So how do the Dems plan to solve the problem. Well the real solution in their eyes is for all us peasants to stop using gas and return to the 18th century. But their public solution is to nationalize the oil refineries. Yes that's right. The Democrats want the same people who are responsible for cost overruns at the Pentagon or the great service at your local drivers license office to run the refineries. Now there's a way to cut costs!
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Democrats are socialists
It's official the Democrat party is the party of government control and socialism. They don't believe in the law of supply and demand. They are saying that more drilling and hence more American oil won't lower prices. Even though that oil won't have to be shipped all the way from the middle east there will be no impact on the cost of gasoline according to the Dems.
So how do the Dems plan to solve the problem. Well the real solution in their eyes is for all us peasants to stop using gas and return to the 18th century. But their public solution is to nationalize the oil refineries. Yes that's right. The Democrats want the same people who are responsible for cost overruns at the Pentagon or the great service at your local drivers license office to run the refineries. Now there's a way to cut costs!
So how do the Dems plan to solve the problem. Well the real solution in their eyes is for all us peasants to stop using gas and return to the 18th century. But their public solution is to nationalize the oil refineries. Yes that's right. The Democrats want the same people who are responsible for cost overruns at the Pentagon or the great service at your local drivers license office to run the refineries. Now there's a way to cut costs!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Will the courts keep you safe?
Senator Obama believes the Clinton approach to terrorism, treat them like crooks, is the way to proceed with war on terror. I don't know about you but given how much liberals have worked to make it hard to convict crooks these days i'd hate to see terrorists go before liberal judges defended by a team of ACLU lawyers. If you're liberal you believe rich white folk can buy lawyers to keep from being found guilty and if you're a conservative you look at the O.J. trial to see how enough money, and a friendly jury, can get you off the hook. Do we really want to require our troops to read captured terrorists their Miranda rights?
Do you think that foreigners who are hell bent on killing Americans and who violate the international standards of war--they dress like civilians for example--should get the same rights as a college student caught shoplifting? I don't. According to international law if you catch a combatant not wearing a uniform you can shoot him on the spot. Back when the US switched from green uniforms to camouflaged ones there was actually a legal discussion about whether or not the new clothing was a "uniform". Clearly dressing like a civilian is not a uniform.
More importantly though is the fact that the record of the Clinton administration was horrible. In fact the barriers that Clinton put up that prevented law enforcement and the intelligence community from sharing information about terrorists was probably a key reason 9/11 succeeded. During the Clinton administration the terrorists got bolder and bolder and nothing Clinton did dissuaded them. In fact Osama bin Laden continues to say that Americans are weak and cowardly because Bill Clinton withdrew our troops from Somalia after the Black Hawk down incident. Terrorists don't respond to diplomacy, they think we're satans agents and you don't negotiate with the devil. Do you think that it's an accident that since 9/11 Europe, which has been weak on terrorism, has suffered multiple major terrorist attacks and the US has suffered none?
Further think about it. Have our law enforcement agencies managed to shut down drug cartels or organized crime? It's not because the people who put their lives on the line to fight crime are stupid, lazy, or evil--they're actually very smart and dedicated. Rather it's due to two factors, the difficulty in getting anyone convicted these days due to all of the rules the liberals have put in to protect the guilty, and the fact that it's hard to get anyone in a tight knit organization to talk. Terrorist organizations are even worse than the mob and the drug cartels from the perspective of law enforcement. Can you imagine the scenario if a terrorist is acquitted because the search warren that was executed to find their stash of explosives had the wrong date on it? Don't laugh a real crook got off because while the judge had approved a search warrant for a certain day the clerk filled in the paperwork incorrectly. The evidence uncovered by the search, executed on the day defined by the judge, was thrown out of court.
Senator Obama seems to fail to realize that we are at war with extra governmental powers who do not adhere to anything resembling the international standards of war. Their objective is to kill civilians. They are monsters. I'm sure that Senator Obama would condemn the people who brought black slaves over to the US, as would any sane person, but it's far worse to kill the innocent than to enslave them. Yet the Senator wants to make it as hard as possible to deal with terrorists.
We know that it's unlikely that innocent people are held at Guitmo. Why? Well over 30 of the people that were released from Guitmo have turned up on the battlefield attacking Americans. Clearly if the release policy was as draconian as Senator Obama has suggested it's unlikely that so many confirmed terrorists would have been released. So if the Guitmo system is basically working why go back to the failed Clinton policies.
Think about it. If we go to a law enforcement approach to getting terrorists if we find that Osama bin Laden is in a house someplace we can't bomb it and kill him. We either have to let him go or send in a team to capture him, alive.
So what's the obvious?
Terrorists aren't crooks and they aren't Americans. Giving them the same rights as Americans is both stupid and proven to fail.
Do you think that foreigners who are hell bent on killing Americans and who violate the international standards of war--they dress like civilians for example--should get the same rights as a college student caught shoplifting? I don't. According to international law if you catch a combatant not wearing a uniform you can shoot him on the spot. Back when the US switched from green uniforms to camouflaged ones there was actually a legal discussion about whether or not the new clothing was a "uniform". Clearly dressing like a civilian is not a uniform.
More importantly though is the fact that the record of the Clinton administration was horrible. In fact the barriers that Clinton put up that prevented law enforcement and the intelligence community from sharing information about terrorists was probably a key reason 9/11 succeeded. During the Clinton administration the terrorists got bolder and bolder and nothing Clinton did dissuaded them. In fact Osama bin Laden continues to say that Americans are weak and cowardly because Bill Clinton withdrew our troops from Somalia after the Black Hawk down incident. Terrorists don't respond to diplomacy, they think we're satans agents and you don't negotiate with the devil. Do you think that it's an accident that since 9/11 Europe, which has been weak on terrorism, has suffered multiple major terrorist attacks and the US has suffered none?
Further think about it. Have our law enforcement agencies managed to shut down drug cartels or organized crime? It's not because the people who put their lives on the line to fight crime are stupid, lazy, or evil--they're actually very smart and dedicated. Rather it's due to two factors, the difficulty in getting anyone convicted these days due to all of the rules the liberals have put in to protect the guilty, and the fact that it's hard to get anyone in a tight knit organization to talk. Terrorist organizations are even worse than the mob and the drug cartels from the perspective of law enforcement. Can you imagine the scenario if a terrorist is acquitted because the search warren that was executed to find their stash of explosives had the wrong date on it? Don't laugh a real crook got off because while the judge had approved a search warrant for a certain day the clerk filled in the paperwork incorrectly. The evidence uncovered by the search, executed on the day defined by the judge, was thrown out of court.
