Difster

You Have Been Warned

2012-01-31T00:07:00.000-08:00

Pay attention Republican voters.

I am a Ron Paul supporter. This election season, no candidate will get my vote for the Office of President of the United States of America except for Ron Paul. There will be no exceptions. If he does not win the nomination, I will write his name on the ballot.

No amount of slick talking, flip-flopping, wooing, cajoling, threatening, or condescending will persuade me to vote for any other contender for that office.

You don't want to admit it, but you know that the Republican Party cannot beat Obama without me, a Ron Paul supporter. It's long past time you admit it.

You and I have conflicting goals. I will only cast a vote for liberty, for peace, for small government, for fiscal sanity and respect for the Constitution of the United States and adherence to the oath of office of the Presidency. You however are content merely to vote for whatever Republican the GOP leadership and the media approve of.

I will not move. I cannot be persuaded. You cannot win without me.

I am not here to convince you that Ron Paul's positions are superior. I am not here to convince you that his foreign policy is in line with traditional conservatism. I am not here to convince you that his understanding of economics put everyone else in Washington to shame. I am not even here to convince you that the positions of the other candidates are not materially different than Obama.

No, I don't need to do any of that. I only need to tell you that without me, you have lost. If you do not vote for Ron Paul in your Primary or Caucus, you are already defeated. If you fail to nominate Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate for President, Barack Hussein Obama will serve a second term.

This is not blackmail. This is not a threat. This is a simple statement of fact.

I stand firm and I will not accept anything less. You have been warned.

A Password Strategy

2011-12-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

Most people have a terrible password strategy; it consists of one password used for every type of account. It's usually either something easy to remember or uses one of those crazy letter substitution schemes.

If you follow this advice, it will keep your stuff more secure.

1. Wherever possible, use a "pass phrase" rather than a password. A long pass phrase such as "we wish you a merry christmas" is much harder for a computer to crack than, "p@ssw0rd1" for example. The theory behind this is that machines can easily crack words using letter substitution so using symbols in place of letters is no help. However, a pass phrase with a minimum of 12 characters takes a LOT longer for computer to crack. In my example of a pass phrase above, it's a 28 letter password (including spaces). Do you have any idea what kind of resources would have to be thrown to decrypt a password that length? Also, a pass phrase is easier to remember than a cryptic, but shorter password.

2. Use a different pass phrase for each banking or financial account. Even if there are only slight differences, protect your most important asset. Databases can get cracked. Sometimes when this happens, the passwords are also discovered. You don't want one database being cracked to result in all of your accounts being drained. If you use one of those RSA tokens to access your account you probably don't have to worry about this so much, but still use a good pass phrase.

3. Account levels. You don't need a million different passwords, but having a couple of account levels is definitely appropriate. The levels should resemble the following:
*Financial - we already discussed this
*Communications - social networking, email
*Shopping and memberships - Amazon, iTunes, Netflix.
*Casual - Pretty much everything else that is non-critical

So we're talking about 4 different pass phrases to remember. The don't need to be totally different but don't make the difference obvious. Remember, 12 characters MINIMUM.

One other point of note, some stupid sites require you to use capitalization and at least one number and one symbol. In that case, come up with a standard combination and stick to a pass phrase. "we wish you a merry christmas D8$" would take care of most requirements. And if any site that is not in the "casual" category restricts you to using less than 12 characters, you should consider using some other service.

Will Lady Liberty Stand?

2011-11-29T02:08:00.001-08:00

Welcome CopBlockers!

2011-11-13T15:33:00.000-08:00

CopBlock.org readers. Welcome to my blog. You probably got here through my latest article.

Feel free to poke around the archives and leave comments.

Another New CopBlock.org Article

2011-11-05T13:55:00.001-07:00

Here's the new article.

My CopBlock.org Article

2011-11-03T16:31:00.000-07:00

Here's my first article on copblock.org. There will be more to follow.

Why I am anti-cop.

#OCCUPYMOM

2011-10-31T12:33:00.001-07:00

#OCCUPYROME

2011-10-27T18:42:00.001-07:00

#OCTOPUSSWALLSTREET

2011-10-26T08:37:00.001-07:00

Ode To The Unemployed

2011-08-01T22:32:00.001-07:00

A few years ago

Home prices were soarin'

I re-fi'd thrice

My cash was flowin'

I bought lots of toys

And two SUVs

My neighbor named Jones

Ain't got nuthin' on me

He paid off his house

Bah! What a fool

He lived like a pauper

I ruled the school

Now I'm flat broke

I done lost my job

I can't pay my bills

I feel I've been robbed

I need some help

Gov, send me a check

You owe me that much

My life is a wreck

I want to know what happened

Man, give me the facts,

Aw never mind

Just hit Jones with a tax

Economic Poetry

2011-07-25T23:14:00.000-07:00

Debtardians flee
But there's nowhere to hide
There will be no default
Obama has lied

John Keynes was wrong
When he told us to spend
It eventually forces
The nation to rend

Return to sound money
Read Mises and Hayak
Or head up the creek
Bound and gagged in your kayak

Libertania

2011-07-05T10:09:00.000-07:00

This post is mainly for those that support our expansionist wars, but all comments are welcome.

Let's say there is a country called Libertania. They have built a prosperous society based on deregulation, sound money, great private health care, no welfare, and a very limited central government who is there to defend its borders and settle disputes between citizens who believe that another citizen has violated his rights. Essentially, we're talking about the libertarian utopia.

After a while, the people of this country come to two conclusions:

The first conclusion is that it is so wildly successful that other countries must implement this sort of government in order to escape tyranny and oppression from their rulers.

The second conclusion is that it sees that some of the larger countries in the world are a threat to this country because they depend on these countries for resources that they don't have.

So in the interest of spreading liberty and protecting the supply of foreign resources that they need, Libertania forms a massive military machine and decides its first target is The United States of America. Based on the potential military threat, they try to get the US Government to stand down and offer Libertanian style freedoms to its people. The US Government refuses to budge.

Let's lay aside the apparent contradiction of a libertarian nation using force against another nation for a moment, after all, it takes flawed people to run a government.

So, Libertania decides to invade America. They start by executing a bombing campaign on Washington, DC. They expand that by taking out state capitals as well in order to cripple the government and get them to give up their oppressive regulatory and tax schemes and unjust imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people who are locked up as political prisoners in war on drugs.

The goal of the Libertanian invasion is primarily to secure the best interests of the American people which is a life free from burdensome and intrusive government with the secondary goal, if the invasion is successful, to have a resource rich, liberty minded trading partner by which it can secure vital national resources.

Now we get to the question: Would you support such an invasion of America based on those goals?

Secondary question: Would you be willing to dismiss the collateral damage of friends, family and colleagues killed in the bombing since it was for your own good in the name of liberty?

Dos Cosas (Two Things)

2011-02-07T15:33:00.000-08:00

First, Obama is trying to tell us that "If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line." Clearly, this is a redistribution scheme. He didn't say it should be done through legislation but isn't that was he's really all about? Years ago, he expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court should have ruled, as part of the civil rights hearings that they should have taken a bigger role in the redistribution of wealth. The government has been redistributing wealth for years. They take it from the middle class and give it to the poor (or seemingly poor) through social programs and to the rich through bailouts, loans, tax favors, regulations, etc. The middle class gets screwed and is stuck paying the bills for both sides.

Secondly, the mayor of Detroit is peddling a program to get cops and firefighters to move back to the city by offering them refurbished houses for $1000. Detroit has turned in to a wasteland. Using the scarce funds they have available to subsidize housing for government employees is a horrible waste. Also, the 47% of police and firefighters who are living in the city and paying rent or mortgages have to keep doing what they're doing. How many of these police and firefighters are going to buy these houses, rent them to friends and relatives, but list it as their home address while maintaining their actual residence outside the city? There will be a lot of that. The city is dying, they should just let it die. Entire neighborhoods are being abandoned. The median home price in the city of Detroit is $5700 (no, that's not missing a zero). Formerly multi-million dollar homes are up for sale at 10% of their original cost. Skyscrapers downtown are completely abandoned. I think at some point in the near future, they need to just plow the city under and leave the ground fallow for 7 years and then homestead it again. Leftist policies destroyed the city. Let's remake the city as a new experiment in libertarian ideals, free from most government restraint. A group of billionaires could form a coalition to buy the entire city and privatize it.

License? We Don't Need No Stinking License!

2011-02-03T13:40:00.000-08:00

Kevin Lacy, a stupid bureaucrat who is the chief traffic engineer for the state of North Carolina, lodged a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors because a computer scientist sent him a justification for installing traffic lights in his neighborhood.

Lacy claims the presentation was so well put together it rises to the level of engineering and it was done without a license. Keep in mind here that the guy who put together the report does not even claim to be an engineer. David Cox, who wrote the proposal is claiming that Lacy is just trying to stifle dissent (which seems evident).

The licensing board has promised to look in to the allegation but said that the worst likely outcome for Mr. Cox would be a letter telling him not to do it again. Practicing engineering without a license is a misdemeanor in North Carolina. Cox is not employed by anyone as an engineer and had no power to implement his plan on his own; how could he possibly be guilty of anything?

This brings up the larger question of why the state should require professional licenses. Is it necessary? Switching to California, there are 44 different categories of licensing with different types of licenses in some of those categories just by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Other agencies handle other types of licenses ranging from real estate to to legal stuff. Potentially there are several hundred professions that require licensing (including their specialties) in California.

Why, for example are hair dressers required to have a license by the state? The answer is simple. It limits competition. There can be no other reason for it. Anyone can cut hair. I've even cut my own hair. Sure, it takes some training, practice and skill but so does any profession. Simply put, because only licensed cosmetologists can cut hair, it drives up the price by limiting competition because not everyone who can cut hair has the resources or desire to spend 1600 hours (200 days of 8 hours each) in the classroom just so they can cut hair for a living (or a hobby). Let's say you really like the idea of cutting hair part time to supplement your income. Are you going to spend about a year of your life in class to do it? Probably not.

So let's say we can agree that hair dressers don't really need licenses. What about doctors? I don't think they need a state license either. WHAT?! If doctors don't have licenses, we're going to have a bunch of quacks out there practicing medicine and people will DIE! I can hear the arguments already. Personally, I would not go see a doctor who did not have medical training. But I would much rather rely on a private certification agency to determine that my doctor is well trained and does not have too many complaints against him. There could even be several competing private certification boards. These boards could publish their qualification criteria as well as complaints lodged against their members. The public, via the web, could also have a place to complain about doctors that was independent of those agencies.

I see no advantage the state could possibly have over one or more private certification boards. Hospitals could (and would) refuse to hire people who were not certified by one of the boards. In fact, they might be inclined to only hire doctors certified by one board over the other because they might have different standards in different areas. Specialists could have their own boards as well if they liked.

So what happens if someone wants to practice medicine without belonging to one of these boards? I've probably violated rules against practicing medicine. I've taken out stitches, I've pulled out slivers, I've treated colds, flu, etc. I've even performed what could be termed minor surgeries. And if I messed up? Well, I suppose there is always the risk of infections or other complications. But I wasn't taking out a spleen or anything like that. But so what if I did? If someone trusted me enough to take out a spleen and I represented that I could perform that action then it's just like any other economic transaction between two parties. If I lie about being certified or it turns out I misrepresented my qualifications there are already legal remedies for that. No state licensing board is necessary.

Anyway, it's not as if state licensing has even come close to eliminating misconduct, malpractice, fraud, stupidity or even simple mistakes from the medical or other professions.

The only reason for government based licenses is that governments like to have control and other people in various professions want to artificially limit competition.

Non Action Is Action? HUH?

2010-10-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by four Michigan residents who claim that the Federal government has no power to compel them by law to purchase anything. In particular, this suit related to the primary tenant of Obama Care that will require every individual to purchase health insurance or face penalties.

The government argued in essence that someone refusing to purchase health insurance is actively involved in commerce (and therefore can be regulated by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution) by the act of refusal.

So let's get this straight. If I decline or refuse to act economically, I'm acting economically and can therefore be regulated.

There is NO Constitutional authority that allows the government to force you to purchase something. But the government wants to use the commerce clause to turn that on its head.

Using the same logic, if you do not actively support gay rights, minority rights, attend gay pride parades, and perform other activities that support protected classes of people, you are obviously guilty of a hate crime. Your refusal to act in those matters is therefore construed to be active opposition.

Lessons From Mexico

2010-07-01T11:28:00.000-07:00

There's little doubt that the current economic crisis in the U.S. is going to get worse. Even Paul Krugman has admitted we're probably heading for another depression (although it's for the wrong reasons).

Americans are all crying about unemployment benefits being cut off (after 99 weeks!!!) and additional layoffs, etc. States, counties and cities are laying off workers including teachers. The situation is bleak.

Mexico doesn't have much in the way of welfare or unemployment insurance. When people are out of work or need to supplement their income, they hit the streets.

I can drive around Culiacan (the capital city of the Mexican state of Sinaloa) and buy flowers, oranges, nopales (cactus), toys, tomatoes, bread, newspapers, a jillion different trinkets, watch silver painted fire jugglers (in the evening) etc. without ever getting out of my car.

Aside from that, you'll see pickup trucks full of produce at the side of the road selling everything from DVD's (pirated of course) to produce, to toys and so on.

The salient point is, they don't sit around waiting for someone to hand them a check, they get out on the street and do something. They might not make much, but they do it.

Oh, and lets not forget the window washers. And these guys won't vandalize your car if you tell them no. Every parking lot has a parking attendant who makes tips by helping people back out (apparently most Mexicans are incapable of this on their own) or load their purchases. Lots and lots of little micro-entrepreneurs.

Sure, in the US we have laws that say you can't sell food without a health permit and all this other stuff without business licenses and you can't do it on public roads, blah, blah, freaking blah. If massive amounts of people just started DOING IT, it would be impossible to enforce.

But no, Americans just have to sit around and collect unemployment and wait for the non-existent recovery to really take off so they can go back to work.

You know you're an Austrian economist...

2010-06-27T13:47:00.001-07:00

10. when you realize that America is not really a capitalist country.

9. when you find yourself disgusted that an econ student doesn't know who von Mises is.

8. when people hate you for saying the minimum wage is bad and pricing gouging serves a purpose.

