, the provided mu is only between skin and the toilet paper, not "substances" and toilet paper. Assuming a significant degree of adhesion, we can say that our assumed mu is actually 0.33.
For the average person, let's say that Fwipe is 0.5 lb along the surface and Nbottom is 2 lb against the surface. I realize that this varies with situation and individual, but an analysis of technique would be far too exhaustive for this particular entry. The friction force "f" is mu times Nbottom. This means that f is 0.825 lb in the same direction as Fwipe. The sum of the forces is 1.325 lb. The tensile strength of the toilet paper would not be 0.8 lb/inch*4.5 inches because the full 4.5 inches is not in contact with the surface. The "contact" length would be 1.5 inches, which gives a tensile strength of 1.2 lb. Because the tensile strength is less than the sum of the forces, the toilet paper will tear and you'll have a horrible mess on your hands (yes, the pun was intended). Said mess will then cause you to use even more toilet paper, as well the additional water and soap you will no doubt use to clean up after yourself.
There are a few things that I find interesting in the "nature Nazis" targeting of toilet paper. The first being that quite a few granolas that I know personally are germaphobic. Despite this, they are targeting one of the major sanitary developments of the 20th century. Materials previously used for this function are too bulky to fit through the plumbing of today's bathroom. The other interesting observation is that the enviro-wackos had previously targeted "inefficient" toilets, making it impossible to purchase a toilet that can actually take care of business in one flush. One must now use two flushes to adequately remove refuse, and in the process use more water than before the 1.7 gallon flush.
We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to preserve our way of life and share that way of life with others. There are complete nutcases running North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Nutcases who have the wealth (and weaponry) of entire nations at their disposal if they so wish to attack us. It is entirely possible that terrorist organizations are able to enter our country through woefully inadequate border security. All of this, and with what are we supposed to be concerned? According to Sheryl, we are supposed to be worried about conserving our most precious resource: toilet paper. Maybe it's so we can clean up all the crap we are going to be in if we as a nation don't start paying attention to more important matters.
Links to this Post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Monday, April 2, 2007
"Freedom of..." vs. "Freedom from..."
If asked about the friends that I made in my college years, I would have to say that they cover the whole political spectrum, from Marin County hippies to guys that make me look like an editor for Mother Jones. My more left-leaning acquaintances would often ask me how someone with my intelligence could possibly be a "knee-jerk, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, SUV-driving, meat-eating, capitalistic, war-mongering, sexist, bigoted, homophobe". I would tell them that it came down to the differences between "freedoms of..." and "freedoms from...".
Let's start with the "freedoms from...". In Communism, that is to say authoritarian socialism, the few rule for the good of the many. Plato wrote about a "communism of the elite" in The Republic; the best and brightest of society would own property and be in charge of the education and well-being of all the people. This included the "elite" raising all the children born in the society, to ensure that they would become functioning members of society. In such a society (like the one attempted in the U.S.S.R.), the following "freedoms" are guaranteed:
1. Freedom from Homelessness
2. Freedom from Unemployment
3. Freedom from Hunger
4. Freedom from Covetousness
5. Freedom from Decisiveness
The first three are basic tenants that have been recognized by dictatorships since the time of Ceasar. If you feed and care for your masses, you will prevent them from rocking the boat. When the people are hungry, jobless, and without a roof over their heads, they tend to get cranky. The fourth and fifth freedoms involve maintaining the overall "happiness" of the common man. If your neighbor has all of the same things that you have, you cannot covet. In order to covet, one must desire something they do not already have and be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. If the few are making the decisions for the benefit of the many, the burden of choice as been removed from the commoner. Just think: all that you, the common man or woman has to do is wake up in your government-owned apartment, go to your government job, and spend what money you have at government-owned stores on government-produced goods. You don't have any responsibilities because the government (run by people who are supposed to be smarter than you) makes all the important decisions for you. You are guaranteed equality of outcome, regardless of how much or how little you do.
However, because governments are human institutions, there is no escaping the reality of power corrupting even the most well-intentioned. They who hold the reins of power will not see any reason for them to live like the commoners. Using the "freedoms" that they give the people, the ruling class are permitted to do as they please, even if it means departing from what they preach to those they steward.
The "freedoms of...", unlike their collectivist counterparts, require the individual to take the initiative. The Founding Fathers, men familiar with the philosophy of the Age of Englightenment, based the Constitution of the United States on belief that our rights are God-given, not imparted to us by a ruling class. To compare with the previously mentioned "freedoms from" here are the "freedoms of":
1. Freedom of Having a Home
2. Freedom of Being Employed
3. Freedom of Having Food
4. Freedom of Fulfilling Desires
5. Freedom of Choice
Rather than freedoms 4 and 5 being dependent upon freedoms 1 through 3, the freedom to fulfill one's desires and the freedom to choose allow one to improve on the ability to exercise freedoms 1 through 3. By placing the power in the hands of the individual, the common good is served because each person will strive to better himself. As far as uplifting the downtrodden, it's difficult to uplift anything when you are not able to lift up yourself. The perceived downside to living in a society based on the "freedoms of" is that the individual is responsible for choices and, therefore, any failure that may occur as a result of poor choices. Some people choose to not make choices. By letting life happen to them, they believe that they can claim victim status and are entitled to sympathy. In a society that promises equality of opportunity, the possibilities of success are only as limited as one's imagination. It only requires that one be brave enough to seize the opportunity and take a risk.
Let's start with the "freedoms from...". In Communism, that is to say authoritarian socialism, the few rule for the good of the many. Plato wrote about a "communism of the elite" in The Republic; the best and brightest of society would own property and be in charge of the education and well-being of all the people. This included the "elite" raising all the children born in the society, to ensure that they would become functioning members of society. In such a society (like the one attempted in the U.S.S.R.), the following "freedoms" are guaranteed:
1. Freedom from Homelessness
2. Freedom from Unemployment
3. Freedom from Hunger
4. Freedom from Covetousness
5. Freedom from Decisiveness
The first three are basic tenants that have been recognized by dictatorships since the time of Ceasar. If you feed and care for your masses, you will prevent them from rocking the boat. When the people are hungry, jobless, and without a roof over their heads, they tend to get cranky. The fourth and fifth freedoms involve maintaining the overall "happiness" of the common man. If your neighbor has all of the same things that you have, you cannot covet. In order to covet, one must desire something they do not already have and be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. If the few are making the decisions for the benefit of the many, the burden of choice as been removed from the commoner. Just think: all that you, the common man or woman has to do is wake up in your government-owned apartment, go to your government job, and spend what money you have at government-owned stores on government-produced goods. You don't have any responsibilities because the government (run by people who are supposed to be smarter than you) makes all the important decisions for you. You are guaranteed equality of outcome, regardless of how much or how little you do.
However, because governments are human institutions, there is no escaping the reality of power corrupting even the most well-intentioned. They who hold the reins of power will not see any reason for them to live like the commoners. Using the "freedoms" that they give the people, the ruling class are permitted to do as they please, even if it means departing from what they preach to those they steward.
