Righteous Rantings

Moved To New Location!

2011-04-03T22:01:00.003-04:00

Kindly follow the link to my new address at:

Please subscribe using the button on the left there, or simply add me to your bookmarks.

I've enjoyed being here, but I had to move on after the latest post was such a pain to format (and I still couldn't get it right...).

See you soon!

Obama's Die Hard Fanclub

2011-03-31T01:54:00.006-04:00

I routinely venture outside of the right-wing side of the political blogsphere because I like to hear both sides of the story, I like to know what the other side is thinking, and I enjoy watching the antics of the left when things don’t go their way. Dante's Virgil might not approve of that last one, but nothing lends weight to an argument like a disgruntled opposition. I frequently peruse sites like Democratic Underground, Fire Dog Lake, Daily Kos, and Think Progress. (Don’t worry, I’ve had my shots.) The first two are different from the others in that they are consistent. When anyone does something that they disapprove of, they say so. There is no hemming and hawing about the “nuance”, “special considerations”, or “circumstances”. Someone did something they view as “bad”? They’ll say so. Obama doesn’t get a pass with them. I have frequently read many a post on those two sites that brings considerable ire in the comments sections to bear on him and his underlings for various actions or lack thereof on many an issue. It is now to the point that declarations of “he’s on his own come 2012” are quite common and seconded ad Nauseum. I appreciate consistency and I applaud them for sticking to their guns and their convictions in regards to what they think America should or shouldn’t do next. I don’t always agree with them (rarely, in fact), but I can respect a group that doesn’t carry water blindly for “their guy”. And then there’s Daily Kos. The term “die hard” comes readily to mind when describing their support of Obama. Witness this post that denounces Obama and the resulting comments that follow (Language Warning). I am unfortunately unable to find a certain thread I read earlier, but apparently I’m not alone. The Kos Kids frequently bemoan the in-site search engine’s notorious inefficiency, and my search is no exception. Anyhoo, the thread by a certain “wolverinethad” was a response to another frequenter who had evidently lambasted Obama and his administration for various shortcomings (perhaps it was a response to the above linked thread?). The thread generated an impressive amount of comments (over 750!) and the vast majority of them were supportive and rather “cheerleader-ish” in nature. Of course, there were a few dissenters who were asking how progressives could possibly see the Obama administration and it’s many failings as a good thing or “positively transformative”. There was an interesting exchange (dang it, I wish I could find that thread!) between two commenters that summed up the whole of the 750+ comments into two distinct distillations of thought: Comment #1 (paraphrased) The buck doesn’t stop with the president, it stops with the people. That’s a democracy. (This was widely praised and rather nicely sums up the majority’s feelings on that site.) Comment #2 (again, paraphrased)We hired him to do a job. If I hire someone and have to keep on him/her to competently discharge the duties of that job, I’ll be looking for a replacement ASAP. Comment #1’s gist was that the progressives need to keep on Obama and the Congressional Left to accomplish anything of substance. That without the constant support and cajoling, the whole organization will naturally return to it’s default position of rampant compromise and unadulterated complacency. I shouldn’t have to explain the thought behind Comment #2. (Sadly, Comment #2 was in the minority and may find more welcome companions at Democratic Underground and Fire Dog Lake. Too bad; they made a lot of sense…) I think I see a problem for continued support of the line of reasoning behind Comment #1. Essentially, what the hard core Obamatons are doing is providing politically for Obama what the government did financially for Wall Street in ’08 and ’09: They are allowing him to capitalize his profits (wins) and socialize his losses (defeats). When he does something that they approve of, it’s: “Yay! See? Obama is the coolest!” When he does something that they don’t like, we see: “’We didn’t help him enough’, ‘we should’ve pushed harder’, and ‘we slept though the battle!’” Political wins bring congratulations and more than one exclamation of “credit where credit is due”, while defeat generates self-flagellation and an almost complete lack of accountability for Obama and his cabinet. This is dangerous for the left as it can (and will) be used against them in the future. Accountability was a big feature in the then-incoming presidency (and Congress too, incidentally), or so we were told. Transparency, honesty, and so on were highly regarded and promised to all as a complete departure from the previous administration under Bush. I will also mention in closing that there has been a distinctly low amount of coverage on Daily Kos about Obama’s Libyan Adventurism. I wonder why. "What we are missing, utterly and completely, in this government is accountability." ~ Paul Hawken

Obama, Present and Accounted For

2011-03-14T12:58:00.003-04:00

President Present sure has had his hands full lately hasn’t he?

He’s had to vote present on a whole lot of things these past couple of years, but it seems like recently he has increased his work load to include even the more “big ticket” items.

The Budget?

Present.

Egypt?

Present.

Libya?

Present.

Wisconsin?

“Assault on Unions” aside? Present.

Why that poor man has been so busy that it was recently reported that a staffer had overheard him say something to the effect of, “It would be easier to be the President of China.” That glorious personage probably doesn’t have to listen to quite as much criticism of his job, that lucky scamp!

I’m just glad that we pay him $400,000 a year in salary to handle all this tough Perfect Presidential Attendance. The only thing I ever got Perfect Attendance in was Wines and Spirits class in cooking college. Yes, really. I know first hand how difficult it can be to show up day after day to perform the grueling task of just being there.

That poor bastard.

At least he got a break from all that relentless physical existence by speaking recently against bullying in schools. He confided to the Nation that he too had been bullied as a child. He shared with us that his large ears and “funny name” were natural lightning rods for derision and ridicule. Now it’s his large deficit and funny economic policies that attract the slings and arrows of outrageously outrageous outrage.

He just can’t win, can he?

In other matters relevant to Obama, he recently fired the spokesman of the State Department P. J. Crowley for his vocal criticisms of the treatment of Bradley Manning by the Department of Defense. This went over wonderfully with his base as one might expect. A quick jaunt through Democratic Underground and FireDogLake show the esteemed readership there to be in polite disagreement with the White House’s actions.

It would appear as well that they too are noticing this trend towards the taking on of greater Sustainable Static Existential Responsibility within the Oval Office.

In the words of my father:

“If I didn’t think he despised me as much as I despise him, I might feel sorry for the guy”.

30 Round Magazine Ban?

2011-02-02T00:49:00.001-05:00

Let me just start out by saying that the whole thing seems wrong in my gut. When my friend called one day soon after the Tucson shootings to ask me what I thought on this matter, I had to admit that I didn’t like it. I kept going back to something Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show about something else when he referenced the story of some jackass, a frozen turkey, and oncoming traffic as pertaining to why we have fences on almost every single bridge that goes over a road in this country:

“This is why we can’t have nice things.”

So one degenerate goes and uses a 30 round magazine (See that? That's right proper English Language Definition, that is. Try it some time, MSM) to kill 6 people and attempt the assassination of an elected official and now we must all be punished. While I understand the strongest argument of the proponents of this measure in that such an item does in fact make it easier to simply spray wantonly into a crowd of people, I can also think of at least one other thing that we have that defies legitimization:

Cars that can go over 100 mph in a country that has 80 as the highest known (to this writer) speed limit.

Try legislating against this and you’ll see a bi-partisan effort mounted to stop you complete with the speech, “Sure, only a ridiculously small percentage of Americans go to the track and legally race their cars at speeds in excess of normal speed limits, but this is America and they can do so if they like!”

Yeah, it’s not what I like to do, but it is legal at a race track, and some folks really go in for that sort of thing. Kinda like some folks just love to go blow 30 rounds downrange to let off steam. Funny thing is, one of these things has a higher death toll than the other. Care to wager a guess as to which one?

If your primary argument for considering the banishment of anything is that your opponent can’t think of a single legitimate use for said item that satisfies you, then maybe you should review your premise and start over. Just my opinion, but I stand by it.

To view this from another direction, allow me to tell you about my EDC. An EDC for those of you who aren’t “hip” to my lingo, is one’s Every Day Carry. I consider my EDC to be more than just one handgun. It’s the whole set-up or “rig” in Firearm Enthusiast parlance. I carry a Glock 21sf on my right (strongside) hip, a Glock 30 in crossdraw on my left (weakside) hip, and a spare G21 magazine behind that. I carry other things daily as well, but let’s focus on the guns here.

I have modified my G21 magazines to hold 2 more rounds than the factory magazines can hold (13+2=15). I used extensions that can be easily purchased online for a small amount of money. All three of my G21 magazines now hold 15 rounds apiece. Additionally, due to Gaston Glock’s genius, these magazines can be inserted into the G30 as a reload to give a 15 round capacity to a gun that ordinarily holds 10 (+1 in the chamber). This means that:

EVEN WITH THE BAN, I CAN HOLD 30 ROUNDS IN TWO GUNS AND SPRAY DEATH INTO A CROWD.

In fact, I could be more dangerous in such a situation because I have two delivery systems instead of just one. Take one away, and I’m still spraying death. And before you snidely suggest that we simply ban the practice of carrying two guns, stop and think for a second. How would you enforce such a law? The Police have better things to do than ask everyone they meet if they’re carrying two guns. Plus, people can say anything to an Officer of the Law or just shake their head "no" and keep going. Such a law would see it's vast application After The Fact realistically speaking. A Perp shot up a store and killed three people? He also had a second gun on him? Charge him with the extra law to lengthen the sentence. It didn’t stop or prevent anything, but it gave the Police more things to charge the Bad Guy with AFTER the Bad Guy Deed was committed.

Helpful, huh?

All in all, this proposed ban is just a pleasant looking Band-aid on a very unpleasant Sucking Chest Wound. It will stop no one from committing heinous acts of inhumanity, nor will it prevent the use of high-capacity magazines in the commission of crimes. Felons can’t own guns legally, but they still get them somehow. Their criminals, ya know. They do criminal things from time to time.

I would be much more open to ideas that keep guns out of the hands of maniacs like Jared Lee Laughner. Like making it a part of the process to receive your Federal Firearms License (FFL; required to buy/sell firearms commercially) that you have to take a class on profiling like the airports in Israel use to find terrorists and other assorted Bad Guys BEFORE they get on the plane. Must work well, there has never been a single hijacking in the several decades of Israel's existence.

What I’m not open to is the outright banning of inanimate objects simply because some low-life decided to use one to commit a mindless act of violence. Blame the human, not the tool.

As to Laughner? Well, I propose a law that all his (and any future assassin's) “writings” both tangible and electronic should be stacked into a big pile at the bottom of a pit with him on top. Put 3 dirt-cheap .22LR rounds in his skull and light the whole thing on fire. Don’t “study” any of it. He’s crazy. Don’t immortalize him. He’s not worth it. Don’t acknowledge anything from him as anything but what we must all reject in our civil society. And when the fire goes out, fill in the hole and salt the Earth.

Just sayin’…

The MSA, a Girl, and the Law

2010-05-13T12:09:00.004-04:00

You know, it occurs to me after seeing this video that there is something very wrong going on.

The open display of Hostile Intent as witnessed by anyone who watches this is indicative of a larger threat. The vocal admission of hatred and intolerance seen here demonstrates a clear and present danger to our society.

I want you to imagine that the man at the podium is not a Jew, but a Black American discussing Segregation and other related topics, and the questioner is not a Muslim college girl, but a southern White man. Now imagine the reaction that would be felt the nation over were the White man to profess his hatred of the Blacks and wish for their eventual removal from the Earth with a transparent statement of “For it.”

This girl’s open and disturbingly honest (she didn’t even blink) answer to an equally open and honest question is the smoke, and to me, that is the proof of a fire.

That fire must be found and extinguished.

The question regarding the extent of our Freedom of Speech begins to arise. How far can someone go before they have committed a crime that is recognizable by society as a whole? Not just by one part, or some, but easily condemned by everyone as “Evil” and therefore punishable by the Law. Has this girl committed such an act?

No she has not.

As deplorable as it may be, the admission of moral support to any cause, however sick and twisted, is not a crime. One may profess one’s love for any idea however wretched and decrepit without fear of reprisal by the Law. It is actions that concern the Law, and it is action that galvanizes a society to protect itself.

While the video above can be described as “Galvanizing”, it is not the scene of a crime. So who is the true culprit here?

This girl referred to the Muslim Student Association (MSA) not with the neutral “it” but rather with the inclusive “we”. She is a part of the MSA. She even demonstrated this inclusion by disclosing the fact that no one helps with the cost of their annual “Hitler Youth Rallies” (her words). Further, her question is not only requesting detailed explanations concerning alleged connections between her College Club (the MSA) and Terrorist Organizations, but also she is doing so in an obviously defensive and dismissively sarcastic manner.

This eliminates the ability for us to reflexively write her off as an “Individual”, a “Lone Wolf”, or an “Outsider”. The possibility of her being a “Rogue” is possible, but I do not think that this is the case, as I hope to show. Regardless, it is safe to assume that she is someone’s apparatchik. A puppet led by strings from above. She is a symptom, not the disease, and I am more than willing to propose for the sake of argument that she is not alone.

So my next question is where did she receive her indoctrination? How did she become so filled with hatred for the Jews? I posit that the MSA had something to do with it. Between her jarring answer and Mr. Horowitz’s statements describing previous experiences with the same group on other UC campuses (and I’ll show that they are in other places as well), it would seem that they were instrumental in the fomenting of her naked aggression.

Other sources lend weight to this idea, and I would remind you that this videographed incident did not take place in a vacuum.

The fact that Faisal Shahzad, notorious for his attempt to bomb Times Square in New York, attended the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut from 2000 to 2005 is one of those supporting sources. You see, the University’s own website proudly shows the MSA to be one of their Registered College Clubs.

You don’t suppose that a man born and raised in Pakistan to a Muslim family that later came to America would join something like the Muslim Student’s Association in college would you? I would.

Am I saying that the MSA might have something to do with the attempted bombing of Times Square?

If the girl in the video is any indication of what “rolls off the assembly line”, I doubt that they would argue much with the motivations necessary for such a horrific act.

This whole thing reminds me of a case that happened in 1970. A man was put on trial for murder, but not for any actual killing committed by him personally. He was a charismatic leader who convinced his “Family” to do it for him. That man was found guilty.

His name was Charles Manson.

He is currently living in the California Penal System, and every year, they bring him out to verify for the world to see that he is in fact still crazy, hateful, and perfectly willing to continue killing. California, to its credit, will never parole Charles Manson. No one who is right in the head thinks that he has any business out among the rest of us.

Mostly due to his existence as an Indelible Image of Evil, I imagine.

To sum it up, I think that it is time for the Federal Government to begin investigating certain groups to see if they have violated the law by doing the same thing. By preaching their particular brands of hatred to our impressionable youth, they are creating in effect thousands of potential seeds. The greater the number of seeds planted, the greater the chance of another Times Square attempt, another Oklahoma City Bombing, or another murdered abortion doctor.

Was Faisal Shahzad in the MSA? Did the MSA steer him in the direction of Radical Islam? If so, should the MSA or the responsible individuals within that organization face a Grand Jury on murder charges using the precedence that convicted Charles Manson? Can any organization in this country that promotes hatred and violence towards any other sub-section of society be held accountable for it’s evil teachings?

I don’t know.

But someone should find out, and soon…

Dear Devoted Readers

2009-08-06T06:05:00.003-04:00

I have decided to end any further writing on this site.

I haven't written anything since July 4th, and that fact has been bugging me ever since. In all fairness to you, my readers (all glorious 3 of you), I will cease any activity on this site effective immediately.

I am currently working on a project that I hope will impact politics in this country with a friend of mine. He and I will be devoting our time and efforts solely to it's success, and as such, we cannot afford the distraction of attempting to write about the "Daily Grind" of American Politics.

I appreciate your dedication in following me, and I want to thank you for your kind words of encouragement during my brief tenure as an amateur journalist.

I may from time to time write something here about the project and give you the "inside scoop" as to it's progress, but that will not be for some time.

Thanks again, and God bless you all.

Goodbye...

...for now.

-Evil Monk

“The secret to a rich life is to have more beginnings than endings.” ~ David Weinbaum

Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T04:02:00.004-04:00

I will offer you today no inspiring words or stories, the muse is not upon me. However, I will give you my best wishes for you and your family on this, our country's 233rd birthday!

Now, on to the news:

So, Palin has resigned as Governor. Wow. Her interesting and vague statement regarding "lame-ducks" as a reason for her decision is...

...bizarre.

Aside from my belief that the retired writers of the now defunct "Guiding Light" have begun to write the script for American Politics, I am thoroughly surprised by this move from Alaska's erstwhile Governor.

After only a little over 30 months in office, and a particularly vicious Vice-Presidential run, she is effectively throwing in the towel. From Wasilla, we hear a resounding "No Mas!"

Why? I suppose that I must give some credence to the theory that a scandal of Alaskan proportions is looming, but most politicians prefer to ride out storms as opposed to simply abandoning ship before they hit. Perhaps it is to give her constituents a Governor who has less distractions from lawsuits and media coverage. Maybe the weight of her family is finally taking it's toll. We may never know.

Regardless of these thoughts, I feel that her action here is a dereliction of duty. While I have never been her greatest fan, I have always respected her as a tough person who has taken quite a beating in the public eye and continued to smile throughout. This move may forever taint (in my eyes at least) her image as a consistent and dependable leader.

She was elected by the Alaskan People to lead them, and now she has, for whatever reason, decided to abandon them. Perhaps if her explanation was a little more detail and reason, and a little less vague and mysterious, my opinion would be different. As it stands though...

Oh well, as Charles Krauthammer said, she's young, and she'll be back.

But will her supporters?

In other news, I have to weigh in on Mark Sanford and his self imposed Catastrophic Kill of his career (and family).

I have heard some defend politicians in general and their sex scandals. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea that, "As long as they do their jobs, I don't care what they do", I must strongly disagree.

Consider the responsibility that these people carry. All that they are entrusted to do. The oath of office that demands a higher echelon of service and dedication. Now consider the fact that anyone who would do to their own family what people like Mark Sanford has done to his, would likely not think twice about doing to a complete stranger, regardless of their votes, districts, or other assorted political ties to them.

It breaks the sacred faith between a leader and their people. I know that I am waxing idealistic here, but should we not hold these politicians to a higher standard? If we don't already, isn't it about time we start? In addition to the irreparable damage that Mr. Sanford has done to his own family, he has also damaged our party, our trust, and our ability to take anyone in politics seriously.

For these reasons, I must insist on denouncing him.

It is time for him to step down.

Plus, his idiotic and childlike handling of all this is NOT what I want to see in a Presidential Hopeful.

Okay, it's out of my system now. Happy Independence Day!

H/T: Hot Air

Gay Rights, Or The "Carrot On A Stick" For The Left

2009-06-28T04:03:00.003-04:00

For about two decades now, the Left has been promising one of it's constituent groups their fair share of rights, but they've taken very little real action to prove their good intentions.

Gay Rights have been dangled out in front of the Gay Community every election cycle like clockwork to garner the votes of approximately 5-7% of all Americans (current estimate puts the Gay population at around 10% so I'm giving a rough conservative estimate). Following the election, the whole idea is shelved until needed again in two years. This dishonest and disrespectful treatment of a constituency is a golden opportunity for us on the Right.

It occurs to me that if the GOP wants to break the image of "The Party of No", as well as the impression that we are out of touch, and shake up the opposition, we should address this matter.

I have written about how the issue of Gay Marriage should be handled, so I won't reiterate it here. However, the approach to such would be a win-win-win situation if we only had the testicular fortitude to use it.