7. if you think about the marginal utility of the second bite of delicious steak.

6. when you get blank stares after telling people artificially low interest rates rob wealth through inflation.

5. when you're sort of excited about the dollar collapse and the chance to start over.

4. when your modern day heroes are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Peter Schiff.

3. when you can explain to someone why Keynsian and moneterist policies have failed us.

2. when you're thankful every day that Krugman isn't in charge of the economy.

1. when you hear the name Hayek, you think of Friedrich instead of Selma.

Refinance Now!

2010-06-26T18:28:00.000-07:00

There's seriously no reason NOT to refinance if you have more than 15 years to pay and an interest rate above 6%. But you have to do it right or you get screwed.

In no particular order of importance:
1. Make sure you get a 15 year fixed loan. Nothing adjustable.
2. Make extra principal payments early if you can. Your total payment should be lower if you have more than 15 years left to pay and have a higher interest rate. So you can make the same payment you're making now and come out way ahead. Of course more is better. But you have to really commit to it.
3. Do NOT pull cash out except to pay off higher interest debt and then cut up those credit cards and stop buying crap.
4. WATCH your closing costs. The mortgage guys are all starving and they'll squeeze every nickel out of you they can. Read the Estimated HUD-1 very carefully and don't be afraid to walk away from it if they try to screw you at signing.
5. Know what your house is worth before you pay for an appraisal.
6. SHOP AROUND but DO NOT let a bunch of brokers run your credit. Tell the your score, it's good enough for a quote no matter what they tell you. Don't give them your SSN until you're ready to go forward with a full application.
7. Don't let a broker charge you points. They make money from the lender too. They'll say you can buy down the rate with points but if you're committed to making extra principal payments, it's probably not beneficial to buy down the rate. But go play with an amortization table. If they tell you one point gets you 1% rate cut, play each one out on the table and include the extra principal payments you will make.

The Best of Difster

2010-03-05T23:01:00.001-08:00

My blog is 5 years old this month. This will be post number 551. Most of the posts were written near the beginning when I was blogging constantly, had lots of traffic because I was participating on lots of other blogs. At my peak, I averaged 100 readers per day. According to my site meter, that number is now 8 and almost all of that is from Google searches on various topics and people who click on Vox's blog roll. Mostly I'm just too busy to blog. In the attached picture you'll see one of the reasons I've been busy and really, can you blame me for being too busy for you guys?

So here are my favorite posts out of the 550 I've written. I ended up choosing 70 of them. I like them for various reasons. Some are just too funny to pass up, some make excellent points, some are just dang good writing and some I just like them because I like them. I was going to categorize them but decided not to. In fact, they're not even going to be in any particular order at all except for the first one which is my starting point with anyone on a discussion about liberty.

If you read the comments, they are in order from newest to oldest so start at the bottom. In some cases the comments are more interesting/funny/insightful than the post.

Enjoy!

On Liberty

Naked For Jesus

Feelings vs. Right and Wrong

The Crazy English Language

Where Are The Speculators Now?

Is This A Joke?

Difster's Rules of the Road

Bambi Burgers and Marginal Utility

Predictions for 2007

Parenting vs. Babysitting

Disgust and Compassion

Voting By The Numbers

Jesus Was a Socialist

Hacked

Cthulhu for President

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

Killer Coke

Why God is a Libertarian

Thoughts on the Virgin Birth

Miracles & Physics - A Clarification

Pansy Camp

Shut Down The Schools

Treating Symptoms

I'm A Dork

Tech Threat

Deconstructing Polygamy

Regulate Power Tools Now

Battered Voter Syndrome

A Fireside Chat

Christian Group Bombs Mosques

I'm Sure He Knows Something I Don't

An Experiment

Very Bad Doctrine

Filthy, Greedy Pigs!

An Idea Who's Time Has Come

Digital Cowboy is Sadly Mistaken

Disgusting Beauty

The Shell Game

The Difference Between Men & Women

Pork You!

Is It Too Much To Ask?

Note To Self

Stupid Christians

An Interesting Theory

Things You Shouldn't Be Told

National Food Program

Academic Circles

Fixing America II

Christian Massage

Was Jesus A Socialist?

Asking For A Bullet

I Agree With The 9th Circus

Scott Brown's First Senate Address

2010-01-20T07:27:00.000-08:00

Scott Brown should make his first official address something like this:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am standing here today because the good people of Massachusetts wanted to send a message to Washington. I am here as a representative of that message. What my constituency told me is that they are tired of Obama administrations attempts by the government to take over health care. I will, therefore with all diligence, work against the Obama administration to pass this so-called health care reform bill that a majority of Americans oppose. I am here to oppose the growth of government in all its forms. In fact, I am here to do my job and make government smaller. I will uphold my oath and vote no on any legislation that does not meet a Constitutional litmus test. I am asking Democrats, Republicans and Independents to join me in restoring the faith of the American people in their government. Thank you, I look forward to serving with you.

Conversation with a ??Conservative??

2009-10-29T13:07:00.001-07:00

The following is from a Facebook conversation that started with a discussion on the Matthew Shepard hate crime bill. I didn't change any of the dialog, I eliminated last names to protect the innocent and not so innocent.

Lisa: re: Obama signing hate crime legislation: If you think spray painting "Die Niggers" on the side of an African American family's house should carry the same punishment as spray painting "I love Jimmy" then I say, thank GOD he signed the legislation.

Difster: It's about prosecuting people for their mindset during the commission of a crime. Isn't every murder a hate crime? Every beating? Should someone who murders someone because they're gay get a bigger punishment than someone who murders someone because they cut in line in front of them? No, I don't think so. Also, there's all this stuff just about saying stuff that could incite violence. In Canada churches get warned, fined, etc. just for stating what the Bible says about homosexuality. Is following the Bible a hate crime? Criminalizing thoughts is stupid.

Kevin: Would this particular example fall under either the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law or the Matthew Shepard Act?

Difster: The Matthew Shepard Act is likely to put a chill on some free speech.

Steve: It's a Big Brother type bill. How do you prosecute something someone thought about? A church were I previously went, the pastor Emeritus was warned by a Canadian pastor to mail his material instead of bringing it over the border. Why? The Canadian border guard was going to confiscate his material.

Steve: As usual, the politicians and press (esp. liberals) think that Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay. Utter bullshit. The accused even stated that he was killed because they wanted his money for thier drug habit. To them he was an easy target.

Difster: Besides all that, there should be no such thing as a "Protected class" of people under the law. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law.

Steve: This may sound like a shocker to you all, but hate has had a factor in murder...ever since Cain and Abel. Just because someone chooses to be a certain way doens't make them above the law. Democrats are great at creating hate between classes or groups.

Difster: Basically, if I shoot someone in the head and don't say anything and then turn around and shoot a gay guy in the head and call him a faggot before I do that, I'll get more jail time for murdering him. In what sane world does that make sense?

Steve: Remember Larry, this law was about being the nanny state and making people FEEL good. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Rick : When they came for the Freedom of Speech, I said nothing. When they came for the Freedom of Religion, I said nothing. When they came for the Freedom of the Press, I said nothing. When they came for the 2nd Amendment, there wasn't enough people to help me fight back.

Jerry: "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

Paula: Just another reason I can't stand obama. It makes me sick. So, if I kill a pregnant woman, I'll get less punnishment than if I kill a gay guy. Seems completely rational to me...gotta go throw up now. Can someone please remind me what country I live in?

Difster: In some states, you'll get charged for two murders but will likely serve concurrent sentences. But if it's pregnant LESBIAN you'll really be punished!

Mike: I really enjoy your thought provoking comments and observations Lisa. It's refreshing to see a politically aware person that can weigh both sides of an issue and come up with a position of understanding and compromise that is sustainable in a culture as divided as the United States has become. It would be very nice to see you become active in local politics in Nashville, I think you could make a big difference and actually address the concerns of ALL people, Liberal, Conservative and Independent.

Difster: Mike, not to rain on your parade here, but there should be no compromise when it comes to liberty, theft by the government of what I earn so it can be given to someone less productive, not to mention free speech and gun rights being squeezed out daily. Compromise? Diverse? The principles to which I hold apply equally to everyone, culture and diversity don't mean a thing if people are not free.

Difster: Don't put words in my mouth. Bush presided over more destruction of our liberties than Clinton (who I was no fan of) did. And Clinton destroyed our liberties more than Bush Sr. before him. You think I trust either party to preserve or restore our liberties? Not a chance. WE have to take them back for ourselves, our so called representatives aren't going to do it for us. When a politician advocates the three principals in the following link, I'll vote for him: http://difster.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-liberty.html

Mike: and to make it perfectly clear, I didn't take a position one way or another. I simply complimented Lisa for having the ability to weigh both sides of an argument and come up with a position that addresses both sides needs in a sustainable dialouge. I did not even address the issue of this thread. I did however suggest that Lisa get involved in local politics because I believe she could make a difference as a leader. I am sorry that you feel my compliments to her put you in a position of defense. I have respect for your personal opinions and I am willing to listen to them and compromise if I see that I have been under a false impression. Being open minded probably contributed to me wanting to compliment Lisa on her open mind. please accept my apology for putting you on the defensive.

Difster: What I took issue with was the notion of "a position of understanding and compromise that is sustainable.." What does that even mean? Sustainable? For who? Who defines that? I don't want someone defining what is sustainable for me. Did you read the link I provided? I've never heard anyone but a left-liberal use the word sustainable in regards to policy, environment, etc. The left-liberal mentality is antithetical to liberty because it means you don't get to control the lives of others through taxation, regulation, "government provided compassion," etc.

Mike: I'm actually a republican war veteran

Difster: So what does sustainable mean? Define it for me. I'm not trying to be difficult, I truly have NO idea what that is supposed to mean.

Mike: Sustainable as I used it in the message to Lisa was intended to suggest that continuing talks between conservatives and liberals will give the United States the opportunity to work in a proactive and long term fashion towards being a productive and functioning society. Again, sorry for causing confusion.

Difster: "continuing talks between conservatives and liberals will give the United States the opportunity to work in a sustainable fashion towards being a productive and functioning society."

I still don't understand what you mean by sustainable. Continued talks are not productive since the underlying philosophies are completely different. A compromise of conservative philosophy results in compromised conservatism. How does that work in favor of the American people? Liberalism is always about compromise, they shift and change and believe whatever is expedient. Conservatives (and libertarians like myself) are supposed to have a principled set of beliefs that are not open to compromise because they are in fact the foundations of a productive, functioning society.

Mike: I agree completely with your first point.

R.C.: So that's why they lock up the spray cans at the hardware store!

Difster: I appreciate that. And I apologize if I mistook you for a liberal, I've really only ever heard a liberal use the word "sustainable" in a political context. To me it's a slippery word that can mean whatever someone wants it to at the time. That's what got my hackles up. But really, dialog between conservatives and liberals is useless, conservatives need to push the liberals aside and do what they were elected to do. If they had been doing that, they wouldn't have suffered such a crushing defeat at the ballot box. The GOP continues to move left out of some bizarre need to appease anyone but their own voter base. I guess there are plenty of reasons I don't consider myself a conservative or a Republican anymore.

Mike: I exercise my right of freedom to not be labeled as a liberal or a conservative. I have a personal set of beliefs that straddle both party positions. Like many Americans today, I am under-represented by the politicians I am given as choices to vote for. It is my hope that a new generation of leaders like Lisa can take power and address the concerns of all Americans regardless of their political affiliation or set of beliefs. As a very dedicated conservatie republican Army Officer I held the belief that the right to free speech was worth fighting for and dieing for. Not just my right to that free speech but, the rights of radical left wingers I knew hated everything I stood for and probably hated me as a person. My service wasn't out of fanatical fascism but instead, service to our freedom and our peoples rights to free speech. Today I have no party I can call my own and no true representation of my beliefs, I certainly didn't move to San Francisco to be represented by Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi. I moved here because it is a city that embraces freedom of expression, freedom of political views and freedom of individuality. While most of the nation points to San Fancisco as the bastion of liberalism and the seat of anti-americanism... most of us here don't feel that way at all. I live here because it truely is the land of the free and the home of the brave despite what the media portrays us as. My neighbors are architects, engineers, teachers, biochemists and office managers, hardly the bible burning, anarchist, conservative haters that many would have you believe live in this city. My original message to Lisa was the hope that her open mindedness could benefit local politics and I believe that is true. Otherwise we would only have a one party system and one candidate to vote for in every election if there was no point to having opposing viewpoints in government.

My point is, labeling anyone or any group discounts the individual contribution they bring to that group. I was a conservative republican that believed in violent defense of the freedom of speech. This view was very different than my fellow conservative Army Officer peers shared and yet, I am quite certain that my defense of that freedom was the right reason to join the army and the right reason to fight in three conflicts over. Not too many of my peers would have agreed and yet, my service was just as valuable as theirs. I believe there is room for individual beliefs within a group and I certainly believe that we should all have the freedom to exercise those beliefs within the framework of the law. If that is no longer the case then we need to re-draft the bill of rights to reflect what our society desires and potentially split into two nations that are unwilling to compromise their beliefs. That would be a sad day for us all in my opinion.

Mike: I like how I have her entire career and political future all mapped out and locked into stone as our champion of freedom... props to Lisa for staying out of this while I make a fool of myself plotting her future...LOL

Difster: A point about labels. Labels are useful. You labeled yourself in several different ways. You labeled yourself as a conservative, a Republican, an ex Army Officer. Then you say we shouldn't label because it discounts individual contribution. We must have labels, that's how we communicate ideas. Sometimes those labels are overbroad or misapplied but that goes with the territory. I label myself as a libertarian (small L, not big L) yet there are things about that philosophy I find fault with. Without that label, I would have to explain everything I believe to anyone that asks whereas a neat label such as libertarian covers enough ground to be understood.

You said: "It is my hope that a new generation of leaders like Lisa can take power and address the concerns of all Americans regardless of their political affiliation or set of beliefs."

Mike, that's impossible. The concerns of one group are different than that of other groups and all too frequently those concerns are diametrically opposed and both cannot be satisfied. Furthermore, you will never get even most people to agree on one set of principles or the other. This is exactly why we need a VERY LIMITED government so that those opposing groups have very little power to implement their agenda on the rest of us. The tendency, throughout history is always toward more control and less freedom

You said: "I certainly believe that we should all have the freedom to exercise those beliefs within the framework of the law."