The "freedoms of...", unlike their collectivist counterparts, require the individual to take the initiative. The Founding Fathers, men familiar with the philosophy of the Age of Englightenment, based the Constitution of the United States on belief that our rights are God-given, not imparted to us by a ruling class. To compare with the previously mentioned "freedoms from" here are the "freedoms of":
1. Freedom of Having a Home
2. Freedom of Being Employed
3. Freedom of Having Food
4. Freedom of Fulfilling Desires
5. Freedom of Choice
Rather than freedoms 4 and 5 being dependent upon freedoms 1 through 3, the freedom to fulfill one's desires and the freedom to choose allow one to improve on the ability to exercise freedoms 1 through 3. By placing the power in the hands of the individual, the common good is served because each person will strive to better himself. As far as uplifting the downtrodden, it's difficult to uplift anything when you are not able to lift up yourself. The perceived downside to living in a society based on the "freedoms of" is that the individual is responsible for choices and, therefore, any failure that may occur as a result of poor choices. Some people choose to not make choices. By letting life happen to them, they believe that they can claim victim status and are entitled to sympathy. In a society that promises equality of opportunity, the possibilities of success are only as limited as one's imagination. It only requires that one be brave enough to seize the opportunity and take a risk.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
You Have to be Alive to Have a "Quality of Life"
Hat Tip: Christina
Terri Schiavo's brother Bobby Schindler has written an article for WorldNetDaily. Reading it made me think back to after Christmas of 2004. My grandmother, who had been recovering from health problems, had bumped her head when she missed the seat of a chair at her kitchen table. A few days afterwards, she suffered from a subdural hematoma. As a result, she lost all most all motor skills, speech, and short-term memory, as well as suffering seizures brought on by the bleeding on the surface of her brain. In the following year, she spent almost nine months in the hospital. During that time, our whole family spent our time in shifts at the hospital, and we got to know the extended care staff quite well.
We were fortunate that the nursing staff were, for the most part, very understanding and actually happy that we, as a family, were so involved with Grandma's care. There was one woman, though, who infuriated me to no end. She was an occupational therapist, which means that she was largely in charge of helping recover motor skills. In the early months of her recovery, Grandma slept a lot because the seizures were physically exhausting. Rather than checking in on Grandma multiple times throughout the day (to see if she was awake), the OT would come in once a day and quickly depart if Grandma happened to be asleep or too exhausted to do the exercises. After about a month and a half, the OT obnoxiously told us that Grandma would be discharged from extended care and her insurance cut off if she did not begin to "make progress". The picture that she painted was one of hopelessness, so convinced was she that my grandmother would not be able to recover from her injuries. I wish that she could see my grandmother now.
While Grandma is still in a wheelchair, she can help move from it to a regular seat. She still has some trouble with her memory, but I am able to spend over an hour on the phone talking to her. To think that there are people out there that would have wanted to euthanize my grandmother because she did not have the same "quality of life" that she had prior to her injury. These same people would think that my mother and aunt are "burdened" because Grandma cannot take herself to doctor's appointments and the grocery store. We know how blessed we are to still have Grandma with us. I am looking forward to her being around to see more graduations and for all of us grandkids get married.
Terri Schiavo's brother Bobby Schindler has written an article for WorldNetDaily. Reading it made me think back to after Christmas of 2004. My grandmother, who had been recovering from health problems, had bumped her head when she missed the seat of a chair at her kitchen table. A few days afterwards, she suffered from a subdural hematoma. As a result, she lost all most all motor skills, speech, and short-term memory, as well as suffering seizures brought on by the bleeding on the surface of her brain. In the following year, she spent almost nine months in the hospital. During that time, our whole family spent our time in shifts at the hospital, and we got to know the extended care staff quite well.
We were fortunate that the nursing staff were, for the most part, very understanding and actually happy that we, as a family, were so involved with Grandma's care. There was one woman, though, who infuriated me to no end. She was an occupational therapist, which means that she was largely in charge of helping recover motor skills. In the early months of her recovery, Grandma slept a lot because the seizures were physically exhausting. Rather than checking in on Grandma multiple times throughout the day (to see if she was awake), the OT would come in once a day and quickly depart if Grandma happened to be asleep or too exhausted to do the exercises. After about a month and a half, the OT obnoxiously told us that Grandma would be discharged from extended care and her insurance cut off if she did not begin to "make progress". The picture that she painted was one of hopelessness, so convinced was she that my grandmother would not be able to recover from her injuries. I wish that she could see my grandmother now.
While Grandma is still in a wheelchair, she can help move from it to a regular seat. She still has some trouble with her memory, but I am able to spend over an hour on the phone talking to her. To think that there are people out there that would have wanted to euthanize my grandmother because she did not have the same "quality of life" that she had prior to her injury. These same people would think that my mother and aunt are "burdened" because Grandma cannot take herself to doctor's appointments and the grocery store. We know how blessed we are to still have Grandma with us. I am looking forward to her being around to see more graduations and for all of us grandkids get married.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Actions Speak Louder than Words
Let us ignore, for the sake of this post, that it is far too early to be making credible conjectures about who will win presidential nominations from their respective parties. Look at what happened to poor Howard "Yah!" Dean. He was winning in the polls, but ultimately lost the nomination to a man with all the charm of an undertaker. Even after adopting the voice of a monster truck rally announcer ("Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Monster trucks at Arco Arena! Be there!). There is a lot of "focus grouping" going on, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a sure winner.
There are a lot of names being marketed to the conservative base of the Republican party, many of them are not conservative in the most complete sense of the word. Some individuals have not even formally announced their candidacy. My short list (for this post) includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson.
Rudy, as "America's Mayor" makes an attractive candidate for those who prefer to focus entirely on his fiscal and national security policies. However, as a conservative who's standard is Ronald Reagan, Giuliani is far from ideal. His positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration are a bit too liberal a pill for us to swallow. He has tried to make himself more palatable to pro-lifers by saying that he would appoint more "constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What happens if these newly appointed, right-leaning justices overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, is recognized on both sides as being a poorly reasoned ruling)? Well, it will be left to the individual states or Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion. Would Rudy sign pro-life legislation? In typical lawyer fashion, Giuliani would want more gun control legislation, rather than enforcing the laws already on the books. However, in a curious display of contradiction, he would not prosecute people who, by definition, break the law in order to reside here.
Mitt Romney is almost in the same boat as Giuliani. After all, one cannot be governor of Massachusetts and be a Barry Goldwater conservative. For starters, when asked if his faith as a Mormon would affect his policies as President, he said that they wouldn't. Does this mean that he would abandoned Christian values entirely, or the more controversial aspects of the teachings of the LDS? Apparently, his faith didn't get in the way of some of his positions as governor of the home state of Lurch and The Swimmer (that's Kerry and Kennedy). He is only recently decided to be pro-life. I can appreciate (and in fact welcome) a change of heart in anyone on this matter, but my inner cynic tells me this was for political expediency more than a matter of conscience.
While Rudy and Mitt are officially candidates, there are two other men being shopped. Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, is being billed as the answer to a Reagan conservative's prayers. Thompson won the election for the remaining two years on Al Gore's Senate term and served there until 2002 (when he retired). He has also seen camera time in The Hunt for Red October and on Law and Order. Screen credits aside, his voting record in the Senate is demonstrably far more conservative than that of many of the Republican candidates. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, James Dobson has come out in opposition of a man who, at present, makes a strong conservative candidate.
In a phone interview with U.S. World News & Report, Dr. Dobson said "Everyone knows [Thompson is] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for [..., but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression." A spokesman for Focus on Family sought to clarify Dobson's statement by saying "We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." So, what was Dr. Dobson try to say, exactly? Why split hairs when the candidate is a strong advocate for policies that one supports? The notion that one should not vote for Fred Thompson because he is not an evangelical Christian (but a Christian nonetheless) makes about as much sense as people who voted for John Kerry simply because he tried to sell himself as a Catholic. It would appear that Dobson's premptive strike on Thompson may be due to his support of another unofficial candidate.
Dobson has come out in strong support of Newt Gingrich. Now, I like Newt. I agree with him about 90 percent of the time. I enjoyed reading the Civil War "what-if" trilogy that he co-authored with William Forstchen. However, there are a few reasons that I would withhold support at this time. The first being political liabilities. He has admitted to having an affair
(ironically) during the Clinton impeachment. I believe, as a Catholic, in the forgiveness of one's sins, but would voters be willing to overlook the perception of hypocrisy? Also, there is the cloud of suspicion under which he resigned from the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that any charges of unethical behavior were dropped by the House Ethics Committee, the "drive-bys" will still smell blood in the water. I fear that pressing Gingrich to throw his hat in the ring may be the same thing that happened when Bob Dole ran in '96. Some people may simply think it's "Newt's turn to run".