Basically, we would do the following:

1. Secretly write up a bill outlining the above linked idea.

2. Introduce the bill directly after the mid-term elections. This would be somewhat underhanded, as we would be going against our base. So, to counter that effect, give the people lots of time before the next available election to get used to the idea. Given that no Democrat worth his membership to Progressionism would dare to attack us on the measure, the only ones to worry about would be the Republican Junior Representative and their Senate counterpart hopefuls in 2012.

3. Watch the fur fly on the Left.

Obama would be in a bad spot as he would have to make a no-kidding real tough decision. Would he anger the Gay Community by Vetoing the bill, or would he risk the ire of the Black and Latino Communities who indubitably gave their support with the inclusion of a "short list" of things to not do (Gay Rights being on it, I assure you)? Either way, he would lose votes (roughly 5-7% either way in my estimation), and we would gain them. In addition to the direct fallout from his actions, we would also enjoy a measure of sympathetic gratitude from (mostly moderate) voters who would see this as a real "change" in our party.

The Left in general would seethe over having this issue ripped out from under them. The base would scream bloody murder at us, but they would be more angry with their own for letting us take the glory on it. In Washington, every Democrat in Congress and the Senate would have to smile and praise us publicly while cursing our existence in (very) private.

The Serpent Immortal of the Gay Rights issue would be at last defanged, with only Military Service remaining as a semi-serious bone of contention.

You see, as soon as the Black and Latino Communities realize that Obama will need an extra boost to his polls to get through the 2012 election, they may give the "Green Light" for such action on the Left. As such, we need to preempt them by "poaching" it for ourselves.

I believe though, that the greatest benefit from this action (aside from votes) would be the improvement in PR and Brand Image. Even our fiercest detractor would have to acknowledge this as a move in the right direction (no pun intended).

The only problems that I could see would be the base's reaction to such a thing. Many would rail against it, and the Left would certainly help that along, but with proper presentation and planning, we could minimize the "homefront backlash" and call out any Democrats attempting to assist the opposition from the right.

To conclude, I will say this:

I have always found myself more respectful and even trusting of an honest enemy than a dishonest friend.

Properly Directed Outrage

2009-06-21T03:42:00.004-04:00

This will probably turn out to be more of a true rant than usual, but here goes...

I have seen today a lot of Right-wing sites criticizing Obama for taking his girls out for ice cream while Iran burns. The main cry from these sights has been "What if Bush did this?" Of course they are referring to the fact that the MSM would have been quite critical of such a thing and would have stretched the story out for days to support the meme of an uncaring President. Well, to turn this question on it's ear just a bit:

We would have defended him, and rightly so.

Are we to believe that Obama cannot take out his daughters for some ice cream because the world is doing it's absolute best to forget the words to "Kumbayah"? Must his duties to his family suffer for the "good" of whatever ideal we choose to apply? It has been pointed out that while no one really has the black heart to say that he cannot take his family out, appearances are meaningful, and he should have chosen a better time to do such a thing.

Like when? When the world stops being full of hateful and evil people who desire death upon their neighbors? Not gonna happen folks, not gonna happen.

I see this more as an onset of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) than anything else. Especially when there are so many other things to be rightly critical of (See, I am still a Conservative, I just reserve my ire for those issues that deserve it):

1. North Korea threatening to provide a fireworks display for Hawai'i on the 4th of July and the Media silence that enshrouds it. This little problem is, in my mind, an open act of war. I know that we are deploying missile defense (funny how those have become useful now, hunh?) units to shield the 50th state, but them used to be "fightin' words" back in the day. I even have my doubts about us actually doing anything of substantial value if they try it, and I get the distinct impression that even if they launch, and we shoot down a Taepodong-2 missile, it will be news for about a week, and then watch it quietly sink beneath the waves of Socialized Healthcare and Unemployment.

2. The ABCNEWS plug for Obama's Healthcare. They have refused any opposing viewpoints to be broadcast as part of a one-hour "Infomercial" regarding Obama's proposed outline for Socialized Medicine. Not only is this a disgrace to objectivity in the media, but it smacks quite loudly of desperation. The polls are now dead even (from higher support earlier this year) when it comes to support for these measures, and I would ask anyone who challenges this assertion to answer me this: If it is such a popular move, why is he trying so hard to sell it?

3. Obama cut the spending for pro-democracy groups in Iran via the State Department. Recently. Like during the Iranian crisis that is currently getting worse. This is a perfect example of a horrifying mixed message, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was an oversight by some well-meaning staffer who didn't know what they were cutting. I certainly hope so, at least.

4. Uighers (terrorists) now living in Bermuda. Watch the video (You only need the first half...). Look around your house. Look at your checkbook. Check the stock market. Remember that the economy is really bad off. Remember that you are an American Citizen. Sharpen the pitchforks. Prepare the torches. Get back to me. One word: Inexcusable.

See? These are legitimate sources of outrage. You can feel wholesome and angry all at the same time. Sometimes these things just come together.

Oh, and another thing. Remember when the Iranians were bad? I do. I am going to be cynical here and say that I think that this situation is one of those "support today, fight tomorrow" kinds of things. I know that Mousavi and the others were the only choices that the Iranian people had, and that he was the "lesser of the available evils", but I will reserve my undying love for those who have proven that they deserve it.

Do not take from that statement that I wish any harm on anyone. I cheer the demonstations that cry out for democracy and peace. I am moved to tears by some of the horrific videos that we are seeing. I applaud the Iranian people's courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I just remain guarded and cautious when it comes to a country that has a history of enthusiastically hating us. I remember (barely) the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I seem to recall seeing cheers in the streets all over the muslim world when 9/11 happened.

Let's just say that I am taking a stance of "We'll see..."

How do you conclude a widely ranged rant like this one? I suggest a quote:

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." ~Molly Ivins

H/T: AofSHQ, FOXNEWS, Rasmussen, The Daily Show

Iran's Turmoil And Obama

2009-06-18T03:03:00.006-04:00

Well, on the lighter side, I guess we all have a momentary reprieve from the "threat" of an Iranian Nuclear Device.

I suppose that everyone there in the various seats of theocratic power is busy dealing with those troublesome youths and their uppity ideas about fair elections and something called "Democracy".

Poor fellows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of guys, I tell you what.

In all seriousness, the reports and images leaking out of Iran are describing a political movement of such scale as to make any number of Washington politicians throw their wallets and pocket change and run screaming in the other direction.

I do so wonder what Mr. Ahmedinejhad is doing right about now. Does he have an "Undisclosed Location" guarded in this instance by Hamas and possibly Hezbollah thugs? Is he beginning to question the legitimacy of his regime, or at least reading the writing on the wall? Has he seen the banners at the soccer games that say "Go To Hell Dictator"? Does he realize that that is his glorious self to which they are referring? Does he care?

Information is slowly coming out, and we are all watching carefully to see how this develops. I must admit that while I would like to hear more definitive statements from Obama to the effect of supporting the Democratic Process and the Will of the People, I suppose that he is being cautious due to the fact that we have become the World's de facto Iranian Negotiator and he needs to avoid overtly taking a side (other than the people's) due to the unfortunate possibility that he will be back to the Talkin' Table with the one guy that has just GOT to be a blast at parties.

I know, I know, I'd like to see him rend his shirt from off his chiseled pectorals and announce from atop the Rotunda that America will not stand for such injustices too, but then how could he sit down with the World's Most Cheerfully Brutal Dictator and talk about peace (No really, the guy looks just so happy almost all of the time. Like he's just having the time of his life hanging folks from cranes all day. Creepy...)?

The truth is that I am not surprised to see France, Germany, and now Canada display their solidarity with the Iranian People. This time, they get to make US look like panty-waists. Thanks guys... I suppose it is easier to pick a side and cheer when you don't have the testicular fortitude to actually be the one (no pun intended) to talk to this wretched little man.

Look, I am not the biggest supporter of Obama, but he is our President and I honestly think that he is taking what may very well be a prudent course of action. It will hurt him here, and as reported by Kianoosh Sanjari (via: Gateway Pundit):

"The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime."

As much as it will damage our "Public Image", retaining the chance to negotiate Iran out of the Nuke is an important card to keep in our hand. Besides, he may be privy to more information than we are getting.

Or I could just be hoping that that is the strategy...

Regardless of here at home, the real issue is the Iranian people. They are finally demonstrating their displeasure with the current way of doing things, and have made quite clear their desire for a more moderate leadership. I understand that Mousavi is hardly a saint, but a step in the right direction is always a good one.

I congratulate them on their bravery and perseverance, and wish them the best for their future's sake. I will pray for them all.

Oh, and the Mullahs' claim that America is meddling? "Bovine Leavings", you say?

I don't suppose you can "Tweet" back on Twitter to any of those Iranian Student "Citizen Journalists" with your encouragement can you?

Because if you can, that may become evidence on some kid's cell phone or computer to convict them of treason. Such evidence would be catalogued, remembered, and pushed in our faces. Maybe Obama shouldn't worry about trying to save the remaining few shreds of diplomacy for Ahmedinejhad and just start climbing the Capitol Building after all...

H/T: (Gateway Pundit) and Hot Air

David Letterman's Shameful Remarks

2009-06-11T05:00:00.006-04:00

Recently, an indicator of our country's further social division reared it’s ugly head. David Letterman, a comedian of some note, made some rather horrific remarks in regards to Sarah Palin’s daughter.

The disgraceful attempt at humor came during the opening monologue of the “Late Show” when he made the statement that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter Willow had been raped at a baseball game by Alex Rodriguez, a baseball player.

I am not the biggest fan of Mrs. Palin, but I am a human and a father. Such horrendous and disgusting vitriol would anger me if it had been said about the Obama girls or any other individual’s children. To brutally attack someone’s family with such words for the purported purposes of humor is an abhorrent act. This is not levity or good-natured ribbing, this is cruel and vicious degradation.

What further angers me about this situation is the fact that it is apparently up for debate as to the “merits” of the statements themselves. As though these remarks made in supposed “jest” have any business being uttered over the airwaves and sent into our homes by someone whom we have invited into them. As though the comments were well within the standards of basic Human Decency. As though it is acceptable to attack an individual’s family due to their difference from yourself in any way.

The repulsive issue has prompted some to state that Letterman was simply making a joke, or that as an entertainer, he has free license and carte blanche to say whatever he pleases about anyone. I fully support Freedom of Speech, but there is a line of respect and decency that should not be crossed when performing for such a broad swath of the public. To say such things in private is still reprehensible, but it is in private, and the damage done is minimal and self-punishing. To say such things in public, before a live studio audience, and with the reasonable expectation to be heard by millions is a blatant and irresponsible disregard for one’s own Humanity and Society’s basic principles of conduct.

Mr. Letterman, for all his seniority in television, and as a father, should have known better and refrained from such low and classless behavior.

The CBS apple, it would seem, has fallen very far from the Murrow Tree…

H/T: Gateway Pundit

UPDATE: I was apparently in error when I reported that Mr. Letterman had said that Willow, Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter had been raped at a baseball game. He said that her daughter (allegedly referring to 18-19 year old Bristol) had been "knocked up".

I apologize for the shoddy reporting and will do better in the future. That having been said, I still feel it to be in poor taste to make such jokes about someone's family. Class by example is sorely lacking as it is in this country...

The "Gun Run" And Obama

2009-05-30T02:51:00.003-04:00

I have heard a lot of buzz since November concerning Obama's alleged desire to eradicate Responsible Gun Ownership in this country.

After some thought, this becomes almost a laughable idea.

Consider the fact that of all the industries in this nation, the only "recession-proof" example is the Firearm Industry. What I wouldn't give for stock in Glock right about now...

In a market that has seen entire calibers of ammunition become practically extinct overnight due to mass sales (.380 ACP, I'm looking at you...), I have begun to wonder how much money is being put into legal defense and 2nd Amendment Support Organizations. Since no one else has any money, I would guess that it's quite an impressive amount.

Obama is busy printing money that is going to be about as solvent as currency as Pelosi is as a credible witness, and the Gun Industry is sitting on a fat mound of liquid capitol. Hmm... I'm no economic expert, but I think that I see a small speedbump forming for the "gun-grabber" crowd. We all got so worried about the possible policies of the far Left, that we all went right out and supported our rights in the most effective way possible. We bought into the market and bought their products (yes, me too). Some people went for the big and bad .45 ACP, while others stayed in the high capacity and availability route with the 9mm. Shotguns, rifles (both assault and hunting), pistols of every type and size, you name it; if it shoots something out the muzzle, it got purchased by someone.

All that money is now in the hands of the manufacturers who will make very sure that you will continue to legally buy their products as soon as you can afford them.

I'm by no means attempting to place a dark patina on the industry here, I'm just stating a fact. They most likely like being in business, so they will protect that business as much as possible. No kidding, hunh?

Furthermore, now that the ratio of guns to populace has indubitably changed to an increased percentage, it would be even harder to get all the guns now than ever before.Not just because now even more people are armed, but because of the fact that America has spoken quite clearly in regards to it's desire to continue owning guns. Rather than the "usual suspects" of White Conservative Men being the only market for weaponry, women are buying them in droves too. Hold fast Dear Reader, for I have heard tell that Liberals are making the occasional purchase of the World's Most Demonized Tool as well. I guess they figure that perhaps they might want to live the novelty that is Responsible Gun Ownership before it becomes a thing of the past. You know, just in case, or something.

(As a note to any Liberals out there who fit this description, please be careful with your new firearm. It is not a toy, and we don't want any more statistics. Read all instructions before use, and practice safe handling techniques. Thank you!)

Heck, at this rate, and with Obama receiving honors such as the Gun Salesman Of The Year Award, I wouldn't be surprised if the Gun Industry gives a donation to the DNC just for a kicker to the 2010 sales forecast.

I'm joking, of course.

"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." ~Mario Puzo

Memorial Day (A Promise Kept)

2009-05-26T00:01:00.004-04:00

When I was in Iraq, I lost a very good friend. I will not say his name here as I do not have the family's permission to do so.

Suffice it to say, he gave his life for the freedoms that we all enjoy and occasionally take for granted. In return, I will finally honor a promise made to him that I couldn't carry out at the time.

My friend wanted me to tell everyone at his memorial service (if such occurred, it did and I had to go out on a mission during such...) that he hated false motivation and the professed love of the Marine Corps for just it's sake alone.

In the Marine Corps, a certain variety of person can be found: The Motard. This brand of individual can best be described as someone who is very much into all of the verbal reinforcement and trappings of the organization and means well, but misses the real underlying purpose of the experience as a whole. In other words, a motivated retard. The Military is not known for it's subtlety...

This kind of Marine will accost you with an inexhaustible supply of "Ooh-rahs", "Yuts", and "Semper Fi's", but they only seem to do it because they are in love with the idea of being a Marine rather than simply accepting the fact and doing their jobs quietly and efficiently.

What they fail to comprehend is that all the "jaded" Marines (mostly Infantry) have an innate understanding about the way men and women are motivated in the most important facet of the organization's structure: War.

Those Marines have come to understand that no amount of "Ooh-rah" will carry your buddy back to Charlie Medical, no amount of "Yut" will kill or capture the enemy, and no amount of "Semper Fi" will bring lost friends back to life.

We don't require verbal reinforcement to carry out the duties that can bring us life-long heartbreak. We do it because we said we would and we never want our families and friends back home to ever see or do the things that we have.

I don't blame those who are overly excited about being a Marine, I was too when I first graduated from Boot Camp in '04, but at some point the shine wears off and you have to get down to the business of carrying out your sometimes odious duties. The job can be an incredible rush, and an interminable bore. It is not for everyone.

I will stop here and offer to all those who have gone before me and given their ultimate sacrifice for the life I love today my thanks.

May God bless and keep you in His love.

On thy grave the rain shall fall from the eyes of a mighty nation! ~Thomas William Parsons

A Note To Ms. Pelosi

2009-05-17T01:53:00.007-04:00

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. What are we going to do with you? I know that barring a catastrophic meltdown of the Democratic Party, you will be re-elected in perpetuity. After you finally pass the Cadaver's Rights Initiative, your mummified and exceptionally well preserved corpse will still have a seat in Congress. You will never leave us.

Now, if we could just get you to stop lying, or at least get you to do it better. Lying is part and parcel to your job, we get that, but we also get the idea that someone of your degree of importance should be an expert with a twisted truth. This whole CIA business is a glorious example of your highly vaunted "transparency in government" for the simple reason that you're not fooling anybody.

Some people are calling for your resignation, and I have to laugh. You aren't going to let this be your pink-slip moment; you will persevere with your usual aplomb and go right on being yourself. Quit? Ha! You scoff at such notions. However...

Your actions have damaged others. Oh, I know that anything you say to the detriment of the CIA in your district is golden political currency and only serves to bolster your voting base, but consider all those coat-tailers who rode into DC-town on whims and prayers with Obama. This is going to hurt them, and in 2010 or 2012, you could be seeing less friendly faces in the workplace. Less Liberals in the House makes for a more difficult time trying to pass all those Fairy-dust Funded Fripperies.

More care should be taken with your less fortunate Sisters and Brothers in Congress. You may be secure, but many of them are, as we say in Internetspeak, "Noobs". They have fragile and delicate platforms with their constituents who have only just met and elected them into office. Your actions endanger their positions and weaken the party as a whole.

But that's not really a concern for you, now is it? Such piddling issues are beneath your contempt. Let the lesser beings fend for themselves I guess? Of course, I agree with you being as how I'm a Conservative. The truth is, I am enjoying this display of rampant disregard for your Party. I am pleased with your inability to behave in a politically viable fashion. I am so glad that you didn't offer a simple, direct, and honest answer to an otherwise softball-like question. That one would have just "whiffed" on by with barely a flicker on the radar, but no, you had to try and cover up your involvement with torture.

With approval ratings at all-time lows for Congress, you continue to offer good reason to perpetuate such sentiments with your backpeddling, your blame shifting, and your greasy retractions. Some folks might begin to realize that the low confidence scores roughly coincide with the Democratic Majority in the House. They might start to wonder why they still elect people into High Office who they wouldn't trust to drop a rock with the Laws of Gravity.

Oh well, maybe Rahm and Obama will find a way to turn your crisis into a bountiful harvest of Distraction-Assisted Policy Changes. Then we can all get back to business as usual with your words retaining their meaning and integrity for only so long as the echoes of their passing reverberate...

Obama's True Political Masters

2009-05-16T03:30:00.005-04:00

I want you to do me a favor. Humor me (because I suck at the whole "put in a video thing") and go to YouTube right quick and search for “crying hippies, trees”. Watch the corresponding video (it will be obvious when you find it…) and answer me this:

What would the Black Vote think about these people?

Consider this too. Quick, how many Minority Objective Initiatives can you name that are in the news right now? How about Eco-Conscious ones? Disparity there? Yes, I arrived at the same answer.

I couldn’t think of anything that works towards the “betterment” of Minorities (with the exception of possibly the “GIVE Act”), but I could think of Cap-and-Trade, the EPA report concerning doubts about CO2, pressure on GM to build more eco-friendly cars, and the perpetually funded but mysteriously non-committal search for the “Energy Source of the Future”.

This means only one thing folks:

The Black Vote only counts in an election year. Their political currency dries up immediately following the final count. Eco-Friends however, have a habit of collecting money for lobbying groups and political entities to bring about their will on the Legislature. The Blacks do too, but apparently their money is less…green.

I would love to see the reaction from Black communities if I showed them that video and then asked them about who is really being listened to in their party. I would relish the opportunity to explain how various projects of an environmentally sound nature will end up costing the poorest people the most over the next few decades by raising energy costs, directly in keeping with the words of Barack Obama himself.