Which law? The law as it's enacted or the law as it's supposed to conform to the Constitution. Many of our laws are unconstitutional yet they remain. Most government agencies are unconstitutional. Show me the Constitutional authorization for HUD, FEMA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Transportation, EPA, FCC and most of the other alphabet soup agencies that are not specifically permitted in the Constitution. But if by the law you do in fact mean the Constitution and what it specifically authorizes, then yes. But please recognize that even the law is often times very, very wrong.

You said: "If that is no longer the case then we need to re-draft the bill of rights to reflect what our society desires and potentially split into two nations that are unwilling to compromise their beliefs. That would be a sad day for us all in my opinion."

The Bill of Rights has NOTHING to do with what society desires. My rights do not emanate from society, my rights are natural and come from God despite the desire of society. This is not a trivial point. But if we must split in to two nations in order to restore the liberty we are due, that would not be sad at all; I would rejoice. But it would be sad that anyone would fight for or choose a society of control and a burdensome government over real liberty.

Personally, I don't want open minded politicians and leaders. I want people who clearly and emphatically take the side of liberty over notion of compromise, public opinion or the desires of society (mob-rule).

Mike: I still agree very strongly with the point you raised, "Continued talks are not productive since the underlying philosophies are completely different."

Great point and we agree 100% on it.

Free Market Stupidity

2009-10-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I go in to AM/PM (a convenience store chain) to get a soda refill. Rather than bring in a cup, I bring in a bottle than has a lid which works better for me. The store manager tell me that I can't fill up a bottle, if I want a refill it has to be a cup. Keep in mind, the bottle is the same size as the cup I'd be filling. He says it doesn't make sense to him. What? He gets his $.99 no matter what container I put it in, why would he care? So I try to talk some sense in to him because he clearly doesn't see the profit potential. Nope, he's adamant, NO BOTTLE! So then I told him that he's lost my business completely and I won't be back.

I totally support that man's right to run his business as he sees fit. If he wants to lose money over the fact that I'm filling a bottle rather than a cup then he's free to lose money over a semantic difference. But I'm also exercising my right not to do business with him.

Oh well, his loss.. I get 10 extra minutes of walking to go to the next closest AM/PM and I'm certain that I can use the exercise.

Down But Not Out

2009-09-07T22:41:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't posted lately. Most of my thoughts are going on my Facebook account. I'll be back, but I think this is going in to the mothballs for a while.

Which begs the question, do you know what mothballs smell like?

You do? How did you get your nose between those tiny little legs?

Why I Love Open Source

2009-08-12T10:02:00.001-07:00

Can you imagine Microsoft or any other country taking the time and expense to inclue a spell checker for the Lower Sorbian language which is spoken by a Slavic minority in Germany?

Someone made such a spellchecker for Firefox.

It's not that I have any need for such spell checker, it's just that open source software is very flexible and repsonds well to the needs of its users. If you can't find a feature you like in your software, modify it yourself!

Who Still Things We Have A Free Market?

2009-07-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

The SEC permanently banned naked short sales and is considering other moves to stop free falls in stocks.

No kids, we don't have a free market and we haven't for a long time. The SEC is evidence of that.

An Act of Desperation

2009-07-24T09:05:00.000-07:00

Looks like Nutty Pelosi is going to attempt to force the hand of our beloved legislature by bypassing committee and bringing the Obamacare bill to a floor vote before the August recess.

To me, this is suicide, not only for the bill, but for Pelosi herself. It is such a partisan and desperate act to shove something down the throats of the American people that we don't want that this could very well define her "legacy." Let's hope so.

I say, let it come to a floor vote and see what happens. I think most of the Dems will not vote for it for fear of voter backlash.

They already face an uphill battle for reelection over the bailouts and stimulus package.

A Last Gasp Of Breath

2009-06-25T15:00:00.000-07:00

The cap & trade bill that is set for a full vote on Friday seems to be a last gasp attempt at convincing the rest of us that global warming (which they're not just calling 'global climate change' is really happening. Despite the best efforts of the global warming advocates and a nearly continuous media storm from almost all sides to convince us otherwise, there is no consensus among scientists or the general public that there is any global warming happening at all. In fact, there seems to be plenty of evidence that the whole thing is a lie.

If you hadn't noticed, every global warming (climate change) solution involves more government and higher taxes. The will make some noise about voluntary cooperation from the private sector, but mainly, it's about force.

If this fails, which seems likely right now, it will be a huge set back to the left on this issue and may very well spell death to that movement. We can only hope.

No Comprendo

2009-06-01T01:29:00.000-07:00

I can't even begin to fathom the evil in a man that is so dedicated to baby killing that he has withstood threats, harassment and already being shot once in order to ply his murderous trade.

Global Warming Killer?

2009-05-30T10:25:00.000-07:00

Kofi Annan says global warming is a silent killer of 300,000 per year and it's increasing. He cites a report that says, "The report claims that 90 percent of the deaths are related to gradual environmental degradation caused by a warming climate, which exacerbates existing threats — mainly malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria."

I have three little letters for you Mr. Annan. DDT. That miracle pesticide that is absolutely harmless but was demonized by Rachel Carson using false and misleading data.

I question the veracity of that report though. Global warming (if it really exists and I don't believe it does) should create more farmable land should increase food production and more people would get fed. Also, if 300,000 people in underdeveloped countries were really dying per year from global warming, the existing food supply would be seen as a net increase.

As for global warming, I think Kofi Annan, among others, is full of hot air!

Choosing The Wrong Target

2009-05-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

An idiotic Washington D.C. council member named Jim Graham is, as the this article says, "cracking down" on selling pizza by the slice late at night in D.C. neighborhoods. Apparently D.C. residents remain hungry long in to the night since some of these place stay open until 4:30 AM and there is some violence here and there late at night. The councilman admits that the eateries are operating legally but they have become a nuisance. Is this guy really so stupid that he thinks that stopping late night pizza sales will reduce crime? Is he so stupid that he doesn't understand that maybe it's the criminals responsible for crime, not the pizza shop owner? Is he such a blithering idiot that he cannot see the root causes of crime and must go after private businesses that are legally serving a customer base?

If I were these pizza shop owners, I'd pick a representative to have a meeting with this guy and offer him a bribe (campaign contribution) to drop the legislation. The kicker is, they'd get the whole thing on tape and destroy him at the next city council meeting.

Yes Jim Graham, you are STUPID! Why don't you figure out the real problem and address it that way!

An Abortion Candidate

2009-05-22T11:41:00.001-07:00

This article doesn't mention that abortion was recommended to this mother but it does say that doctors didn't expect this girl (now 6 years) old to survive birth because many of her organs weren't in the right place, she has 5 spleens, two left lungs, etc.

I could almost bet that the doctors, and many friends and family recommended that the mother abort the baby rather than suffer the pain of very short life, etc.

So far the girl has survived 6 years long than expected and seems to be in good health. Who knows how long she'll survive. Even if she doesn't lead a "normal" life as we would call it, no doubt she's brought joy to the life of her parents (ok, it only mentions mom in the article) and those around her and probably even her doctors. People who survive difficult conditions really seem to inspire us. She is a shining example of God's grace and the miracle of life.

**Note to evolutionists: This girl has a genetic disorder, a mutation. Mutations are always destructive, not improvements. Or perhaps you might think that evolution is selecting that we now need multiple spleens and our organs belong in different places. Oh wait, she'll probably never have kids so she can't pass on the traits.

Treating Them Like Children

2009-05-20T13:45:00.001-07:00

More proof that the democrats see much of their constituency as children.

High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.

To the liberal-left elite, minorities, women and any other group except white males are to be treated by children who cannot make their own way and require government help. If broadcasters are failing, they're failing. Why should the taxpayers provide money to a PRIVATE BUSINESS that isn't generating enough revenue to continue operations. I don't care who owns the business, there is simply no Constitutional authority for the government to keep any business from failing.

Oh.. I amend my statement above. White, male bankers and automotive executives are also children.

Miscellany

2009-05-09T21:09:00.001-07:00

I almost ran over a puppy today. A little black one. Fortunately, he made it across safely.

Malibu is a very nice place but it's so difficult to get to. You can take the canyon roads from the freeways north of Los Angeles or you can take Pacific Coast Highway from the 10 freeway. Traffic there is always beastly. I'm guessing a lot of people that live there, hardly ever leave. But if you're going to live in a place that's tough to get in and out of, that's the place to be!

It would be fun to start a rumor that a cell phone virus is going around that sends a silent signal to your brain to produce a real virus. It would take a lot of work to create fake scientific studies, etc. and I really just don't have that kind of time.

I know, I need to get back to The Federalist Papers. #7 is a bit boring and much like #6 so I've been putting it off.

It's been reported that my recent blog post about voting actually swayed someone's opinion in my direction. Imagine that!

The Fox Shall Guard The Henhouse

2009-05-08T21:22:00.000-07:00

Need I say more?

Voting By The Numbers

2009-04-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

I've been having an ongoing verbal argument with a friend for several years about voting. He thinks that not voting or voting for a third party candidate (i.e. NOT a Republican) is the same as voting for the Democrat. I realize it's not election season but we were talking about this again the other day and I finally had to put it all down in writing. Thanks to Vox for providing the math lesson on this one, I've adapted his examples.

Submitted for your amusement, here is the email I sent to my friend:

I just wanted to clear this up, we've talked about it off and on for a long time but I wanted this in print so you can see it.

Candidate A is a Democrat
Candidate B is a Republican
Candidate C is a third party candidate.

Candidate A has 99 votes
Candidate B has 99 votes.

The next voter votes for Candidate C.

How many votes does Candidate A have?

1) 100
2) 99
3) 5

Let's put it this another way:

I live in a small town with 101 people.
50 people vote for the Democrat
50 people vote for the Republican
I decline to vote. Who wins? Did I vote for the Democrat by not voting as you contend? Please explain.

Same small town scenario with 100 people.
50 people vote Democrat
49 people vote Republican
I decline to vote or write in some other candidate. The Dem wins but did I vote for the Democrat by not voting? Please explain.

Not voting for one party is not a vote for another party. The math doesn't work that way. If I find the Candidate A and Candidate B both so abhorrent that I cannot ENDORSE, VOTE, SUPPORT, GET BEHIND, CHOOSE, SUGGEST, or RECOMMEND how is not voting for either of those choices a vote for the person who is furthest from my views? It does not give them an extra vote as the examples above demonstrate. Not voting for someone means not voting for someone. Why is this so hard to understand? You're supposed to be much better at math than me, remember?

When you VOTE for someone, you are making a pronouncement that you want that person representing you. I didn't want McCain or Obama representing me. I didn't want Schwarzenegger or Bustamante representing me either. I knew one of them was going to win but it's absolutely impossible that by NOT voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger that I voted for Obama and Bustamante. They received NO extra votes because they didn't get mine. 1+1= 2. By your logic, 1+0 =2 because if the Republican didn't get that extra vote, then my non-vote goes to the Democrat which would be 1+0=2.

I got so tired of hearing... "But a third party person won't win!" Ron Paul is a Republican. Tom McClintock is a Republican. They aren't third party candidates. What bothers me most is the people saying that people like McClintock and Paul are spoilers when really, they are the ones upholding the ideals of liberty and conservative government. You voted for McCain and you voted for Schwarzenegger TWICE! You voted for that NON Republican TWICE! That means you gave your consent to be governed by a non-Republican, gay marriage, pro abortion, anti-gun, big government supporter who just so happens to have aligned himself with the Republican party just because he's a member of the Republican party. It can almost be excused that you voted for him the first time, but the state was already in chaos when you voted for him the second time yet you SUPPORTED him again knowing he was doing further damage to this state. Why would you do that?

Why would you vote for McCain who admitted he doesn't even really understand economics to represent you as the leader of the country in a time of economic trouble? Sure, he could surround himself with advisors who know economics, but how would he choose them if he doesn't understand it enough to begin with. He voted for the bailout. I don't care if he regretted it later, he voted for it as a United States Senator. SHAME ON HIM. Had I been supporting him up to that point, I would have withdrawn my support right there because it's clear he doesn't understand economics OR the Constitution of the United States of America which he is already sworn to uphold. Clearly he's a failure at his sworn duty, why would you vote for him for president? Because Obama is worse? How much worse and in what way? No doubt Obama is out to destroy this country but he didn't get my vote. I didn't support him. I didn't walk in to a voting booth and cast a ballot in favor of him. In the California and Federal elections, I voted for the person who I could actually support the policies of. I voted my principles. I voted my conscience. I voted for what I believed was right. Furthermore, both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock are committed, demonstrable Christians. Schwarzenegger clearly is no such thing and McCain seems to take a stab at it but I haven't seen much evidence of a deep, abiding faith.

You continually tell me I'm STUPID for voting the way I do yet I was right about Schwarzeneggar and I know I would have been right about McCain. The things Ron Paul was saying in the primaries are now coming to pass but no one wanted to listen to him because they didn't want to believe him. They wanted to (as you always say) BELIEVE THE BIGGER LIE. That's what you did by voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger (twice). You believed the bigger lie that somehow they could turn things around. Our governor has certainly made things worse.

I haven't even talked about you voting for George Bush twice. He was never a conservative. He hardly ever did one thing in office that is in line with conservative values. He could have done a lot more against abortion than he did. He could have used the bull pulpit. He could have done more for gun rights (he supported a continuation of the "assault weapons ban") and he approved budgets that were the largest non-military domestic expenditures this country has ever seen! Other than his initial reaction to 9/11, I can't say there are too many things that Bush did that I ever agreed with. I voted for him the first time; that was my mistake. I did not vote for him the second time. I saw my error.

In short, I cannot and will not give my support through voting to people who are bent on destroying this country through bad economic policy and stripping away our liberties by interfering more and more in our lives every day, growing government to outrageous levels and making us and future generations pay for it by continually loading us with more and more debt. If you want to continue to think that my lack of support for Republican candidates who do those things is a vote for the Democrats who do it more then there is nothing I can do to prevent that, but whatever you decide to think, it would be dishonest of you to continue to say that I really haven't thought it through and I don't know what I'm talking about. You can continue to disagree with me on this subject but you aren't going to change my mind, you can't change the rules of math and you can't change the fact that both parties are running us down the road to destruction.