I would much rather see George Allen (narrowly defeated Senator from Virginia) run for President. Allen, wise man that he is, will hopefully run in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it is far too soon to tell. All I know is that we conservatives need to remind Republicans that they need to be conservatives first, not just campaign like them.
There are a lot of names being marketed to the conservative base of the Republican party, many of them are not conservative in the most complete sense of the word. Some individuals have not even formally announced their candidacy. My short list (for this post) includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson.
Rudy, as "America's Mayor" makes an attractive candidate for those who prefer to focus entirely on his fiscal and national security policies. However, as a conservative who's standard is Ronald Reagan, Giuliani is far from ideal. His positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration are a bit too liberal a pill for us to swallow. He has tried to make himself more palatable to pro-lifers by saying that he would appoint more "constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What happens if these newly appointed, right-leaning justices overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, is recognized on both sides as being a poorly reasoned ruling)? Well, it will be left to the individual states or Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion. Would Rudy sign pro-life legislation? In typical lawyer fashion, Giuliani would want more gun control legislation, rather than enforcing the laws already on the books. However, in a curious display of contradiction, he would not prosecute people who, by definition, break the law in order to reside here.
Mitt Romney is almost in the same boat as Giuliani. After all, one cannot be governor of Massachusetts and be a Barry Goldwater conservative. For starters, when asked if his faith as a Mormon would affect his policies as President, he said that they wouldn't. Does this mean that he would abandoned Christian values entirely, or the more controversial aspects of the teachings of the LDS? Apparently, his faith didn't get in the way of some of his positions as governor of the home state of Lurch and The Swimmer (that's Kerry and Kennedy). He is only recently decided to be pro-life. I can appreciate (and in fact welcome) a change of heart in anyone on this matter, but my inner cynic tells me this was for political expediency more than a matter of conscience.
While Rudy and Mitt are officially candidates, there are two other men being shopped. Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, is being billed as the answer to a Reagan conservative's prayers. Thompson won the election for the remaining two years on Al Gore's Senate term and served there until 2002 (when he retired). He has also seen camera time in The Hunt for Red October and on Law and Order. Screen credits aside, his voting record in the Senate is demonstrably far more conservative than that of many of the Republican candidates. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, James Dobson has come out in opposition of a man who, at present, makes a strong conservative candidate.
In a phone interview with U.S. World News & Report, Dr. Dobson said "Everyone knows [Thompson is] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for [..., but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression." A spokesman for Focus on Family sought to clarify Dobson's statement by saying "We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." So, what was Dr. Dobson try to say, exactly? Why split hairs when the candidate is a strong advocate for policies that one supports? The notion that one should not vote for Fred Thompson because he is not an evangelical Christian (but a Christian nonetheless) makes about as much sense as people who voted for John Kerry simply because he tried to sell himself as a Catholic. It would appear that Dobson's premptive strike on Thompson may be due to his support of another unofficial candidate.
Dobson has come out in strong support of Newt Gingrich. Now, I like Newt. I agree with him about 90 percent of the time. I enjoyed reading the Civil War "what-if" trilogy that he co-authored with William Forstchen. However, there are a few reasons that I would withhold support at this time. The first being political liabilities. He has admitted to having an affair
(ironically) during the Clinton impeachment. I believe, as a Catholic, in the forgiveness of one's sins, but would voters be willing to overlook the perception of hypocrisy? Also, there is the cloud of suspicion under which he resigned from the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that any charges of unethical behavior were dropped by the House Ethics Committee, the "drive-bys" will still smell blood in the water. I fear that pressing Gingrich to throw his hat in the ring may be the same thing that happened when Bob Dole ran in '96. Some people may simply think it's "Newt's turn to run".
I would much rather see George Allen (narrowly defeated Senator from Virginia) run for President. Allen, wise man that he is, will hopefully run in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it is far too soon to tell. All I know is that we conservatives need to remind Republicans that they need to be conservatives first, not just campaign like them.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany."
Well, aside from Foggy Bottom, that is. I am currently in San Francisco on a business trip. Our conference is at a hotel on Fisherman's Wharf, which is pretty cool. It is such a shame that a city with as much to offer as San Francisco could be so overshadowed by the exhibition of the worst traits in 21st century America.
This city is the western counterpart to New Orleans, as far as politics is concerned. Liberals have held the reins of power in S.F. since the 1930s, as far as I can tell. That is over 70 years of liberal policies being enacted and reinforced. This place should be Utopia. It is the retirement home for many geriatric flower children, a larger-than-average number homosexuals, and all sorts of people that wouldn't be identified as politically "moderate", let alone conservative. These are the same people that voted to make owning a firearm in city limits a crime. Despite all of this, there's trouble in paradise.
For starters, San Francisco has the highest percentage of unsolved murders of any major city in the United States. Since the no-gun law became effective this January, violent crimes involving firearms have skyrocketed. Criminals of the City by the Bay, like the criminals of the U.K. and aristocrats of feudal Europe, prefer unarmed peasants. Since a federal appellate court recently ruled that Washington D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional, what are San Franciscans going to do? If the Board of Supervisors had any sense at all, they would support the police department by making it possible to enforce the laws already on the books. What does this mean, exactly? Well, for starters, they would quit ham-stringing law enforcement when it comes to cracking down on criminals, regardless of a suspect's race, religion, gender, or orientation. It shouldn't matter if you are a minority; if you're breaking the law, you should be arrested and put on trial like anyone else.
Given that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to call home (if not, the most expensive) and the immense social safety net the city provides its citizens (in the form of unemployment benefits, health care for "domestic partners" of municipal employees, etc.), everyone here should be gainfully employed and poverty should be outmoded here, right? I, as a tourist, can tell you that I have seen more poverty in San Francisco than in Sacramento. For those of you that have never been to downtown Sacramento, the rumors and jokes regarding the number of homeless in our state's capital are true. However, San Francisco seems to revel in the fact that there is a large population of homeless dwelling in the shadow of its stylish neighborhoods. They buy shopping carts to give to their homeless, rather than using that money to provide genuine help to these people. This past Holiday season, lobbyists protested scented poster advertisements at bus stops because "it would be cruel" to make those less fortunate smell a food item they cannot afford to purchase. The reason for all of this absurdity: it makes them feel better! That's right, people who, for whatever reason, live in squallor are allowed to continue in squallor because some well-to-do yuppie wants to feel better about themselves. If the problem were actually solved, they would no longer have any way to show that they care. It is despicable for human suffering of any kind to be used as a propaganda tool, especially under the disguise of philanthropy.
If the citizenry of this city are morally bankrupt, their elected officials are in it up to their ears. The so-called leadership of the city are more like guests on the Jerry Springer show. Mayor Newsom coming out...wait, wrong choice of words, my apologies. Take two: Mayor Newsom coming clean a few months ago about having an affair with his best friend's wife is only the latest scandal to surface. Wait a tick, this is about sex, and according to Clinton apologists everyone lies about sex. So why was it a scandal? Perhaps philandering is not such a widely accepted practice after all. Now, I know that this city was a major port-of-call for sailors, as well as a frontier outpost (and therefore, a pretty wild place), but California has been a member of the Union for almost 160 years. I think it's time to grow up.
With so many problems so deeply rooted in the psyche of its citizens, is there hope for San Francisco? Perhaps, if not in my generation, then the following generations. In an article by Vicki Haddock in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 17, 2006, studies show that liberals are being driven to extinction by their own life choices. Since it's biologically impossible for homosexuals to have children, and lots of liberal, "committed couples" (since marriage is so bourgeois) elect to not have children, conservative "breeders" (as the homosexual community so loving calls them) have 41 percent more children than liberals. Plus, liberals are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and are more likely to avail themselves of their perceived "right to choose"; thus, as grim as it is, preventing even more children being born. Now, if I had no conscience at all, I would be tempted to consider a change in some of my socio-political opinions.