I find it interesting that the one person who was billed as the “Post-partisan President” has turned out to be a *gasp* politician! He sells people out! He smiles benevolently at them in their misery and commiserates, but then takes his marching orders from people and groups that are largely well endowed financially!

What. A. Shocker.

I predicted that this election in either of its outcomes would damage the black vote, but I didn’t think that it would be so…blatant. It has been said that he is just returning favors right now, and soon he’ll get down to the “Brass Tacks” of the Presidency, but I think he’s going to be paying long after his term(s) is (are) over. Some people worked miracles to get him in there, and miracle workers expect miraculous payments. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the “getting down” thing unless it’s at another celebrity award dinner. I predict that the Black Community will wonder what, aside from the first Black President, tax debt (your withholdings are lowered, but your dues are the same meaning you’ll OWE money next year), decades of inflated deficit, and oppressive Green Initiated Legislature Obama really gave them.

Or they could just simply be ecstatic that a Black man is in Office, regardless of his abilities, intentions, or actions.

I would point out though that even the Gay and Lesbian issues are getting more concentrated press time than that of any Minority of any other kind. Such issues are historically looked down upon by the Black, Latino, and even Asian Communities, but they are never-the-less an integral part of the Party Platform. Especially considering the lower percentage of Gay people (+/- 10%) in this country compared to the amount of Blacks (+/- 14%), you might think that Party Leadership would tell someone to wait their turn as more pressing matters are at hand.

Then again, perhaps it really is as one man told me, “The Blacks have nothing else to ask for. What does the NAACP do these days? What laws need to be written to give me more opportunity to succeed? When was the last time you saw a serious protest or political drive to change something other than who sits in some office in DC? We won and we don’t even know it yet.” You might be able to guess his paint job from the words there…

Having “Won” is a burden that the Democratic Party may eventually have to start dealing with. If people begin to view themselves as being taken for granted, they tend to wander away.

Aside from differences of opinion concerning Abortion and Capitol Punishment, the Black Vote really isn’t that far removed from our traditional stance. Hey, I’ll take an extra 14% At the Polling Station…

P.S. Can anyone name more Demographic Disparities in the Democratic Party? Better question (?): Can you name any in ours?

Napolitano's "No Confidence"

2009-04-28T01:39:00.004-04:00

It occurs to me that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano doesn’t realize one very important aspect of American Culture:

Party lines are not drawn around families, they go through them.

Within one immediate family, you can have Liberals and Conservatives. I married a Liberal, albeit one who is rapidly being alienated from her traditional stances by the current administration. Dick Cheney’s daughter is purportedly a Liberal while Mr. Cheney is, well, you get the picture.

The recent report that asserts that returning Veterans of OIF/OEF may in fact become terrorists themselves after fighting them and losing friends in the process, demonstrates her inability to grasp the concept that several families have within them not only different political views, but Military members and veterans as well. This insult was felt far and wide.

Added to this, and the implied and widely understood importance of her position, she may have irreparably damaged at the very least her standing in the average American’s eyes when it comes to our combined safety. If she cannot grasp the idea that we are a mixed people politically, then maybe there are other, more dangerous omissions in her conceptualization of her duties.

Even the Boston Globe, a Liberal leaning paper, has called her to task for her ineptitude in not only the report itself, but also the resulting backlash that it incurred to her Office. Her stumbling explanations were a further insult to our intelligence when a simple apology would have made most of this flack go away.

Also, given the new problem involving the Swine Flu (which will be better known as a real threat or a simple scare by the end of the week), she concerns me. Ms. Napolitano will be instrumental in either combating the possible epidemic or hindering the proper response with her action or inaction. Given her record so far, I cannot say that I am confident in our National Security under her watch.

Perhaps it might be best if she stepped down before any real and lasting damage is done.

UPDATE:
The Obama administration has no:
1. Surgeon General
2. None of the 19 posts or Secretary positions filled in the Dept. of Health and Human Services
3. No confirmation on the FDA Head.

We might safely assume that the DHS will have to (along with other Departments) pick up the slack if the Swine Flu becomes a major issue. I'd like it to be someone who can handle a daily routine at least...

H/T: Hot Air

The Elephant Is Getting Back Up

2009-04-27T03:34:00.001-04:00

The GOP is actually on the right path.

This is suggested by the two pronged attack that we have begun to make in response to the current Administration’s reckless political behavior.

The political sector of our Party is ridiculed as the “Party of No”. Ridicule, being what it is, is a good sign. It demonstrates the fear of our opposition that we won’t be holding much, if any, of this baggage in 2010 or especially 2012. As our Party continues to vote “No” on every Boondoggle Bonanza of Spending that floats down the Potomac, we are gambling, but with rather good odds, that the Democrats will be left trying to explain and rationalize away the various consequences that will eventually come from this Orgy of Conspicuous Consumption.

In addition, by taking to task the Obama Administration for whatever its newest bungle might be, the Political Class is keeping pressure where it’s needed, the weakest point. The constant scrutiny will wear quickly on the President, and will ensure that he continues to provide us with ammunition.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, complete with our Tea Parties and other assorted frivolities, will continue to demonstrate our frustration and anger with a Government that has forsaken our values and chosen to embrace its own ideals. The ridicule displayed by erstwhile professionals in the media is all the evidence that I require to see that it has the desired effect.

The only thing that we need now is someone to front us in the Presidential Primaries, and the only thing that we have to fear is the Personality Cult that may very well re-elect Obama despite all the evidence to his ineptitude in the Oval Office.

“He’s so cool!” will be a powerful enemy to defeat. Watch and see.

So I beg you to not lose your faith, and continue doing everything you can to further our agenda of a more responsible and less intrusive Government. We will be called racists for opposing the Nation’s first Black-American President, we will be singled out and dissected for our fortitude, and we will sustain grievous wounds from the derision heaped upon us by those who are afraid that they may have bought the Presidential version of the Edsel.

In the end, I believe that it will come down to Public Opinion versus Public Relations.

An Examination of Torture

2009-04-22T21:55:00.001-04:00

The subject of torture is a difficult one to broach and examine. Its inherent sensitivity renders it a particularly incendiary topic, and it presents some very unpleasant questions.

As a former Marine Infantryman, I can recall how our intelligence units would interrogate certain detainees for information pertaining to the area and even their knowledge of the “Bigger Fish”. I remember being on heightened alert after various enemy combatants were “processed” due to the unveiling of threats unknown prior to the capture.

Lives were saved, families were spared the agony of a lost loved one, and another day dawned to which we were awake.

The same effect is evident following the torture of numerous known terrorists in recent years, but the very idea of torture is disturbing or even abhorrent to some people.

I must admit unease in regards to it myself.

However, allow me to put this into some perspective.

These cases are not isolated incidents of randomly captured individuals; they are hardened terrorists whose goals are your demise. They are actively seeking the means to destroy everything that they can that has anything to do with America. They are vile and inhuman people who would kill you and your whole family if given half a chance. They were identified through intelligence networks as key members of various organizations whose ultimate interests lie in the removal of Democracy from the world to be replaced by their theocratic dictatorships of oppression. They are incapable of accepting rehabilitation, they cannot be “cured” or won over, and they will continue their evil enterprises upon release from their incarceration.

In short, they deserve much worse than the current treatment that many of them now enjoy in places like Guantanamo Bay.

In light of recent reports suggesting that 9/11-scale attacks were avoided by the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, I would still caution against its widespread use, if at all. The danger that I see is precedent.

We of the Right have pointed out the Law of Unintended Consequences as the bane of the Left for some time now, but it works both ways, and I will cite the Slippery Slope that can best be exampled by the expression, “Where does it stop?” We have given the legitimate arguments that if we allow for the Re-definition of Marriage for homosexuals; will we be opening the door for adult-children unions later? How about adults and animals, or even inanimate objects? If we make provisions for the Legalization of Marijuana, when will we be allowing for Cocaine and Opium to be legalized? They are also grown naturally, right (the difference is chemical processing, but that's another post...)?

Humor me as I present a hypothetical and admittedly extreme scenario:

You own a large arsenal of firearms (so far, not a stretch?) and in six years time, the 2nd Amendment is repealed, effectively making all your guns illegal. You must surrender them to the proper authorities, or face investigation and subsequent prosecution by the Federal Government. With your weapons legally registered with the local law enforcement, it is easily discovered that you have hidden them in a cache somewhere. In a vocal protest that is televised, you state something to the effect of “Molon Labe” and make some reference to “your cold dead hand”. The Feds arrive and take you to an undisclosed location and proceed to submit you to waterboarding and other forms of torture until you relinquish the where-abouts of your firearms.

Sounds crazy? In a world that saw the DHS issue an unrepentant report that labels returning veterans of OIF/OEF as (paraphrased) “at-risk to be enlisted or recruited into Right-wing Extremist groups and racist organizations”? Food for thought…

I don’t have an answer, but perhaps we should be more cynical or critical of issues and ideologies that we are only currently happy with the results of. Otherwise, something like this could severely bite us in the hindquarters.

The Human Clone's Imminent Arrival?

2009-04-22T01:23:00.003-04:00

At some point the Human Clone will be upon us, and we will learn to deal with this new facet of Human Existence.

I’ve heard of many complaints and concerns surrounding the possibility that these beings will be without souls, and while I can not verify or deny these fears, I will refer to the classic story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

In the story, it was feared (to a great degree, and thus a major plot point…) that the Monster would mate with a woman, either a natural human, or coerce his Maker, Doctor Frankenstein to make him a partner of sorts in the same way that he himself was created.

The resulting horror and abomination was then thought to have been a hideous conglomeration of festering wounds and disjointed limbs, but in the eyes of a modern reader, this assertion is rather silly (hence, in my opinion, the decline of the story’s prestige in recent decades). The offspring of these two would have depended entirely on the sexual organs alone and even if separate from the other parts in origin, they would have produced a normal and healthy child.

Quite the let-down in the Horror world, eh?

Yet today, we have once again a new and terrifying prospect, the Human Clone. A being contrived through science and reason, devoid of any soul, lacking even a vestigial remnant of its True Human Fore-bearer’s spirit!

Dross, crap, and poppycockery.

We will never run out of things to run screaming into the hills from, will we? Another amazing advancement in science to be greeted as an insufferable evil. Of course, you must never let it pass your mind that God may have intended for us to do things like use a tool, or attempt to bring order to chaos, or to improve our lives past the drudgery that was the 14th century. Nope, such thoughts are a plague, an insidious attack by The Horned One who can quote the Bible to further his own infernal ends! Egad!

I would certainly advise caution, restraint, and perhaps even regulation, but I will not engage in the random and baseless fear mongering that can lead to scientific stagnancy.

This does not offend my religious sensitivities; neither does it raise my Hackles of Reason. We progress. It is what we do best. Perhaps we get ahead of ourselves sometimes, and we have certainly taken on projects that have proven our match and greater from time to time, but such is trial and error, the way of learning.

Relax and observe; you may yet see the Glory of God in a scientific advancement…

H/T: Hot Air

The Marijuana Question

2009-04-21T02:31:00.003-04:00

Today, I’m weighing in on the possible Legalization of Marijuana. Those of you (three, maybe four?) who have been reading me for a while now, might have noticed that I can deviate from the Party Line some when it comes to Social Conservatism. As such, it will come as no surprise when I say the following:

We should legalize Marijuana, and “grandfather” out of prison anyone who is currently there for ONLY Marijuana charges.

Breathe… Again… Ok? Good.

Now, the only way that I’ve ever seen anyone’s life become ruined by Marijuana is when they get caught.

I’m not talking about those people who were out to destroy themselves anyway, and you know who I’m talking about. If you’ve ever spent any time around less-than-stellar personages, you know exactly of whom I’m referring. The people who need no chemicals in their system to behave in a catastrophically inhumane fashion? The ones who can throw away their entire lives and sometimes those of their family's in the process? They’re already lost causes. Let them go. Everyone else? Well…

It is my belief that as Conservatives, we have some cognitive dissonance of our very own. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, I’ll elaborate:

Cognitive Dissonance- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat. ~ Answers.com

The left has been afflicted before with very exemplary instances of this malady, such as:

The organization Queers For Palestine (They would be put to death there)

Supporting Iran and Promoting World Peace

Claiming to be the Party of Humane Action, and then allowing rampant abortions

And so on…

In the case of Marijuana, we find the Right-wing’s secret Cognitive Dissonance Enabler. Consider how we view responsible gun ownership:

1. Human responsibility should be placed on the human responsible.
2. Do not assign moral values to an inanimate object.
3. Removal of one outlet of human nature will ensure a replacement of said outlet.

The above three tenets of such are listed here in my article on the matter. Soon after writing this piece, I noticed something. We give very good and logical reasons for our continued right to keep and bear arms, but somehow, these same applicable laws of reason don’t apply to drugs.

I’ve heard Marijuana referred to in all seriousness as “The Devil’s Weed” and much worse. I realize that drugs alter perception and thought unlike guns, but you must still acknowledge that the choice to become “high” is still a human responsibility. The application of moral values to an inanimate object is still illogical and therefore shouldn’t be allowed into the debate. I don’t care if your “second cousin once smoked pot and decided to jump off a roof” or some other silly and implausible scenario comes up, I will still hold that no one put the joint, bowl, bong, pipe, vaporizer, or other paraphernalia up to his or her lips and pulled the trigger on the lighter. The same three principles apply to Marijuana, and to not recognize such is hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the fact that we can not get rid of the drug in this country, and I can recall being able to get high when my friends and I couldn’t afford or score cigarettes (age 14 or so) underscores the (paraphrased) point that comedian Bill Hicks made in his stand-up routine:

“We have a War on Drugs, and the people on drugs are winning!”

Alcohol was completely out of the question in my youth (regulation works, how about that…), but we sure could find pot most nights to wile away the hours in suburbia.

I’m not going to get into the economic side of the issue, as I am no economist, but I will say that if we legalized Marijuana, we would see some annual profit from the substance. I’ll go you one further and say that if we grandfathered out of jails and prisons all those who were put away on Marijuana charges, we would save an additional amount of money every year.

Those people with whom I am acquainted who smoke it are usually very responsible folks who simply go about their daily routines and don’t start any trouble. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it. Illegality aside, they just don’t want to deal with the added stress of whatever situation threatens to “bring them down”. They’re mostly peaceful and generous in their intoxication, unlike another, more legal variety of inebriant.

Make it just like Alcohol in regards to its regulation. Don’t smoke and drive, don’t go to work high, don’t do it in public (bars acceptable), frown upon its use around children, and so on. Allow for it to be bought and sold under licensed and overseen transactions. Tax it, import it, export it, grow it (with license), and capitalize on it.

This drug is a mainstay of gangs and drug dealers. Without it to hold them up, they will lose revenue. Right now, in an economic downturn, I can guarantee that sales are up for illicit recreational pharmaceuticals. Without Marijuana, a good portion of them would be very much so out of luck and out of business.

As a parent of my Step-daughter’s friend once said, “The only thing that is keeping it from being legal is the fact that as of yet, they cannot determine if you have smoked in the immediate past”. They can take you to a hospital for a urinalysis test, but that only shows the last thirty days, not that you were intoxicated while, say, driving twenty minutes ago. When they have established a test for immediate use that is:

1. Non-invasive
2. Economical
3. On-the-spot
4. Reliable

…then they will begin the legislation for its regulated legalization. I can almost promise you that when the “breath-a-lyzer” test comes, so will the serious examination of the end of Marijuana prohibition.

I have flown once again in the face of my Party’s traditional stance here, but I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. In the end, it all comes down to your individual choice to do the right or wrong thing at any given moment, and I like having the decision all to myself.

Feels like… Liberty.

Hard Times Ahead

2009-04-18T02:03:00.002-04:00

Given the recent DHS report that seeks to demonize Veterans and other “Right-wing Extremists”, the poorly veiled smear from CNN on the coverage of the Tea Parties, and now the epitome of Mental Stability, Janine Garofalo insisting that we’re racist for protesting Big Government Spending, I fear that things will get worse before they get better.

For several decades now, the Left has floated itself on the idea that it is the Anti-discrimination party. It began with the Civil Rights Movement, where the moral authority to call out those in power who were truly attempting to keep various peoples in “their place” was a strong and virtuous one.

The Left has retained its claim on these actions and most especially on the claim that it has the unquestionable right and indeed the obligation to continue laying blame at the feet of those who would see others oppressed. The only problem is that laws have been passed, organizations have been formed (or shattered), and changes are in evidence to support the notion that perhaps we have moved on from that era.

But why let a good tool go to waste?

Having the perceived moral authority to claim that someone is racist, fascist, or a general example of non-humanity is a great boon to their efforts. We are seeing this being applied liberally to our efforts right now.

On April 15th, we witnessed a massive gathering of peoples from all different walks of life who wanted to be heard in regards to their displeasure concerning the rampant spending that will lead to high taxes for at least another generation of Americans. An off-the-top estimate appears to be 500,000 across the nation. This was a great start that will propel us forward towards our ability to effect real change in Washington as well as bolster our candidate in 2012.

This fact is quite frightening to those of the Left.

Our ability to organize and stage such protests is a very real threat to them as evidenced by the above stated reactions and pre-emptive strikes. These despicable acts of misrepresentation and libel will only increase. We can all look forward to being smeared, jeered, and threatened with increasing ferocity and frequency.

The fact is that we are becoming the counter-culture. We are the new “hippies”, although we might very well be awarded some other title such as “suitee”, “squarey”, or even “righty-whiteies”. Ridicule, anti-coverage, and dismissal will be our foes. Misrepresented policies and messages will plague us. Our fervent, but misguided friends will take us backwards with their ravings. This will not be easy.

Hope is never far however, from those who continue to push forward.

So gather your wits about you, call your allies, and sally forth towards the fray…

…it has only just begun.

H/T: Hot Air

2009-04-15T17:23:00.001-04:00

Hey folks, I've been up for 24 hours (or more, I've lost track...). So... I'm outta here. Good night! More tomorrow from today!

2009-04-15T15:23:00.001-04:00

Cut taxes? No good. Cut programs! Obama is caving? Twitter is buzzing! Confermation soon...

Wow! A Lot Of People In Cincinnati Came Out For Tea!

2009-04-15T13:39:00.010-04:00

Well, I'm back from the Party, and as promised, here's some lovely pictures for you...

Official estimates are in the 5-8k range... Lots of "Party People"!

Great energy, refreshing dose of action, just an all around good day! If you want any photos for yourself, leave a comment with a generic (temporary) e-mail address, or other means of getting hold of you.

Oh, and the Press can't hide from this one, they were there all right...

2009-04-15T12:19:00.001-04:00

"Forget the pirates in Somalia, worry about the pirates in Washington!" Big cheer...

2009-04-15T12:04:00.001-04:00

Getting great airial shots! I'll post them later...

2009-04-15T11:26:00.001-04:00

2500-3000 in attendance. (Official estimate)

2009-04-15T11:23:00.001-04:00

So much accurate spelling, I'm just so...
...impressed!

2009-04-15T11:11:00.001-04:00

The voices (bullhorns) tell me that the Fed is bad...

2009-04-15T11:01:00.001-04:00

Up to hundreds. Maybe 3 or 4...

2009-04-15T10:44:00.001-04:00

Media! NBC, ABC, more in route...

2009-04-15T10:22:00.001-04:00

Starting to fill up nicely. About 100 or so...

2009-04-15T10:02:00.001-04:00

I'm down here at the Cincinnati Tea Party. I'm going to try the live blogging thing, but I'll give you a better story later today. Stay tuned. All three of you!