Big Companies Are Not Capitalist

2009-04-22T11:02:00.001-07:00

Need proof? Look at what the CEO of GM just said. Click here.

They WANT government protection for their businesses, not the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. Capitalist? I don't think so. The proper term would be corporate statism.

Federalist #6

2009-04-20T00:57:00.000-07:00

Quite some time ago (starting nearly 4 years ago I'm ashamed to say) I started a chapter by chapter summary of the Federalist Papers. It got away from me and I stopped after #5. And now I continue but you may want to read the first 5. I think this is a good time to start again. This is to remind people of the principles this country was founded on even if some of them were a bit flawed. Certainly there can be no perfect system of government in this world but what America has produced has been the best so far.

Federalist #1
Federalist #2
Federalist #3
Federalist #4
Federalist #5

Author - Hamilton

"To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance teh accumulated experience of ages."

I don't doubt at all that Canada and Mexico would be at war with us on occasion if the United States weren't so much more powerful than both of them. If the South had succeeded in breaking from the Union (as it should have been allowed to to d0) there might have been occasional wars there too. It's hard for us to see the history of Europe and them of it as a continent in conflict which it has been for most of its history. Now we only see it in light of current events with the EU and the Euro currency and France, Germany and England acting as if they've really just been like brothers punching each other in the arm rather than bitter enemies at constant war.

The unfortunate part of Hamilton's statement is that it takes government to for a cohesive union and government has an insatiable appetite for growth and power.

"The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, ad to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled in to war."

Wouldn't that be nice? But it just isn't so. Men are sinners and subject to the same jealousies, and bad behavior as everyone else in any other kind of government. While it's true that a strong Republic is less likely to be manipulated and used to satisfy the blood lust of any particular group of men, we've seen that it's certainly possible. In fairness, Hamilton was making a point about what other man say the genius of a republic is and doesn't particularly agree with it. He goes on to point out that not every nation is perusing benevolent ends for it's people and so conflict will arise.

Please bear in mind that when he's speaking here of having several unions instead of one united republic, there were still only the 13 states and the outlying territories not yet created as states going out to about the Mississippi river. I'll leave it to your imagination to decide whether it would have been best to have our current union split in to several nations as states were added on.

"Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare------!"

That doesn't sound entirely unlike what we have going today though we've yet to face any insurrection. I think we're on the verge of serious civil unrest.

An Annoying Thing About Mexico

2009-04-15T22:44:00.000-07:00

Maybe lots of annoying things come to your mind and I'm sure this is minor in comparison but I'm going to tell you about it anyway.

It seems that just about every parking lot has a parking lot attendant, especially places like the grocery stores, and other places where a large number of people might be shopping at one time. What I can't get used to is they way these guys will step in to the path of your car as you're backing up to guide you out. It creeps me out every time. I don't want someone behind me to help me back up; I do a fine job on my own. The laws of motion in Mexico are no different than the United States and with rare exception, I don't need help backing up there. (Exeptions: Driving large moving trucks, towing a trailer, etc.)

I don't really mind that they insist on rushing over to help put bags in the car even if it's only a few, I just hate it when they get behind me while I'm backing out.

And, in case you hadn't guessed, they work for tips.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

2009-04-02T09:07:00.000-07:00

As if the government doesn't lie enough, now comes the news that our own government has been been telling a real whopper about the number of guns flowing from the US in to Mexico.

The lie that's being perpetuated by people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is that 90% of the illegal arms in Mexico come from the U.S.

It turns out the figure is closer to 17%. They came up with the 90% figure because Mexico sends lists of serial numbers of guns it recovers to the U.S. for tracing. 90% of the serial numbers we trace for them come from guns that originated in the U.S. however most of the weapons they recover have no serial numbers so they don't send them to us for tracing so they don't make it in to our statistical pool.

Clinton recently went to Mexico spouting that number and blaming the U.S. for some of the violence in Mexico based on this figure. I wonder if she'll amend her statement now that this new figure has come to light? She also promised to do more about the illegal flow of arms to Mexico.

To me, it seems like it's not really that bad. It's not an insignificant problem, but how many millions or billions are we going to spend on "prevention" to try to slow down something that is so easily transportable in vehicles crossing the border. Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard. Vehicles come under very little scrutiny going from the U.S. to Mexico. Sure, they pull over some random cars for thorough checks but still, it wouldn't be that hard.

The sad part is, Clinton, Pelosi and the Justice Department will probably continue to use the 90% figure despite the fact that it's been proven false.

Hillary Supports Terrorist Education

2009-03-10T18:15:00.000-07:00

How appropriate it is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would support funding education for potential terrorists.

The Palestinians (who seem to have no problem letting Hamas and Hezbollah speak for them) want nothing short of the wholesale destruction of Israel and the slaughter of her people. Hillary wants to educate them with money stolen from the American people though. That ought to play well with her New York constituency.

Mrs. Clinton announced the Middle East Partnership Initiative during a visit to this Palestinian town last week. The four-year program will support about 10 scholarships each year for disadvantaged students to attend four-year courses at Palestinian universities. The program will also offer 25 “opportunity grants” to enable promising but disadvantaged young Palestinians to apply to American-accredited institutions in the United States or the Middle East, a State Department official told The Chronicle.

By "disadvantaged" they probably mean children not lucky enough for their family to get a cash payout from the terrorists because one of their siblings blew themselves up outside of an Israeli cafe.

Congress has to approve the money but she won't have any problem doing that. According to the article, this is above and beyond the $900 million she already pledged to them.

Last year several Palestinian students from Gaza who were awarded Fulbright scholarships ran into difficulty entering Israel to complete the application process, and two of them were subsequently denied entry visas to the United States on security grounds.

Shocking isn't it?

Obamanomics - Failure Is The ONLY Option

2009-02-11T10:42:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't blogged in a while... sometimes I just lose my muse for a while.

This stimulus is very troubling to say the least. The only thing really up for negotiation is the rate at which we're going to throw American taxpayers under the bus.

Unfortunately, NO STIMULUS package isn't an options because politicians have to DO SOMETHING when there is a crisis.

I've seen some Republicans claiming that being shut out of this process so the inevitable failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and of course Hussein Obama. I don't think this will be the boon for Republicans they think it will be. For starters, the Dems have a much better spin machine than the Republicans so they will gesture wildly toward what seems like success and completely down play any failure. Even worse, they'll find a way to blame the failures on a lack of Republican cooperation. There is an even darker side to the failure. If Republican win in a landslide next election, they'll be so drunk with power, they will simply enact their versions of more government, more spending, more stimulus but in a "conservative way." They will show the people how to properly get this country moving again with a completely different set of spending bills, etc. They probably will not understand that the best thing for this country is to get the Fed OUT of our way, let the market take care of all the bad debt, etc. and the pain will be over quicker.

Prediction... Republicans will win in mid-term elections rivaling the Contract With America (*not that I think this is a good thing).

I'm An Illegal Alien

2009-01-12T18:03:00.000-08:00

Really, technically I am an illegal alien in Mexico. When you go beyond the border towns of Mexico you are supposed to have a tourist visa of sorts that can be purchased the airports, etc. It's usually good for 6 months. Mine expired. Oops.

I don't expect I'll get in any trouble upon my return though. They don't actually look at them beyond just seeing if you have the paper. Even so, they're not exactly strict about it. I do need to get a new one next time though.

Adios 2008! Bienvenidos 2009!

2008-12-31T10:32:00.000-08:00

This has been a terrible year in many way yet I know I'm blessed. Even so, I'm not sorry to see 2008 from the rear view mirror.

2009 is going to be much, much better!

I'm spending the final moments of this year south of the border. See y'all next year!

Cheapest Gas

2008-12-26T12:11:00.000-08:00

I've been using Gas Buddy for quite a while* to find the cheapest gas prices around but I discovered another tool they have. You can get local gas prices sent to your mobile phone from wherever you're at.

Before I give you those instructions though, Gas Buddy has localized gas prices for your area. To keep an eye on gas price trends, I tend to use orangecountygasprices.com which means I don't have to go to the main site first. They have localized listings for many areas. The first time you put in your city or zip code in to the main site, look at your address bar to see where it redirects you.

Now, for the mobile directions:

1. Compose a new text message to the phone number 368266

2. Type "gasbuddy" + zip code or city, state as the body of the message.

Ex: gasbuddy los angeles, ca
Ex: gasbuddy 55428

3. Send the message. You should receive a response within a few seconds.

*These services are offered free of charge, but your standard mobile carrier text messaging rates may apply.

Easy enough eh? That's my Christmas present to you. Feliz Navidad A Todos! (even though it was yesterday)

*I have no affiliation with GasBuddy and I'm not compensated for this endorsement.

Make That Call

2008-12-22T21:42:00.000-08:00

There is someone you need to reconcile with. I know you don't think it was your fault and maybe it's not. But, if you didn't work it out, you bear the responsibility. Make that phone call and work it out. You had a fight, bitter words, bad circumstances, a gross misunderstanding with a good friend. You think he or she should call you first. Abandon your pride and make the call, you won't regret it.

I had a friend for a long time. Early this year we had a falling out. I should have worked it out and I didn't. I thought he was wrong, he thought I was wrong. Doesn't matter who's wrong. Reconcile. Work it out. Don't abandon a good friendship over an argument of some sort.

It's hard to do. I didn't want to make the call. But I did. It will take time. Trust has to be rebuilt on both sides. We've just got to be adults about it. And we will be.

If by some chance you make the call and the other person isn't willing to respond, you can walk away with a clean conscience. Forgive. Apologize. Let it go. Yes, you need to apologize even if you're convinced the other person is to blame? Why because you let it continue. You didn't work hard enough to resolve the conflict. You let it go this long. Chances are, you're not blameless though. You exacerbated the situation, said things you shouldn't have and made the problem worse.

By now, you already know who you need to call. It's unmistakable. So do it. What are you waiting for?

Auto Industry Bailout

2008-11-25T12:57:00.000-08:00

There is absolutely no reason for an auto industry bailout. They talk about all the jobs that would be lost, etc. but it's just not true. Sure, some jobs will be lost, but do you think if they went bankrupt that they would just shut down and stop making cars? No. Don't you think Toyota or Honda would come along and buy an interest in them very quickly if they went bankrupt? Of course they would.

When it comes right down to it, the auto industry is in trouble because they've been putting out crappy products and now they want us to pay for it! Japan and Korea put out superior machines for a better price.

Let them fail. Someone will fill in the gap.

Don't Mix State And Church

2008-11-23T00:40:00.000-08:00

Church and government partnerships always end up hurting the mission of the church. New York City has demanded that 22 churches stop providing beds for homeless people. There seems to be a city rule requiring faith based shelters to be open at least 5 days per week or not at all.

The city claims it has enough beds in its shelters that the displacement won't cause a shortage of places to stay. Which brings us to another problem.... Why is the city providing a charitable service on the tax payers dime when charity is taking care of it? Even more troubling, why are they trying to put the churches out of the business of such things as helping the homeless? The government never likes competition.

Charity comes from private donations and tends to be adaptable to changing conditions. Government "charity" tends to be a solution looking for a problem. Government programs always expand and rarely contract. When it's time for budget cuts, they cut the stuff that people will scream about the most so they don't get cut as much, because they're all about self-preservation, not helping.

NEVER let a government agency have any part of what goes on in your church, you'll only regret it.

The Funny Thing About Language

2008-11-05T20:18:00.001-08:00

I love ambiguous headlines. This one from Fox News reads: Skydiver Dies in Second Fatal Jump at Virginia Airport.

The obvious meaning is that there was a previous fatal jump at that airport. The other meaning would be that this is the second fatal jump of the skydiver. Obviously that cannot be the case but it's still funny if you read it that way. Though I'm guessing that it's not too funny for the skydiver.

What was the last thing that went through that skydivers mind as she hit the ground? Her nose.

Why don't blind people skydive? It scares the dogs to death!

If you're skydiving and neither of your chutes open, how long before you hit the ground? The rest of your life!

And the pic is one of my favorites from Despair, Inc.

Now That It's Over

2008-11-04T21:53:00.000-08:00

Well, it might not be over; there are still concerns about Obama's citizenship. That could be a real Constitutional crisis. Barring that though, it's pretty much a done deal.

Now what? Well, for one thing, I think this is a repudiation of Bush and his false conservatism which McCain goes along with except that McCain is even more liberal. Maybe now, the GOP will start putting more Reagan like candidates up there. More conservative. Obviously when the GOP runs a liberal, the country moves to the left.

Really though, we're getting the President we deserve. We're getting more liberalism, lots of scandals, more government interference in our lives, more government interference in the markets and in general, a lot less freedom. Make no mistake, we'd have these things with McCain too (except maybe the scandals) but lots more government and a lot less liberty.

We can look for things like an attempt at The Fairness Doctrine being restored, possibly slavery reparations, a civilian national security force (i.e. neighborhood spies) national health care, more money poured down the black hole of education, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

We did it ourselves.

Catching Wild Pigs

2008-11-02T21:29:00.001-08:00

I rarely post stuff that was just forwarded to me in email, but this one caught my attention. I wish I would have written it myself.

There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof. noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot in his native country while fighting communists who were trying to overthrow the government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said: 'This isn't a joke. You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.
When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves they accept their captivity.'

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco
subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! A politician will never provide a service for you that is ultimately more in your best interest than if you had accomplished it yourself, for yourself.

So, if you come to view all of this wonderful government help as a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to tell your friends. If you think the free ride is what those historical figures who founded this nation saw as our destiny, you will likely delete this, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you. It's just possible you may be able to figure out who is about to slam the gate on those within the political fences of America.

Think about this very carefully -- as Thomas Jefferson said a very long time ago, 'A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.'

My Prediction Is Holding

2008-10-31T08:59:00.000-07:00

The DOW is, as of this writing, up just over 1000 points from its Monday close. I expect things to be relatively flat this coming Monday. Trading volume will be low the before and the day of the election, especially in these otherwise turbulent times. Any announcements from the Whitehouse should be taken as purely partisan and intended to help McCain.

A side note, the DOW has fallen just over 4600 from a close of 13,930 one year ago today.