Statistically, only 10 percent of children adopt political points of view that differ from that of their parents. Assuming these children stay in San Francisco, that means that there will be 39 percent more conservatives voting 18 years from now. Let's just hope that they have a stubborn streak a mile wide and decide to be the new counterculture movement in San Francisco. Vive la revolution!
This city is the western counterpart to New Orleans, as far as politics is concerned. Liberals have held the reins of power in S.F. since the 1930s, as far as I can tell. That is over 70 years of liberal policies being enacted and reinforced. This place should be Utopia. It is the retirement home for many geriatric flower children, a larger-than-average number homosexuals, and all sorts of people that wouldn't be identified as politically "moderate", let alone conservative. These are the same people that voted to make owning a firearm in city limits a crime. Despite all of this, there's trouble in paradise.
For starters, San Francisco has the highest percentage of unsolved murders of any major city in the United States. Since the no-gun law became effective this January, violent crimes involving firearms have skyrocketed. Criminals of the City by the Bay, like the criminals of the U.K. and aristocrats of feudal Europe, prefer unarmed peasants. Since a federal appellate court recently ruled that Washington D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional, what are San Franciscans going to do? If the Board of Supervisors had any sense at all, they would support the police department by making it possible to enforce the laws already on the books. What does this mean, exactly? Well, for starters, they would quit ham-stringing law enforcement when it comes to cracking down on criminals, regardless of a suspect's race, religion, gender, or orientation. It shouldn't matter if you are a minority; if you're breaking the law, you should be arrested and put on trial like anyone else.
Given that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to call home (if not, the most expensive) and the immense social safety net the city provides its citizens (in the form of unemployment benefits, health care for "domestic partners" of municipal employees, etc.), everyone here should be gainfully employed and poverty should be outmoded here, right? I, as a tourist, can tell you that I have seen more poverty in San Francisco than in Sacramento. For those of you that have never been to downtown Sacramento, the rumors and jokes regarding the number of homeless in our state's capital are true. However, San Francisco seems to revel in the fact that there is a large population of homeless dwelling in the shadow of its stylish neighborhoods. They buy shopping carts to give to their homeless, rather than using that money to provide genuine help to these people. This past Holiday season, lobbyists protested scented poster advertisements at bus stops because "it would be cruel" to make those less fortunate smell a food item they cannot afford to purchase. The reason for all of this absurdity: it makes them feel better! That's right, people who, for whatever reason, live in squallor are allowed to continue in squallor because some well-to-do yuppie wants to feel better about themselves. If the problem were actually solved, they would no longer have any way to show that they care. It is despicable for human suffering of any kind to be used as a propaganda tool, especially under the disguise of philanthropy.
If the citizenry of this city are morally bankrupt, their elected officials are in it up to their ears. The so-called leadership of the city are more like guests on the Jerry Springer show. Mayor Newsom coming out...wait, wrong choice of words, my apologies. Take two: Mayor Newsom coming clean a few months ago about having an affair with his best friend's wife is only the latest scandal to surface. Wait a tick, this is about sex, and according to Clinton apologists everyone lies about sex. So why was it a scandal? Perhaps philandering is not such a widely accepted practice after all. Now, I know that this city was a major port-of-call for sailors, as well as a frontier outpost (and therefore, a pretty wild place), but California has been a member of the Union for almost 160 years. I think it's time to grow up.
With so many problems so deeply rooted in the psyche of its citizens, is there hope for San Francisco? Perhaps, if not in my generation, then the following generations. In an article by Vicki Haddock in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 17, 2006, studies show that liberals are being driven to extinction by their own life choices. Since it's biologically impossible for homosexuals to have children, and lots of liberal, "committed couples" (since marriage is so bourgeois) elect to not have children, conservative "breeders" (as the homosexual community so loving calls them) have 41 percent more children than liberals. Plus, liberals are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and are more likely to avail themselves of their perceived "right to choose"; thus, as grim as it is, preventing even more children being born. Now, if I had no conscience at all, I would be tempted to consider a change in some of my socio-political opinions.
Statistically, only 10 percent of children adopt political points of view that differ from that of their parents. Assuming these children stay in San Francisco, that means that there will be 39 percent more conservatives voting 18 years from now. Let's just hope that they have a stubborn streak a mile wide and decide to be the new counterculture movement in San Francisco. Vive la revolution!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
There's a Reason That It is the FIRST Amendment
I know that this is a couple of weeks old, but I have been asked to opine on Ann Coulter's closing remarks at CPAC. Small surprise, I enjoy reading Ann Coulter's weekly column, as well as her books. I find her to be both entertaining and informative. Some of my more liberal acquaintances believe that the value of her commentary is solely for the amusement of all of us mean-spirited, sexist,bigoted, homophobes who destroy the environment with our SUVs and capitalist society. However, should you doubt her claims, all you have to do is check her references (which are meticulously researched). She, like Rush, is capable of marrying information with entertainment. Bill O'Reilly is fond of lumping Ann Coulter into the same category as Al Franken and Bill Maher. I find this insulting on a few levels.
For starters, Franken and Maher's humor is not derived from wit. Any one with a pre-teenaged brother will tell you that anything from flatulence to watching either of the "Jackass" movies is good for a laugh from the adle-headed youth. Now, I will admit that I you can get a chuckle out me with some well-timed "potty humor", but it must have context! Two guys producing methane a la Terrence and Philip from South Park just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). Unfortunately for Franken and Maher, even a twelve year-old boy (and his older sisters) have limits.
Coulter, while giving a speech at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the following: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" First off, this was in the context of one of the actors from Grey's Anatomy checking himself into anger management/rehab for referring to one of his co-stars with the same word. If you actually pay attention to what she said, Ann did not actually call Edwards a "faggot". It was inferred from her statement. So, where does the bigotry really lie? Semantics aside, Coulter is not the first commentator to question (in jest or in earnest) John Edwards' sexual orientation. Watch "D.C. Land" on jibjab.com; you'll see caricatures of Edwards and Kerry in bed...and not in a Lucy and Ricky Ricardo way.
On a much larger scale, my problem with the criticism of Ann's speech is two-fold. First of all, we still live in the United States of America. One of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to say whatever we please. That is not to say that we are free from repercussions. Just ask the "Dixie Twits" what happened to their relationship with many of the country music stations that used to play their singles. While you (the audience) can be offended by what I say or write, you do not have the right to stop me from speaking or writing (with the expection of slander and libel). Then there is the hypocrisy of Ann's critics. Jesse Jackson is on record as referring to Joe Lieberman as "that Hymie". Michael Richards can call two hecklers "niggers" (more than once), and all he has to do is go on Larry King and blame it on Bush. So, as long as you're a liberal, you are allowed to use the epithets and slurs of your choice. You can even wish death on someone, as long as somebody in your audience finds it humorous.
Bill Maher inadvertently made my point the same weekend that Ann exercised her First Amendment right. While Ann was dropping verbal bombs, Bill was lamenting that al-Qaeda failed to assisinate the Vice President. This is coming from a member of the same crowd that protests our involvement in a war in Iraq because according to them, we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Considering that the enemy combatants that attack our troops are not actually uniform-wearing members of a standing army (thereby, they are technically "civilians"), can we say "Duh"?
One of the things that goes along with our Freedom of Speech is our freedom to choose that which we read, watch, or hear. If we don't "vote" with our subscriptions or viewer/listenership, publications and programs get cancelled. Unless they're on NPR, but that's government sponsored, so it doesn't count. That is why parents, rather than asking the government to monitor what is on the TV, should do their job and monitor their children's viewing habits. Besides, have to you seen what earns a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts these days? Believe me, you don't what the federal government as your television nanny. So, where do we draw the line? Is it what society deems acceptable? If so, words like "nigger", "faggot" can't be used, so you'd better start removing literary works such as The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Mel Brooks' early films and all of those Chris Rock HBO specials. They'll have to make a special section for them behind the bead-curtained doorway with the "No Persons under 18" sign.