Senator Obama seems to fail to realize that we are at war with extra governmental powers who do not adhere to anything resembling the international standards of war. Their objective is to kill civilians. They are monsters. I'm sure that Senator Obama would condemn the people who brought black slaves over to the US, as would any sane person, but it's far worse to kill the innocent than to enslave them. Yet the Senator wants to make it as hard as possible to deal with terrorists.
We know that it's unlikely that innocent people are held at Guitmo. Why? Well over 30 of the people that were released from Guitmo have turned up on the battlefield attacking Americans. Clearly if the release policy was as draconian as Senator Obama has suggested it's unlikely that so many confirmed terrorists would have been released. So if the Guitmo system is basically working why go back to the failed Clinton policies.
Think about it. If we go to a law enforcement approach to getting terrorists if we find that Osama bin Laden is in a house someplace we can't bomb it and kill him. We either have to let him go or send in a team to capture him, alive.
So what's the obvious?
Terrorists aren't crooks and they aren't Americans. Giving them the same rights as Americans is both stupid and proven to fail.
If you're taking a car trip...
When my parents died my family and i drove across the country. One thing i did that was kinda fun was make a movie of the trip. I did this by putting an old digital camera on the dashboard and setting it up to take a picture every minute--the fastest that camera would take photos. I then combined the images, using Quicktime Pro on a mac, into a movie. That way we could see where we'd traveled.
The only thing i'd change is to try and take a picture every 10 seconds or so. One minute is fairly long when you're driving fast down a freeway. You generally speaking can only see the same feature over time, at 1 minute photo intervals, if you're in a flat part of the country, say the southwest.
The only thing i'd change is to try and take a picture every 10 seconds or so. One minute is fairly long when you're driving fast down a freeway. You generally speaking can only see the same feature over time, at 1 minute photo intervals, if you're in a flat part of the country, say the southwest.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Would you trust your health care to this man?
The vast majority of Americans agree that once a baby is born she's a person. Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. So if we as a country agree that once a baby is outside of her mothers body, and breathing she's a person. In fact i could go so far as to say that anyone who advocated the right to choose to kill a born baby would be viewed by most Americans--excluding professional bio-ethicists -- as pretty monstrous.
Now that we've all agreed on that let's look at Senator Obama. In an earlier post--read them all it's worth your time--I pointed out that Senator Obama when an Illinois legislator had voted against a bill that would require that medical care be provided for babies who were born alive during the course of a botched abortion. We've all agreed that if the baby is born, it's no longer part of the mothers body remember, she's a person.
You might ask what Obama's reasoning was. He said that the law in question would tend to erode women's right to choose. While i find that reasoning entirely irrational, after all we're talking about a born baby here, it is the Senators position. But what the heck let's think about it for a second. The basis for abortion is that the unborn fetus--remember that fetus is just a term for a phase in the course of human life no different than say baby, teenager, or elderly--isn't a person. So how could a 8.5 month old baby who happens to survive an abortion not being allowed to die in the gutter hurt a woman's right to kill a fetus? So i guess i'll have to retract my statement. Senator Obama's position is entirely reasonable if you view a woman's right to kill her baby as the most important thing in the world. Abortionists aren't the cream of the medical profession--doctors become doctors to heal people not kill them--so there are reasonably large number of botched abortions. If the babies who manage to make it out alive were to be allowed to live and grow up then people might be able to see that there are no fundamental differences between a fetus and a baby. Sure the baby is more developed than a fetus but then a toddler is more developed than a baby and a kindergartner is more developed than a toddler. From the time they're conceived to the time they die people are constantly changing. There is no magic line based on scientific knowledge, other than conception, that divides a persons life into person and non-person phases.
How should we interpret this then? Well it means that either Senator Obama believes that born babies aren't people, a position i can't imagine him holding, or that he's willing to deny medical care to some classes of people if that would be detrimental to political causes he supports.
Since Obama is a Democrat he'll try and give the government control of your medical care. That's what Democrats do. But do you think that someone who will let babies die in order to avoid risking one of his other political positions is the sort of person you want to decide your health care plan?
So what's the obvious:
Senator Obama is willing to let babies die to protect a political position he holds dear. He can't be trusted to control health care since we have no way of knowing who else he will be willing to let die if they're politically inconvenient.
By the way i based this blog on a letter written to the National Catholic Register which made this point.
Now that we've all agreed on that let's look at Senator Obama. In an earlier post--read them all it's worth your time--I pointed out that Senator Obama when an Illinois legislator had voted against a bill that would require that medical care be provided for babies who were born alive during the course of a botched abortion. We've all agreed that if the baby is born, it's no longer part of the mothers body remember, she's a person.
You might ask what Obama's reasoning was. He said that the law in question would tend to erode women's right to choose. While i find that reasoning entirely irrational, after all we're talking about a born baby here, it is the Senators position. But what the heck let's think about it for a second. The basis for abortion is that the unborn fetus--remember that fetus is just a term for a phase in the course of human life no different than say baby, teenager, or elderly--isn't a person. So how could a 8.5 month old baby who happens to survive an abortion not being allowed to die in the gutter hurt a woman's right to kill a fetus? So i guess i'll have to retract my statement. Senator Obama's position is entirely reasonable if you view a woman's right to kill her baby as the most important thing in the world. Abortionists aren't the cream of the medical profession--doctors become doctors to heal people not kill them--so there are reasonably large number of botched abortions. If the babies who manage to make it out alive were to be allowed to live and grow up then people might be able to see that there are no fundamental differences between a fetus and a baby. Sure the baby is more developed than a fetus but then a toddler is more developed than a baby and a kindergartner is more developed than a toddler. From the time they're conceived to the time they die people are constantly changing. There is no magic line based on scientific knowledge, other than conception, that divides a persons life into person and non-person phases.
How should we interpret this then? Well it means that either Senator Obama believes that born babies aren't people, a position i can't imagine him holding, or that he's willing to deny medical care to some classes of people if that would be detrimental to political causes he supports.
Since Obama is a Democrat he'll try and give the government control of your medical care. That's what Democrats do. But do you think that someone who will let babies die in order to avoid risking one of his other political positions is the sort of person you want to decide your health care plan?
So what's the obvious:
Senator Obama is willing to let babies die to protect a political position he holds dear. He can't be trusted to control health care since we have no way of knowing who else he will be willing to let die if they're politically inconvenient.
By the way i based this blog on a letter written to the National Catholic Register which made this point.
Monday, June 16, 2008
It's the judges stupid!
The current American governmental system is seriously flawed. As things currently stand we're half way to having a monarchy. The problem is the judiciary. The framers intended judges to decide how a law passed by the legislature was to be interpreted. Unfortunately starting in the 1960's judges decided that they should be able to make laws not just interpret them.
You know the judges are making laws when they decide that what had been constitutional for over a hundred years was suddenly unconstitutional. Clearly if a law had been around for that long, or even 20 or 30 years, and no one thought it was unconstitutional it's unlikely that the law is one that violated what the people who ratified the Constitution thought the Constitution said.