Obama as President would be both scary and highly entertaining. McCain as President will be less obviously scary but still very destructive to the basic principles of liberty so many of us hold dear. It will also be a continuation of big government neo-con thinking that currently dominates the Republican party despite the ire of their sheep like constituents who continue to vote for them because they're too afraid to abandon a party that refuses to be reformed.

We're screwed either way. Hang on folks! It's going to be a bumpy ride!

Was Jesus A Socialist?

2008-10-30T10:50:00.001-07:00

This question seems to be on the minds of many as of late. As many 43 of my last 100 blog visits (at the time of this writing) were from people searching some variant of "Was Jesus a socialist?" That led them to something I posted in August of 2005 on this very topic.

Since it seems to be so interesting, let's cover the topic again.

Was Jesus a socialist? YES! Give money to the poor, take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, love your neighbor, etc. There was some communal living mentioned in the New Testament as well.

I've heard people use Jesus' example to justify government socialism. Ohhhh, we have to take care of the poor, the hurting, the sick, etc. It's our CHRISTIAN DUTY! But they've got it all wrong. The socialism that was advocated by Jesus and the apostles was always VOLUNTARY.

Give from your heart or God doesn't honor it all all. The giving that Jesus advocated was never to be done by force which is the only way that government does things.

Those of you reading this that want to use a Biblical example to justify more government in our lives in the name of Christian charity (my regular readers know better) just stop and think for a moment and go read your Bible and see what it really says.

Get Paid To Go Home

2008-10-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

According to this story in El Debate, illegals captured in immigration raids and returned to Mexico are getting 5000 pesos ($400 USD) by the Mexican Federal government to get back on their feet. Then, when they get back to their home state; Sinaloa in this case, the state gives them another 5000 pesos.

I'm guessing that many of them use this money to head straight back to the border to try again. The story doesn't really give an overall policy statement on who is eligible for that money. Supposedly, the money is to help them get back on their feet there in Mexico but I have no doubt that the government is well aware of the fact that they're using the money to head north again.

From other stories I have read, the amount of money being sent to Mexico from the US has fallen because our economy is down. Why wouldn't the Mexican government want to give these guy a few hundred bucks so they can go back to the US and keep sending even more money to us. The chance of them being caught in another immigration raid any time soon are pretty slim.

In other stories, I've read that many legal and illegal immigrants are returning to Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, etc. because they're not finding enough work here.

**If you want to read the story in English, click here for a bad, but readable machine translation.

Dow Heading UP?

2008-10-26T22:10:00.001-07:00

Given the fact that our supposedly FREE market really isn't that free at all, I expect the DOW to soar before the election for a McCain boost.

I'm not basing this on any evidence I have of market trends, etc., it's just just a baseless political prediction.

Where Are The Speculators Now?

2008-10-24T07:16:00.000-07:00

Speculators were blamed for the housing bubble, the oil bubble, and, if you recall, the dot com bubble.

During the dot com boom, people invested in those stocks and retail traders jumped in to the market with both feet. Yes, that means you! Those people who opened up ETrade accounts and had no idea what they were doing but thought it was a good idea to start buying stocks. It was pure speculation and not based on any sound fundamentals. The transaction prices dropped significantly when trading started taking place on the internet. And eventually, that bubble burst.

After that, we had the housing boom. Oh, the glory days for property owners. Properties were being listed and offers would be submitted within hours. It was a buying frenzy. People would buy houses and turn around and sell them within weeks or even days at significant profit. Speculators once again were blamed for driving prices up to unrealistic levels. As it happens in all bubbles, it burst.

Then we had the oil boom. When oil hit the $100/barrel mark we thought it couldn't go much higher, but it did. $110! $120! $130! Finally it hit the ceiling at $147.25. Then, lo and behold, the bubble burst.

Today, despite the fact that OPEC has promised to cut production, the price of oil dropped.

Where are the speculators now? If the speculators really have as much power as the media and people like Greenspan and Bernanke say they do, the bubbles would not burst so quickly and prices would not fall so fast.

In reality, speculative buyers in any market must have speculative sellers. A seller sells because he believes that something he's holding will go down in value if he continues to hold it. Speculative buyers think it's going to continue to go up. Without willing sellers, speculators would have nothing to buy so why do we blame the speculators?

The oil speculators have no power to keep prices up. They are not sitting in huge conference rooms together figuring out how to keep prices rising. They are individuals, fund managers, etc. who are riding a wave of market emotion and trying to make a profit.

When market bubbles burst, someone is losing money. But who? Usually it's the people who got in to the frenzy closest to the end.

The oil bubble burst because we're entering a global recession and demand is falling rapidly. The speculators are shorting oil futures. Fine. They see the hand writing on the wall. But they're selling short to people who believe that oil will go back up. Again, there are two sides to a transaction but we only blame half of those responsible.

Some other time, I'll get in to the Keynsian boom/bust cycle and how it could be avoided.

What Would You Do?

2008-10-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

Your elementary school kids come home from from their first day of class and say, "Mom and dad! Guess what? Ms. Foxboro is now Mr. Foxboro! But I don't understand, how can a man become a woman?"

It happened in Vacaville, CA.

It's just one more reason to pull your kids out of public school.

What A Wonderful Bailout!

2008-10-06T08:45:00.001-07:00

Wow, the Feds were RIGHT! This bailout is solving all of our problems with market stability! Hey, just because the DOW is down over 400 points TODAY and London is having a really bad day too doesn't mean ANYTHING at all. The Feds did the right thing. They are smarter than us you know.

The American people were just dead wrong about the bailout. We have achieved the "market stability" that Bush and Pelosi pushed through and that McCain and Obama both agreed with.

Aren't you glad that American is safe in the hands of these people?

On the bright side, there are a lot of politicians right now cowering in fear in dark corners of their offices shaking at the prospect of getting booted out of office as their phones are ringing off the hooks as angry Americans call them screaming, "What the hell have you done to my country? I told you this was a bad idea!"

Down If They Do! Down If They Don't!

2008-10-02T13:59:00.000-07:00

The DOW took a hit of almost 350 points today over fears that the proposed bailout plan won't be enough to stop a recession.

To why try to pass another socialist bailout plan then? Anyone who voted yes for this will be targeted for elimination in the next election. They defied their constituency. It will be a lightening rod issue for years to come.

Stock Market Down - Dollar UP

2008-09-30T10:38:00.000-07:00

The stock market took a huge hit yesterday and lots of people are screaming about it but they dollar is up almost 6 cents against the Euro since Sunday evening. That's a significant jump.

A stronger dollar is much better for this country than a falling stock market.

Oil fell on news of the bailout failure but has rebounded a bit.

We need to just let it be and not force a bailout through Congress. We'll endure the pain and recover. Not only will we recover faster, the rest of the world will too.

The Fed might be eying a rate cut to get things going. That will drop the dollar unfortunately. I know it's tough when business can't get credit lines to stay to stay afloat but we rely on credit too much as it is which is why we have a negative saving rate in this country.

Doing nothing will also cool demand for oil even further for a while as we enter in to a short term recession which will drive oil prices down even lower during the tough times to come.

The least harm Congress can do now is nothing. Let's just hope Bush doesn't declare a national emergency and sign an executive order and force the bailout over the objections of Congress.

Static Thinking About The Market

2008-09-29T14:21:00.000-07:00

I've heard from several people who are arguing that the government must do SOMETHING to help us out of this "crisis" we're in with the credit markets, toxic assets, etc. If the people telling me this were normally of a socialist bent I could understand and I'd let it pass without comment but they're generally very conservative leaning Republican types.

Their thinking goes like this: We need some sort of government intervention in this market because it's so broken that the market can't fix itself. This is what we pay our taxes for. I don't like the bailout but its better than ending up in a depression. They don't care that there's no Constitutional authority for it, the market is too corrupt to be left on its own.

Is the market corrupt? Sure, sometimes. But ask yourself, what's more corrupt, the market or the government? Here's what people don't seem to get; if the government wasn't involved, the market would have a different nature than it does now. If we have a market that the government can so easily usurp, then we don't have a free market to begin with.

The government needs to step away and let it reform itself with a lighter regulatory framework. Risk will be priced in to the investments. If there is fraud, prosecute. But to break stupid regulatory rules that aren't actually fraudulent only inhibits the market and prevents true market reform from taking place.

I'm not just pointing to this crisis. Start thinking in terms of drastic change in the very nature of the market. Think of it as a swap meet for investments. Sure, some people are going to lose, but the market will take care of that by drying up funds for it. The competitors will keep an eye on each other and bark loudly when someone is out of line. The market would actually simplify and be easier for amateur investors to understand.

This is the problem when you're talking about reform of any system. We can only seem to picture tweaking how things are now. We can't imagine such serious change that the entire current model has to be thrown out. Who'd have thought 30 years ago that electronic trading would be available to people sitting at home in their underwear? Who'd have imagined that the transaction cost of a trade would be so low? Despite the heavy regulations, the market found a way.

Change your mode of thinking. Things can change. Government does not have to be involved to fix problems (even this big). We just have to stop accepting the lies and the vomitus spewing that comes from the media and the politicians. They don't know how to control a market, they only know how to destroy one.

Live Blogging - The Debates

2008-09-26T18:28:00.000-07:00

Starting off.... Obama is an idiot

McCain answers... he's an idiot too.

Forget it. They're both idiots.

Write in Ron Paul.

Are You A Forex Trader?

2008-09-18T23:30:00.001-07:00

If any of you are involved in the forex market, let me know. I'd like to discuss tips, techniques, strategies, etc.

Send me an email, my address is on the right.

Very Bad Doctrine

2008-09-07T19:16:00.000-07:00

I attended a church the last few weeks that I thought was going to be really cool. Unlike the flashy churches that just seem to want to entertain us, this place was pretty laid back and didn't seem to care about being "culturally relevant."

The church is called The Gathering At Corona and the pastor is Ken Peters.

Week number 1 was fine. Good place. I decided I was going to go back.

Week number 2 was pretty good. Pastor claimed to be a prophet which I don't have any trouble with but I've seen to many false prophets in the church simply to take them at their word I was going to look for a bit of evidence. Skeptical yet optimistic. After the service, the pastor came up to me, we chatted for a few minutes and he suggested I call his secretary to arrange a lunch meeting so we could get to know each other better. Hmmm I'm thinking I really like this pastor. On the way home, I asked Little Dif what they talked about in Sunday School. This is where I got concerned. She told me that they were teaching them to speak in tongues. "What? What do you mean? How were they teaching you to do that? You mean they were teaching you about it?" She said, "No, we even practiced, first for one minute, then two minutes." RED FLAGS!!

Yet I remained calm and I considered this might be the work of an overly enthusastic, but obviously wrong Sunday School teacher. Since I was planning to have lunch with the pastor, I wanted to bring this to his attention and make sure the situation was dealt with. Certainly he would see the folly of teaching young kids (or anyone) HOW to speak in tongues. I had a busy week and didn't set up the appointment but I remained optimistic and so I went back for...

Week 3 which was today. Little Dif wasn't with me today but I remained optimistic and I would tell the pastor we'd definitely have lunch this week. It never got that far. About 15 minutes in to the worship, he started encouraging those with the gift of tongues to start speaking out. Just to be clear, he was encouraging everyone to do it at the same time. There was no order to it, there was no interpreter, just lots of shouting in gibberish. He explained right away that it was a misinterpretation of scripture that we weren't supposed to speak in tongues without an interpreter. So I sat down and right away opened my Bible and scanned through 1st Corinthians 14. Ah, there it is! Verses 26-28. NASB

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Really does it get any more clear than that? I took out my notebook and started copying those three verses on to my paper. I wrote a little note to the pastor on the bottom telling him that what he was teaching today was wrong and to please call me to discuss it and I left my contact info. I struggled for a bit with what to do with the note. I thought about going up and slipping it on the podium and walking out. I thought about giving it to an usher but I wasn't sure he'd get it. I thought about interrupting the whole thing and having a little debate with the pastor right there. I said a quick prayer and as soon as I did, I remembered seeing a sign in the parking lot RESERVED FOR SENIOR PASTOR. So I walked out (no one noticed, they were in the middle of worship), slipped the note in the slightly open window so it landed on the seat and I went home.

At first I hesitated to put the name of the church and the pastor in this post. But I decided I'm not spreading rumors or gossiping. People need to know where bad doctrine is taught. This pastor is teaching bad doctrine in clear contravention of scripture. The pastor might call me back but I'm not holding my breath.

**Note to Pastor Ken: If you happen to come across this blog entry and you are willing to correct your error, please contact me and I'll be more than happy to remove this post AND come back to your church. My email address is here on my blog, contact me there.**

Just Say No To Chrome

2008-09-06T12:14:00.000-07:00

Google just launched their new browser to complete with Internet Exploder 8 and Mozilla Firefox (and I suppose to some extend Safari). Is Opera even a factor? I don't think so.

I tried Chrome. You can find it here. Initially there were some very loud complaints in the EULA that they could redistribute any content you created through their browser. They removed it. That alone would have kept me from using it.

Really though, the main reason I'll stick with Firefox for now is because of the sheer number of plug-ins available for Firefox. The best one of course is AdBlock. I've been using it for a while now and on that rare occasion when I have to use IE or I have to use another computer, I'm shocked to find ads on my favorite sites. I forget they're there. Apparently there is a much discussion over which plug-ins people want so I'm sure they're coming.

I think the main reason I won't switch any time soon is because I just don't trust Google enough. They've already got my email. I already use them for Blogger (I plan to switch one of these days). I don't need to have Google involved in my entire on line experience.

So, just say NO to Chrome!

An Unintended Compliment

2008-09-04T09:11:00.000-07:00

Gloria Steinem pays Sarah Palin an unintended compliment.

Steinem said: Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

Seriously, could she have given Palin a better compliment? I think not.

She goes on to say: She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Wow! What a way to make a woman proud! I think Gloria Steinem is on Palins payroll.

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT!!

An Idea Who's Time Has Come

2008-09-03T13:20:00.000-07:00

In response to a comment left by Ken P. to an old post related to big alcohol producers, I started thinking about a few things.

It occurred to me that we essentially subsidize the production of alcohol with tax money because the farmers who produce the grain receive tax subsides from FedGov. The alcohol producers then purchase this grain at what would otherwise be less than market prices.