For starters, Franken and Maher's humor is not derived from wit. Any one with a pre-teenaged brother will tell you that anything from flatulence to watching either of the "Jackass" movies is good for a laugh from the adle-headed youth. Now, I will admit that I you can get a chuckle out me with some well-timed "potty humor", but it must have context! Two guys producing methane a la Terrence and Philip from South Park just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). Unfortunately for Franken and Maher, even a twelve year-old boy (and his older sisters) have limits.
Coulter, while giving a speech at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the following: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" First off, this was in the context of one of the actors from Grey's Anatomy checking himself into anger management/rehab for referring to one of his co-stars with the same word. If you actually pay attention to what she said, Ann did not actually call Edwards a "faggot". It was inferred from her statement. So, where does the bigotry really lie? Semantics aside, Coulter is not the first commentator to question (in jest or in earnest) John Edwards' sexual orientation. Watch "D.C. Land" on jibjab.com; you'll see caricatures of Edwards and Kerry in bed...and not in a Lucy and Ricky Ricardo way.
On a much larger scale, my problem with the criticism of Ann's speech is two-fold. First of all, we still live in the United States of America. One of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to say whatever we please. That is not to say that we are free from repercussions. Just ask the "Dixie Twits" what happened to their relationship with many of the country music stations that used to play their singles. While you (the audience) can be offended by what I say or write, you do not have the right to stop me from speaking or writing (with the expection of slander and libel). Then there is the hypocrisy of Ann's critics. Jesse Jackson is on record as referring to Joe Lieberman as "that Hymie". Michael Richards can call two hecklers "niggers" (more than once), and all he has to do is go on Larry King and blame it on Bush. So, as long as you're a liberal, you are allowed to use the epithets and slurs of your choice. You can even wish death on someone, as long as somebody in your audience finds it humorous.
Bill Maher inadvertently made my point the same weekend that Ann exercised her First Amendment right. While Ann was dropping verbal bombs, Bill was lamenting that al-Qaeda failed to assisinate the Vice President. This is coming from a member of the same crowd that protests our involvement in a war in Iraq because according to them, we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Considering that the enemy combatants that attack our troops are not actually uniform-wearing members of a standing army (thereby, they are technically "civilians"), can we say "Duh"?
One of the things that goes along with our Freedom of Speech is our freedom to choose that which we read, watch, or hear. If we don't "vote" with our subscriptions or viewer/listenership, publications and programs get cancelled. Unless they're on NPR, but that's government sponsored, so it doesn't count. That is why parents, rather than asking the government to monitor what is on the TV, should do their job and monitor their children's viewing habits. Besides, have to you seen what earns a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts these days? Believe me, you don't what the federal government as your television nanny. So, where do we draw the line? Is it what society deems acceptable? If so, words like "nigger", "faggot" can't be used, so you'd better start removing literary works such as The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Mel Brooks' early films and all of those Chris Rock HBO specials. They'll have to make a special section for them behind the bead-curtained doorway with the "No Persons under 18" sign.
Monday, March 12, 2007
My High School Econ Teacher Would Have Kittens!
Aside from the fact that my high school economics teacher was a human being, he was also, well, a he. In other words, it would be quite a feat for him to literally have feline offspring. However, if he had tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show today, I am sure it would have happened. The discussion was spawned by the news that Halliburton is moving from Houston to Dubai. A caller named Barbara stated the following: "The government needs to put a stop to corporations leaving the country!" On its face, it's not a bad idea. After all, why would we, as a nation, want businesses to take their employment opportunities elsewhere? But then, Barbara kept talking.
She went on further to suggest that there is a legislative solution to this problem. In summary, she would like corporations that outsource and/or relocate to be penalized in some way. Many people who have a protectionist gut reaction fail to understand the fundamentals of economics and how, despite liberals' policies to squelch the workings of the free market, they still apply. The most basic of economic principles is at work: supply and demand. Rather than showing you some graph with lines that have little meaning, I give you a readily seen example...the Playstation 3.
When the Playstation 3 first came out, men and children (and the women in their lives) were lined up around the block several times over. What brought about this phenomenon? If you think back to this past Holiday season, not only were these things spendy (suggested retail at around $600, without taxes), but they were in limited supply. Unless you pre-ordered or took a couple of weeks vacation to camp in front of EB Games, you had less than a snowball's chance in hell of getting your mitts on one. Some enterprising individuals purchased the game system with no intention of taking it out of the box. Instead, these guys and gals took their purchased PS3's and sold them on eBay. The highest bid I saw on eBay was $4000! That is a gain of $3200 for doing very little, but there was a buyer that was willing to pay the price.
Now, if you were anything like my boyfriend, you did your product research and saw that the first generation of PS3 had problems with the Blue Ray technology and with reading discs from the previous two systems. In other words, you waited for the price to decrease and for the technology to improve. Perhaps you're like me and don't see a difference in graphics and gaming capability big enough to justify the cost of getting a new system. This, in combination with the "newness" being worn off, has caused the price to drop. You can go to bestbuy.com and find the basic PS3 system for $500. The lesson to be learned is that as long as you have consumers willing to pay the asking price, the price will stay there. Once consumers either have their fill of goods or find a better alternative, the price will have to come down to stay competitive.
Let's take the economics lesson and apply it to, say, the price of gasoline. You have people all over the world, not just the U.S, driving their vehicles. Most notably, China has an increasing number of drivers. There are only so many oil producing regions in the world that are actively pumping; there are places like ANWAR, the U.S. Gulf Coast, and unexplored regions of the world. Here in the U.S., the cost of obtaining construction and operating permits (not to mention the cost of labor and materials) is such that, depending on where you live, it could take around 5 years before you start turning a profit, if all you're doing is pumping oil. The stuff coming out of the ground isn't the only thing driving the price.
Petroleum has to be refined to a useable form. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. in the last 30 years. In addition, existing refineries are in dire need of upgrades to refine more petroleum, more efficiently. In order to upgrade equipment, parts of the refinery must shut down. This cuts back the supply even more. We haven't even delved into the cost of labor for the petroleum industry.
The recent increase in the minimum wage means that the cost of skilled labor, such as mechanics, welders, and refinery operators, must also increase or else the company runs the risk of losing their labor force to someone willing to pay prevailing wage. The petroleum industry, like any free-market industry, will pass its expenses on to the consumer. Thus, because of demand and increases in production cost, the price at the pump will rise. Since the major petroleum companies are publicly-traded corporations, decisions are made with one goal: maximize profit for the shareholders. That means everyone from the recent college graduate with a 401(k) portfolio to the member of the board with a twenty percent share in the company.
Any company's decision to leave these shores can be easily attributed to a failure in domestic policy. The education system has failed its students by not preparing them for careers and telling them that the guy who makes his living swinging a hammer is less important than the guy sitting at a computer. Legislators have seen private industries has a cash cow, free for the milking. "Nature Nazis", whose real agenda is to make everybody equally miserable, have seen to it that we are unable to build on existing technology, both in petroleum processing and nuclear power generation. The same people who complained that the Vice President was a former member of the board for Halliburton are now whining about their departure. Somebody call the "waaaaa-ambulance"! I think my econ teacher has gone into labor!
She went on further to suggest that there is a legislative solution to this problem. In summary, she would like corporations that outsource and/or relocate to be penalized in some way. Many people who have a protectionist gut reaction fail to understand the fundamentals of economics and how, despite liberals' policies to squelch the workings of the free market, they still apply. The most basic of economic principles is at work: supply and demand. Rather than showing you some graph with lines that have little meaning, I give you a readily seen example...the Playstation 3.