That doesn't mean the law is a good one. Clearly slavery was bad but just as clearly no one who ratified the Constitution saw that document declaring slavery to be illegal. That's why it's possible to amend the Constitution to correct problems, such as slavery. But because changing the Constitution is a big deal, changes effect everyone in the country, the framers made it a reasonably hard thing to do.
But if judges stop deciding what was intended by the people who passed a law and start deciding based on what they think is good then it becomes trivial to change the Constitution. All you need is 5 rich lawyers to agree and voila the law of the land is changed. Look at abortion. For the entire history of the country up until Roe v. Wade it was considered to be unprotected by the Constitution. In fact abortion had been illegal since the US was founded. Yet 5 Supreme Court judges overturned the laws of every single state to make abortion, for any reason, legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. If you support abortion this may please you but it should also scare you. If 5 judges can overthrow laws that have been in place since the Revolution then they can also overturn laws you like. For example if those rascally Republicans get a bunch of sane judges in the Supreme Court they could make abortion illegal again.
I'll be talking about more examples of the way judges have taken over control of the country, do you know that in St. Louis a judge ordered the legislature to increase taxes?, in later postings but for now let's just look at the huge asymmetry judicial activism causes in the political process.
Out in California about 62% of the people voted for a proposition that said marriage was between a man and woman, not two men or two women. To get that proposition to pass thousands of people volunteered their time and money. A fortune was spent on ads, for and against. Thousands of news stories were written. Millions of people got out and voted. But all of that effort was undone by a handful of California State Supreme Court judges writing a few pages of text. Their few hours work overturned that law saying it violated the State Constitution. Since no one who ratified the State Constitution would have ever even thought of gay marriage it's clearly absurd to think that the intent of the document was to protect gay marriage. As this is being written Californian voters will have another chance to invest millions of person hours and untold dollars into amending the State Constitution the only way to get around the judges, assuming the pro-homosexual marriage crowd can't get the US Supreme Court to overturn the amendment to the California State Constitution.
The problem is the asymmetry. If a liberal activist judge spends a few hours writing he can overturn the efforts of millions of citizens. So judges can wreck havoc with the law in a matter of hours while fixing the mess they make takes an incredible investment of time and money.
What has happened is that the checks and balances that were supposed to limit the power of the judiciary have broken down. Why? Well politicians tend to be more liberal than the populace. So if the Supreme Court institutes some liberal policy which the politicians support but which they know it would be political suicide to vote for it's nearly impossible to get enough politicians to impeach the wayward judges. Without impeaching judges there is really nothing stopping judges from concluding whatever they want. They essentially have unlimited power.
Now if you're a liberal you probably don't care because the judges are doing what you want. But he who lives by the immoral judge dies by the immoral judge. If at some time in the future a Supreme Court rules that gays should be put in camps liberals will have no basis for objecting. If you believe the Supreme Court can rule anyway it wants on anything none of us are really free and we don't have a democracy any more.
If the judges decided happens in the country the only thing that matters about a candidate is what sort of judges he'll select or vote for. Amazingly enough the liberals who get so worked up about the electoral college have no problem with this.
So what's obvious?
Activist judges can destroy democracy by short circuiting the election process and mandating changes in the law based on whatever 5 rich lawyers think is best.
You know the judges are making laws when they decide that what had been constitutional for over a hundred years was suddenly unconstitutional. Clearly if a law had been around for that long, or even 20 or 30 years, and no one thought it was unconstitutional it's unlikely that the law is one that violated what the people who ratified the Constitution thought the Constitution said.
That doesn't mean the law is a good one. Clearly slavery was bad but just as clearly no one who ratified the Constitution saw that document declaring slavery to be illegal. That's why it's possible to amend the Constitution to correct problems, such as slavery. But because changing the Constitution is a big deal, changes effect everyone in the country, the framers made it a reasonably hard thing to do.
But if judges stop deciding what was intended by the people who passed a law and start deciding based on what they think is good then it becomes trivial to change the Constitution. All you need is 5 rich lawyers to agree and voila the law of the land is changed. Look at abortion. For the entire history of the country up until Roe v. Wade it was considered to be unprotected by the Constitution. In fact abortion had been illegal since the US was founded. Yet 5 Supreme Court judges overturned the laws of every single state to make abortion, for any reason, legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. If you support abortion this may please you but it should also scare you. If 5 judges can overthrow laws that have been in place since the Revolution then they can also overturn laws you like. For example if those rascally Republicans get a bunch of sane judges in the Supreme Court they could make abortion illegal again.
I'll be talking about more examples of the way judges have taken over control of the country, do you know that in St. Louis a judge ordered the legislature to increase taxes?, in later postings but for now let's just look at the huge asymmetry judicial activism causes in the political process.
Out in California about 62% of the people voted for a proposition that said marriage was between a man and woman, not two men or two women. To get that proposition to pass thousands of people volunteered their time and money. A fortune was spent on ads, for and against. Thousands of news stories were written. Millions of people got out and voted. But all of that effort was undone by a handful of California State Supreme Court judges writing a few pages of text. Their few hours work overturned that law saying it violated the State Constitution. Since no one who ratified the State Constitution would have ever even thought of gay marriage it's clearly absurd to think that the intent of the document was to protect gay marriage. As this is being written Californian voters will have another chance to invest millions of person hours and untold dollars into amending the State Constitution the only way to get around the judges, assuming the pro-homosexual marriage crowd can't get the US Supreme Court to overturn the amendment to the California State Constitution.
The problem is the asymmetry. If a liberal activist judge spends a few hours writing he can overturn the efforts of millions of citizens. So judges can wreck havoc with the law in a matter of hours while fixing the mess they make takes an incredible investment of time and money.
What has happened is that the checks and balances that were supposed to limit the power of the judiciary have broken down. Why? Well politicians tend to be more liberal than the populace. So if the Supreme Court institutes some liberal policy which the politicians support but which they know it would be political suicide to vote for it's nearly impossible to get enough politicians to impeach the wayward judges. Without impeaching judges there is really nothing stopping judges from concluding whatever they want. They essentially have unlimited power.
Now if you're a liberal you probably don't care because the judges are doing what you want. But he who lives by the immoral judge dies by the immoral judge. If at some time in the future a Supreme Court rules that gays should be put in camps liberals will have no basis for objecting. If you believe the Supreme Court can rule anyway it wants on anything none of us are really free and we don't have a democracy any more.
If the judges decided happens in the country the only thing that matters about a candidate is what sort of judges he'll select or vote for. Amazingly enough the liberals who get so worked up about the electoral college have no problem with this.
So what's obvious?