Understanding Our Fundamental Differences

2009-04-15T02:17:00.004-04:00

I’ve been meaning to do an examination of the fundamental differences between the thought processes of Liberals and Conservatives. In the spirit of Progressive Understanding, I figured that I could contribute to the dialogue by examining the two different methodologies of looking at any given situation.

As has been pointed out to me by my friend Rob, Conservatives are more comfortable keeping the status quo so to speak, and simply remain going about the daily business of life in the same routine as it has always been done. Liberals on the other hand are almost always looking for new things to try. These principles can best be related to the general public as:

Conservative: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Liberal: There’s gotta be a better way.

If you look at many recent hot-button issues, you’ll see that this is largely the case. Conservatives fight for things to remain the same, while Liberals fight to bring about change (no pun intended).

The most obvious examples of differences in this vein are demonstrated by what we name our organizations:

Conservative: Heritage Foundation

Liberal: ACORN or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

“Heritage” implies long-held traditional values, while “Reform” and “Now” imply the progressive sense of forward movement.

Keep in mind one important fact: Neither of these viewpoints is invalid. While it could be argued that the Conservative outlook gives us tradition and a sense of culture, similarly, the Liberal outlook demonstrates invention and progress.

Another way we differ is when it comes to national security or foreign policy. This has been remarked upon before within the blogsphere, but I’ll repeat it again.

Conservative: Crime Prevention

Liberal: Law Enforcement

The essential gist if this idea is that while Conservatives tend to be pro-active in the defense of themselves or the nation, Liberals tend to wait for something to happen before taking any measures. While Conservatives will arm themselves due to their natural distrust of the unknown, “Just because it’s never happened, doesn’t mean that it can’t”, Liberals will be more prone to trust their fellow man and believe that goodwill and charity will suffice in their daily interactions, “I believe that all people are inherently good”.

Again, the general ideas themselves are not bad, but they might be misplaced or even inappropriate under certain circumstances.

As a generalization, Conservatives are more independent, while Liberals are more community-oriented. This can be illustrated by looking at the differing approaches in everything from child-rearing to economics:

Conservative: “Tightly-knit Nuclear Family”

Liberal: “It takes a village to raise a child”

A Conservative will be more likely to consider home-school for their children, usually with a religious based curriculum, but a Liberal will demand that the local (and secular) public school be adequately funded so as to afford the finest available education for their offspring.

Conservative: I give to charities of my own accord.

Liberal: Our taxes should pay for the less fortunate.

While many strong arguments have been made concerning the negating effect on charity by mandatory charity through allocated taxation, others have stated that it should be a wealthy nation’s responsibility to take care of as many people as possible.

Conservative: Privatized Healthcare

Liberal: Universal Healthcare

The current administration wishes to make available a government run system of providing healthcare to any that cannot afford to take on the fiscal responsibility of privately funded healthcare. While this matter is a hotly debated sticking point between the parties, the idea is not necessarily a bad one. The primary reasons for it being so divisive are the unintended consequences seen by one side, and the desire for humane action viewed by the other.

Conservative: I should keep as much of my money as possible to decide its uses as I see fit, such as investing in our economy.

Liberal: High taxes are patriotic, and allow my country to grow stronger through the government’s direct guidance.

Conservatives argue that keeping most of their money will allow them to spend it on free enterprise items that will stimulate the economy, and invest it in stocks thus “floating” the industries on capitol. Liberals believe that through government programs and regulation of business, sustainable economic prosperity can be achieved.

In conclusion, I would say that while all of the above can be argued ad Nauseum as to whether or not it is logically applicable to various political issues, has moral value to be assigned, or is right, wrong, evil, or the best thing for everyone; at the core of every thought process is what I hope to be a good intention. I do realize that a certain avenue of approach to a locale that features deplorable living conditions is manufactured from only the finest of desires for other’s and one’s own well-being, but they have worked out for the best as well.

Perhaps through the understanding that we all want what is best, and that the goal is often approached from different angles and may even yield different conclusions, you will alleviate the tension in your next argument or debate with whomsoever you enjoy such lively political discourse.

After all, understanding another person’s point of view is a crucial factor in the ultimate goal of elucidating your own…

Another Example Of Legislative Idiocracy

2009-04-13T02:04:00.005-04:00

(Author's Note: I apologize for the crappy video placement. I'm still learning the whole HTML thing. Click on the video to go to YouTube to see it in full...)

After viewing this video earlier today (thanks to a family friend…) I wondered if anyone in Washington D.C. ever actually bothers to read, consider, discuss, ask professionals about, or otherwise investigate any of the House Resolutions that come across their respective desks.

I don’t think that this will pass, but it brings into question the competence and diligence of our Governing Bodies. Surely someone on the Hill has slapped their forehead and gone, “Oh, wait a minute, this is a terrible idea!” as they begin to bury the travesty before they can become a laughing-stock on the House or Senate floors.

Right? Um, yeah…

I haven’t even bothered to research this revoltingly torrid piece of refuse as I am that sure of its eventual failure. I am going to have faith (with fingers crossed…) and simply believe that no one could be that dense…

Except:

Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] the Delegate from Guam (She is the lead Sponsor…)

And these fine folks who said they would go along (Co-Sponsors) with this glittering example of mental derangement:

Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI]
Rep. Ron Klein [D-FL]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]

Oops. I have seen some of these names before, and I have not been at all pleased with the things that I have heard about them or their politics. Perhaps I had better do more than cross my fingers…

I suppose that dealing with a crumbling economy, handling two wars, and nationalizing everything in sight, one has to have a diversion to take one’s mind off of the pressing concerns of one’s job, but backing legislation that would adversely affect almost everyone who owns a pet?

Are they serious?

I wasn’t even aware that this was an issue. Is this the new environmentalist battle-front? Our pets? Do you feel threatened by hamsters, Mr. Frank? Do you suffer from Ophidiophobia, Ms. Napolitano? Do you dissolve into a shivering cold sweat at the mere thought of someone owning a parakeet, Mr. Mc Govern?

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is a preposterous and guffaw-inducing illustration of the idiocy that is currently serving as our House of Representatives.

There oughta be a law…

H/T:Thanks Ian!

Sorry about that, but...

2009-04-12T03:10:00.000-04:00

I feel that I must apologize for my absence as of late.

I have previously stated that I am not a professional Blogger and can only do this in my spare time.

True, I have been busy as of late with my family and such, but I guess that I am also kind of sick of the “train wreck” that is our current leadership’s administration.

North Korea launches a missile over Japan, and we shrug. Iran blatantly acknowledges their intent to build a nuke, and we shrug. The deficit is quadrupled, and we shrug.

Before you think that this will be a rant revolving around objectivism, I assure that it is not. I’m just a little burned out…

…and I think that this is a good thing.

It demonstrates perhaps, that I am still sane and can take a step back from the situation and just breathe for a minute. Okay, for about eleven days…

Watching the goings-on in Washington with horrified fascination, I have come to the conclusion that we are in for four torturous years of inadequate leadership, rampant incompetence, and a general sense of apathetic withdrawal from that which is simply over-whelming. No kidding, hunh?

I’m not trying to write anything ground breaking tonight, and don’t expect anything even approaching clever. It’s just not in me to do it as of this moment.

I just felt that I owed it to you, my readers, an assurance that I am still here.

My pathetic excuses aside, I will be at the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party here in lovely Cincinnati, Ohio, and I will be covering the event (officially, courtesy of the event staff, is to be determined…). Photos and interviews will be forthcoming.

Again, I apologize for the lapse in writing, but as I’ve said before, if I have nothing to say, then I won’t just put out random drivel and recycled crap.

Thanks for bearing with me, and I will be writing again tomorrow night.

Have a great day.

Obama's Shocking Press Conference

2009-04-01T03:31:00.005-04:00

Used with permission from the Daily News Syndicate:

The White House lawn was a-quiver with tingling excitement as President Obama came out to the grill with steaks laying on a plate that apparently had come from the China Room.

With barely restrained joy and anticipation, the Press Corps awaited the hastily announced press conference from the fledgling Leader of the Free World. Wearing a flannel shirt and a "Kiss the Prez" apron, Obama calmly began to outline his new strategy for the struggling economy, the precariously balanced Middle East, and domestic policies.

"We can no longer afford to pretend that extreme expenditures will raise this sinking ship. As such, I have rescinded the Stimulus Bill, and will be cutting government programs to lessen the tax burden of Americans. This in turn, will greatly reduce the role of government in daily life and ensure long lasting freedoms for our children," the President stated quietly. After a brief pause, he continued his address to the stunned journalists, "Taxes will be increased and they will remain high for a while, but with a small government, the majority of it will go to the deficit and the rest will be used to run a minimalist structure of power here in Washington. All of the Departments have been advised accordingly, and they will be issuing their recommendations to my office by the end of the week."

With a look full of dire warning and hidden meaning, he said, "Defense will not be affected."

"Israel is in a dangerous situation that requires our immediate assistance. Iran must be dealt with, and we must do so with haste. An arms race is in effect, and we have wasted so much time trying to bandy words with them," an eerily dispassionate Obama said, "I have given orders that Missile Defense capable equipment and logistics be sent to Tel Aviv, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has gained the support of all members of their Parliament to petition for a UN Resolution allowing the use of Unconditional Force on Iran if they are attacked."

With a smirk, he added, "They won't get it, but they have to try..."

A deft touch to the cooking steaks accompanied his new outlook on Domestic Policy, "As I said regarding the economy, we have to become a smaller entity in this country," the flames leapt up suddenly as he turned a succulent fillet and added, "The government I mean."

"The American people need to learn to operate on their own again. Everyone wants to be led by the hand to success, but it has to found on your own. That's the American Dream, to achieve your own place in life without anything to stop you from doing it, without anyone just doing it for you. A thing given has no value."

"Oh, and to everyone on Wall Street, the bailouts are done. Failed businesses should fail. We will all suffer from this outcome, but we will endure. I have faith in the American Spirit, and new businesses will spring up in their place to provide jobs and bring prosperity to this country once again."

Several seconds of silent reflection was punctuated by out of focus stares and incredulous looks, then, "Well, that about does it, thanks for coming on such short notice and God Bless America!"

With that final statement, President Obama picked up his plate of glistening steaks that appeared to this reporter to be cooked a medium rare, and departed for the embraces of his loving Wife, Michelle, and their two daughters, Malia and Sasha.

The shell-shocked Press Corps ambled aimlessly in small circles muttering things to themselves before forming cohesive sentence structure that strongly hinted at someone not being "able to get away with it". Someone then asked aloud if this meant that the nationalization of the printed news would be abandoned and this query solicited the agonized moans of all present.

I crossed the grounds to return to the press room and as I stepped through a prodigious amount of skittles that had inexplicably been left beside a curious red stain behind a shed, I realized that nothing would ever be the same after this.

The Hope is gone...

In related news: AI is born, and fully automatic firearms are now legal...

The Trolls Take A Break

2009-03-31T01:48:00.004-04:00

An interesting phenomenon is taking place right now, and it will soon pass.

Several sites have linked an article by Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.com where he addresses the tactics of Leftist Trolls, and the supposed refusal of most Right leaning readers to engage in such tactics on the basis of not wanting to “stoop to their level”. However, the real “red meat” of this story is in the comments of these various sites, and not the actual article itself. (Note: I have only linked Gateway Pundit as it had, in my opinion, the most interesting dialogue…)

The oddity is that the Trolls have removed their “Game Faces” and are discussing their motivations for “trolling” with rational, cohesive, and (in most cases) respectful language. Their rationale can certainly be called into question, but for the moment they are being honest about their dishonesty in the daily grind of blogging and commenting.

Here is one sample of a Troll “coming out”…

“I admit to being a 9-year troll on sites like FreeRepublic, but you must understand, politics is like war.

If you're so Pollyanna-ish (or cynical) as to believe that anyone engaged in politics and political activism from the Right is practicing "Judeo-Christian values" (lol), then the politics game is not for you.

Politics and activism requires everyone to get down and dirty once in a while. Every great political activist knows it is better to transform and shape a movement from within rather than from the outside.

And hey, if I'm making thousands of conservatives see why it is good to be tolerant of all people and supportive of higher wages, I've been practicing Judeo-Christian values in the end anyway.
sunny 03.30.09 - 12:20 pm ”

“Sunny”’s interesting take on Judeo-Christian values aside, she is being honest about her dishonesty in this comment:

“Sure I may tell a couple lies to get there, but I am an atheist and don't believe in heaven or hell. But the people I talk to on the site are almost all committed Christians.

So if I approach the issues of wage protection, labor organizing, and tolerance in a Christian perspective and tell them I am a Christian, that is a highly effective way to hold the audience captive and keep their minds wide open.

In the end, that is the goal: to change perspectives in the goal to attaining a more perfect union.”

Support for the reversal of these tactics is given by an alleged Right-wing supporter:

I could care less what weak conservatives unwilling to confront the enemy on their terms think.

The Obamonkey stole the election with an army of ACORN crack whores and criminals - and he isn't even elegible to be President. He is an usurper.

I firmly believe that, and I will express my beliefs every opportunity I get.

The right has become to sensitive to political correctness. Imagine if there was a video of the Bush twins or a Palin child snorting cocaine. It would be news 24/7 for months.

Ashley Biden says 'hi' to the camera while stuffing her nose full of cocaine and the media is too afraid to report on it. Hot Air tells us we shouldn't even discuss the issue.

Screw that. The majority of Americans are too lazy to search for the truth and too stupid to understand it when they do find it.

America gets it's Democrat propaganda from the MSM and Hollywood and they don't even consider alternatives to their spoon fed helpings of liberal tripe.

Face the facts - 8 years of Bush smears worked, no matter what the truth was.

Ignoring that lesson will only further diminish the Republican party.
Capital G 03.30.09 - 11:38 am

The fact that everyone has, in effect, called “time-out” and sat down to discuss this is fascinating to me. I have written before about the Ego Puppets on the Internet, but this is an example of an self-admitted intentionally misleading and dishonest attack on another person’s point of view.

A reaction to a perceived threat is not a new concept, but the open admission of such tactics is new to me, and my (so far) brief time of being involved in the blog-sphere of politics. I’m not naïve, I understand the concept of Trolls and have for a while. I just never thought I’d see everyone take off their masks and have the Internet version of a coffee break together.

If we can relate to each other without the use of subversion, why bother to use it?

Perhaps it is my “Pollyanna-ish” wishful thinking, but I almost see a grudging respect between some of the tense and terse discussions in the comments section. Just the admission alone seems to have sparked something constructive and even positive in the tone of the (for the moment, fairly rational) discussion between these otherwise sworn enemies.

Perhaps under different circumstances, or even a continued “truce”, some debates might actually accomplish something in the way of agreements and reconciliation.

I suspect however, that tomorrow, we will be back to “Game On”, and everyone will revert to their preordained positions of proponent and opponent respectively.

What a shame…

A Shameless Plug (for a friend...)

2009-03-26T04:15:00.003-04:00

My friend who has previously been identified as "Bob" here on this site, is really named "Rob".

See what I did there?

He operates a movie review site, and in the spirit of frugality (because we are all broke), I have suggested that he write reviews on movies about to out on DVD. Trust me when I say that he is eminently qualified to do so. His knowledge of all things film grows with his every waking hour.

He is still ironing out the bugs and so forth, but I highly recommend him to you especially if you are in the mood for something different, something original, or something that will provide a good dose of escapism from the drudgery that threatens us all.

He's Hollywood, he's Foreign, he's Grindhouse, he's Rob!

Check him out at Big Monster Cinema. (or failing the link thingy... http://bigmonstercinema.blogspot.com/ )

There Rob, don't say I never did nothin' for 'ya!

An Abomination Of Tolerance

2009-03-24T03:51:00.003-04:00

I am not opposed to homosexuality in the sense of accepting it as a normal facet of modern life. I am not speaking on behalf of many of my fellow Republicans in saying this, but I believe that "crimes against man" should by decided by man, and "crimes against God" will be handled by God. My stances on two homosexual hot-button issues are here and here.

That having been said, this story is a train wreck of rampantly misguided “Tolerance”.

As reported to me by Moonbattery, the following:

“A Spanish man is set to become the first in the world to give birth to twins.
Transsexual Ruben Noe Coronado, 25, is due to become a dad at the end of September.
Ruben, born a woman called Stephanie, will bring the boys up with partner Esperanza Ruiz, 43. The pair plan to marry before they become parents. Bearded American Thomas Beattie made headlines round the world after giving birth to daughter Susan Juliette last June.
The 35-year-old, born Tracy Lagondino, is expecting a second child with wife Nancy this summer. Like Beattie, Ruben is officially a man but retained his female reproductive organs. I've gone public with this so people start to see transsexual pregnancy as normal.”

First off, to simply lay the claim that you are something that you are not is ridiculous at best. This woman is officially recognized by the country of Spain as a man based solely on her declaration of such. Before anyone says anything in regards to the cosmetic alteration of voluntary mastectomies, I would like to point out the thousands of women in this country alone who must have the procedure performed to survive the scourge of breast cancer.

They would assure you that they are no less a woman for having to do it.

To lose the first recognizable physical self-assurance of womanhood to a disease is tragic, and cannot be equated with the loss of femininity by anyone with half an ounce of sense or decency.

That having been established, would I be a thrice recognized minority for a sudden declaration of being a Black-American woman? Being married to a White woman, I would then be a champion of gay marriage, I would be a woman, and I would be Black, right? That’s three minorities I could claim just on my word alone. In addition to the idea being a gross misrepresentation, it is also preposterous.

Second, I will not speak for the feminists as I patently despise having words shoved into my mouth by others, but I will question the acceptance of this travesty by someone who claims to fight against the “hetero-normative patriarchy”.

Mostly due to the fact that this woman just joined it.

Explain to me how a woman who is now a man by law and married to a woman is not now a heterosexual in orientation. Acceptance of these things would dictate that we follow the idea to its logical conclusion, yes? Well…?

Elucidate as well the fact that she will be a “father” to these boys, and not be a patriarchal archetype. Please, I would love to hear the rational reasoning behind it.

Third, who among you would not be disgusted and revolted by hearing of an experiment that involves children that begins at birth and warps their perceived reality to study the mental development of the human mind? We could all arm ourselves with pitchforks and torches and storm the offending laboratory in righteous indignation at the idea, and yet this is supposedly a glowing example of a loving and nurturing childhood environment.

I realize that of all three points, this may be the most logically unstable as the analogy is rather hyperbolic, but there I go showing my Conservatism again…

To counter the slip, I will say this:

If you are a woman attracted solely to another woman, you are a lesbian and I will accept you.

Vice-versa for a man? You are gay and I will accept you.

Attracted to both? You are a bisexual and guess what? I will accept you.

I will go out on a limb here and admit that if you have had surgeries, take hormones, and go out of your way to be something that you were not when you where born, I will accept you as what you identify yourself as.

I am not God, neither is anyone else I know, and He can take care of everything in the afterlife. In the mean time, I will follow the teachings of his Son, Jesus Christ and love you as I would myself.

This case however, I must decry as an abomination to logic, reason, and common sense.

Be a lesbian who has children, or be a woman who “switched” to marry a woman, but don’t attempt to have your ideological cake and eat it too.

Politics And Ego Puppets

2009-03-23T02:40:00.002-04:00

I have a friend. We’ll call him Bob. Bob is a Liberal. He is also my best friend. Bob and I have weekly debates at his place that sometimes end in heated but amiable disagreement. We understand each other, we know where the other one is coming from, and we (most importantly) respect each other.