When the Playstation 3 first came out, men and children (and the women in their lives) were lined up around the block several times over. What brought about this phenomenon? If you think back to this past Holiday season, not only were these things spendy (suggested retail at around $600, without taxes), but they were in limited supply. Unless you pre-ordered or took a couple of weeks vacation to camp in front of EB Games, you had less than a snowball's chance in hell of getting your mitts on one. Some enterprising individuals purchased the game system with no intention of taking it out of the box. Instead, these guys and gals took their purchased PS3's and sold them on eBay. The highest bid I saw on eBay was $4000! That is a gain of $3200 for doing very little, but there was a buyer that was willing to pay the price.
Now, if you were anything like my boyfriend, you did your product research and saw that the first generation of PS3 had problems with the Blue Ray technology and with reading discs from the previous two systems. In other words, you waited for the price to decrease and for the technology to improve. Perhaps you're like me and don't see a difference in graphics and gaming capability big enough to justify the cost of getting a new system. This, in combination with the "newness" being worn off, has caused the price to drop. You can go to bestbuy.com and find the basic PS3 system for $500. The lesson to be learned is that as long as you have consumers willing to pay the asking price, the price will stay there. Once consumers either have their fill of goods or find a better alternative, the price will have to come down to stay competitive.
Let's take the economics lesson and apply it to, say, the price of gasoline. You have people all over the world, not just the U.S, driving their vehicles. Most notably, China has an increasing number of drivers. There are only so many oil producing regions in the world that are actively pumping; there are places like ANWAR, the U.S. Gulf Coast, and unexplored regions of the world. Here in the U.S., the cost of obtaining construction and operating permits (not to mention the cost of labor and materials) is such that, depending on where you live, it could take around 5 years before you start turning a profit, if all you're doing is pumping oil. The stuff coming out of the ground isn't the only thing driving the price.
Petroleum has to be refined to a useable form. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. in the last 30 years. In addition, existing refineries are in dire need of upgrades to refine more petroleum, more efficiently. In order to upgrade equipment, parts of the refinery must shut down. This cuts back the supply even more. We haven't even delved into the cost of labor for the petroleum industry.
The recent increase in the minimum wage means that the cost of skilled labor, such as mechanics, welders, and refinery operators, must also increase or else the company runs the risk of losing their labor force to someone willing to pay prevailing wage. The petroleum industry, like any free-market industry, will pass its expenses on to the consumer. Thus, because of demand and increases in production cost, the price at the pump will rise. Since the major petroleum companies are publicly-traded corporations, decisions are made with one goal: maximize profit for the shareholders. That means everyone from the recent college graduate with a 401(k) portfolio to the member of the board with a twenty percent share in the company.
Any company's decision to leave these shores can be easily attributed to a failure in domestic policy. The education system has failed its students by not preparing them for careers and telling them that the guy who makes his living swinging a hammer is less important than the guy sitting at a computer. Legislators have seen private industries has a cash cow, free for the milking. "Nature Nazis", whose real agenda is to make everybody equally miserable, have seen to it that we are unable to build on existing technology, both in petroleum processing and nuclear power generation. The same people who complained that the Vice President was a former member of the board for Halliburton are now whining about their departure. Somebody call the "waaaaa-ambulance"! I think my econ teacher has gone into labor!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Where's Susan Sarandon When You Need Her?
Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty by a jury that was screened for its political views (in addition to not even knowing the charges), I wonder whether "Susie Sunshine" and her boy-toy Timmy will step up and start calling for Libby's release. In case you're wondering why I mention these two, let me remind you about Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a convicted cop killer who, until 2001, was sitting on death row. A federal judge overturned his death sentence, and he now resides in a maximum security facility. Sarandon and Robbins, among other celebrities, have actively protested Abu-Jamal's imprisonment. Apparently, killing a cop while he's making a routine traffic stop is de riguer for these people. Nevermind that the convicted murderer was wounded by the officer, after he shot the officer in the back. Of course, Abu-Jamal was shot before he fired an additional four rounds, one of which was to the face...at close range. When he was taken into custody, he was in possession of a .38 revolver that had five spent cartridages. For the firearm ignorant, a revolver holds six rounds; by my count, Mumia fired five shots. As anyone who knows their science (and weapons) will tell you, people lie but the ballistics don't.
The large majority of Mumia supporters believe that he is a political prisoner because he was a member of the Black Panthers. So they weren't protesting his death sentence; they were protesting his conviction in its entirety. I say that if ever there was a political prisoner in this country, it would be Scotter Libby.
The only things that Libby is guilty of are: having a bad memory, answering questions asked by the FBI, and being on "the right side of the aisle". Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or as we like to call him "Nifong Jr.") had to go fishing in the jury pool to find candidates that weren't "too conservative". The jury wasn't even sure why the hell they were there. In day nine of deliberations, they had to ask the judge to remind of the charges brought against Libby. After the verdict was read, some jurors went on record as saying things like "We were hoping to see Dick Cheney testify. How disappointing." A man's life has been ruined, and they are disappointed that the Vice President wasn't called to testify!?!
If the special prosecutor was actually interested in justice (rather than adding a scalp to his belt), he would have gone after Dick Armitage. Armitage, a State Department employee (and war critic), was the one behind the name dropping of a non-covert Langley desk jockey. Hell, go after her husband who wouldn't know yellowcake if it had been shoved (uncomfortably) into certain bodily orifices. Joe Wilson has enjoyed the benefits of being "Mr. Valerie Plame", including making money off of his wife's "outing". Even Plame should bear some judicial scrutiny. Isn't nepotism supposed to be illegal in the human resources department at the CIA?
We won't see Hollywood activists seeking pardon on behalf of this much-maligned man. You probably won't even see conservatives rallying outside of the courthouse on behalf of a man who's life has been wrecked for the sake of making political hay. Because the Bush administration has had its teeth kicked in by San Fran Nan and her ilk, I don't imagine that they will do anything, either. I for my part plan on finding a way to make "Free Scooter!" bumper stickers and t-shirts. If Mumia and Che Guevara can get t-shirts, Scooter can too!
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a convicted cop killer who, until 2001, was sitting on death row. A federal judge overturned his death sentence, and he now resides in a maximum security facility. Sarandon and Robbins, among other celebrities, have actively protested Abu-Jamal's imprisonment. Apparently, killing a cop while he's making a routine traffic stop is de riguer for these people. Nevermind that the convicted murderer was wounded by the officer, after he shot the officer in the back. Of course, Abu-Jamal was shot before he fired an additional four rounds, one of which was to the face...at close range. When he was taken into custody, he was in possession of a .38 revolver that had five spent cartridages. For the firearm ignorant, a revolver holds six rounds; by my count, Mumia fired five shots. As anyone who knows their science (and weapons) will tell you, people lie but the ballistics don't.
The large majority of Mumia supporters believe that he is a political prisoner because he was a member of the Black Panthers. So they weren't protesting his death sentence; they were protesting his conviction in its entirety. I say that if ever there was a political prisoner in this country, it would be Scotter Libby.
The only things that Libby is guilty of are: having a bad memory, answering questions asked by the FBI, and being on "the right side of the aisle". Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or as we like to call him "Nifong Jr.") had to go fishing in the jury pool to find candidates that weren't "too conservative". The jury wasn't even sure why the hell they were there. In day nine of deliberations, they had to ask the judge to remind of the charges brought against Libby. After the verdict was read, some jurors went on record as saying things like "We were hoping to see Dick Cheney testify. How disappointing." A man's life has been ruined, and they are disappointed that the Vice President wasn't called to testify!?!
If the special prosecutor was actually interested in justice (rather than adding a scalp to his belt), he would have gone after Dick Armitage. Armitage, a State Department employee (and war critic), was the one behind the name dropping of a non-covert Langley desk jockey. Hell, go after her husband who wouldn't know yellowcake if it had been shoved (uncomfortably) into certain bodily orifices. Joe Wilson has enjoyed the benefits of being "Mr. Valerie Plame", including making money off of his wife's "outing". Even Plame should bear some judicial scrutiny. Isn't nepotism supposed to be illegal in the human resources department at the CIA?