Activist judges can destroy democracy by short circuiting the election process and mandating changes in the law based on whatever 5 rich lawyers think is best.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
A good example for fathers
Today is fathers day. I thought it would be nice to remember the best human father that's ever lived, St. Joseph. Following his example will help all fathers.
This stained glass window is St. John Vianney Church in Northlake Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
A reason not to trust the media
The media has biases and will use just about any technique to further their agenda. I was involved in a pro-life demonstration a few years ago. About 3000 pro-lifers showed up and there were 4, count them 4, pro-aborts who moved up and down the line shouting.
Now 3000 people is a pretty large protest around where i live. You get a couple of hundred people to protest the war or to support gay marriage and you'll get a ton of media coverage.
But for this protest the only coverage the main local newspaper gave was a photo, no article. The photo was of 3 pro-lifers, and all 4 of the pro-aborts. The caption was something like "Pro-Choice and anti-abortion protesters demonstrated yesterday".
Similarly in the run up to the first gulf war we were told by the media that the M1 tank and the M3 IFV(Infantry Fighting Vehicle) would be disasters and death traps. In reality they helped our troops win while minimizing casualties and the troops loved them. Of course there were no retractions or apologies from the media.
So from my experience the media will do just about anything to further their position. Truth is a much lower priority for them.
Now 3000 people is a pretty large protest around where i live. You get a couple of hundred people to protest the war or to support gay marriage and you'll get a ton of media coverage.
But for this protest the only coverage the main local newspaper gave was a photo, no article. The photo was of 3 pro-lifers, and all 4 of the pro-aborts. The caption was something like "Pro-Choice and anti-abortion protesters demonstrated yesterday".
Similarly in the run up to the first gulf war we were told by the media that the M1 tank and the M3 IFV(Infantry Fighting Vehicle) would be disasters and death traps. In reality they helped our troops win while minimizing casualties and the troops loved them. Of course there were no retractions or apologies from the media.
So from my experience the media will do just about anything to further their position. Truth is a much lower priority for them.
Unite who?
Just who is Senator Obama going to unite? Can someone tell me one issue where he differs from the most liberal wing of the Democrat party? Even better can anyone give me one example of how he's reached out to Conservatives, or even Republicans?
Let's look at the issues of the day. First abortion. He is so extreme on abortion that he voted against a law which would require an abortionist to provide medical care to a fetus that is born alive due to a botched abortion. But wait if she's alive and outside of her mother she must be a baby. Amazing thing that. The abortionist makes a mistake and the fetus becomes a baby. Hard to believe possible given the huge differences between a fetus and a baby. Not! Anyway with only something like 16% of Americans supporting abortion at any time for any reason--Senator Obamas position based on his voting record-- he's not reaching out to build a consensus on the abortion issue.
What about taxes? Well Senator Obama is for an increase in the capital gains tax. Ok so he wants to raise taxes that's what the Democrat party is all about, transferring wealth from working Americans to the politicians in Washington. But what makes Senator Obama so extreme is that when told that raising the capital gains tax rate actually reduces government revenue--people stop investing--he said he'd raise the tax anyway because it was fair. Given that these days the majority of working Americans own some stock and will have to pay capital gains tax when they sell it that's hardly a consensus building position.
Ah the war, that's where he's reaching out right? Well no. It's hard to figure out his position. He was for it when he ran for the Senate--he said his position was essentially the same as President Bush's. Then he was for cutting and running. Now that the surge, that he derided, has worked he's somewhere in the middle. But here too he's failed to define a compromise position that would appeal to most Americans. He's certainly done nothing to reach out to those who think we have to finish what we started in Iraq.
Race. That's it. He'll unite us on the race issue. But wait. He's been going to a church for more than 20 years that preaches that whites-- not conservatives, not republicans, but anyone who's of pallor-- are responsible for all of the worlds problems. I doubt anyone would think that some white guy who has been going to a church for the last 20 years where the minister taught that all of the problems of the world are due to blacks-- not liberal blacks but any one who isn't pale-- would be able to unite the country on the race issue. In any case his supporters continually attack anyone who opposes him as being racist which is the antithesis of what would happen in a race neutral society.
As far as I can tell during Senator Obama's few years in the senate he's never reached out to the Republicans and forged a consensus on anything. Senator McCain however has done that. Admittedly on things i don't like, such as the anti-First Amendment McCain Feingold law, but he did reach across the aisle and bring Republicans and Democrats together.
So what's the obvious?
If you ignore Senator Obama's rhetoric and look at his track record it's clear that Senator McCain is far more of a uniter than Senator Obama.
Let's look at the issues of the day. First abortion. He is so extreme on abortion that he voted against a law which would require an abortionist to provide medical care to a fetus that is born alive due to a botched abortion. But wait if she's alive and outside of her mother she must be a baby. Amazing thing that. The abortionist makes a mistake and the fetus becomes a baby. Hard to believe possible given the huge differences between a fetus and a baby. Not! Anyway with only something like 16% of Americans supporting abortion at any time for any reason--Senator Obamas position based on his voting record-- he's not reaching out to build a consensus on the abortion issue.
What about taxes? Well Senator Obama is for an increase in the capital gains tax. Ok so he wants to raise taxes that's what the Democrat party is all about, transferring wealth from working Americans to the politicians in Washington. But what makes Senator Obama so extreme is that when told that raising the capital gains tax rate actually reduces government revenue--people stop investing--he said he'd raise the tax anyway because it was fair. Given that these days the majority of working Americans own some stock and will have to pay capital gains tax when they sell it that's hardly a consensus building position.
Ah the war, that's where he's reaching out right? Well no. It's hard to figure out his position. He was for it when he ran for the Senate--he said his position was essentially the same as President Bush's. Then he was for cutting and running. Now that the surge, that he derided, has worked he's somewhere in the middle. But here too he's failed to define a compromise position that would appeal to most Americans. He's certainly done nothing to reach out to those who think we have to finish what we started in Iraq.
Race. That's it. He'll unite us on the race issue. But wait. He's been going to a church for more than 20 years that preaches that whites-- not conservatives, not republicans, but anyone who's of pallor-- are responsible for all of the worlds problems. I doubt anyone would think that some white guy who has been going to a church for the last 20 years where the minister taught that all of the problems of the world are due to blacks-- not liberal blacks but any one who isn't pale-- would be able to unite the country on the race issue. In any case his supporters continually attack anyone who opposes him as being racist which is the antithesis of what would happen in a race neutral society.
As far as I can tell during Senator Obama's few years in the senate he's never reached out to the Republicans and forged a consensus on anything. Senator McCain however has done that. Admittedly on things i don't like, such as the anti-First Amendment McCain Feingold law, but he did reach across the aisle and bring Republicans and Democrats together.
So what's the obvious?
If you ignore Senator Obama's rhetoric and look at his track record it's clear that Senator McCain is far more of a uniter than Senator Obama.