So I had the idea that Congress should pass a law, (to help the children of course) that would end farm subsidies to grain producers that sell to alcohol producers. For me, this has NOTHING to do with the issue of consuming alcohol or protecting anyone from anything. The left has long used incrementalism to push their agenda and it's about time that we do the same.

I sent an email to MADD using the general inquiry form on their website. I have no love for this organization. They are authoritarian busy bodies and I'd like to see them disband for lack of funds. However, I'm willing to let them do my bidding on this issue.

Here is what I sent:

Please forward this to the president of your organization.

As you may know, farmers receive enormous subsidies from the government to grow their crops. In return, large quantities of grain are either sold to or already owned by alcohol producers. In essence, we, the taxpayers of the United States, are subsidizing alcohol production.

MADD is the perfect organization to spearhead a campaign to eliminate farm subsidies for grain intended for alcohol production. You have the resources and the clout to get a project like this before Congress.

Compliance might be difficult but not impossible and I'm sure your staff could come up with a reasonable solution that would not include a cumbersome new layer of bureaucracy. Compliance would include huge fines for falsifying purchase records, etc. I will leave the details to you and your legal team.

I would love to see this happen. With a new administration coming on board soon there will be children in the White House no matter who gets elected which would be an excellent background from which to approach this issue.

Thank you for your full attention to this matter.

Sarah Palin

2008-08-30T13:12:00.001-07:00

If John McCain wasn't otherwise such an absolutely horrible choice for America, I might actually consider voting for him because he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.

What a stunningly brilliant thing to do! She's got excellent conservative credentials (though never up to my standards) but I really like her. I'd honestly rather see her as President than John McCain. Oh, and she's cute too but that hardly figures in to a voting decision.

Oil Going Back Up?

2008-08-21T13:49:00.000-07:00

The price of oil jumped back over $120/barrel again today... I'm not worried though; it's probably just a typical retracement in a significant downward trend.

If this Russia/Georgia problem gets cleared up soon, look for oil to drop down to $100 very soon.

Teresa Artohofer Is Wrong

2008-08-13T22:56:00.000-07:00

Who is Teresa Artohofer? I have no idea, but she will now be memorialized in this blog for as long as it exists for being so wilfully, blitheringly, stupidly wrong that she should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

What did she say to provoke me thus? Well, it seems that a VFW Post in Montrose, PA has a message on its answering machine for telemarketers saying, "Hi, you've reached the Montrose VFW, Post 5642. We are an English-speaking, American establishment. If you do not speak English or believe in America, please hang up."

Artohofer apparently thinks that is unconstitutional. From the article:

Teresa Artohofer of Montrose said the VFW post's message contradicts the Constitution's protection of free speech.

"Does it say English speech? It just says freedom of speech. No where in there does it say freedom of English speech. It just says, freedom of speech," Arthofer said.

Apparently Artofhofer thinks that the people at the VFW should be forced to listen to people they don't want to listen to. Apparently Artohofer doesn't realize that an answering machine can't possibly violate anyone's freedom of speech since no speech was actually restricted. Sure, people have the right to say what they want but no one has the right TO BE HEARD except a citizen addressing the government for cause.

So Ms. Artohofer, PLEASE go read the Constitution of the United States of America and point out to me the section that forces me to listen to any sort of speech that I don't care to tolerate no matter what form it comes in.

**Side note for Eleanor: I'm not an ANGRY MAN, just dumbfounded at the ignorance. ;)

None Of Them Pay Taxes!

2008-08-12T20:42:00.000-07:00

A report from Congress says that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no income tax between 1998 & 2005.

I've got news for you! Corporations don't pay income tax! It might appear that they do but the costs always get passed on to customers, or wage cuts for employees or reduced dividends for investors, etc. It always gets passed on.

When we, as individuals pay income tax, that's it; we're the end of the line. We have to reduce our budgets to compensate for it.

I suppose I'm wrong technically, we pass on the cost of our taxes to those who would otherwise receive our money in exchange for goods and services.

Taxes are mostly just a black hole. But, as the saying goes, "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for."

Where Is The Conspiracy Now?

2008-08-08T09:53:00.000-07:00

Oil prices are falling...falling...falling.

Where is the conspiracy? Who's to blame? If the oil market were really so tightly controlled, prices would stabilize high or continue to rise, not plummet from the peak of $147 to below $120 in just a few months.

There were sheiks and investors, etc. saying the hikes would continue, that it's not a bubble. So who's really controlling the market? It's just the market!

Will we return to $1/gallon gas any time soon? No. $2/gallon? Possibly. But I suspect gas will be under $3/gallon by the end of this year.

The recession is catching up, the world economy is weak, demand is being driven down and oil is falling with it. The dollar is rising at the moment which further drives down the price of oil and that should continue for a while.

Stay Tuned!

Maybe I'm Missing Something But...

2008-07-17T19:26:00.000-07:00

... if most of the environmental whackjobs are, as one would assume, also evolutionists, then they are at cross purposes in regards to this story where a scientist says that some turtles will need to be relocated because climate change is threatening their survival. Pardon me but if evolution as they see it (which is by no means a unified theory among them) is supposed to provoke species to adapt, why not just let them adapt or die? Seriously, if they can't survive on their own, they're not meant to be here right?

Same goes for the occasional beached whale. A big fuss is made, tax dollars are spent and all the hippes come to worship as they push the big floppy monsters back in to the sea. If the thing is dumb enough to get beached, maybe, according to evolutionary theory, it just needs to die off so future generations of the big floppy monsters don't do the same thing and gain better instincts as to depth and tides.

I don't buy in to evolutionary theory or TENS (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) but for those who do and yet make a huge fuss about assisting the endangered species come across as hyprocrites.

Whiners!

2008-07-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

A hearing impaired woman has filed a lawsuit in Federal court because she said a McDonald's refused to let her order food at the window and insisted that she use the microphone at the menu board.

First of all, McDonald's is PRIVATE PROPERTY. As far as I'm concerned any private property owner should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason they want to. They should not be FORCED to provide facilities to accommodate any particular class of people.

The woman in the story has no more RIGHT to order anything from McDonald's than I have to go in to her home and raid her refrigerator without her permission. They should have the absolute right to refuse service to her and/or insist that she follow their procedures for ordering.

She could have gone inside to order but nooooooooo... She says that she has autistic children and it can make it problematic for her to go inside.

Now get this part, it's important: "It's not appropriate for a hearing-impaired person to be forced to go inside because of their disability, when ... other drive-thru, fast-food restaurants have a policy to allow deaf and hard-of-hearing people to order at the drive-thru window."

Did you catch that? Other restaurants have policies that accommodate her needs but she is going to insist and subsequently try to cash in on the fact that a particular restaurant accommodate her desires.

Personally, I'd like to see this woman lose her lawsuit and be forced to pay the legal expenses McDonald's incurs for this. Furthermore, I'd like to see the American's with Disabilities Act revoked because it's cost us billions through it's sheer stupidity and it will only continue to cost us more.

What About The OTHER Nursing Services?

2008-07-15T19:46:00.001-07:00

Fox News laments the shortage of nurses in ~~public schools~~ collectivist education camps around the country.

Among the other duties that nurses have, that the story does NOT mention is that nurses frequently take junior high and high school girls to abortion clinics so they can dispose of their inconvenience without their parents finding out.

It's a crazy world we live in when a child can't be given an aspirin in school without parental consent but a girl can be taken by school personnel to end a life with no consent or notification of any kind to the parents.

How To Stop The Violence

2008-07-11T13:21:00.000-07:00

Some of you may not care about the massive amount of murders taking place south of the border. For reasons that some of you know or may have guessed, I do.

A couple of months ago, Felipe Calderón, the President of Mexico, ordered Mexican Army troops to be stationed in various areas around the country where the drug lords (narcos) were causing the most problem. When this first happened I said that using the military for internal police actions was a very bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? Because the military is trained for war, not police work. They are trained to shoot first and ask questions later. The police are supposed to have investigative skills whereby they distinguish (supposedly) the good guys from the bad guys and go after those they think are the bad ones. The military is not burdened with those distinctions; they are a blunt force instrument.

The way the Army is deployed in Culicán (and other cities I assume), they mostly serve to inhibit the flow of people through the city by means of random traffic stops and general harassment. The problem is, these guy are not trained in profiling. Most of the work is done by low ranking, relatively uneducated young men who are following a nebulous set of orders to try and identify the bad guys at the check points. Even if they manage to identify someone who MIGHT be bad, they tend to be poor and are likely to accept bribes. They are largely ineffective, however there have been conflagrations between the military and the narcos and in some cases, the Army has been very effective but it's not the norm. They've killed quite a few of the narcos and their hired assassins. The problem is, the presence of the military has escalated the problem. Why? Because the narcos refuse to intimidated by what is largely a tactic meant to do just that. The narcos are agile and decentralized. The military is, by it's very nature, cumbersome and centralized. The narcos are not in uniform, they're not wearing ID badges, they're not hiding in bunkers and military installations. They are the neighbors, friends and relatives of the people most affected by the violence.

Why should you care? First of all, I would expect that Mexicans will be abandoning their cities faster than ever and heading north to the relative safe environs of the United States. I'm not sure how to measure the effects of the violence on our illegal immigration problem but I doubt that effect is zero. Another way it effects you and I is that the violence makes it more difficult and thereby more expensive to do business there. We get a lot of our tomatoes (recently exonerated of salmonella poisoning) and other produce from the state of Sinaola. Our food prices will be affected even more than they have been already. Basic economic principles build risk in to pricing, I'll leave it to the professionals to do the mathematical models.

The other reason that we should care is that our own domestic policies are causing problems for them. We have policies that both encourage and allow massive numbers of illegals to cross our border with little in the way of consequences because it's easier for them to come here instead of stay home and face the problems in their own country and make the necessary changes.

So, what is the solution to the problem? The first step should be obvious from what I've already said. Pull the military out of the Mexican cities. That should be done immediately. Sure, the narcos will FEEL like they gained a victory but the homicides will fall dramatically because they won't need to continue their show of force. Think about this: The narcos are essentially employees in the chain of command. The bosses don't show their faces and are essentially untouchable. In some cases, the police have no clue who the top dogs are. For the most part, Sinaloa is a clearing house for drugs coming from the cocaine fields in Columbia and other countries. That means the narcos in Sinaloa are really just employees of someone else and their show of force is their way of protecting their jobs and their territories. I suspect they are more afraid of their employers than they are the police and military.

The next step then is, to make the narcos (and those that are part of their support system) MORE afraid of the government than they are of their employers. This could be done fairly quickly by establish a truly anonymous tip system. A double blind email, phone and text message system could be established fairly easily and, by comparison to other methods, inexpensively. Citizens informing on other citizens for mere suspicion generally goes against my libertarian leanings, but let's solve one problem at a time. Get the narcos afraid of being anonymously turned in. I know for a fact that as it is, many people are afraid to call the police on these people because it might be traced back to them. Many of the police are also on the payroll of the narcos; I'll get to that solution shortly. The downside to an anonymous tip system is that many innocents could and would get caught up in the system because vindictive people would report their enemies who had nothing to do with the drug trade or the violence. I'll leave it to the people of Mexico to assess that risk. A sort of triage system for tips could be established where the most serious and/or clear tips are investigated first. Professional investigators would assess the tips and decide what to act on.

What do you do about those within the police (and military) who are part of the problem? Lie detector tests! Hire a private firm from another country to administer lie detector tests to EVERY law enforcement agent in the country once every two months. This process is also subject to corruption and pay offs but a strong auditing system would help immensely. Some people are able to lie and pass the test and there are false positives too but it would be effective in rooting out the most corrupt very quickly. In fact, you'd see many personnel quit in droves before they allowed the test to be administered. Those people should be investigated immediately. I imagine they'd be beating a path straight to their other employer. Anyone who didn't pass the test should be summarily fired and quietly investigated.

The last immediate measure that should be passed is that the right to bear arms should be given to Mexican citizens. Make the narcos afraid of being fired upon by average citizens. Establish firearms training schools. Let the people have the right to protect themselves. The police are obviously not doing much on that front.

The first long term solution comes from the United States. Legalize drugs. I will not get in to all the reasons for doing this, most of which has to do with our own liberty, but it would essentially break the back of the drug cartels who would no longer have a viable business model. Their profits would drop and their power would diminish to nearly nothing. While it's true that they could still ship to other countries where it's still illegal, the US is their biggest and closest market. I realize it would not be easy to end our asinine War on Drugs but it's not impossible either.

A long term solution for Mexico would be the formation of a new political party dedicated to ending the corruption so rampant in the current system. It would take a brave group of people to do that because there is no doubt that some of them would be threatened, beat and killed by those supporting the status quo. I think they would quickly have the support of the people though and that would afford them some measure of protection. As to what other political positions they would adopt, it's hard to say; a centrist position would be best. Then they could pull the non-corrupt ones from the other parties in to their party. As with any such endeavor, this would be extremely difficult to do and they'd have setbacks and mis-starts. But it would be a place to start. Obviously the details of how to create a new political party cannot be enumerated here.

Another long term solution would be measures to bring their emigrants home. Immigration reform in the US would take care of some of that, but I imagine a combination of tax incentives for returning emigrants and those that employ them as well as educational benefits. I'm not enough of an idealist to be against some government spending with very specific time and cap limits in order to accomplish these things. If it was a matter of their government becoming less liberty oriented in the process of doing so, I wouldn't propose that, but my idea is at least neutral. Their minimum wage is next to nothing as it is or I would call for the elimination of that wage. As an aside, I'd like to see some numbers regarding the people employed outside of the taxable system because of minimum wages and regulatory burdens.

Oil, oil, oil. Currently, Pemex is the state owned gas station in Mexico. The gas prices there are subsidized and quite low (about $2/gallon). That ought to stop since they just end up paying for it in other ways along with the administrative burden of shuffling tax money around. They could increase their output and sell it to the United States. They could also form partnerships with private oil companies for more off shore drilling. This would have the effect of enriching the Mexican economy and providing more opportunities at home which would mean fewer illegal immigrants here.

I'm sure I could come up with a few other things, but what I've outlined here is the highlights; the most pressing issues. Please feel free to elaborate on your own suggestions, comments, etc. Some of it may end up reaching important people.