We won't see Hollywood activists seeking pardon on behalf of this much-maligned man. You probably won't even see conservatives rallying outside of the courthouse on behalf of a man who's life has been wrecked for the sake of making political hay. Because the Bush administration has had its teeth kicked in by San Fran Nan and her ilk, I don't imagine that they will do anything, either. I for my part plan on finding a way to make "Free Scooter!" bumper stickers and t-shirts. If Mumia and Che Guevara can get t-shirts, Scooter can too!
Monday, March 5, 2007
Posers
I'm sure that even if you didn't see the Sunday news shows, you got to hear all about Hillary "I've always been a Yankees fan" Clinton, and Barack "Am I black enough?" Obama. Both of them decided to court the African American vote by going to Selma to commemorate the Bloody Sunday march of the Civil Rights movement. As tempting as it is, I will refrain from going off on a tangent about how affirmative action has gotten away from it's original intent and has simply become revenge racisim.
Hillary was downright insulting. The only way she could have been more patronizing is if she had been wearing black face and had her hair done up like a Quepie doll. Just to recount her background: Hillary was raised in Illinois, attended Wellsley College and Harvard, did a brief stint as Arkansas' first lady, spent eight years in the White House, and is currently in her second term as a U.S. Senator...from New York! Let's face it, she a blue state, upper-class, elitist snob. By all (honest) accounts, she despised her time in Arkansas. The only reason that she stayed with the "Horn-Dog in Chief" was because he was her political meal ticket. Her affected Southern drawl made her posturing all the more ridiculous (as though her pretending to be a preacher wasn't bad enough). The silver lining: she was "showbizzed" by Obama!
Now, that is not to say that Obama was not also rather silly. He himself is also a "Yankee", though he claimed to be "conceived at [Selma]" (an aide had to later clarify that he did not mean it literally). At first, I could not place the enunciation and cadence of his speech. Then it dawned on me: Obama was impersonating Jesse Jackson! Mr. "clean, bright, and articulate" was saying "befo'" where he used to say "before". "Movement" became "move-ment" (as if it were composed of two separate words). This "down-home" act is not going to be enough to hide his extreme left (bordering on Communist) views.
I'm certain there are those floating on the cyberspace ether, reading this, and sneering "You say all sorts of mean-spirited things about their delivery, but nothing about their message!" Rest assured, gentle readers, I would gladly give commentary on what they said...had they said anything at all! However, like many politicians of late, they manage to use a bucket full of words to say a thimble's worth. My purpose here is to point out the ridiculousness and the hypocrisy.
If Senators Clinton and Obama court their African American constituents by standing before congregations, invoking the Name of God, and adopting a stereotypical dialect, what do they plan to do to get the Hispanic vote? How about the "NASCAR Dads"? I have a really hard time imagining either of these two showing up at the Indy 500 to root for Dale Jr. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if a Republican (even a RINO like McCain) were to step up to the pulpit in a house of worship and even utter anything that could be interpreted as political, they would be drowned out by cries for the ACLU and a lietmotif of "Separation of Church and State has been violated!" If the liberals keep this up, they will eat each other alive...maybe they could use some ketchup.
Hillary was downright insulting. The only way she could have been more patronizing is if she had been wearing black face and had her hair done up like a Quepie doll. Just to recount her background: Hillary was raised in Illinois, attended Wellsley College and Harvard, did a brief stint as Arkansas' first lady, spent eight years in the White House, and is currently in her second term as a U.S. Senator...from New York! Let's face it, she a blue state, upper-class, elitist snob. By all (honest) accounts, she despised her time in Arkansas. The only reason that she stayed with the "Horn-Dog in Chief" was because he was her political meal ticket. Her affected Southern drawl made her posturing all the more ridiculous (as though her pretending to be a preacher wasn't bad enough). The silver lining: she was "showbizzed" by Obama!
Now, that is not to say that Obama was not also rather silly. He himself is also a "Yankee", though he claimed to be "conceived at [Selma]" (an aide had to later clarify that he did not mean it literally). At first, I could not place the enunciation and cadence of his speech. Then it dawned on me: Obama was impersonating Jesse Jackson! Mr. "clean, bright, and articulate" was saying "befo'" where he used to say "before". "Movement" became "move-ment" (as if it were composed of two separate words). This "down-home" act is not going to be enough to hide his extreme left (bordering on Communist) views.
I'm certain there are those floating on the cyberspace ether, reading this, and sneering "You say all sorts of mean-spirited things about their delivery, but nothing about their message!" Rest assured, gentle readers, I would gladly give commentary on what they said...had they said anything at all! However, like many politicians of late, they manage to use a bucket full of words to say a thimble's worth. My purpose here is to point out the ridiculousness and the hypocrisy.
If Senators Clinton and Obama court their African American constituents by standing before congregations, invoking the Name of God, and adopting a stereotypical dialect, what do they plan to do to get the Hispanic vote? How about the "NASCAR Dads"? I have a really hard time imagining either of these two showing up at the Indy 500 to root for Dale Jr. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if a Republican (even a RINO like McCain) were to step up to the pulpit in a house of worship and even utter anything that could be interpreted as political, they would be drowned out by cries for the ACLU and a lietmotif of "Separation of Church and State has been violated!" If the liberals keep this up, they will eat each other alive...maybe they could use some ketchup.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Where Are Our Heroes?
For almost a month now, we've be innundated with news about Anna Nicole Smith. I feel sorry for her to the extent that she was a human being who, despite her questionable choice of professions, felt joy and heartache like each and every one of us. I feel even more sorry for the infant who will either grow up believing that her mother did not love her enough to want to live or will be a hellaciously spoiled brat with no concept of reality. However, I cannot help but look at the media circus as further proof that we live in a culture of celebrity.
Look at the people who make the headlines every day: Paris, Lindsay, Britney, to name a few. They are living proof that a large portion of our society believes it is better to be famous than to be great. What are they famous for, anyway? Aside from Internet sex videos, drinking binges, and very public mental meltdowns, what have they achieved? While they are busy getting hammered and wrecking sports cars that worth more than my annual income, these people are still being held up as exemplorary human beings. I find it insulting as a young woman that I am told to emulate their behavior and that every man wants his very own Paris or Britney. I have had some of my male acquaintances accuse me of being jealous of these specimens and the lives that they lead.
It is not jealously that I feel. Rather it is a mixture of pity and contempt. I pity them because they are making all the mistakes of adolescence in the public eye. They, for whatever reason, believe that their only value lies in being decorative, arm candy for the next big thing to roll into Hollywood. My contempt stems from their lack of contrition and their apparent unwillingness to grow up. Rather than owning up to their mistakes, they either shift the blame or act as if they are normal and we're just the uncivilized hoi poli. As far as I am concern, people are free to live their lives as they see fit (so long as it does not cause injury to anyone else). What these women fail to see, however, is that we aren't laughing with them so much as at them.
What ever happened to being proud of excellence? When I was growing up, I remember reading stories about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Betsy Ross, and Florence Nightingale. I learned about explorers and scientists and inventors. People who had ideas and believed in themselves and their God-given talents. Some of today's feminists will surely say "Those are antiquated examples of heroism. Men have oppressed us for so long there are no female role models! We weren't allowed to be heroes!" That sounds like a sexist cop-out to me. Why can't a girl have a man as a role model? And what's so wrong with wanting to be like a woman who put others before herself?
I have heard a few people say that American society's obsession with celebrity stems from a lack of aristocracy. Because we have no scandal-ridden royal family, we need to follow the lives of celebrities who are famous for fame's sake. I believe it stems from boredom; people now seem to live vicariously through the lives of their favorite celebrities, rather than living their own lives. So in death, Anna Nicole has secured her place in the annuls of pop culture. But what will she be remembered as? What will we tell our children and grandchildren when they ask why she is famous? You're on your own for that one.