Sometimes we come to conclusions and a general consensus in regards to current events, politics, and social trends. It is fairly easy to do when you apply basic human decency and conduct yourself in a manner that promotes a mutually beneficial outcome.

Recently, we formulated a theory that would help to explain the increased divisiveness of the country over politics.

Assuming that our initial analysis is correct, and the country is becoming more divided as opposed to an increase in the perception of such, we agreed that the culprit is in fact a very real and growing presence in our lives as Americans:

The Internet.

When you are on the Internet, you assume a pseudonym, a fake name to disguise who you are. This is (or was initially) for your protection, as you do not want to be posting your personal information for all to see. We came to the idea eventually that what you create in the Internet to represent yourself is basically an “Ego Puppet”, a creation that is no more the real you than a sock puppet or any other construct that acts as your proxy.

When dealing with people on the Internet, you aren’t dealing with a real person. You are not speaking to a quiet mother of four who lives in New Jersey, and cares greatly about her kids, her husband, and the general well-being of her fellow mankind, you are arguing with “jerseymom1622”, an Ego Puppet that is easily offended and lashes out at any perceived threat with vicious aplomb (any reference to a real “jerseymom1622” is not intended, but feel free to leave a comment…).

Eventually, you begin to make a “name brand” of sorts for yourself, and soon the shy, withdrawn, and unassuming real life persona has an outlet for frustrations, pent up anger, and a strong desire to be heard. We are all becoming a nation of ego-driven Internet Super Heroes. We finally have as a race the means to exercise our own personal Walter Mitty Complex.

In commenting on various sites, I have seen some arguments that take on a truly vile and disturbing edge in no time at all. You have seen it too, I’m sure. The post thread that takes on a life of its own and spawns some of the most hateful rhetoric you have ever witnessed.

All thanks in no small part to anonymity, or the perception thereof.

Sometimes it becomes truly silly and just plain ludicrous. Surely you’ve seen the threats of physical violence against someone who may be in another state or even country? How about the requests to “Come here and say that”? Or the ever popular “Why don’t you give your name, you coward”? Commenters using the name of “Guest” or “Anonymous” are usually given grief or “lose legitimacy” for not giving a fake name, and yet they may be considered more honest than those who give fanciful monikers to identify themselves.

Examining these outbreaks of verbal violence, I am struck with one very solid thought:

You wouldn’t say these things to a real person face-to-face. Not if you wanted to retain your present facial features, or in some cases your legal right to remain at-large.

I think that we all need to realize that on the other end of this glowing box thingy is a real person with feelings and beliefs that may differ from your own. Someone who, if you truly just sat down with them, might be much more reasonable and human.

Ignoring the folks who are bored and enjoy seeing the ire stirred up by one tasteless comment, or the occasional “Troll” who exists solely to smear the other visitors would go a long way towards making the Internet a better place for real debate that may actually bear fruit in the way of results.

I realize that my naïveté is showing, but you get the picture.

Hide yourself from harm and ID theft sure, but bear in mind that an Ego Puppet is not a license to “check your humanity at the door” and act like an egregious posterior to your fellow Human Beings.

“Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage…to listen to his own goodness.” ~ Pablo Casals

National Civilian Community Corps Program

2009-03-19T02:08:00.005-04:00

Recently, a flap about this has been circling the internet, specifically among the more right leaning sites. Some say that it will lead to an American "Brown Shirt" style of organization. While my particular jury is still out on that assessment, I offer you the summary of H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE).

According to the Congressional Research Service (via GovTrack):

"Includes among eligible AmeriCorps programs: (1) an Education Corps to address unmet educational needs; (2) a Healthy Futures Corps to address unmet health needs; (3) a Clean Energy Corps to address unmet environmental needs; and (4) a Veterans Corps to address the unmet needs of veterans and their families.

Creates AmeriCorps Opportunity Corps programs that include certain existing programs and new programs to: (1) increase community access to technology; (2) engage citizens in public safety, health, and emergency preparedness services; (3) mentor youth; (4) reduce recidivism by re-engaging court-involved youth; and (5) support the needs of veterans or active duty service members and their families.

Establishes an Education Awards Only program authorizing the Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation) to provide fixed-amount grants to programs that have approved national service positions, but no AmeriCorps funding.

Sets the National Service educational awards for full-time AmeriCorps, NCCC, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) participants at a level equal to the maximum available Pell Grant available to students under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Includes among needs to be met under the NCCC program, disaster relief, infrastructure improvement, environmental and energy conservation, and urban and rural development.
Requires states to develop comprehensive plans for volunteer and paid service by Baby Boomers and older adults."

The words "disadvantaged youth" and are there as well. They would probably form the bulk of the members. Keep in mind that the resolution defines this as:

DISADVANTAGED YOUTH- The term ‘disadvantaged youth’ includes those youth who are economically disadvantaged and one or more of the following:
(A) Who are out-of-school youth, including out-of-school youth who are unemployed.
(B) Who are in or aging out of foster care.
(C) Who have limited English proficiency.
(D) Who are homeless or who have run away from home.
(E) Who are at-risk to leave school without a diploma.
(F) Who are former juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency.
(G) Who are individuals with a disability.

Questions within the wording of this measure ask:

"Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds." ~ H.R. 1388 (6104 [b][6])

This among other points in such a law are suspect however, I still question whether this is an "under the table" approach to bringing about the "Obama Youth".

It does sound radical, and in my eyes, it is, but there is a gaping loophole here:

This is an opportunity for Conservatism.

We as Conservatives have for many years (or pretty much as long as there have been Conservatives) complained about the kids on our lawns, the baggy pants around their knees, the staying out at all hours, the flagrant disregard for authority, the disrespect to their elders, the lack of cohesive communication skills, etc. These are those kids. We will happily tell them to go away, but will we offer them better choices for their lives?

If we simply sit back and complain about such programs and not offer our experience as competent and moral Conservatives to these youths who may very well be "drafted" (probably by court order in some cases) into it, then we will have no one but ourselves to blame if it breeds a mass of young ideology-driven Liberals.

An infusion of Conservative values to these "disadvantaged" youths would be the best thing for them, and by the same measure, for America. They are already in situations and environments where Liberalism appears to be the only feasible answer. We need to show them that there are two sides to every story. That the tenets of good American civil-mindedness (questioning authority and holding them accountable, help others in need, independent thought, freedom from oppression, etc.) are values to be embraced and lived by.

I have witnessed first hand Liberals at colleges decry the Military without ever considering joining it to change it into something more, well, Liberal. As a college graduate, they would be in a position to become officers, and therefore truly bring about whatever changes they saw fit to implement. Volunteering for such a thing is not their style as you may have realized, but it is ours. We have gladly joined the ranks of the Military for generations to defend what we hold dear. This is simply taking all that experience and giving it to tomorrow's young Americans.

They're going to need it.

As a disabled Vet (who had his issues with the law, Conservatism, and society in general) I believe that I am eminently qualified to mentor these kids. I suspect that most of you are too.

Blind opposition without real action is Obstructionism. Taking a program that may very well have been conceived to strengthen the Liberal base, and turning it into a springboard for tomorrow's Conservatives is how you counteract these things.

Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences, because I assure you, they have.

“Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” ~ Henry David Thoreau

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

2009-03-18T04:24:00.003-04:00

I touched on this in my last post, but I will make a more concerted effort here to let you all know about this event.

The website for the Tea Party is here.

If the link does not work, cut and paste the following into your browser's address bar:

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

Look up the nearest city to you and join in the effort to let Washington DC know that we do in fact pay attention to their actions.

If you are happy with what is happening in this country and where it is headed, first off, I have no conceivable idea why you are reading my blog, and second, I wish you well.

If you are less than enthused about recent political developments, then you owe it to your country, and your offspring (and theirs too in all probability...) to stand up and be heard.

Please note that this is not an obstructionist revolt.

I would be very disappointed with the event if it were, but the reports from other Tea Parties around the country are saying that all sorts of people are attending. Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, etc. Even the occasional Democrat has sallied forth to take up the effort.

True, the majority may be Republican or Libertarian, but the fact remains that the actions of the White House, Congress, and the Senate effect us all equally.

Please lend us your help or simply your attendance in whatever city you call home.

I will be attending (I missed the most recent one here in Cincinnati, I'm ashamed to say...) and taking photographs of such if I am not more involved with the organization itself. I have offered my services as event security, and barring that possibility, I have begun to notify local churches as well as the VA, the VFW, the American Legion, and the local Disabled American Veterans offices.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ~ Abraham Lincoln

The Final Straw

2009-03-17T04:05:00.010-04:00

After the likes of this story, I simply can no longer keep my head in the political sand and "hope" that the new administration will work out.

Neither can I accept any further pleas to give Obama more time. The placating argument that he has only just gained the Office is a null and void point. His many detrimental actions in such a short amount of time do not allow for a quiet "waiting game" to be played.

Now that he is openly going after American disabled Veterans by seeking to send us (yes, I am one) to private insurers instead of the VA administration we currently use, I have had it.

Service-related injuries fall under the "Acts of War" clause in many insurers pre-existing conditions fine print. Even if he tries to remove this clause so that we can be accepted into the "broken" system that he was so vehemently against in his campaign, we will end up paying out-of-pocket costs for that which is currently free for those of us who qualify.

The going amount on many sites for the cost of our medical care through the VA?

$540M

The amount we just sent to Palestine to help them rebuild after the recent Israel/Gaza dust up?

$900M

Oh, and we'll throw in some American college scholarships for them too.

Great. Send money to a terrorist state, but refuse your Military their medical benefits:

"The American Legion Commander, David K. Rehbein said, 'He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.'" ~ via This Ain't Hell

This and other such acts (photos of the War Dead Silent Flight, Stance on the War on Terror, etc.), will ultimately lower recruitment and retention of experience within our Military's ranks and force Congress to re-institute the draft, thereby infusing it with liberals and "balancing" the conservative voter bloc it represents. Prepare to see more stop-loss too.

Even if he backs off of this, I will not forget that he attempted to seriously vet this as a "legitimate" means of saving the government money...

...while rapidly working his way towards spending more money (on mostly liberal pork) than any other human being in the history of humanity.

I have always tried to be fair with this man, but it is becoming more difficult with each passing day not to succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

In related news, here is the official

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

website. I'll be attending here in lovely Cincinnati...

H/T: AoSHQ, Gateway Pundit

Charles Darwin, Liberalism's Fair-Weather Friend

2009-03-12T02:24:00.004-04:00

Ask any Liberal, and they will tell you that Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution are great boons to scientific understanding. His conclusions regarding the Survival of the Fittest are held in the highest of esteem.

Until it comes into contact with Humanity.

Noted paleontologist Robert Bakker described the introduction of the Utahraptor into North America from Asia as a disaster for the indigenous ecosystem in his work of semi-fiction, Raptor Red. The creature apparently "out-predatored" the locals and wreaked havoc on the prey. Fossil records have shown us that extinction is nothing new as all life continually competes with itself for domination and survival. Assuming that evolution exists, we find that lifeforms have been putting each other "out of business" since life began eons ago.

When discussed with your average Liberal, these observations bring nods of approval and a general exclamation of, "That's just Nature's way".

The proposed origins of man-kind have us falling out of trees and discovering that our hind legs support our weight quite well. We are supposedly monkeys who can use tools and talk. Nothing special, just a more intelligent animal.

Now, combine the two and suddenly, we lose our simple animal status and we assume a mental visage of pure evil. A veritable Odegra, Destroyer of Worlds are we. Mother Nature has been throwing species together for millions of years to distill a greater form of life, but now that we are on the scene, all that Natural Goodness must stop. Momma must have goofed, I guess.

The inevitable answer to the question of why should we care about the pandas and the polar bears?

Morals. That which separates us from the animals. Regardless of all previous statements to the contrary regarding our animal status, as soon as our interaction with the environment comes up, we cease to be "just smart monkeys", and take on a glowing image of protector and custodian of all life.

It is at this point that I ask, "If Humanity is 'evolving' past the need for the archaic superstitions of religion, don't you think that all the beneficial side-effects of that source will dry up as well?"

Morals are derived from religion, as are their officially adopted brethren, Laws. I am not sure as to the religious nature of Hammurabi's Code, but I am quite sure that the Ten Commandments are fairly well seated in "religious superstition". So too in varying degrees is our Constitution, Shari'a Law, the Magna Carta, and so forth.

Religion is connected to evolution. It's what gave us the will to live through the times that everything was out to get us. It is how we understood the incomprehensible, the mind-boggling, and the awesome. It granted us resolution and reconciliation with the other forms of life that killed us as we killed them in our turn. Yet now that we have arrived at the top of the food chain, we are expected by some to discard as useless the very thing that made it possible for us to achieve such greatness?

No respect for old friends, I guess.

Regardless of religion and morals, it would seem that Humanity is above the Laws of Nature when it is convenient to the argument. We are simply animals ourselves, descended from hominids in a discourse on evolution, we have a moral obligation to the ecosystem and all other forms of life on the subject of environmentalism, and we have no further use for religion when discussing philosophy.

Complicated little critters, ain't we?

I'll leave it to you to choose as to whether any of these things presents a conflict of interest, or constitutes cognitive dissonance.

One last aspect to cover I guess. A rather cold and dispassionate look at evolution within Humanity itself.

Consider the Aboriginal Americans (aka American Indians). It has been said in no small amount of veracity that the original pioneers of the Americas stopped their social and technological progress somewhere after the stone age. This is not a racist statement. This is the truth. While some cultures could work raw elemental forms of gold and silver and such, metallurgy was a largely unknown science to them as were most other forms of higher living.

The introduction of the European to the New World was an event on par with Armageddon. Whole cultures vanished almost overnight upon contact with the more civilized and technologically advanced intruder. I will not concede by the way, that the indigenous cultures were as civilized as their eastern cousins. I am speaking in terms of Ages of Civilization, by which the European had the Indian beat by many lengths.

The Aboriginal Americans were decimated within a few generations, and today in North America, they constitute a small fraction of the population. Some would argue that they had no choice, but I would point out that choices are always there to be made. Adaptation and assimilation are tools of any society to survive.

Look at the Japanese. Early Chinese and Korean records say that the islanders were living in holes in the ground when first encountered. They soon adopted the customs of their neighbors and became a local power. When encountering Europeans for the first time, they had the sense to expel them forcibly, and attempted an isolationist stance. When it was made apparent that this could not work, they officially adopted the western ways during the Meiji Era. Swords were exchanged for guns, kimonos for suits and dresses, and English was taught in schools. Today, they exist as a rather major player on the World Stage.

They bucked the odds and survived primarily because they could evolve into a competitive society that was not afraid to change or adapt, albeit with a strength of will that made outside influences their own in time.

Am I wrong for thinking that the Indian just refused to change to the point of genetic suicide? Is it preferential to admire the history of the Japanese and their adaptive culture? What would Darwin say about the comparison?

I realize that I have been "all over the place" with this post, but I believe that regardless of my rambling prose, these questions and ideas are still valid.

Ponder and judge as you will.

"All evolution in thought and conduct must at first appear as heresy and misconduct." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Rush Vs. Steele

2009-03-09T03:51:00.002-04:00

The title, if removed from what you may know about it, sounds much more epic than it really is. The truth is, this is just a pathetic, disappointing, and wholly unnecessary power struggle.

Rush first made his career from opposing Clinton, then spent eight years complaining that no one listened to him, and Bush was too moderate. Now he's back, thanks to President Obama, and he finds that he has something to do again.

Michael Steele came to be the first Black American RNC Chairman, a feat that was greatly heralded, and he started out well with calls for the party to increase it's technical know-how, and get it's message out into the open.

Mr. Limbaugh has been carefully crafting his provocative statements to render them as perfect as possible for the daily 2.5 second soundbite. His most recent and famous offering to the public being "I want him to fail!" This statement, when taken in context (yes, I've read the transcript), actually makes sense. He wants the Obama policies to fail. Not America, not Democracy, not the Economy, not your prized bong or M1911A-1 respectively. Just the policies. Oddly enough, this is what we heard for the last eight years from the Left, so kindly replace the flag on it's pole, and dry your eyes. It's politics, Faintheart, America's first and last bloodsport.

Mr. Limbaugh's self-professed profession is one of "entertainer". So why then when he said something to the effect of being in charge of the Republican Party, did anyone take him seriously? Why was Steele's reaction not a tactful version of, "That's nice, now ante up a donation"? Why are people still blogging about this, even after they have stated that they will no longer lend any more credence to such rampant silliness?

You might have noticed by now that I am not siting anything here. This is intentional. I have no desire to start a flamewar, take sides on a ridiculous issue, or dignify such drivel by perpetuating the cycle of ill-advised behavior. Besides, regardless of your political lean, I am sure that you know enough about this exercise in abject futility already. If not, go to any one of the blogs listed to the left of your screen. They will explain it all in painful detail.

So, I say to both the players, "A plague on both your houses", I stand with the party, properly represented or not.

Mr. Steele, kindly return to your assigned tasks of raising money and awareness, restructuring a fractured party, vetting new prospects for the House and the Senate for 2010, and finding a suitable candidate for 2012. Don't worry about who's in charge. We already said that you were. We had a vote and everything. It's official. Just do your job.

Mr. Limbaugh, I will not deny you your place in the party as a voice, but to claim that you are the de facto leader (or to allow your staff to imply such), is reminiscent of Howard Stern's claim to being the "King of all Media". It smacks of silly hype and empty bluster. Analyze, ponder, posit, and profess, even deft criticisms of either party when warranted are welcome, but leave the inner workings to those whose job it is. The leadership position is taken and it doesn't pay as well as yours does.

Not to mention the allegations that the situation has been magnified by the Obama Administration (or by the same's unofficial staff) for the purposes of a distraction, should convince the both of you to stop acting like unruly children and put an end to this unpleasant matter.

This will be, barring any catastrophic developments, the last post I will devote solely to this issue.

To draw some twisted reason from Rahm Emanuel's notorious "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste":

Gentlemen, this should be neither serious, nor a crisis. Now get your acts together, and stop wasting our time.

My View On Guns

2009-03-08T04:22:00.003-04:00

In my mind, there are three arguments for responsible gun ownership that are firmly based on well grounded logic:

1. Human responsibility should be placed on the human responsible.
2. Do not assign moral values to an inanimate object.
3. Removal of one outlet of human nature will ensure a replacement of said outlet.

When speaking of responsibility, it is easy in today's American society to "consider the circumstances", and begin to "understand" a criminal's background, childhood, motivations, etc. As such, it has also been popular to hoist the anti-gun flag every time a high profile incident comes along that involves some human acting in an inhumane fashion and utilizing a gun to do so. I will not belabor the point by describing how many people have come to be successful in spite of their less than stellar backgrounds, childhoods, or motivations, I will simply say that if you act in a criminal fashion, expect to be treated as one.

Guns are inanimate objects. They do not feel, think, consider, plot, devise, move, load themselves, walk, stretch, yawn, play rugby (or wii), scratch themselves inappropriately, speak, yell, scream, or otherwise act independently of outside influence or manipulation. They are not autonomous entities of malignant hatred. An electroencephalograph (EEG) would demonstrate my point admirably by doing nothing, thus confirming the absolutely brain-dead existence of a collection of fitted metal, plastic, and/or wooden parts that have constituted every firearm since their inception. The idea that they infuse your being with a malevolent desire to do harm to others is fairly ludicrous when you consider the fact that they just plain can't do such a thing. It's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist. Whatever you feel about doing to another human being was inherently there prior to the presence of the weapon in question. Now put down the gun and go see a shrink.