Even A Child Can Understand

2008-07-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure why this is news, but Fox is reporting that a 10 year old girl tried to join the football team and they told her *GASP* NO!

I was talking to Little Dif about it and asked if it was fair if a girl wasn't allowed to join a boy's football team. Her answer was of course, "It's not fair, she should be able to play if she wants to." She was assuming it's flag football. I told her it was tackle football and she would probably get hurt if she plays the way other boys play with each other. Then I asked if it was fair the boys would all probably not be able to play as rough. She decided that was less fair than it was for the girl not to be allowed on the team.

It's so simple that a seven year old can understand yet it flummoxes and discombobulates school boards, parents and feminists.

More On Mexico

2008-07-06T21:06:00.000-07:00

During my trip to Mexico, I came across something I had never seen before. There is a fruit called the litchi that I quite enjoyed. It's about the size of a large raspberry. It's got a hard outer skin that's not edible. When you bit in to it to it, the skin breaks and the juice leaks out. The inside consists of a somewhat slimy but very delicious meat that surrounds a bean sized seed. Eleanor demonstrates the proper way to to consume a litchi after the skin has been broken. Although Litchis are not known to be natural aphrodisiacs, the picture of Eleanor might give that impression. Litchis are originally from China and are grown in many places in East Asia.

Mexico could be so much more than it is. They've got income producing natural resources, a rich agricultural industry, a family oriented and relatively cohesive culture, and a population that could easily sustain much greater commercial growth. As I mentioned in my last post, they lack a history and tradition of individual liberty. Everyone wants something done about the problems of corruption and violence but not enough people stand together at any one time to do anything about it. They seem to have the collective attitude that someone will do something but they're not going to get involved. Indeed, it can be dangerous to get involved at some points. Violence amongst the drug dealers seems to be at an all time high, the military patrols the streets and people can't tell when the cops are actually working for the bad guys. It puts the individuals in a terrible position. Based on what I see, there is no reason that Mexico couldn't have the economy, industry and infrastructure that our other neighbor Canada has. The people simply have to want it bad enough to force the change. I haven't a clue what could motivate them to want it bad enough.

Back to a more positive note, a musical note as a matter of fact, Sinaloa has a type of music known as 'banda sinaloense' which sounds a lot like 20's jazz with a little Dixieland thrown in. It's fun, upbeat and easy to dance to. I'm not so sure I'd be inclined to buy a CD and listen to it in my leisure time but it certainly is fun at a big party. There are ten to twenty band members and the singers are usually a duet. The way people dance to it is interesting too. They dance fast but the man holds the woman close and has his cheek pressed up against hers. If I tried it, I'd trip and hurt both of us!

The Bathroom Rule

2008-07-03T22:11:00.001-07:00

Guys,

If you ever travel to Mexico, you'll be happy to know that urinal rule in public bathrooms is in full effect.

Ladies,

If you don't know what I'm referring to, ask a guy.

Some Comments On Mexico

2008-07-02T11:53:00.000-07:00

I've been in Mexico for the past week and every time I come down here I understand the place a little better. There's a few things that I'd like to share with you about the place.

First of all, and this is no surprise, most of the people that live here are fairly poor. By American standards, many are in abject poverty. One of the things I like about the place though is that the people are fairly entreprenurial. There are lots of road side and neighborhood businesses. When I say neighborhood businesses, I mean businesses that people run directly from their homes or directly in front of them. There's lots of food vendors, primarily tacos and hotdogs. Every neighborhood has a few little stores in it where you can buy sodas, snacks, and in some of the slightly bigger ones, normal stuff for normal meals. Still most people go to the big grocery stores for their main supply of groceries.

On the road to those grocery stores, you can see lots of street vendors. They sell food, piñatas, trinkets of all types, priated CD's and DVD's and I've even seen a few selling USB memory sticks.

Also, trucks go up and down the street selling newspapers, etc. and shouting over loudspeakers announcing their presence. The newspaper guys are especially funny; they announce headlines in the most fervent tones. My Spanish is pretty limited so I don't understand much of what they're saying but it comes across sounding like Hitler shouting political propaganda. You would have to hear it to understand. Anyone who did that in the US would be immediatley cited for disturbing the peace if the neighbors didn't pour out of their homes and lynch him first.

There is a blatant disregard for rules, regulations, building codes, health codes, etc. that makes American cities neat, clean and orderly. To a degree, it's rather refreshing. Essentially, there is a high cost to trying to do everything legitimately here because there are people to be paid off for any major and many minor undertakings. For the most part, people just don't bother; they do what they're going to do.

You'll see acrobats performing for people as the're stopped at trafic lights. I've seen fire jugglers also which is pretty cool. They live off the tips.

Food is much cheaper here than in the US. Luxury items are quite a bit more expensive. TV's, stereos, digital cameras, etc. seem to be about 10-20% higher here. Clothes are also more expensive here than the US; especially for the popular named brand stuff that's already expensive enough in the US.

Mexico's problems are not insurmountable. They don't have the culture of liberty that is woven in to the fabric of American life. They need to stop accepting the corruption so rampant at every level of government and start demanding accountability. Unfortunately and expectedly, those in the top levels of the system are adamantly opposed to changing the system that keeps them in power. Mexico could solve many of it's problems just by ridding itself of the corruption.

Another thing that would great improve Mexico is for the US to legalize drugs. The drug cartels here would disappear nearly overnight. It would be a painful transition for Mexican commerce though because much of the drug money is funneled in to legitimate businesses and communites grow.

I'll probably be saying more about all of this later.

First They Come For Your Refineries...

2008-06-19T07:28:00.000-07:00

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Dumbocrat from NY said: "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

First of all, refinery capacity is only part of the gas price problem, most if it is the price of oil before it reaches the refinery.

Now THERE's an idea! Government control over the supply of goods is always a great plan and leads to stable prices and plenty for everyone! Oops, wait.. No, the opposite is true.

Just as I told Eleanor today about an article discussing price freezes on certain food items in Mexico, such controls always lead to shortages.

Are you old enough to remember the gas lines in the Carter era? If we were to nationalize the refineries, it would make those lines look like the express lane at the grocery store.

Imagine the social tinkering that would go on if government owned the refineries! In the face of inevitable shortages, they would have the power to decide what areas got more gas and what areas got less. They'd have the power to punish certain regions who used more than their "fair share" of gas according to some arbitrary formula. They'd punish people for having SUV's, etc.

Nationalizing refineries will only lead to shortages and then nationalizing of other things to compensate for the failure of that program.

Protest Gas Prices - July 4th

2008-06-12T07:52:00.000-07:00

I have an idea for protesting high gas prices. It would take an immensely coordinated effort but it could be done.

I envision a two pronged attack.

Part 1: A massive "park in" at gas stations around America. Get the kids, pack some food and water and essentially block access to all the gas stations for an entire weekend. It would be better to start on a Friday morning but to ensure maximum participation, starting on a Saturday morning would be better. It would only take 10 to 20 cars at each gas station to make this effective. Imagine, completely blocking access to the entire nation's ability to refuel their cars!!

Part 2: This might be a little more difficult but could prove to be even more effective than Part 1. Coordinate thousands of truckers around the nation and have them park their trucks around the country in such a way that they block access to the busiest highways in the nation. In particular, I was thinking of blocking access to major freeway interchanges in Los Angles (especially around Long Beach since it's a major port for goods coming in from overseas). Imagine 2000 trucks in each city parked in groups in Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Shut down access to all the major arteries in the US. They would have to leave room for emergency vehicles to pass but a roadblock system where a few trucks can be moved to allow that access but prevent general traffic flow. Oh, we'd need to block rail access as well but that wouldn't take nearly as many trucks.

If something like this could be accomplished it would have a huge impact on gas prices. No gas purchased, no goods being shipped around the country, and law enforcement would be absolutely helpless to stop the process. There aren't enough tow truck in the country to haul away the cars and trucks that would be blocking everything. Furthermore, even if the police attempted mass arrests, they would be met with serious resistance and they would likely just monitor the situation and not attempt to remove anyone.

July 4th would be a good day to start this. It's a Friday, it's a national holiday and symbolically speaking it would be a great day for it.

The only real problem I see with this is that so many people are so complacent about everything that it would be hard to get people to participate.

We've got less than a month to get the word out. Can we do it? Post this on your blog, send it out in an email, let's get it done!

**Please note... this is not designed to get the government to "do something" about oil prices. This is a direct action by customers to let the suppliers know that we're very unhappy about what they're doing.

The Media Got It Wrong

2008-06-10T12:53:00.000-07:00

You've all heard by now that Ted Kennedy suffered from seizures and it was discovered that he had a malignant brain tumor.

I don't think you're going to find this news anywhere else but I have heard from authoritative sources that the story was reported falsely.

The tiny lump that they removed from his skull was really his brain and the only healthy tissue he had. It turns out that Ted Kennedy is malignant!

After years of suppression by alcohol and strangling our freedoms, his brain attempted to assert itself but it was too late. Now the malignancy is complete since his brain has been removed. I can only hope that this trauma (meaning Ted, not the seizures) has now been rendered incapable of inflicting any more damage on the American people by the heroic and ultimately fatal efforts of his brain.

Why God Is A Libertarian

2008-06-06T08:05:00.000-07:00

MikeT over at CodeMonkeyRamblings has written a post called Why God is not a libertarian.

Make sure you read his other related posts about why God is not a liberal or conservative.

For a long time I've been meaning to write a post on why God IS a libertarian (note the small L) so I'm going to answer Mike's replies line by line then add some things by myself.

Before I continue, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to stuff God in to my political philosophy but rather explain why libertarianism is closer to God's ideal for us than conservatism or liberalism.

Libertarians tend to believe that what you do in the privacy of your own home is no one else's business. God not only disagrees with this, but active conducts surveillance of said "private conduct between consenting adults" and makes legal judgments about that behavior.

Libertarians object to other, very flawed people making it their business what you do behind closed doors. Christian libertarians (like myself) believe that since God made us He can do as he pleases in regards to our lives. Those libertarians that are not Christians have bigger things to worry about than individual sins that others are not privy to.

Libertarians tend to not believe that those with money have any obligation to those that are poor and struggling to make it. God commands believers to feed and clothe the poor. This is problematic to libertarians because if one is not a believer, one is going to Hell.

Only the most ardent follower of Ayn Rand would believe that we have no obligation to the poor. Libertarians assert that giving to the poor is, as the Bible says and individual responsibility and that giving should be from one's heart. God says nothing about having your wages forcibly taken from you and handed over to the poor. Libertarians have no objection to voluntary charity.

Libertarians often oppose the death penalty. God imposed the death penalty for something like sixteen different offenses that ranged from saying bad things about God, to homicide.

By all means, show me where in the New Testament that the death penalty is applicable. I go back and forth on this issue to be honest. On the one hand there are some people that just need to die. On the other hand, I don't really trust the state to have the power of death and use it wisely or judiciously.

Libertarians believe that every individual is sovereign. God says that only He is sovereign, and any sovereignty you have is directly delegated from Him, for His purposes, not to just make you a "sovereign citizen" or something to that effect.

Agreed, but with reservations. Libertarianism never addresses anything beyond the civil realm. It neither denies nor promotes the concept of God. Conservatism purports to govern according to God's laws and to put the force of government behind such. Liberalism actively denies God and actively attempts to squelch Christianity in particular because it's a threat to that philosophy. More on this in a bit.

Libertarians tend to be vehemently opposed to the use of weapons of mass destruction. God has been known to rain down heaping quantities of "indiscriminate mass destruction" on populations that have royally pissed Him off. Where conservatives might nuke Iran for a few small insurgencies around the Middle East and getting nukes, God "nuked" a few cities for engaging in sexual debauchery.

Libertarians are opposed to man using that kind of force against other men at their whim. Do you trust others with nukes? I know I don't. God's judgment is perfect, ours is not.

Libertarians believe that government exists to keep us safe from criminals and foreign invaders and protect our rights. They also say that it cannot stop doing this. God has been known to not only withdraw his protection, but use foreign invaders as a big stick to whack His people with really, really hard.

Now here is where you are dead wrong. No libertarian I know thinks that it's up to the government to keep us safe or protect our rights in any proactive sense. The proper role of government is to adjudicate accusations of violations of our rights and protect us in the event of invasion. If it just happens to be that God sends invaders to conquer us, then we will be unable to defend our borders and your point is moot.

Libertarians believe that animals have no rights. God gave animals a right to rest on the sabbath, and said that a righteous man will have regard for the life of his animals. We all know what happens to men who aren't righteous in God's opinion... (hint: a decidedly non-libertarian outcome)

Believing that animals have no rights is not the same as believing that it's OK to be cruel to animals. And yes, God says to let your beasts of burden rest on the Sabbath as well.

**I'll add more to this later when I have time.

But He'll Gladly Steal From You

2008-06-04T07:52:00.000-07:00

Democrat John Driscoll has won a Montana Democratic Primary without raising a dime of campaign contributions.

From the story:

Driscoll had vowed not to raise any money and said he'd be "perfectly happy" if he lost and "absolutely delighted" if Hunt won. But he's running anyway because he feels strongly that the federal government is corrupt, and money in politics is one of its worst vices.

All well and good but he's a Democrat which effectively means that he's not willing to accept voluntary contributions but he's more than willing to wrest money away from hard working Americans and give it to other groups of Americans without regard to actual merit.

How noble!

And Good Riddance

2008-06-02T17:54:00.000-07:00

A recent high school graduate (a valedictorian as a matter of fact) and his mother are scheduled to be deported to Armenia because their application for asylum has been rejected.

I have no idea whether their asylum claim has any merit and I'm sure some people with legitimate claims have those applications rejected, but the fact of the matter is, those people are here illegally and that student used tax payer funds to receive his education.

But, but, he worked so hard to get to the top of his class, he should be allowed to stay! Why? Because he studied hard? He was here illegally, his mother should be reimbursing the state for his education. Granted, it is a public school, so it's tough to say just how much of an education he got but the principal stands, he had no business being there.

Homosexual Rights

2008-06-01T13:36:00.000-07:00

I truly don't understand why the "homosexual rights" movement even exists. A very small fraction of the population is attracted to their own sex rather than the opposite sex as God (or even evolution if you believe that) intended.

You don't see straight people running around proclaiming their straightness and forming organizations for straight people. Really, I'd love to see some college campus groups form some heterosexual clubs just to goad the militant homosexuals.