Friday, June 13, 2008
In the end all that matters is what we do
God has leveled the playing field. It doesn't matter if you're pretty or ugly, smart or dumb, skinny or fat, tall or short, rich or poor, healthy or sickly or any other dual distinctive set you may imagine. All that matters are the choices you make.
In the end all of the commonly considered worldly pleasures are fleeting. A good meal is in the past seconds after it's consumed. Even the modern worlds sacrament, sex, is in the past after the passion is spent. But what one does, the choices one makes, live on forever.
We regret for our entire lives hurting a friend. We feel our chests tightening when we recall an instance of cowardice. We feel the guilt even as we rationalize away our failures.
Similarly we feel good when we remember an act of kindness we committed when our selfishness was weak. We feel good even as we dismiss our charity as foolishness.
Society inundates us with noise. Noise about the latest fashions, the latest girlfriends, the latest fad. But in the end possessions, relations, and awards don't matter. All that matters are the choices that we made. Sure some of those choices will lead to worldly acclaim, the firefighter who rushes into the burning building the soldier who stands up to protect his unit, but it is the choices we make not the awards we receive that make us feel good.
But everyone makes choices. So everyone can be victorious. The widow can give her mite to the poor and know that she's done the right thing. The billionaire will have to give a lot more to enjoy the same feeling. The ugly man can spend his life helping others. The handsome man may stumble and cheat on his wife.
In the end we are all equal not just because we are all loved by God but because the fundamental thing that makes us human, our free will and our ability to make choices, is the same for each and everyone of us. Ted Kennedy has no more ability to make the right choices than someone living in a slum in Calcutta.
God is a loving father. He blesses all of his children with the greatest gift, the gift of being able to choose rightly. We in turn should turn to Him for help in knowing what is right so that when we get ready to meet Him face to face we can bask in the warmth of choices well made.
In the end all of the commonly considered worldly pleasures are fleeting. A good meal is in the past seconds after it's consumed. Even the modern worlds sacrament, sex, is in the past after the passion is spent. But what one does, the choices one makes, live on forever.
We regret for our entire lives hurting a friend. We feel our chests tightening when we recall an instance of cowardice. We feel the guilt even as we rationalize away our failures.
Similarly we feel good when we remember an act of kindness we committed when our selfishness was weak. We feel good even as we dismiss our charity as foolishness.
Society inundates us with noise. Noise about the latest fashions, the latest girlfriends, the latest fad. But in the end possessions, relations, and awards don't matter. All that matters are the choices that we made. Sure some of those choices will lead to worldly acclaim, the firefighter who rushes into the burning building the soldier who stands up to protect his unit, but it is the choices we make not the awards we receive that make us feel good.
But everyone makes choices. So everyone can be victorious. The widow can give her mite to the poor and know that she's done the right thing. The billionaire will have to give a lot more to enjoy the same feeling. The ugly man can spend his life helping others. The handsome man may stumble and cheat on his wife.
In the end we are all equal not just because we are all loved by God but because the fundamental thing that makes us human, our free will and our ability to make choices, is the same for each and everyone of us. Ted Kennedy has no more ability to make the right choices than someone living in a slum in Calcutta.
God is a loving father. He blesses all of his children with the greatest gift, the gift of being able to choose rightly. We in turn should turn to Him for help in knowing what is right so that when we get ready to meet Him face to face we can bask in the warmth of choices well made.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Democrats want high gas prices.
The Democrats hate you. Either that or they're really stupid. We're paying an insane amount for gas these days. I think we can all agree on that. Well no I guess we can't because Obama has said that the problem is that gas prices have risen too fast, not that they've risen too high. But forget him--don't you wish you could?. Anyway most people who don't make millions of dollars off of their books agree that gas prices are too high.
Rational people trying to fix this problem would look for ways to get more, and cheaper, oil. With a constant demand more oil will result in lower prices. That's the way the world works when the government doesn't fix prices. Of course when the government does fix prices we run out of whatever they've fixed the price on because people can't make any money selling it.
But the Democrats think that getting more oil won't help the problem. According to them we could have oil wells on every corner and the price of gas would still be high. They refuse to allow more drilling in Alaska or off the coast, actually way off the coast more than 50 miles out to sea to be precise.
The Democrats aren't idiots--really!--they know that more drilling will lower prices. But the secret, as Senator Obama let on, is that they want high gas prices. They think cars are evil polluters. They want us to all jog to work and school. The Democrat party is owned by the neo-ludite environmentalists who view man as a problem, a plague on the earth. They want us all to live like third world peasants. Of course since they're the enlightened leaders they'll need certain special privileges to continue their quest to improve the world. Notice how Al Gore jets around the world?
They want a low tech world. Notice how the Democrats and the neo-ludite environmentalists oppose nuclear power? Not one American has died because of a problem at a civilian nuclear reactor. The infamous Three Mile Island incident was a joke. If you'd stood in the worst spot near the reactor for days you would have received an excess dose comparable to a few x-rays--did you know that flying in a commercial jet gives you a dose comparable to an x-ray?. Nuclear power is clean and efficient. Thirty percent of Japans power--you remember them the only country in the world to have been nuked--is generated by nuclear reactors. Oh yeah they tend to have big earthquakes too. Back in the 1980's when the US had a bunch of civil nuclear reactors they generated a volume of high grade--ie very radioactive-- waste that would fit in the average families garage each year. While the neo-ludite environmentalist wring their hands about how to dispose of this they miss the obvious. You put the stuff in glass and you pile it in a tunnel. Yes if someone breaks into the tunnel in 50,000 years and breaks up the glass they may die but then they could get hit by a meteorite too. The Democrats have no problem killing off 1.4 million unborn Americans every year but we're supposed to believe that they care so much about unconceived Americans 50,000 years from now that they oppose nuclear power. Yeah right.
The Democrats believe that if gas prices keep going up they'll get more tax revenues that they can spend to buy votes and that we'll stop using gas and live the life that our betters, ie the Democrats, say we should live. Of course if your house is to far away from work to bike you can just starve for all they care since you're just some fly over country loser anyway.
So what's the obvious?
If the Democrats wanted lower gas prices they'd allow more drilling in the US. The fact that they oppose that--and new refineries--shows that they support the extremist environmental approach of forcing Americans back into the 18th century lifestyle.
Rational people trying to fix this problem would look for ways to get more, and cheaper, oil. With a constant demand more oil will result in lower prices. That's the way the world works when the government doesn't fix prices. Of course when the government does fix prices we run out of whatever they've fixed the price on because people can't make any money selling it.
But the Democrats think that getting more oil won't help the problem. According to them we could have oil wells on every corner and the price of gas would still be high. They refuse to allow more drilling in Alaska or off the coast, actually way off the coast more than 50 miles out to sea to be precise.