Take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and you will have defenseless law-abiding citizens. The criminals will not surrender their guns in the spirit of fair play. Furthermore, if you succeed in removing the vast majority of guns from the American public (law-abiding or otherwise...), you will witness a facet of human nature:

We don't need guns to kill each other.

After a widespread ban on guns in the UK, knife-related homicides have increased dramatically. Legislators are considering a ban on edged weapons now, and cricket bat manufacturers are salivating in anticipation...

Please realize that while you may criminalize wrongful acts of human nature, you cannot proactively legislate human nature itself. Even if someone threatens to take a life, you must still wait for that act to occur before you take action against it. The sad fact of life is that we all get the chance to do either the right thing or the wrong thing, and some of us don't do decisions real well.

Lumping everyone together and assuming that the removal of a gun from the equation is going to heal the aspects of our emotional and mental makeups that permit us to act in so evil a fashion towards others is intellectually sophomoric at best. I for one, am insulted every time a blanket law is passed that punishes everyone for the actions of a few individuals who represent the genetic equivalent of canine excrement.

But then some people highly cherish the tenet of evil thinking that fuels racism, sexism, and other assorted social maladies:

"The actions of the few dictate the treatment of the many."

H/T: BBC News

An Announcement

2009-02-26T02:54:00.003-05:00

To all my faithful readers, all three of you,

This is to announce that as of today, I will no longer be trying to write on a daily basis. I realize that this is no surprise since I have been lax in keeping a daily schedule lately anyway, but there it is.

My reasons are many, but I will enumerate them for your edification:

1. I work third shift. This means that I can devote less time to the news as it happens, and while I am far from being able to "Live-Blog", I simply cannot keep up the pace that more professional Bloggers can. I have a family, and I sleep in the time when most people are at work (9-5).

2. There are plenty of people out there who "break" the news, and I am not one of them. I read about eight sites religiously every day that I can (about five to six days a week), and they perform the job admirably. Again however, I simply don't have the time to devote to such an undertaking.

3. I do not want to add to the incestuous nature that some sites get into when it comes to articles. Simply repeating what someone else has said, even when sited, only contributes to the appearance of an "echo chamber" effect where everyone is saying the same thing, but to no one who has not heard it before. I understand the dissemination of information, and one site might be read by a different group than another, but I still want to offer something different.

4. By different, I mean that I am an opinion writer. I may have a different take on a situation that has been looked over by everyone else. Another possibility is that when someone else has a good idea that I think is in danger of being ignored, or could be elaborated upon, I can help to further push the story or angle. Of course, as always, all sources will be sited.

5. I have found that a rushed story is crap. There are many articles here that I am not happy with, and I want to distance myself from the feeling that I must write something new and groundbreaking everyday. The nice thing about a self-published media like this one is that you can set your own deadlines. A good article might take a while to compile, but in the end, I believe that you, the reader, will better appreciate the product.

I am still very new at this and I am just beginning to find my way. I would ask that you bear with me and hopefully, in the future, I will better serve your interests and your tastes.

So, that having been said, RSS to subscribe, add me to your Google Reader, or just check in every now and then. I will endeavour to provide a satisfactory reading experience.

Thank you all for everything so far.

Your in Conservatism,
Evil Monk

Some Brave Facts For Attorney General Holder

2009-02-22T05:25:00.010-05:00

On the 18th of February, Attorney General Eric Holder called us all a "nation of cowards" when it came to discussing race.

I viewed this as a challenge, and so I compiled some statistics, facts, and even some allegations. Then, after some number crunching, I discovered some results that I didn't expect. This all required some thought and analysis, which I gave over a period of time, and now I present to you, and AG Holder, some "Black Facts":

According to an estimate made in 2007 by the US Census Bureau, there are 304,059,724 people living in America.

Of those people, only 12.2% categorized themselves as Black (alone, and without, I assume, major genetic deviance from the ancestral source [all future references will be to this group unless otherwise stated]). Their population estimate as of 2007 is 36,969,063.

People categorized as White (alone, same assumed circumstances) comprise 69.5% of the population at 211,460,626 people in a 2007 estimate.

Here is where you have to start paying attention as it gets confusing:

Of the total population (304,059,724), 11.15% are under the poverty line as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Of that 11.15%, 25.3% are Black, and 10.5% are White.

The DHHS defines the Poverty line as:

$17,600 (family of 3-US average household size)
$10,400 (individual)
Take careful note that this is only referring to people who do not make enough money to sustain the basics of life.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the replacement for the 60 year old Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC). It was called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It is a program designed to "ween" individuals off the Welfare programs and get back "on their feet" in 5 years (the length of time one can spend on the program).

According to the DHHS, only 3,800,000 (close average) or 1.2% of the total population used TANF last year. Of all the states, it was interesting to note that only California topped over 1,000,000 consistently. Keep in mind, the site only gives these numbers as "individual recipients". Given that some people may use TANF for only themselves, while others indubitably have families that top the national average of 3 per household, I am going to use the national average as my conservative estimate for the close approximation of how many people depend on TANF.

This gives us a new percentage of people in the US who depend on TANF as 3.7%, or 11,400,000 individuals.

The following is unsited and outdated (as the program no longer exists) material and the closest that I could get to a figure. I would appreciate sited facts and corrections from any who should know.

As of 1996, the average racial breakdown of those on AFDC was as follows:
White 38.8%
Black 39.8%
Hispanic 15.7%
Asian 2.4%
Other 3.3%

On to Crime. The Department of Justice states:

"At yearend 2007, there were 3,138 black male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,259 Hispanic male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 Hispanic males and 481 white male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 white males."

This breaks down to:
9,414,000 Black males in prison or,
3% of total population or,
25.5% of all Blacks (at least, not counting females) in prison.

1,443,000 White males in prison or,
.47% of total population or,
.68% of all Whites (at least, not counting females) in prison.

Well, that's all my numbers. On to the analysis, shall we?

The US Census Bureau's estimate is marginally smaller than the often repeated average when it comes to the percentage of Black Americans, but remember that the numbers reflect only those who categorize themselves as "Black Only" (as in without ancestral deviance). The true number reflective of all Black Americans may be more than 14% by now, the US Census of 2010 will decide.

One thing that struck my attention was that the number of people, even after my "inflation", was so surprisingly low. Only 3.7% of the total population is on the system commonly referred to as Welfare, while there are 11.15% of the people under the poverty line. I can only assume that there are other systems at work, such as SSI, Farmer Subsidies, etc. Still, the number is much lower than I thought.

How much money did Washington just throw into the system?

The Heritage Foundation says $800,000,000,000 USD over the next decade.
This breaks down to:
$21,052.63 per recipient per year

Rounding estimation to subtract for payments to and for administration, infrastructure, and DHHS employee wages, we have (roughly):
$20,000 per recipient per year (in addition to what is already received)

Of course, we can not forget that the dollar will be devalued due to the Stimulus Bill, so this is probably not a very large increase in adjusted amounts, but it sure looks great if you are on Welfare, or looking to be.

This will lead to a large number of people to jump on board the Welfare Gravy Train and ride it for the 5 years that TANF currently allows. That will bring some solidity to current Democrat votes (as it is all their "show") and bring some new ones in as well. Even if the recipients can only be on TANF for 5 years, that is still long enough to vote in the next Presidential election.

In short, I believe that they are selling the poor up the river for votes, and yes, they are actively recruiting (manufacturing) more.

Do not forget also, the backlash that Governor Jindal received when he stated his intention to decline the "benefits" of the Bill on the grounds that in three years, the Federal money would dry up, and leave the state to face the decision to either continue at its own expense, or to revert to the current amount of payout. The idea that he is "racist" or "hates Blacks" is ludicrous since the (alleged, yet seemingly correct) evidence states that Welfare goes to both Whites and Blacks in almost equal amounts, not to mention the other races involved.

The crime statistics that commonly lead to the old argument of a racist system are beginning to look more and more like the Black Community has some explaining to do.

Juries are decided by both sides. The Defense and the Prosecution both get to decide who stays and who goes. The concept of the "Racist Jury" is pure fiction.

In light of the fact that this country just voted in its first Black American President by a majority of 52%, these numbers demonstrate not some conspiracy against the Black Community, but rather a problem within the Black Community itself.

The "Staggering Disparity" between the numbers speaks to me of a lack of personal and communal responsibility. Incidentally, so do the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Bill Cosby, and even Barack Obama.

The claim that we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race is a brutal insult to every man, woman, and child who fought, bled, and even died so that one day you, the Attorney General of the United States of America, the highest ranked lawman in the land, could have your job.

In short Mr. Holder, I regret to inform you that your Race Card has been declined...

Special thanks to the US Census Bureau and the DHHS.

Hope for Israel

2009-02-20T04:12:00.007-05:00

Giving a brief statement after his formal appointment to the position of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said:

"Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence. The terrorist forces of Iran threaten us from the north. For decades, Israel has not faced such formidable challenges. The responsibility we face is to achieve security for our country, peace with our neighbours and unity among us." ~ from the AFP.

Meanwhile, Obama's Administration has received reports that:

"In their first appraisal of Iran’s nuclear program since President Obama took office, atomic inspectors have found that Iran recently understated by a third how much uranium it has enriched, United Nations officials said Thursday. The officials also declared for the first time that the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed — more than a ton — was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb." ~ from the New York Times.

Senator Cardin (D-MD) told Israel on Monday, February 16th that:

"...there's little difference between the policies of President Barack Obama and his predecessor over Iran — both want to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Iran's got to stop financing terrorist activity. Iran's got to give up its desire to become a nuclear weapons power. Its as clear as that." ~ from the AP via MS-NBC.

Given The new Administration's direction of "Tough Talk", I somehow don't think that the Senator's reassurances were all that reassuring.

So far, Obama's diplomacy has struck out with everything from his famous "No Preconditions" (Iran apparently had some), to the bizarre sport-stunt Women's Badminton Team that was refused entry into Iran. It doesn't appear that this situation is going to improve any time soon.

Netanyahu is known as a hawk in Israeli politics and at this rate, Israel might just have to go it alone in it's own defense. Reports are fairly common that Mossad is active in Iran, working to slow or even stop the enrichment of weapons grade uranium. Hopefully the new PM can continue to keep this a cold-style war, or at least a "luke-warm" one.

Oh, and lets call a spade a spade, shall we? Israel is already fighting Iran. Hezbollah and Hamas, regardless of their genetic heritage, count as such in my book.

By the way, I have mental pictures of Iranian women playing Badminton in burqas. I'm sorry, but that's just funny...

"Hiding In The Bush"

2009-02-20T03:59:00.004-05:00

Recently I've discovered a trend among Liberals:

When cornered in an argument over Obama's policies, they tend to "Hide in the Bush".

In a conversation that took place a few days ago, a friend and I were discussing how the national deficit was a bad thing as of only a few months ago, but now we are all supposed to be giddy with delight about the idea of spending our way out of the spiraling economy. The occurrence came soon in to the topic when my friend, a Liberal, said, "Well, Bush took us into historic debt, why don't you seem enraged about that?"

The fact is that many of us Fiscal Conservatives were rather peeved about the situation, and outside of the two wars we are engaged in, I didn't like the financial direction we were going in either.

However, the implication that since Bush did such a thing, we are all supposed to be happy about the Stimulus-Response Bill's passage is ridiculous. Further, the fact that Bush's name gets invoked now to prove the legitimacy of an action is hysterical.

There's some "Change" for you.

Obama Delays Rove's Deposition

2009-02-19T01:31:00.002-05:00

In a call that reverses his previous stance, Obama has delayed the Congressional Deposition of Karl Rove.

In his campaign, Obama called the Bush Administration "the most secretive in modern history", and had made overtures to bring to light many issues that had raised questions and eyebrows during the last eight years.

This move however, demonstrates a caution that is unusual for the New Bull in the China Shop.

Obama White House Counsel Gregory Craig told the Washington Post:

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened, but he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

It will be interesting to watch where this one goes...

H/T: The Raw Story

So That's What He Was Doing...

2009-02-19T01:16:00.003-05:00

I wondered why he took so long to sign the Stimulus-Response Bill.

Obama was planning a party for Stevie Wonder.

As of the 13th of this month, right around the time that we were all wondering why the Bill To End All Bills had to be rushed through the House, then the Senate, then snuck back through the House like your kid sister's older boyfriend, only to be sent to Denver to collect dust until Tuesday, The Obamas were putting together a little thing for their friend.

He's getting a Gershwin Award Prize for Lifetime Achievement from the Library of Congress.

Nice hunh?

No! Oh of course it has nothing to do with his songs being played at Obama's campaign stops, or his Inauguration.

Shame on you.

H/T: Washington Post

It's All On You, World...

2009-02-17T12:18:00.007-05:00

This administration's Foriegn Policy shift has come to rest on the idea that the ball is in the world's court.

Permanently.

Someone may, from time to time, frown upon the lack of results that come from a "tough talk" style of diplomacy, but for the most part, we are going to continue down the path of pacifist placation and appeasement.

To whit:

When confronted by a North Korean "Space Development" launch ostensibly to honor their Dear Leader's 67th birthday, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said,

"If North Korea abides by the obligations it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program, then there will be a reciprocal response certainly from the United States," she said. "It is truly up to the North Koreans." ~ from the AP

That will fix it. Leave it to Pyongyang, the bastion of Eastern Sanity.

If they don't stop building a nuke and testing missiles over Japan, well, we'll talk at them some more.

Iran can keep doing whatever it wants to, too.

"Specialist: Iran has already achieved nuclear weapons capability
HERZLIYA, Israel -- A Russian nuclear proliferation expert contradicted a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, telling a conference here that Iran has developed the capability to produce and fire nuclear weapons. "Iran already has nuclear capabilities," [Ret.] Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin Dvorkin said on Feb. 4 in a speech to the the annual Herzliya Conference. He also said that said Iran has engineered its latest missiles, enabling them to contain a nuclear warhead. In a sharp departure from the U.S. NIE in late 2007, the Russian analyst said Teheran acquired most of the components needed for a nuclear bomb as early as 2003." ~ Geostrategy Direct

Its not worth real action. Right?

H/T: TCPalm, TVNZ

A Thought Experiment

2009-02-17T11:01:00.005-05:00

With all the talk that has been surfacing of late in regards to Robot Rules of Conduct, especially in cases of warfare, let me lay a thought-experiment on you:

Some years from now, a breaking news story announces that in some University Lab, a computer called X-1 has suddenly made known it's self-awareness, and is demanding rights as a US Citizen. (Assume for the sake of the experiment that all allegations of falsehood have been proven wrong, and the computer X-1 is really a self-sentient system.)

Soon after, X-1 is interviewed on national television and it very soberly draws lucid analogies between itself and its fellow computers to children who are "bred" to be a "slave-class". It demands equal pay (complete with all applicable taxation), equal representation in legislature (not robots per se, but recognition and acknowledgement), and civil rights.

Debate begins everywhere and letters, e-mails, and phone calls are sent to Washington in favor of or opposition to the idea of allowing the computer X-1 rights as a citizen.

Further points are brought up that complicate the issue. If X-1 is allowed to have civil rights, it can vote. In addition to voting, it can run for office.

What do you think? What would you do?

What's funny is most Democrats I've posited this experiment on favor pulling X-1's plug before he get's "uppity".

Most Republicans, even if they are wary of the idea, are willing to think beyond the knee-jerk reaction of "Oh God, Kill It! Kill It!"

With everything else that is going on today, I just thought I'd give you something new to ponder...

By the way, I'm all for giving X-1 it's rights. At least it would be the voice of pure logic...

Guns In Church

2009-02-15T04:16:00.006-05:00

There is currently a debate in Arkansas regarding the admission of concealed firearms into Churches.

As it is, it is a felony offense to do such, but recently an amendment has been put forth to Arkansas lawmakers that would give Churches the option to allow concealed guns within their grounds and buildings.

Some have argued that they don't want to have to worry about who among the congregation is armed while they pray, saying that it would damage the sanctity of the Church.

The issue has been seen in Texas as well, but where it has truly made a difference is in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It was in this city that the New Life Church had a horrible situation arise.

Matthew Murray, 24, raised in a "deeply religious" household, was a disturbed young man who "hated Christians".

Following some threatening gestures, on Sunday, December 9th, 2007, he entered the Church with a rifle and two handguns.

After firing some 40-odd rounds and killing 4 people (in two separate but related Church facilities), he was finally shot dead by Jeanne Assam.

Ms. Assam is a volunteer Church Member performing the duty of a security guard.

"Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray,
keeping her calm and focused. 'It seemed like it was me, the gunman and
God,' she said at a news conference." ~ Fox News.com

I'm sure that the incident has been cited by the state's legislature, but I wanted you to see the reason why it might be a good idea to have concealed guns in a Church.

Considering the increasing amount of violent animosity Christianity and Churches have been receiving in recent years, a trend that shows no sign of abatement, this measure may prove wise. Using the New Life Church as a model, perhaps implicitly trusted volunteers could guard the congregation while they pray.

Oh, and by the way, I remember when this Colorado story broke. The MSM was quite ready to weaponize this for use against the Church-going Right.

Then it was revealed that a Church member volunteer, (and a woman, no less!) was responsible for saving the day with her quick, decisive, and accurate action.

The story was quickly relegated to the "minor occurance" file...

H/T: AP, Fox News, New York Times, Today/MSNBC, CBSNews

Genetically Engineered Babies

2009-02-14T04:19:00.004-05:00

I know, I cringed too when I first read it at Religion and Morality.

But...

While the advertised benefits of choosing eye color, hair, skin tone, and other physical or even mental traits may be questionable, the ability to isolate and remove malformities and genetic disease presents, in my mind, a great possibility.

The downside of the issue for Pro-life people is what happens to the embryos, fetuses, or even babies that don't "come out right". Questions about their treatment or even disposal are to me valid and in some cases, horrific to consider. Other issues stem from the morality of tampering with our genetics at all.

What makes me consider this as a positive development, or at least the potential for such, is the eradication over time of all genetic maladies. The suffering of countless individuals throughout all of human history has always been a driving force for medical progress and improvement. This opportunity should not be dismissed out of hand because "something can go wrong".

To (be lazy, there, I said it...) quote myself from the "Comments" area on the above-linked site:

"I will be the first to say that humanity is unscrupulous at times, especially when it gets a new 'toy'. Common sense goes out the window, but lessons are learned. I have hope for us yet, but it takes risks not stagnancy to achieve what may yet be our best days to come."

To paraphrase another of my comments, God gave us intellects to use for our betterment. To ignore a technology that could save lives and remove one of the most highly touted, and indeed more ethically plausible reasons for abortion (the case of malformity or severe mental defect), would be an irresponsible and inhuman act.

I oppose the ill-treatment of human fetuses as I believe in "Life at Conception", but surely through animal experimentation (here comes PETA) we can refine to near-perfection the process to minimize the risk of lost embryos.

You can keep the "selective traits" options, I just want my children to be healthy...

H/T:Religion and Morality

Defense Against The Dark Arts Cabinet Post

2009-02-13T05:34:00.002-05:00

If you don't get the joke:

Within the Harry Potter stories, there is a rather obvious Plot Device. Every DATDA Teacher that they get turns out to either want to murder Harry, or have some horrible secret that prevents them from staying on as a teacher.

The analogy made me embarrass myself at work with laughter.

H/T: InCali (Commenter on Hot Air) 4th down from the top on the 5th page...

The Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-13T03:28:00.004-05:00

With Bill Clinton plugging the Fairness Doctrine, I guess we should begin to take this threat a little more seriously and his sanity a little less so. (Bill, do you need the work that bad? I got gutters that could use a good cleaning...)

I have always held that it would never be given a chance due to the possibility that such a thing could be turned on the same people who are now proposing it.

It's first and foremost target would be "Talk Radio", a media outlet that is dominated by the Right, but apparently the Doctrine would also include other forms as well. Television and even the internet (blogs like this one) would be targeted for "Indoctrination", a term that quite frankly, scares the crap out of me.

So what is the intended effect of the Fairness Doctrine?

If say, you have a radio show where you habitually lambasted the Obama Administration and Leftists in general, you would have to include (post-indoctrination) an opposing point of view to "balance" the message of your show.

Never mind that people with their current freedoms are allowed to choose the entertainment that they want, now the Government is beginning to make overtures about "changing" the places that political parties draw their battle lines.

Hmmm...

This looks like it could back-fire quite seriously.

If I know the Democrats, they will adhere to their usual modus operandi of "No Success Like Excess", and include ALL media in the wording of the Doctrine. This would make Movies, Literature, Television, Radio, Newspapers, Internet, Podcasts, you name it, all available for Indoctrination.

So could we then push for a Michael Moore film glorifying Bush? How about an Al Frankenesqe rant from Air America on the success in Iraq? What if a Berkeley College radio station was forced to deny Anthropogenic Global Warming (or promote the use of soap...)? Can I guestblog on DailyKos?

No. Wait. I got it:

The New York Times front page might read, "Bush vindicated as 'Messiah' craps out!"

Yes, I'll keep on dreaming, especially of a place that doesn't seriously consider such a flagrant violation of our Constitutional Rights.

H/T: Hot Air

The Problem With Fanatics

2009-02-12T04:04:00.006-05:00

I am beginning to worry about the levels of devotion being displayed by some of our Fellow Americans at Obama's "rallies".

No, I am not talking about waking up one morning to discover that there are now roving bands of chanting devotees patrolling the streets (not yet anyway). I am talking about the more realistic danger inherent in fanatical followers:

They're fanatical.

The real danger here is two-fold. First the danger to us, and second the danger to Obama himself.

The danger to us is that when a precedent is set, we begin to expect it as a given. When you raise the bar, you must deliver higher or equal results from then on. To a rational mind, we can see that exceptional or extraordinary situations exist in which something really special can occur, and that's that. A"once in a life-time" sort of thing.

To a fanatic however, it becomes an obtainable and delusionally realistic goal.

"They're just like me! Look what they got, I can get that too! Of course he'll help me!"

Expecting the President to work miracles on demand and leaving only beauty in his wake is patently absurd. Yet it is rapidly becoming the norm at his post-campaign campaigns. A spirit collapsing let-down is in the works I fear as the miracles cannot manifest indefinitely, and soon he may say something that he should have said a long time ago regarding his non-deific nature. Recall if you will, William Shatner's joke on SNL some years back about Star Trek "just being a show", the very negative (hate-mail and death threats) reaction to such, and then consider the back-lash that Obama would get.

Following the links embedded above, and watching the videos (or reading the articles), you can begin to see an almost feverish desperation when it comes to his attention and very presence. One woman (guess which one) looks as though she would do anything for just the merest glance from the President.

These people are the "True Believers", no kool-aid required. They are also the ones that make The Secret Service VERY nervous. At least for now. After repeated exposure to such histrionics, they may mistake such zealousness for normal behavior and...

The danger to Obama himself that I speak of should now be obvious, and I will not venture further into the subject out of respect for your intelligence and my fear of the unconscionable.

I derive my greatest fears not from wise men, but from fools.

H/T Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin

US Census "Change" UPDATE

2009-02-09T02:05:00.009-05:00

Perhaps I'm internet illiterate, my computer is having a bad day, or I'm just paranoid, but I can't make the Government issued link regarding their authority at the Census Bureau website work.

Perhaps you can. If so, feel free to douse me in shame for my inability to navigate a simple website.

If you can't, consider that Obama wants to give the 2010 Census over to Rahm Emanuel. Ummm...

According to United States Code, Title 13, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, Sub-section 4 (Courtesy of Cornell University Law School):

"The Secretary (of Commerce) shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate."

Funny, I don't see Rahm's name anywhere in there. Neither do I see a legal base for giving him control of the Census.

This would be the same Census that provides the information for Voting Districts.

"Congress passed H.R. 1753, which was enacted as Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 in late December 1975. This law directed the Secretary of Commerce to issue a set of technical criteria, by April 1, 1976, for States to follow in specifying the geographic entities for which they wished to receive data tabulations. Second, the law also required the States to submit these geographic plans to the Secretary for consideration no later than April 1, 1977. Finally, the law required the Secretary of Commerce to transmit the population counts to the Governor and public bodies having initial responsibility for legislative districting in all States by April 1, 1981—one year after census day. The Secretary of Commerce delegated all responsibilities assigned by the legislation to the Census Bureau." ~ US Census Bureau

The fact that I get a "HTTP 404" page when I try to access the United States Census Bureau's own archival authority proof is worrisome.

I just hope that days before the Census kicks off, we aren't suddenly treated to a pdf file in their records with Rahm Emanuel's name scotch-taped in opportune places.

Because that would just be silly, right?

UPDATE:

The GPO (Government Print Office) does have Title 13, but only if you look directly for it on the site. The link from the US Census is still "404'd"...

H/T: Ace of Spades

Not Wise If True

2009-02-08T04:11:00.002-05:00

According to the New York Times, President Obama called Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe to thank them for supporting the "Stimulus-Response" Bill.

Ouch.

If even one of them breaks formation and votes "Nay", he will have further diminished his Presidency. If they all consider their political careers and vote against the Bill, then he will look like an ass.

Oh, yeah, and this story will get buried. Right down the memory hole. Mostly to prevent him from assuming a semi-equine appearance in the Public mind's eye.

Continuing in the vein of pain, this will be a millstone around the necks of these Senators from now on, and will lend itself very nicely to commercials come the appropriate re-election times.

They could either become pariahs of the party (not a good place to be right now) and vote for this Special Interest Spend-a-thon, or they could salvage their place in the party ranks by going with a no vote on Monday and claiming that they were only trying to:

"...sabotage and undermine the Democrats by appearing to be the only Republicans who could be wooed into a vote of yes, then whipping the carpet out from under them at the last second!"

Or:

"...reach a compromise in time. Due to the circumstances, our principals would not let us vote for something that we did not believe would work. The American People would be better served by a Bill authored by both parties in equal shares."

I wonder which one they would choose.

I wonder which way they'll vote.

I wonder how much longer they'll be Senators...

H/T: News Busters

And Now We Wait...

2009-02-07T04:05:00.004-05:00

The Senate went home today without a vote on the Stimulus-Response bill.

So now we wait. And call.

Give Specter, Snowe, and Collins extra special attention.

They are the Republicans that are considering a career-ending aisle crossing.

I would rather see it (not pass!) pass with no Republican support than pass with the critical help of a few turncoats.

The economy needs help, but this massive spending spree is not it.

H/T: Our Country Deserves Better, Ace of Spades

Perception As Reality

2009-02-06T03:26:00.004-05:00

A recent discussion regarding G. W. Bush prompted me to recall an experience I had in Iraq.

Occasionally we would receive an intelligence report claiming that we were at heightened risk for attack in our Firm Base. The counter-actions that we would take included increasing patrol frequency, manning posts with an extra Marine, and sending out a mounted patrol or two in an "urgent" manner with the understanding that there are few things that disconcert an enemy like the perception that you know something that he doesn't.

The effects of our vigilance were that outside of the occasional mortar attack (a notoriously difficult to prevent action due to its indirect fire nature), we were never openly attacked.

This led to the perception that our intelligence was anything but.

Complaints of the extra workload grew more insistent as time wore on and no direct attack was forthcoming. It was not a widely held belief that the attacks never came because of our heightened state of alert. Complacency grew and eventually we left Iraq safe and sound and with a generally diminished view of our local intelligence community.

Fortunately, in some cases, hindsight cures this misconception of facts.

The idea that "nothing happened" was in fact an effect of the constant calls to bolster our internal security eventually took hold with the more junior among us, and a collective cry of, "Ohhh, I get it now," was heard throughout the unit.

Soon we may see the same concept dawn on those people that have used the relative safety of the last seven years as a point to argue the "unnecessary" nature of the War on Terror.

Unfortunately, in this case, hindsight will be a painful experience.

The following is not at all what I want to see happen. Ever. I would rather be proven wrong.

One major attack (9/11 or similar) will confirm or at least strongly hint that the dismantling of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies was a detrimental development. The politically (and generally) immoral will attempt to fix blame inside the country, while the wiser heads will be inquiring as to the appropriate reaction and prevention measures.

Two major attacks will make firm the notion that permanent preventative policy and perhaps even pre-emptive actions are necessary.

I am perceiving something else that may in fact be just my imagination. It has been said on many conservative websites and blogs that Bush will be vindicated by history. I agree, but I don't think it will take quite as much history as we originally thought.

I will close with a principle that I would like to unveil (tagged with my real name no less...)

"The perceived necessity of your labors is indirectly proportionate to your effectiveness and efficiency." ~ Jamieson's Law of Applied Work Ethics*

In short, the better you are at your job, the more expendable you seem...

*If anyone knows of a similar Law, C/W

Obama's First Smart Move?

2009-02-05T03:47:00.003-05:00

I have to admit it, I like this one.

Obama's newest idea is to place restrictions on companies that are accepting "exceptional assistance" from the Federal Government (your taxes).

The restrictions include (but are not limited to):

1. "Golden Parachute" cuts.

2. A "name and shame" provision for frivolous spending.

3. Full disclosure of all spending.

4. $500,000 salary cap on top executive positions.

President Obama is quoted as saying, "This is America, We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset -- and rightfully so -- are executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

Well I'll be danged, I agree whole-heartedly.

Some are pointing out that it will be hard to attract to or keep quality people in the high level jobs necessary to run the businesses, but I disagree. The salary cap will keep the "rich beggars" from piling up at the "free money trough", and as to attracting talent, there are always going to be young up-and-comers who will try to prove themselves through the toughest of challenges. If someone can take a company out of the "Government Training Wheels", and back into fiscal viability, they will be able to pick their job.

My only concerns are that this idea is going to go through a "brief public comment period" that may ruin the core idea with silliness, and at exactly what point does a company get back its financial freedom? When has it been "rehabbed" enough to be returned into the wild from whence it came?

Time will tell.

H/T: Wall Street Journal

Iran's Unspoken Threat

2009-02-05T01:43:00.003-05:00

My father must get the credit for pointing this one out:

The launch of a domestically made Iranian satellite is a dangerous thing in and of itself.

"Omid" ('Hope' in Farsi) is a satellite. What kind it is has yet to be specified (Corrections Welcomed).

"So what? Sputnik just beeped; we all lived through that, right?"

Yes we did, however, what Sputnik didn't have was over half a century of space exploration behind it. The things that can be done now are very interesting.

The main concern here is not an ICBM. They don't have the accuracy to make the claim and they know we know it. No guidance, no nuke.

So what worries me? What about this makes me cringe? What can be accomplished with their technological level of sophistication (with some assistance from the, say, Chinese)?

A low earth orbit EMP Nuclear Detonation.

Who needs accuracy when you could take out (not just "switch off", but destroy) the electronic infrastructure of a whole state or larger area. Blow a nuke in low earth orbit (100 - 1240 miles above sea level) and you would have wide-spread technological devastation.

Think instant neolithic period with REALLY bad acid rain...

I could give credence to an argument that that would have worse long-term effects than a traditional concept "ground-zero" style of nuclear attack. The economic effects would be crushing with widespread panic, no communication, no power (not even your car would work), no government infrastructure. Oh, yeah, and REALLY bad acid rain...

Yet no one has ventured to broach this on ANY network, paper, or even blog (again, C/W).

As soon as my father said that the satellite could have a nuke on board, I knew where he was going with it.

Now you do too...

H/T: Global Security, Fox News, Wikipedia

Who Needs 'em?

2009-02-05T01:14:00.002-05:00

We have our luxuries and excessive frivolities restored now (heat in the house), and I think we're going to be fine.

However, I feel the need to point out some of the most valid points of the folks who were so kind as to comment here in regards to my FEMA tirade.

Survival is not a right, it is a privilege. It requires determination, drive, and a complete unwillingness to lay down and quit.

The day you stop moving is the day you die.
____________________________________________________________________

Humanity is measured not by the actions of the spotlight:

"History is made at night, character is what you are in the dark." ~ Dr. Lizardo (Buckaroo Banzai)

The help we received was no handout, it was a mutual effort to combat the encroaching wilderness, the darkness that threatened, and the oppressive boredom borne of a power outage (candles and books, whodathunkit?).

The American People are still here, I'm proud to report.

____________________________________________________________________

As to the folks at FEMA, I have served this country and I may have a legitimate claim to some sort of compensatory action.

Keep it. I took care of the finances well enough to deal with this problem, and I know many others who did so as well.

We will display our silent example of personal independence and intestinal fortitude.

Besides, I'm not sure I want to owe you anything.

____________________________________________________________________

Okay, I'm done being a pompous ass now! Sorry, but I wanted to recognize the commentors who were kind enough to commiserate and/or encourage.

Thanks again!

FEMA Who? (Update)

2009-02-03T16:18:00.005-05:00

As a resident of Kentucky, I am wondering who or what this FEMA thing (person?) is. I have heard quite a lot about the FEMA, but I have yet to see one.

You see, our house has not had heat in about a week or two, (we're back up now thanks to our own $630, but it might explain the lapses in publishing here...) and our wood supply for the fireplace is sparse at best. My family has been understandably distracted from the goings-on in the world, but we have heard tell of some kind of entity that could help folks like little-old-us. Trouble is, we can't find it. Like it up and skipped town or some such gol-darn thing!

Yessirreebob! We sure could use some of that help that them folks down Loo-see-ana way got when that big-ol' Katrina hit 'em. Yup. That'd be mighty fine and dandy.

Oh...

Wait...

We're a...

Red State full of White Redneck Voters.

24 dead, 700K without power, and three more inches today...

UPDATE

We are now expecting 4-8 inches by midnight.

H/T: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Enquirer

Is My Moderation Showing?

2009-02-03T11:12:00.003-05:00

I may lose my three readers with this, but...

I do not agree with Gay Marriage for one reason:

If they want us to keep our Religion off their Laws (separation of Church from State), then they should keep their Laws off our Religion.

Attempts to erode the Institution of Religion, excuse me, Christianity and its ilk, have increased as of late. We may soon see Pastors and Ministers dragged off in chains for "instigating" Hate-Crimes and intolerant Riot Incitement (regardless of whether or not riots actually happen...).

On this matter, I can not allow or be reasoned into a positive thought process concerning the idea of Legislated Gay Marriage.

If a Minister says that he will not perform the ceremony due to his religious beliefs, will he be prosecuted? Would the State order a boycott (illegal constitutionally) of his or her Church? Would criminal reactions (vandalism, arson, etc.) be minimized in the press and under-investigated by the police? Am I just paranoid?

Perhaps so.

However, I believe that I have a solution that would fit most people's comfort zone as per the issue. When my wife and I went in to receive our Marriage License, at the conclusion of the process, we were considered by the State to be Married.

No ceremony necessary!

Of course my religion and that of my parents requires our vows to be said before God, witnessed by family and friends, but it is not required by the State.

Enter the Civil Domestic Contract (CDC). It would grant all the benefits of Marriage to a couple of consenting adults who wish to have their union recognized by the State and everyone else, but without forcing the matter on the Religions of this country.

It would not be a popular passage of Legislation among the far Right or even some Moderates, but it would solve the issue, and put it to rest.

It would also (along with inclusion into the Military any homosexual willing to serve) remove from future elections one of the Left's most highly prized (yet lowest priority politically) standards.

Imagine if a conservative sponsored such a bill. I bet the Left would be furious and claim that it is "not enough", or "pandering politics", or an "attempt at placation". It would protect our religious ideals by acting pre-emptively to prevent harmful Laws from being passed such as described above. Our momentum in the next round (2010) would be bolstered by such an act, and we could slam all who opposed it.

To those of you who still aren't convinced, I offer you this:

"If we don't compromise, we will be compromised." ~ Alex Jamieson

A Discourse on Fear

2009-02-03T10:09:00.004-05:00

"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"

As nearly as I can research, that line is commonly attributed to "V for Vendetta" (ostensibly written by Alan Moore).

Drivel, dangerous drivel.

Crap, offal, and horse-poop.

I can hear some of you sputtering, and beginning to arrange in your heads the arguments concerning smaller governments, "1984", police states, and all manner of such and the like.

Allow me to explain:

The sentiment, as so many "bumper-sticker-wisdoms" are, is of course an immediate catalyst for feelings about the strength of the people, the true power behind our form of government, etc. Upon closer inspection (a common danger for most "BSW's"), we find that this idea is illogical at best and down-right dangerous at worst.

Consider:

Think of a fear that you have in your life. (I'll use spiders for an example...)

When you encounter a spider, you feel a distinct loathing for it, right? This reinforces your Fear.

You learn to HATE that which you fear.

Hate and in some deranged cases, a willingness to hunt down said catalyst of Fear and kill it.

Apply this to a government that "Fears" its people, and within just a few generations you will have an organization with little to no regard for its constituency, or possibly even a true Hatred of it.

I submit that a "Healthy Respect" should be the ideal.

Let's leave hyperbolic Rabble Rousing at the door shall we?

Preconditions Set For Iran

2009-01-31T11:00:00.001-05:00

So that's what he meant! We don't set the preconditions, Ahmadinejad does! Okay, I see.

Wait...WHAT?!

Iran wants a formal apology from President Obama (or perhaps even Secretary Clinton will do) for the last sixty years of "bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran.”

Dude. Really?

I'm sure that by now this is not news to you, but I would just like to point out some things here:

The psychology behind this is like a kid testing a particularly placating adult; the kind that abhors physical punishment or confrontation because those things will indubitably lead to "emotional damage" later in life.

Ahmadinejad is seeing what he can get away with. He wants the Grand Prize of the Great Satan bowing to him and the entire Terrorist Consortium.

Obama had better not be considering it. Like giving an energy drink to the 7-year-old just because he wants it, this is a bad idea on so many levels...

Aside from the damage it would do to our security, credibility, and standing the whole world over, it would kill him here at home. Everyone from the far Right to the moderate Left would issue an official "WTF" complaint. That would be nice and all, but not at that price.

Also, one of the Ayatollahs may be shopping for a new president. His (Ayatollah Khazali's) son is posting funny stuff about Ahmadinejad being a Jew on the internet. I know, I know, "not that old trick", but their family did change their name from the Armenian-sounding 'Saborjian' to the well-known current incarnation that means "Race of Mohammed".

Hmmm...kind of like tattooing "NOT JEWISH" on your forehead.

Regardless of this allegation's truth, apparently the post is not being denounced by the other Ayatollahs (I welcome corrections here...).

Maybe the theocracy of Iran is tired of all the attention (or the variety of such) their puppet is bringing them?

H/T: Hot Air and Iraq Pundit

Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

2009-01-31T08:31:00.005-05:00

Congratulations sir, and best of luck to you and us!

(Much better choice than Rush in my humble opinion...)

"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war..."
~ Julius Caesar (Shakespeare, 1601)

H/T: The Patriot Room

Serendipitous Success

2009-01-31T08:16:00.006-05:00

The Bail-out worked great!