Back to the topic at hand though. Why should any group of people be forcing their agenda down my throat based on their sexual predilections? As much as I think it's immoral for two men or two women to have sex, I really don't care what they do; I just don't want to hear about it. I don't want to outlaw it, restrict it, regulate it or politicize it in any way. It should be a non-issue!

Somehow, we have so little else to do in this country that we're spending our time and energy making sure that the government can force us to acknowledge and accept the immoral behavior of these people. If I own a business and offer spousal benefits, I can be forced to give those same benefits to a same-sex couple. Honestly, I'd rather stop offering spousal benefits.

Really though, it's unlikely that I would hire someone I knew was gay simply because of the likelihood of that person causing trouble and trying to sue me if I fired him/her for other reasons. For the same reason, I'd be hesitant to hire a black person that came across as the least bit militant.

My question is this: How do we fight back against the homosexual agenda? We get labeled as bigots and homophobes when we try. I don't really care about that, the problem is, we're not fighting for something, but against it and that's a much more difficult thing to do. Furthermore, most straight people don't really spend much time thinking about the fact that their straight nor do we have much inclination to become activists for it.

Help me flesh this out, what does a pro-heterosexual social movement look like? I'm open to suggestions.

The Crazy English Language

2008-05-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

The native speakers of any language don't always give a lot of thought the construction of the language itself. I came across this item and I wanted to share it with you. Those of who grew up speaking English have no trouble pronouncing these words the right way but it must be a nightmare for those who have learned English later.

Dedicated to Eleanor:

The bandage was wound around the wound.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present ..
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why don't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

PS. - Why doesn't "Buick" rhyme with "quick"?

There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is up.

It's easy to understand up, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake up? At a meeting, why does a topic come up? Why do we speak up and why are the officers up for election and why is it up to the secretary to write up a report?
We call up our friends. And we use it to brighten up a room, polish up the silver, we warm up the leftovers and clean up the kitchen. We lock up the house and some guys fix up the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir up trouble, line up for tickets, work up an appetite, and think up excuses. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed up is special.

And this up is confusing: A drain must be opened up because it is stopped up. We open up a store in the morning but we close it up at night.

We seem to be pretty mixed up about up! To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of up, look the word up in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes up almost 1/4th of the page and can add up to about thirty definitions. If you are up to it, you might try building up a list of the many ways up is used. It will take up a lot of your time, but if you don't give up, you may wind up with a hundred or more.

When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding up. When the sun comes out we say it is clearing up. When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things up. When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry up.

One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it up, for now my time is up, so.......... it is time to shut up .....!

Oh . . one more thing: What is the first thing you do in the morning & the last thing you do at night? u-p

Suicidal SUV

2008-05-26T13:34:00.001-07:00

Under the pressure of increased gas prices, it must have lost its will to live:

LOS ANGELES — One person has been killed and four others injured when an SUV tumbled down a steep slope in the Hollywood Hills.

Fire Department spokesman Brian Humphrey says the passenger car went off the road just before 8 a.m. Monday in Laurel Canyon. The car plunged between 75 and 100 feet down a hillside and came to rest upside down against a carport.

Humphrey says a man in his 70s was trapped in the vehicle and died at the scene. Four others were taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, including a 1-year-old boy with moderate injuries. A woman in her 30s was in grave condition.

It wasn't immediately known who was driving the vehicle or if the victims were related.

Expect More of This

2008-05-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

I think the public might be starting to wise up when it comes to murdering citizens. Two police in Long Beach, CA were trying to subdue a man who was acting erratically (not a crime the last time I checked). They could not subdue him with batons and supposedly these officers feared for their lives and one of the shot the man several times and killed him.

Apparently the crowd didn't care for this behavior by the cops and they had to call for backup because they thought they might get attacked by the people they are supposed to "serve and protect."

The story doesn't say why the man was acting sporadically, there is no mention of him being on drugs, etc. but it also doesn't say he was suspected of any type of crime. Not that i trust the court of public opinion that much but it takes quite a bit to get a group of otherwise peaceful citizens to get riled up against the police.

Maybe it won't be too long now before a couple of cops get a full public beat down for an unjustified shooting.

I've no doubt the police will find it was a fully justified shooting and the cops will escape any discipline. In the mean time, the shooter will get a paid vacation while there is an "investigation."

Interesting Tidbit

2008-05-18T02:02:00.000-07:00

I discovered today that Lysol removes pine sap from your hands rather quickly. Have you ever tried to wash that stuff off? If you had enough of that stuff on your hands, you could be Spiderman; it's horrible.

Soap never gets rid of pine sap and there just happened to be a can of Lysol sitting on the bathroom sink (infer from that what you will) and figured I might as well give it a shot. Not only did it get rid of the pine sap, it left my hands smelling country fresh! Actually, I rinsed it off, so not really.

Sometime over the summer, half a dozen of you are going to get pine sap on your hands (or in your kids hair) during some outdoor adventure and you'll be wracking your brains for hours trying to remember what it was Dif recommended to remove that stuff.

The End of Ted Kennedy?

2008-05-17T11:57:00.000-07:00

We can only hope! Far be it from me to wish for another man's death or illness however I cannot say I'm terribly sorry that he has had a couple of strokes. If that moron doesn't have the opportunity to cast one more vote or introduce one more piece of legislation, I'll be very happy.

I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne's parents are thrilled at the prospect that he might be in the hospital suffering.

It might be the end of Ted Kennedy but I'm sure who ever replaces him won't be much better.

An Elite Force of...

2008-05-14T15:34:00.000-07:00

BAKERS!

Following up on the post before last titled "Why Would They?" it looks like the OPEC nations won't even help one of their own. Egypt, a predominately Muslim nation that does not have the oil money that the Emirates have doesn't really care to help out their Islamic neighbor.

In response to the food crisis in Egypt, the Egyptian Army has been called to to bake and distribute bread according to a story on Fox.

With the Egyptian Army tied up in the kitchen, maybe now would be a good time for Israel to storm the Gaza Strip and retake it from Hamas since Egypt is too preoccupied to help defend it. An army travels on its stomach.

Election Thoughts

2008-05-12T11:48:00.001-07:00

I was talking with a friend of mine over the weekend and we were discussing the possibilities for McCain's VP choice. We really couldn't think of anyone that could run with him that wouldn't hurt his campaign. Then a name popped in to my head and it seems to make sense. Joe Lieberman.

In the interest of full disclosure, the previous prediction for VP didn't exactly turn out the way it should have. In all fairness though, I never expected that McCain would end up with the GOP nomination. Giuliani was the presumptive nominee back at that time and even Romney seemed more viable.

Back to Lieberman. A cross party ticket with a very moderate Democrat could be a great step for McCain who is basically a liberal. It would make sense from a strategic standpoint. He'd siphon a lot of votes away from Hillary/Obama (But I still think Hillary will pull out a victory). As my friend pointed out though, you can't exactly rely on people like McCain to do what makes sense. He's just another Bob Dole and unlikely to end up actually being the President so it may not matter who is VP is. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he chooses a VP specifically to torpedo his campaign so Hillary wins.

In other news, former Republican Bob Barr is now running running for President on the Libertarian ticket. So, I will dare to make another prediction! I expect that after the Rethuglican nomination officially goes to the aforementioned liberal Republican, Ron Paul will publicly endorse Bob Barr.

I think the best thing to do is just to forget about all of this nonsense and make me dictator for 4 years. Give me the power to make a new Constitution and wipe out all existing laws and legal precedents and we'll be in good shape after that! Kelo? Gone! Roe v. Wade? A bad memory. Dept. of Education? Well, it never served its purpose anyway. You get the drift.

Maybe you should all just contact Bob Barr, I'll settle for being his VP.

Why Would They?

2008-05-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

The Secretary General of the United Nations is criticizing the wealthy OPEC countries for not giving enough money to the U.N.'s World Food Program.

First of all, why would Muslim countries give a ton of money to an organization they consider under the control of the infidel? Do you really think the OPEC nations are part of the U.N. because they agree with the overall mission of that organization? No, it's purely political. In fact, I'd guess that those countries have a more realistic view of the U.N. than our own government. We've managed to trick ourselves in to believing that it's a useful and necessary organization.

My second point doesn't have so much to do with the OPEC nations but why should the U.N. or any other governmental authority be in charge of solving the world food crisis. ESPECIALLY given the fact that any prolonged food crises we have is purely political in nature. The abuses and mismanagement by the U.N. are well documented and utterly appaling. Then we want to put them in charge of solving a fake food crises they helped create?

The idea that governments need to take money from its own citizens and send it to citizens of other countries is ludicrous on its face. I'm all for individuals giving of their own volition. In fact, American's are the most charitable people on the face of the Earth! We don't need the government to tell us to help other nations in trouble. Besides that, when governments help other governments, there are always strings attached. The junta regime in Burma is rightly (in a political sense only) rejecting most of the help from the U.N. and especially the United States.

Let's get out of the UN altogether.

***UPDATE***

I just had an additional thought on the subject. When money is taken from taxpayers and used to buy food that would not otherwise have been purchased by the market, it drives prices up. This is because the surplus that would exist without the government purchases would have been sold at a cheaper price because demand would have been down. Therefore, this stupid U.N. organization to solve the world hunger crisis once again, only makes things worse.

A Strange Alliance

2008-05-08T13:19:00.001-07:00

I wouldn't normally find myself agreeing with a Muslim wanting to practice her religion in a public school however...

In Germany, a Muslim family sued to keep their daughter out of swim lessons because of Islamic indecency rules. If this happened in the U.S. I wouldn't have much sympathy for the family at all because they'd have the option of just pulling the girl out of school and educating her the way they want to. From the article: "The court sided with the school, saying that the state’s responsibility to educate the girl outweighed an infringement on her religious freedom."

Another way to say that is: "Too bad mom and dad, we really own your children and we will do as we please with them no matter what you want."

Why do I care? I have no interest in this particular family. However, we need to keep watch because we're headed that direction here. A California court ruling that is now under review would have basically made criminals of all parents homeschooling their children. It will probably get overturned.

As a nation, we're increasingly coming under the impression that we, and our children are the property of the government. We let the government assert authority over us it has not historically had nor should it ever have. How long will it be before bringing your kids up as Believer's and rejecting government indoctrination will be seen as a crime? Based on what's going on in Texas, I say it won't be long.

Unintended Consequences

2008-05-07T15:17:00.000-07:00

I have no hard data to back this up but I suspect that people are driving slower, using cruise control more and generally not stomping on the gas pedal due to the significant increase in gas prices lately. All well and good for safety but there will be some unintended consequences to higher gas prices and slower drivers.

Municipalities will start losing revenue they have counted on from speedy drivers. I predicts cities will start raising taxes in order to compensate for this (God forbid they should cut their budgets!) They will also start raising the fines to start compensating for the loss.

Insurance companies will make bigger profits because accidents will be reduced due to people driving at safer speeds. The insurance companies will of course be criticized for making more profit during an economically difficult time.

Slower cars mean more actual hours driven which means more smog which will drive the EcoFreaks up a wall. The will continue to spout their global warming nonsense of course but they'll call for extra taxes to compenste for the additional pollution.

These are just a few of the things I can think of at the moment. Any other ideas?

BREAKING NEWS

2008-05-06T13:17:00.001-07:00

I have it from a reliable source that a bomb ~~has exploded~~ was found in downtown Culicán, Sinaloa, Mexico. More details as I get them.

**Update**
Oddly enough, there is a story here that says that 70% of calls to the bomb squad in Culicán are false alarms.

**Update II**
A bomb was found, not exploded. Dang, I thought I had my first actual news break!

As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say..... "NEVERMIIIIIND"

Denied!

2008-05-06T12:33:00.000-07:00

FoxSnooze is reporting that a town in New Jersey has denied the request of a female police officer to be on light duty while she is pregnant.

They're not being as difficult as it sounds. The city says that the woman can take an unpaid leave of absence if she wants to. I have little doubt there will be a lawsuit over this issue but let's look at it a little closer.

The woman voluntarily became a police officer which she knew was a physically demanding at the very least not to mention dangerous. The woman also chose to have sex and risk pregnancy. It would be easy to say that if someone was injured, on or off the job, they should be allowed to be on light duty during the recovery period. The analogy fails though because pregnancy is a common and predictable outcome of sexual activity. Likewise, if a cop injured himself by racing down hills while riding in a shopping cart, his employer should not be forced to pay him for duties he's not peforming while recovering from his very predictable injuries resulting from reckless behavior.

Sure, the town could CHOOSE to put her on light duty and they should have a clear and consistent policy in regards to temporary disability and recovery periods. If they choose to allow anyone injured for any reason to be put on light duty then fine. But to make an exception for pregnancy is really not equal treatment if men cannot go on light duty for temporary disabilities also.

I'm sure the feminists will be howling mad over this one, but the fact is, she's expecting special treatment, not equal treatment.

Just to be clear, I believe employers and employees should have an absolute right to freedom of association. That means an employee can leave a job for any reason and an employer can hire or fire anyone for any reason. Employment is a contract for exchange of labor between two parties. If the two parties agree to the terms, then the contract is made. If the contract specifies reasons for terminating the contract or places prohibitions on those reasons, that's fine too. But an employee or company should not be forced to retain an employee they no longer desire to employ for reasons not agreed to by both parties.

Maybe

2008-05-04T16:13:00.000-07:00

I've been chuckling about this for days. The Spanish word for "maybe" is "quizás."

In Spanish, "qui" is pronounced like "key." The letter 'z' in Spanish is pronounced more like an 's'.

The end result is that 'quizás' is pronounced "keys as" but when I hear it, it actually comes across as "kiss ass."

Worker: "Hey boss! Can I get a raise?"

Spanish speaking boss: "Quizás."

HAHAHAAH - Like I said, I've been laughing about that for days.

SPAM Can Be Amusing

2008-05-02T06:54:00.000-07:00

I usually at least review the subject line of my SPAM before I delete it from the bulk mail folder just in case anything legit manages to get through.

This morning the subject of one was: Swanky items for your impeccable lifestyle!

I just thought that was amusing. What impeccable individual things, "Gee, I want something swanky today!"

I'm not sure why I thought that was funny; you probably don't. I don't care.