The Democrats aren't idiots--really!--they know that more drilling will lower prices. But the secret, as Senator Obama let on, is that they want high gas prices. They think cars are evil polluters. They want us to all jog to work and school. The Democrat party is owned by the neo-ludite environmentalists who view man as a problem, a plague on the earth. They want us all to live like third world peasants. Of course since they're the enlightened leaders they'll need certain special privileges to continue their quest to improve the world. Notice how Al Gore jets around the world?
They want a low tech world. Notice how the Democrats and the neo-ludite environmentalists oppose nuclear power? Not one American has died because of a problem at a civilian nuclear reactor. The infamous Three Mile Island incident was a joke. If you'd stood in the worst spot near the reactor for days you would have received an excess dose comparable to a few x-rays--did you know that flying in a commercial jet gives you a dose comparable to an x-ray?. Nuclear power is clean and efficient. Thirty percent of Japans power--you remember them the only country in the world to have been nuked--is generated by nuclear reactors. Oh yeah they tend to have big earthquakes too. Back in the 1980's when the US had a bunch of civil nuclear reactors they generated a volume of high grade--ie very radioactive-- waste that would fit in the average families garage each year. While the neo-ludite environmentalist wring their hands about how to dispose of this they miss the obvious. You put the stuff in glass and you pile it in a tunnel. Yes if someone breaks into the tunnel in 50,000 years and breaks up the glass they may die but then they could get hit by a meteorite too. The Democrats have no problem killing off 1.4 million unborn Americans every year but we're supposed to believe that they care so much about unconceived Americans 50,000 years from now that they oppose nuclear power. Yeah right.
The Democrats believe that if gas prices keep going up they'll get more tax revenues that they can spend to buy votes and that we'll stop using gas and live the life that our betters, ie the Democrats, say we should live. Of course if your house is to far away from work to bike you can just starve for all they care since you're just some fly over country loser anyway.
So what's the obvious?
If the Democrats wanted lower gas prices they'd allow more drilling in the US. The fact that they oppose that--and new refineries--shows that they support the extremist environmental approach of forcing Americans back into the 18th century lifestyle.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Global warming put on hold.
It's official. Global warming is a scam. How do i know this? Simple eco-facists who have been proclaiming global warming have said that due to climatic events in the Pacific the world will cool for the next five years. But don't worry we're doomed shortly there after.
Ignore everything else and think about this. The global warming which is going to cause us all to die is so small that it's swamped by a natural variation in the global weather patterns for 5 years. That means that the changes of global warming to date and for the next 5 years are smaller than the yearly variations of the climate. What does that tell you? Well it tells you that the supposed signs of global warming are very small. So what? Well all of the global warming hysteria is based on climate models which aren't very accurate--you know this because the weather folks can't even predict if we're going to have a wet or dry winter in the fall. But if the models aren't very accurate then they certainly can't be trusted to assess the impacts of tiny changes.
Bottom Line: Global warming is a small effect according to its proponents and no one knows how to model small effects over the long term. Hence there is no scientific basis for global warming. Doesn't mean we should stop looking but we shouldn't panic either.
But even if there is global warming there is no evidence it is man made. When man was emitting the most CO2, in the early 20th century, there was no global warming. As mans CO2 emmission rate went down we supposedly got global warming.
Did you know that when people talk about this being the warmest the world has been recently you know they're wrong? How do you know this? Well i bet you've heard of Greenland. You know the place covered in ice and snow. It's called Greenland because when it was discovered by the Vikings, the Norwegian guys not the football team, it was green. It was green because the world was a lot warmer then. There is a lot of other historical reporting from that period that confirms things were pretty warm back then. But even Al Gore doesn't contend that mankind was pumping a lot of CO2 into the air back then.
Ok so it's been warmer in the past so what. Well it turns out that Earth naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. If that's what happening now cutting CO2 emissions will do little or nothing to impact any temperature change. Of course if cutting back on CO2 didn't hurt people it would be fine. Unfortunately estimates of the impact on the American economy of the eco-facists proposed changes are in the -30% range. Rember that Democrats are saying that a .9% growth in the economy is a recession so what in the heck would they call a 30% reduction? It would make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
How about another little secret. Among the biggest sources of CO2 are India and China. But American liberals are quite glad to exempt those countries, and other places like Mexico, from any CO2 limitations. That's another way you can see that this whole thing is a scam. If the eco-facists really cared about the environment, or more accurately if they really believed in man made global warming, they'd be trying to cut CO2 everywhere.
The whackos don't care if India and China continue to spew CO2 because the real reason the eco-facists want to cut CO2 emmisions is because it will give the government--and them--more power and control over the average Americans life. You can be sure that while the average American loses his job and is force to take inconvinient public transportation Al Gore will be able to buy carbon offset credits and keep flying on his private jet. Eco-facists tend to want us all to live a "simpler" life, one where we work hard and die young. A life they themselves usually eschew. Sure if we could all be university profs or students and live within walking distance of work we could cut down on our carbon footprint. But that's not a very credible option.
But what about the scientists? Well first off most climatologists don't agree that there is a proven scientific case for man made global warming. But the ones who do argue that get lots of press and lots of grants--that's taxpayer dollars usually. So you can say that the evidence isn't in yet on global warming and be called a kook and lunatic by the press or you can say that we're all going to die due to global warming unless the politicians are given more power and get tons of money and be called a "hero" for speaking truth to power. Decisions, decisions. For those of you who are old fogies you might remember nuclear winter. Carl Sagan said that if enough nuclear weapons were detonated that the whole earth would be covered with clouds which would blot out the sun and result in the death of most life. He came to that conclusion using a 1 dimensional model of Mar's atmosphere. On the face of it his claim was stupid. He said even a very limited nuclear exchange would result in the death by nuclear winter of everyone in the northern hemisphere. Problem was that natural events--primarily volcanos--have historically injected much more ash and dust into the upper atmosphere than the limited exchange he was discussing could have. We know that those natural events didn't result in anything like the climatic effects he was predicting. Why did he say it then? He was trying to prevent the US from developing Star Wars. If even a limited exchange would mean certain death for everyone then in his mind no one--not even those mass murdering communists--would ever start a nuclear war so we don't need Star Wars. He basically lied to push a political point. Don't doubt that scientists are willing to lie like that. An honest, but very liberal scientist, who also thought Star Wars was evil asked his colleges why they didn't point out the obvious errors in Sagans reasoning. They said that they agreed with his objective. So we have good historical precedent for scientists--who tend to be politically liberal--to either lie or condone lying to advance a political objective.
So what's the obvious?
Global warming of any type but specifically man made global warming is a scam designed to give power to radical liberals who don't really believe in it.