Look at the people who make the headlines every day: Paris, Lindsay, Britney, to name a few. They are living proof that a large portion of our society believes it is better to be famous than to be great. What are they famous for, anyway? Aside from Internet sex videos, drinking binges, and very public mental meltdowns, what have they achieved? While they are busy getting hammered and wrecking sports cars that worth more than my annual income, these people are still being held up as exemplorary human beings. I find it insulting as a young woman that I am told to emulate their behavior and that every man wants his very own Paris or Britney. I have had some of my male acquaintances accuse me of being jealous of these specimens and the lives that they lead.
It is not jealously that I feel. Rather it is a mixture of pity and contempt. I pity them because they are making all the mistakes of adolescence in the public eye. They, for whatever reason, believe that their only value lies in being decorative, arm candy for the next big thing to roll into Hollywood. My contempt stems from their lack of contrition and their apparent unwillingness to grow up. Rather than owning up to their mistakes, they either shift the blame or act as if they are normal and we're just the uncivilized hoi poli. As far as I am concern, people are free to live their lives as they see fit (so long as it does not cause injury to anyone else). What these women fail to see, however, is that we aren't laughing with them so much as at them.
What ever happened to being proud of excellence? When I was growing up, I remember reading stories about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Betsy Ross, and Florence Nightingale. I learned about explorers and scientists and inventors. People who had ideas and believed in themselves and their God-given talents. Some of today's feminists will surely say "Those are antiquated examples of heroism. Men have oppressed us for so long there are no female role models! We weren't allowed to be heroes!" That sounds like a sexist cop-out to me. Why can't a girl have a man as a role model? And what's so wrong with wanting to be like a woman who put others before herself?
I have heard a few people say that American society's obsession with celebrity stems from a lack of aristocracy. Because we have no scandal-ridden royal family, we need to follow the lives of celebrities who are famous for fame's sake. I believe it stems from boredom; people now seem to live vicariously through the lives of their favorite celebrities, rather than living their own lives. So in death, Anna Nicole has secured her place in the annuls of pop culture. But what will she be remembered as? What will we tell our children and grandchildren when they ask why she is famous? You're on your own for that one.
A Pin to the Conspiracy Theorists' Balloon
So it would seem that everywhere I turn, I hear lots of people who (a) didn't pay attention at Sunday school, (b) didn't pay attention during religion classes at the parochial school their parents sent them to, (c) are simply looking for an excuse to "stick it" to Christianity, or (d) any combination of a, b, and c.
I've just heard for the umpteenth time: "Jesus' tomb has been found! And he had a wife and a son! Dan Brown was right!" Uh, no. Allow me, as a practicing Catholic and someone who attended parochial school for 13 years, to share some of what I learned.
First off, Jesus was a common name back in the first century A.D. (that's C.E. for all of you politically correct shmucks). Don't believe me? Go to behindthename.com, type in the name "Jesus", and you will find that it is actually an English translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation of a Hebrew name. In fact, it is a shorter version of the Hebrew version of the name "Joshua". This is similar to "Mike" being the shorter version of "Michael". So, it's quite possible that there were more than one man named Jesus, living in the Holy Land.
Now, there is the notion that Jesus could not have been a respected member of the community without being a family man. While it was not common for a man to be unmarried, it was not unheard of. Look at the Prophets of the Old Testament, a group largely composed of unmarried men. In fact, Jewish tradition would not have precluded Jesus electing to lead a life of celibacy. Not only this, but could you, knowing that you would one day be put to death for the sake of the whole world, be so selfish as to want a family and put them through that agony? Jesus knew that he was sent to fulfill prophecy and redeem us all.
Hearing people like Larry King joke about this as being "the end of the Easter Bunny" leds further credence to what we have been saying all along. Christianity is under attack by people who consider themselves to be the most tolerate, and most intelligent, of all other people. The only problem is that unless you're an atheist, or an Islamo-fascist, you aren't entitled to benefit from their cultural and religious tolerance. They not only demonstrate their intolerance, but their ignorance as well. "Do not seek to remove the splinter from you neighbor's eye before removing the beam from your own."
I've just heard for the umpteenth time: "Jesus' tomb has been found! And he had a wife and a son! Dan Brown was right!" Uh, no. Allow me, as a practicing Catholic and someone who attended parochial school for 13 years, to share some of what I learned.
First off, Jesus was a common name back in the first century A.D. (that's C.E. for all of you politically correct shmucks). Don't believe me? Go to behindthename.com, type in the name "Jesus", and you will find that it is actually an English translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation of a Hebrew name. In fact, it is a shorter version of the Hebrew version of the name "Joshua". This is similar to "Mike" being the shorter version of "Michael". So, it's quite possible that there were more than one man named Jesus, living in the Holy Land.
Now, there is the notion that Jesus could not have been a respected member of the community without being a family man. While it was not common for a man to be unmarried, it was not unheard of. Look at the Prophets of the Old Testament, a group largely composed of unmarried men. In fact, Jewish tradition would not have precluded Jesus electing to lead a life of celibacy. Not only this, but could you, knowing that you would one day be put to death for the sake of the whole world, be so selfish as to want a family and put them through that agony? Jesus knew that he was sent to fulfill prophecy and redeem us all.
Hearing people like Larry King joke about this as being "the end of the Easter Bunny" leds further credence to what we have been saying all along. Christianity is under attack by people who consider themselves to be the most tolerate, and most intelligent, of all other people. The only problem is that unless you're an atheist, or an Islamo-fascist, you aren't entitled to benefit from their cultural and religious tolerance. They not only demonstrate their intolerance, but their ignorance as well. "Do not seek to remove the splinter from you neighbor's eye before removing the beam from your own."
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
First Blog Entry!
Hmmm...so much to say, where do I start. Well, I suppose I ought to introduce myself. I am one of the first of an ever-increasing number of "Rush Babies". For those of you that aren't familiar with the term, I am not referring to a child conceived during fraternity rush week at a university. Instead, I am alluding to the man responsible for helping me maintain my sanity through high school and college: Rush Limbaugh. My earliest memories of childhood include listening to his radio show with my parents during the summer and on school breaks. Thanks to my parents (and their active role in raising me), I learned the value of being able to take the information drawn from various sources and come to my own conclusions. In other words...I can think for myself! My upbringing was more sheltered than some, not as sheltered as others. The reason that I'm not a promiscuous, pill-popping degenerate is because I came to the conclusion that leading a moral life is not just "the right thing" because of religious belief. It's just plain logical!
Most of my liberal friends tend to think that anyone to the right of Howard Dean is only capable of mouthing memorized Pavlovian responses to political and socio-economic "trigger words". Meanwhile, only a liberal can truly understand the nuance in all things intellectual. All I can say is that my reasoning is too complex to be put on a bumper sticker...unlike the following local favorites:
"Bush Lied! Kids Died!"
"No Blood for Oil!"
"Buck Fush!"
and, this truly prosaic work of art... "War in Iraq? NO!"
I can't be sure, but I think someone was behind the counter, ringing a bell, when those bumper stickers were purchased.
Most of my liberal friends tend to think that anyone to the right of Howard Dean is only capable of mouthing memorized Pavlovian responses to political and socio-economic "trigger words". Meanwhile, only a liberal can truly understand the nuance in all things intellectual. All I can say is that my reasoning is too complex to be put on a bumper sticker...unlike the following local favorites:
"Bush Lied! Kids Died!"
"No Blood for Oil!"
"Buck Fush!"
and, this truly prosaic work of art... "War in Iraq? NO!"
I can't be sure, but I think someone was behind the counter, ringing a bell, when those bumper stickers were purchased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)