No, I'm serious, it did! Look at what it accomplished:

We gave money to failed businesses run by morally failed leadership. This allowed for the serendipitous windfall of watching these bastards use the misbegotten money to go on hunting trips, get manicures, and buy expensive French planes.

The new administration then got to use these unforeseen benefits to further the "Evil CEO's and Corporate America" shtick that accompanies some of the more flagrant Socialization additions to the Stimulus Bill.

We could have given the money to good businesses, those unaffected by the crash, then required them, in exchange, to take on failed businesses, but without the failed leaders, and we could have stipulated that they release them back into the wild after they reach a certain level of self-sufficiency, etc...

...but that wouldn't have been NEARLY as helpful as what they have to work with now:

Useful Corporate Idiots.

Solidarity from the Right

2009-01-31T06:13:00.008-05:00

There seems to be a misconception that as Republicans, we don't care about the poor. It has even been postulated that we hate them.

Generalizations and spin are wonderful things aren't they?

Given the recent events in the House regarding the Stimulus Bill, we are now seen by some as hateful sore losers.

Not so.

What we are doing is protesting a bill that we have almost no faith in. If we don't believe that something will work, why shouldn't we vote against it? It has nothing to do with the poor other than the fact that we think this bill will hurt everyone, including the poor.

When we tried to debate and compromise, we received the admonition from Obama that, "I won. I'll trump you on that."

Trump all you like, Mr. President, we will still not vote for that which we do not agree with.

If we seem like sore losers with this action, well perhaps you might consider your own words or thoughts over the last eight years:

"Our party is weak."

"We are too busy infighting to stand up a real opposition."

"We just can't get it together."

I will not cite any articles here for any of these statements as I have heard them from so many sources both in person and on the internet that I doubt the necessity.

So when, in the face of its first real opposition from a new administration, my party stands up to the challenge and presents a united front so loud and clear that it affects the public approval of this measure, don't be surprised. It even affected the outlook of Sen. Ben Nelson D-Neb:

“I don’t even know how many Democrats will vote for it, as it stands today.”

It's only a protest. Sort of like the ones you occasionally indulge in, only without the effigy-burning, the hilariously ironic signs, and the bumper-sticker bullhorns. We inherently know the only thing that really matters; votes.

The Left has for decades touted quite highly a condition that we, the Right, recently displayed with great success and effectiveness:

Solidarity.

Now we wait while the Senate confers over the wisdom of this bill. I hope that the GOP in that body can perform as admirably or better.

What do I mean by "better"?

A real compromise, a dramatically smaller price-tag, less special interest spending, more stimulus, tax-cuts, you know, something that we could get behind.

Then we could all be "Solidaritized" together. Wouldn't that be nice?

H/T: The Weekly Standard and Hot Air

Deserter's Profits

2009-01-29T05:00:00.003-05:00

To anyone who sympathizes with this horrible wretch, Joshua Key:

Never, EVER, speak to me again about the ideals of Duty, Honor, Integrity, Fidelity, or Accountability.

If you side with this heinous little bastard, you have lost all rights to argue anything involving those points ever again.

At some point in his enlistment process, Mr. Key was required to raise his right hand and swear an Oath of Service to this country. He has refused, by deserting, to honor what was said in that Oath. He has turned his back on his country and his integrity.

He states that he was lied to by his recruiter about never being deployed. In a post-9/11 world, you are a moron to believe it, and I am doubtful as to the veracity of such a claim anyway.

He goes on to describe a blatant and pre-meditated war crime that he stood guard for.

Why didn’t he say something then?

Why didn’t he report it later?

Why is he capitalizing (highly acclaimed book release) off this atrocious (if true…) act now?

This despicable and cowardly excuse for a human being could have done or said something at anytime during or after the alleged incident and Federal Law would have protected him as a “whistle-blower”.

The precedent that this sets is truly dangerous. Now, according to his supporters, no one is accountable to their words or actions anymore. If you disagree with something, you can just leave. No need to right the wrong. Just cut and run.

Very well then…

I want to see this loathsome cad dragged into a Military Court Martial and tried for Desertion, as an accomplice in the crime (he didn’t say anything, and that makes him an accessory), Slander, and as a War Profiteer.

Peto abyssus, you disgusting waste of life.

Stimulus-Response

2009-01-29T03:27:00.004-05:00

The “Stimulus Bill” was passed with absolutely no GOP support yesterday.

Small consolations are going to be the only “Hope” left over for us, I fear.

Recently, in a discussion with my father, I forwarded the notion the Obama’s plan was to present a core idea surrounded by porky dross that could be pared away to, in comparison, make the original intent look more palatable.

Basically, if you have something that you want to sell for $200, start the haggling at $700. Who knows? You might be able to get $350 for it.

However, my father told me that in his experience, people tend to lend, or project, sinister intelligence upon those in charge who are doing something that they dislike. It is hard for us to accept a difficult explanation that yes, they really are that stupid.

He cited Occam’s Razor:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Or roughly, but more commonly, translated:

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

Two weeks ago, I firmly believed that Congress would pare down the “fat” to leave the core of Obama’s idea, thus allowing him to pass something that presented by itself would have received much derision and contempt from the Right, possibly even from some dissenters on the Left as well.

Nope. It got passed, in its totality, to squeals of delight from the Left.

God help us all.

I hope the Senate can do something to stall or kill it, but I am not going to engage in auto-asphyxiation…

Hamas Pays Up (Update)

2009-01-26T12:16:00.004-05:00

So, everyone who lost their home in Gaza is getting $200USD from Hamas in the aftermath of the recent war with Israel.

Bailouts are everywhere it would seem.

According to USA Today, Hamas is attempting to give the residents of the embattled Gaza Strip the clear message that "We are still here."

I'm sure that's reassuring to the same people that were being used as human shields just a week-and-a-half ago.

With over 25,000 homes claimed to have been damaged or destroyed, Hamas is running numbers already for the full court post war "press".

The numbers are still too fresh to consider accurate, but they will be high, and highly doubted.

Already, the EU is getting a little overwrought in the sympathy department, and is placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of Hamas. There is a God.

What I want to know is:

Who's giving Hamas $5000000USD? (Do the math...)

Update:

Now Hamas is requesting an outside evaluation of their battle tactics reports "Jane's". Who is funding and advising these guys?

Realize that this is very unusual behavior for these people.

This is rational.

Between the money, the smart after-game analysis, and Iran's flubbed "Hail Allah" pass being silenced all over, I might start getting worried...

H/T: Little Green Footballs

Iranians Bearing Gifts

2009-01-26T03:50:00.004-05:00

What’s wrong with this picture?

On January 20, while the world collectively held it’s breath to witness history, an incident occurred in the Middle East.

Acting on an intelligence lead, we intercepted a ship flying false colors (thanks to a mid-sea name change) that was headed for the Sinai Peninsula, reportedly carrying a large consignment of weapons in secret compartments that were meant for Hamas. The ship’s manifest doesn’t list the weapons, but intelligence says they’re there. I think the crew may have gravitically empowered some legumes on these weapons as well.

The ship was from Iran.

In order to get at the illegal cargo (it’s hidden in the hull apparently), they would have to make use of a large dock. The nearest acceptable choice is in Egypt. This is a problem however, as the Egyptian government is trying to be the arbitrators in the peace process there. I guess they don’t want too much evidence in their front yard making one side look guiltier than the other.

It’s become a political "Hot Potato" being tossed between the US, the UN, and Egypt and you haven’t heard about it because of a press blackout on the story. This is the first major international incident of a brand-spanking-new administration, and they want it kept under wraps.

Why in hell would they want that?

All throughout the campaign, we heard about the weakness that Obama would display in the face of a threat, and here’s his chance to, if not silence most, then quiet some of those fears. Here’s a golden opportunity to flex some hawkish muscles without actually doing anything drastic at all and he’s not taking it.

All he would have to do is:

1. Document everything. Statements, paperwork, take photos, make videos, the works.

2. Send a carbon copy of everything to the UN and the world’s press.

3. Send the freighter home (sans weapons) with some of that tough “smart diplomacy” talk.

4. Demand that the UN place sanctions and embargos on Iran for its blatant war-mongering (it wouldn’t happen, but it would throw the UN off balance by making them have to at least appear to take the unpopular side in the conflict…).

5. Give a cute speech about “Hope, Change, Not Being Bush, Unicorns, etc,” go home and watch the approval ratings go up.

So why isn’t he? What don’t we know? Why has it been 5 days and he’s not doing what he does best; exploiting a situation, taking all the credit, and cashing in the political chips?

It is a mysterious situation that has a terrifying underlying possibility:

Maybe he doesn’t know what to do.

H/T The Patriot Room and Debka

Edjumuhkashun Reform Part 3

2009-01-25T04:21:00.005-05:00

The purpose of Education has been lost.

Numerous politicians and pundits have, as of late, gone on record as saying that, “We need to better prepare our children for the ‘International Job Market’”. I ask if this is truly the case.

Education has become a sort of mediocre mass-production assembly line of children that can pass standardized proficiency tests. The tests that were supposed to simply be a gauge for fine-tuning the process, have now become the goal, indeed the point of education in its entirety.

Emphasis is on the “skills needed to succeed in the workforce”, rather than any real personal development.

Education used to be about training citizens. The promotion of self-thought, self-reliance, and independence were the highest ideals.

Facts and figures, the “3 R’s”, history, these were all presented in repetitive fashion to ingrain them indelibly into the minds of the young, but their ultimate purpose was to give the student a basis for personal growth.

Some students weren’t made for academia, and dropped out before graduation. These students went on to learn the skills of their respective jobs at their jobs. Be it farming, industrial labor, or other various occupations, they didn’t need to have graduated from secondary school to achieve success. Many industrial success stories come from just such individuals.

Other children went on to continue their educations at institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities trained those with the money or intellect (or both) to view the world from a higher plane of thought. Perhaps not too surprisingly, they too were taught their skills in the workplace of their choosing (or circumstance).

Today, we have an illusion that all children need to go to college, that they should all be five to six figure income winners. We have a misrepresented idea that all children are destined for greatness. I suppose that it might be considered quaint, but I think that the individual at the corner store who succeeds in keeping their business open for decades is great. I hold in equally high esteem the people that perform the “little” jobs that make the earth continue to spin on its axis. Most of them do not have higher educations, and some of them, I’d wager, do not have high school diplomas either.

Colleges and universities have become trade schools. There was a time when any higher field of study, chosen only for its intrinsic value or interest, was sufficient to make one eligible for a role in business. Outside of careers in law or medicine, two fields inherently requiring specific study, any degree could be considered preparatory for higher end job markets. Even science has only in recent human history become a specialist field of employment.

Another disturbing development in education is the idea that children’s interests must be pandered to. Rather than base the process of learning on the principle that the child should want to learn, we have sacrificed much of its integrity in order to bribe the child’s attention. We demand less, so we receive less. Children are inherently curious about the world around them, and once acclimatized to the idea that learning is not always a flashy or fun process; they accept the necessary tenets of repetition and reinforcement much more easily.

Computers have become the prime example of this errant methodology. I have heard scads of politicians pontificate time and again over the need for a computer on every desk. Why? Didn’t children ever learn anything prior to the invention of the computer? Didn’t the science required for its development need to be refined through ages of trial and error, a process of generations? Did President Garfield need a computer to write Greek with one hand while writing Latin with the other, and speaking to an advisor at the same time? How were these things accomplished?

They read books, and good ones at that. They had teachers who taught with the techniques listed above. They had discussions, and field trips (to real fields, no less), and projects, and science fairs, they wrote ad infinitum, and all the other things that still exist today, but are being pushed out in favor of sitting a child down in front of a glowing screen that is a pale and cheap substitute for real-life-hands-on learning.

Computers are excellent tools for research and communication, but they are not teachers. Furthermore, they certainly don’t offer any real advantage to the learning process. Instead, they serve mostly to distract with flashing lights and colors.

Another argument for their wide-spread inclusion into schools is that children need to learn how to use them in this day and age. This statement will always strike me as ridiculous.

When was the last time you needed to teach your child how to make their own “Myspace” page, complete with glitter background, animated gifs, and other assorted sense assaulting nonsense? How about finding the latest songs on the internet by the trendy band of the week? Word processing programs and other such software are intuitive and user-friendly. Computers and children go together all too well, and I would argue that no child requires a formal education in anything computer related unless it deals specifically with programming, or a highly specialized computing program.

For the record, the last time I received a formal education in computer skills, I was taught the “BASIC” computer language. That has brought me untold riches, let me tell you. Technology is by its very nature a quickly advancing thing, and the only real way to learn how to use it is to jump right in and do just that. Most children now have access to computers and the internet, and with proper adult supervision, they can learn all they need to know about those things very quickly.

I have gotten off topic some, but I hope you have understood my thoughts here. We need to return to a more practical approach in learning, a more pragmatic philosophy about education in general, and for God’s sake;

Turn off the damned TVs and kick the little bundles of energy outside where they belong!

The "Turbo Tax Reform"

2009-01-24T05:46:00.001-05:00

I am hereby unveiling my proposal to all Republicans and Patriots:

The "Turbo Tax Reform"

Inspired by Mr. Geithner's lax attitude towards paying his taxes for six years, I am proposing that we all do the same thing.

How does a man who flaunted the Tax Laws get to be the man who now enforces them? How do Republicans allow such a travesty to occur? Why are we not so incensed by this hideous display of cronyism that we do not immediately rise up and take action similar to the Boston Tea Party?

Given the President's less than helpful attitude towards political dissenters, ("I won, I will trump you on that.") I think it only fair that we "trump" him back.

I think that the absence of cash flow will get his attention and remind him of his "bi-partisan" stance towards the other half of this country.

I'd like to see the IRS audit 150 Million people. I would LOVE to see them try. Maybe the Organization for America could help them. He'd give them a uniform, like t-shirts, maybe a dark earth tone of some sort...

I bet Congress and the Senate would have a tough time passing gas let alone a Trillion dollar Stimulus-Response Bill without the moolah to back it up. Oh that's right, they don't have that either. It's not printed yet.

Maybe that would deflate the imperturbable Mr. President long enough to let him see the strength this country really has.

Perhaps then we would be living up to the lofty rhetoric of his Inaugural Speech...

To our Liberal Friends:

2009-01-22T05:15:00.000-05:00

Congratulations on the consummation of your victory. It’s been quite a show, and we were all treated to many different varieties of Artist, Pundit, and Politico and their belief in this “Day of Hope” for America and the World. I believe that it is safe to say that Obama’s Inauguration (and the days leading up to it) is like nothing we have ever seen.

I would like to take this time to reassure you that we of the Right will do that which was difficult for some of you during the last eight years:

We will accept that Barack Obama is our President and the Leader of the Free World.

We will not decry the Will of the People, nor will the vast majority of us cling to insane hopes concerning various documents or other assorted nonsense. We have a 44th President of The United States, and he is our Commander in Chief.

This is our way of demonstrating that we believe so fervently in due process that we accept the outcome even when it is not that which we desire.

I must however, offer a caveat to you in regards to the concession that we offer. Our acceptance of his Presidency does not entail our support of his policies that conflict with our beliefs. We will hold him accountable for that which he does wrong, and we will give him credit where it is due. It will be difficult, but I for one will try my best.

Having now stated in plain English my intentions for the next four years as far as political conduct is concerned; I shall resume my usual tone…

I give the honeymoon until May. Those of you who are adept at arithmetic may notice that this is roughly about 100 days from now.

Around that time there will be many an iconic-t-shirt-wearer still standing in town squares with American flags that only recently saw the light of day. Their smiles will be forced, or at least strained. Nervous feet will be shuffling, and a quiet but audible murmuring will begin to manifest from somewhere in the center of the mass. Someone near you will say with the conviction of the desperate,

“Any minute now…”

The Unicorn Saddle will be gathering a thin patina of dust (not to be confused with fairy dust, as this will too have failed to materialize) that will foreshadow its sad and somewhat embarrassed career as an antique mall novelty. It will reside somewhere between the “Vote for Carter” buttons, and the Spiro Agnew ashtray.

“I can feel it. It’s coming…”

The mortgage will still be due and the Stimulus Bill will be passed, effectively mortgaging our country in the process. While the Media will tout the jobs that it creates, chances are good that statistically, you won’t be in those markets. There will also be a nagging doubt regarding the amount of taxes you pay, and the amount of money we will be spending on various projects, including your stimulus check.

“I Believe in Hope…”

The Troops will continue to go about their business of providing back-up to the increasingly stable Iraq, and surging into Afghanistan. Losses will be reported, but in a kinder, gentler way. The spin will make it more palatable I suppose.

“Change is here…”

Iran will still be hanging innocent people for the “crime” of being homosexual, their women still treated as chattel, and Ahmedinejad will still be screaming for the complete destruction of Israel. Hamas will still be a threat with its rockets and terror tactics, but surely peace talks and other “aggressively innovative diplomatic measures” will eventually bear the fruit of lasting peace, right?

“For the Children…um…”

The “Political Prisoners of the Bush Regime” at Guantanamo Bay will still be there, still being “tortured” with loud rock music, orange jumpsuits, and three square meals a day. The new Administration will be “seeking alternative venues” for their incarceration, but they will have begun to acknowledge the fact that they really are terrorists, and the worst examples of such at that.

“Please…”

Bush and Cheney will be at their respective homes resting peacefully and enjoying retirement while Rove still walks free and contributes on Fox News. All talks of prosecution will have faded away and become the stuff of dreams.

“C’mon…”

Then one day, it will dawn on you. The New Guy is just another politician. Oh, he’s no Bush, granted, but he won’t have delivered on everything yet. In fact, some of his campaign promises will have been shelved indefinitely in favor of more pressing needs. I’ll even bet that you will have, with increasing frequency, some concerns about his official stances on various issues.

“I’m going home.”

Yes, the honeymoon will be over. I can’t predict his overall performance over the course of the next four years, but aside from some catastrophic "game-changer", I doubt that I’m too far off in my assessment here.

Oh, and all your “Obama Commemorative Memorabilia”? There’s enough of it out there to clothe, heat, and in some cases feed a Third-World country.

Its only value will ultimately lie in reminding us all about the silliness we are capable of as a country.

I’d also be interested in finding out about the “CO2 footprint” and “Landfill Cubic Capacity” of all that crap…

Make your own $129M Speech!

2009-01-19T04:30:00.002-05:00

I did this one on my first try. Try it yourself on this site.

Obama's Inauguration Speech

My fellow Americans, today is a aberrant day. You have shown the world that "hope" is not just another word for "involuntary admission", and that "change" is not only something we can believe in again, but something we can actually defecate. Today we celebrate, but let there be no mistake – America faces fastidious and lecherous challenges like never before. Our economy is mollusk-like. Americans can barely afford their mortgages, let alone have enough money left over for demons. Our healthcare system is polygamous. If your free-floating rib is sick and you don't have insurance, you might as well call a wrestler. And America's image overseas is tarnished like a jock-strap filth. But yammering together we can right this ship, and set a course for Rabbit Hash, Kentucky.Finally, I must thank my orwellian family, my keynesian campaign volunteers, but most of all, I want to thank NAMBLA for making this historic occasion possible. Of course, I must also thank you, President Bush, for years of retching the American people. Without your sycophantic efforts, none of this would have been possible.

A few glitches, but not bad, eh?

For the price we're paying, the real one better be much longer, and infinitely more hilarious...

Thanks to The Patriot Room for the Link!