Ignore everything else and think about this. The global warming which is going to cause us all to die is so small that it's swamped by a natural variation in the global weather patterns for 5 years. That means that the changes of global warming to date and for the next 5 years are smaller than the yearly variations of the climate. What does that tell you? Well it tells you that the supposed signs of global warming are very small. So what? Well all of the global warming hysteria is based on climate models which aren't very accurate--you know this because the weather folks can't even predict if we're going to have a wet or dry winter in the fall. But if the models aren't very accurate then they certainly can't be trusted to assess the impacts of tiny changes.
Bottom Line: Global warming is a small effect according to its proponents and no one knows how to model small effects over the long term. Hence there is no scientific basis for global warming. Doesn't mean we should stop looking but we shouldn't panic either.
But even if there is global warming there is no evidence it is man made. When man was emitting the most CO2, in the early 20th century, there was no global warming. As mans CO2 emmission rate went down we supposedly got global warming.
Did you know that when people talk about this being the warmest the world has been recently you know they're wrong? How do you know this? Well i bet you've heard of Greenland. You know the place covered in ice and snow. It's called Greenland because when it was discovered by the Vikings, the Norwegian guys not the football team, it was green. It was green because the world was a lot warmer then. There is a lot of other historical reporting from that period that confirms things were pretty warm back then. But even Al Gore doesn't contend that mankind was pumping a lot of CO2 into the air back then.
Ok so it's been warmer in the past so what. Well it turns out that Earth naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. If that's what happening now cutting CO2 emissions will do little or nothing to impact any temperature change. Of course if cutting back on CO2 didn't hurt people it would be fine. Unfortunately estimates of the impact on the American economy of the eco-facists proposed changes are in the -30% range. Rember that Democrats are saying that a .9% growth in the economy is a recession so what in the heck would they call a 30% reduction? It would make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
How about another little secret. Among the biggest sources of CO2 are India and China. But American liberals are quite glad to exempt those countries, and other places like Mexico, from any CO2 limitations. That's another way you can see that this whole thing is a scam. If the eco-facists really cared about the environment, or more accurately if they really believed in man made global warming, they'd be trying to cut CO2 everywhere.
The whackos don't care if India and China continue to spew CO2 because the real reason the eco-facists want to cut CO2 emmisions is because it will give the government--and them--more power and control over the average Americans life. You can be sure that while the average American loses his job and is force to take inconvinient public transportation Al Gore will be able to buy carbon offset credits and keep flying on his private jet. Eco-facists tend to want us all to live a "simpler" life, one where we work hard and die young. A life they themselves usually eschew. Sure if we could all be university profs or students and live within walking distance of work we could cut down on our carbon footprint. But that's not a very credible option.
But what about the scientists? Well first off most climatologists don't agree that there is a proven scientific case for man made global warming. But the ones who do argue that get lots of press and lots of grants--that's taxpayer dollars usually. So you can say that the evidence isn't in yet on global warming and be called a kook and lunatic by the press or you can say that we're all going to die due to global warming unless the politicians are given more power and get tons of money and be called a "hero" for speaking truth to power. Decisions, decisions. For those of you who are old fogies you might remember nuclear winter. Carl Sagan said that if enough nuclear weapons were detonated that the whole earth would be covered with clouds which would blot out the sun and result in the death of most life. He came to that conclusion using a 1 dimensional model of Mar's atmosphere. On the face of it his claim was stupid. He said even a very limited nuclear exchange would result in the death by nuclear winter of everyone in the northern hemisphere. Problem was that natural events--primarily volcanos--have historically injected much more ash and dust into the upper atmosphere than the limited exchange he was discussing could have. We know that those natural events didn't result in anything like the climatic effects he was predicting. Why did he say it then? He was trying to prevent the US from developing Star Wars. If even a limited exchange would mean certain death for everyone then in his mind no one--not even those mass murdering communists--would ever start a nuclear war so we don't need Star Wars. He basically lied to push a political point. Don't doubt that scientists are willing to lie like that. An honest, but very liberal scientist, who also thought Star Wars was evil asked his colleges why they didn't point out the obvious errors in Sagans reasoning. They said that they agreed with his objective. So we have good historical precedent for scientists--who tend to be politically liberal--to either lie or condone lying to advance a political objective.
So what's the obvious?
Global warming of any type but specifically man made global warming is a scam designed to give power to radical liberals who don't really believe in it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
If you care you had to invade Iraq!
There's a lot of complaining about the war in Iraq. But there's not a lot of looking at what the alternatives were.
While we didn't find weapons of mass destruction(WMD) we did find lots of evidence that if the embargo on Iraq was lifted Saddam was going to restart his WMD efforts.
But it would have been immoral to keep the embargo going indefinitely. The people who were suffering were the children and everyone in Iraq except Saddam and his storm troopers.
Choice number 1 then was to end the embargo and let Saddam go on his merry way. Which would probably have resulted in at least one more major war not to mention genocide against the Kurds. Even better Saddam would have developed WMDs and probably increased his ties with terrorists.
Choice number 2 was to keep the embargo in place and keep killing off innocent Iraqi's.
Choice number 3 was to get rid of Saddam and try to bring democracy to the Arab world. Now i know that racist liberals say that Iraqi's are too, well Arabic, to be able to support democracy--unlike the folks in Boston--but i've yet to hear their alternative options.
Oh yeah wait there is liberal option 4. End the embargo and talk to Saddam and convert him to niceness. I mean after all that has worked so well with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Columbian Drug Cartel, and Al Capone. Someday liberals will realize that evil people can't generally be talked into goodness. Sure God does occasionaly pull off a miraculous conversion but it's not something we should build foriegn policy around.
So what's the obvious?
There was no magic way out of invading Iraq. The options weren't great but freeing the Iraqi people was the best credible option out there.
While we didn't find weapons of mass destruction(WMD) we did find lots of evidence that if the embargo on Iraq was lifted Saddam was going to restart his WMD efforts.
But it would have been immoral to keep the embargo going indefinitely. The people who were suffering were the children and everyone in Iraq except Saddam and his storm troopers.
Choice number 1 then was to end the embargo and let Saddam go on his merry way. Which would probably have resulted in at least one more major war not to mention genocide against the Kurds. Even better Saddam would have developed WMDs and probably increased his ties with terrorists.
Choice number 2 was to keep the embargo in place and keep killing off innocent Iraqi's.
Choice number 3 was to get rid of Saddam and try to bring democracy to the Arab world. Now i know that racist liberals say that Iraqi's are too, well Arabic, to be able to support democracy--unlike the folks in Boston--but i've yet to hear their alternative options.
Oh yeah wait there is liberal option 4. End the embargo and talk to Saddam and convert him to niceness. I mean after all that has worked so well with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Columbian Drug Cartel, and Al Capone. Someday liberals will realize that evil people can't generally be talked into goodness. Sure God does occasionaly pull off a miraculous conversion but it's not something we should build foriegn policy around.
So what's the obvious?
There was no magic way out of invading Iraq. The options weren't great but freeing the Iraqi people was the best credible option out there.
If Bush lied so did everyone else!
I wasn't enthused about the war in Iraqi before it started. But given that the Germans, French, Russians, and US Intel agencies-- or spies in the non-PC vernacular--all agreed that Iraq was working on weapons of mass destruction it seemed like a good idea. I mean after all we knew that Saddam was supporting terrorism, he publicly gave $25K to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and he did have a track record of starting wars that killed thousands of people. Oh yeah he did use poison gas on his own people and he committed ecological crimes including draining large wetlands areas to starve Iraqi's who he didn't like--you'd think that one would get the liberals ticked.
Even the Democrats believed that Saddam was a threat, they voted to allow Bush to invade. Now they can complain that Bush lied but they had access to the same Intel he had and they voted to support the invasion.
It's true that the French German and Russians didn't want us invading Iraq because it would cost them lots of money from sweatheart oil deals they had but they never doubted that Iraq was a threat. They just wanted to handle it differently.
Why was everyone so wrong? Well maybe they weren't. The footprint of the non-nuclear WMDs that Iraq supposedly had was small. A hundred gallons of nerve gas? Dig a hole in the sand and fill it in. Who'd ever find it? Smallpox culture, a few ounces to ditch. Not a big deal. Even better it might have all migrated to Syria--after all where did that covert nuclear reactor of theirs come from?
But let's suppose they were wrong. Hans Blix the UN inspector said that he too was fooled because Saddam was trying to convince everyone that he had WMDs in order to appear tough to his neighbors. Now if someone is trying to make you think they have WMDs and all your buds--France Germany etc--say that that someone does have WMDs and your homies--the CIA et al-- say that same someone has WMDs and to top it off if the closest thing you can find to a pacifist who hates you--ie Senate Democrats-- agree that this same someone is a threat in a major way why are you lying if you believe them?
If you want to look for lies watch Gore's movie. Global warming might be real but no scientist supports the size of the effect shown in his movie. A British court has ruled that Gore's sci-fi flick--too bad he didn't just go for the laughs--has no less than 8 major errors rendering it unfit for showing in schools.
But then liberal lies--i don't know that woman-- are ok according to liberal orthodoxy. Only when the President acting on the consensus of the whole bloody non-Iraqi world does something liberals in retrospect don't like does the word lie cross liberal lips.
So what's the obvious
Bush didn't lie. He, and the rest of the worlds major powers, may have been fooled but he didn't lie.
Even the Democrats believed that Saddam was a threat, they voted to allow Bush to invade. Now they can complain that Bush lied but they had access to the same Intel he had and they voted to support the invasion.
It's true that the French German and Russians didn't want us invading Iraq because it would cost them lots of money from sweatheart oil deals they had but they never doubted that Iraq was a threat. They just wanted to handle it differently.
Why was everyone so wrong? Well maybe they weren't. The footprint of the non-nuclear WMDs that Iraq supposedly had was small. A hundred gallons of nerve gas? Dig a hole in the sand and fill it in. Who'd ever find it? Smallpox culture, a few ounces to ditch. Not a big deal. Even better it might have all migrated to Syria--after all where did that covert nuclear reactor of theirs come from?
But let's suppose they were wrong. Hans Blix the UN inspector said that he too was fooled because Saddam was trying to convince everyone that he had WMDs in order to appear tough to his neighbors. Now if someone is trying to make you think they have WMDs and all your buds--France Germany etc--say that that someone does have WMDs and your homies--the CIA et al-- say that same someone has WMDs and to top it off if the closest thing you can find to a pacifist who hates you--ie Senate Democrats-- agree that this same someone is a threat in a major way why are you lying if you believe them?
If you want to look for lies watch Gore's movie. Global warming might be real but no scientist supports the size of the effect shown in his movie. A British court has ruled that Gore's sci-fi flick--too bad he didn't just go for the laughs--has no less than 8 major errors rendering it unfit for showing in schools.
But then liberal lies--i don't know that woman-- are ok according to liberal orthodoxy. Only when the President acting on the consensus of the whole bloody non-Iraqi world does something liberals in retrospect don't like does the word lie cross liberal lips.
So what's the obvious
Bush didn't lie. He, and the rest of the worlds major powers, may have been fooled but he didn't lie.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Evidence for the natural nature of liberalism
Liberalism is about asking other people to give their money, under threat of imprisonment, for your causes. When i saw how this photo turned out i couldn't help but think of the Democrat congress.
For those of you who are interested in nature here's the follow up shot showing one of the parents feeding the kids.
For those of you who are interested in nature here's the follow up shot showing one of the parents feeding the kids.
Abortion and the Golden Rule
Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you. This sounds pretty dang reasonable to me, and to billions of better quality people than i. If you avoid polluting a stream you'd like other hikers to do the same. If you don't play loud music at 0300hrs you'd like your neighbors to avoid noise pollution too. If you're polite to others you don't want them screaming obscenities at you. The list is endless.
So how does that golden rule apply to abortion? Well to me it seems the obvious is
If you wouldn't have wanted to be aborted by your parents you shouldn't support other parents killing their kids.
A long time ago before he started running for president and had to give up his pro-life stance Jesse Jackson said that his mother almost aborted him and that if abortion had been legal he probably wouldn't be around. Now as you might guess i'm not a big fan of Jesse's political positions but i'm glad he wasn't aborted; he made it obvious he was glad too. I know that i'm glad my parents didn't kill me so i can't see my way clear to do anything but try and protect those kids whose parents are trying to kill them.
There are kids who have survived botched abortions--the only time screwing up a surgical procedure results in the patient living-- and they seem glad to be around. Similarly people who have handicaps aren't eager to be killed, if you'd asked them in the womb they wouldn't have opted to be hacked to pieces. But aborting the unborn if they may be handicapped--even though the tests are wrong about 20% or more of the time--is considered a great thing. By the way if anyone could prove that 20% of the people on death row are innocent i suspect we wouldn't have any more executions.
In fact i can't think of any group of people, other than the clinically depressed who need our help, who would say that they'd be cool with their parents killing them.
So if no one wants to be killed in the womb doesn't the golden rule say we should protect the unborn?
So how does that golden rule apply to abortion? Well to me it seems the obvious is
If you wouldn't have wanted to be aborted by your parents you shouldn't support other parents killing their kids.
A long time ago before he started running for president and had to give up his pro-life stance Jesse Jackson said that his mother almost aborted him and that if abortion had been legal he probably wouldn't be around. Now as you might guess i'm not a big fan of Jesse's political positions but i'm glad he wasn't aborted; he made it obvious he was glad too. I know that i'm glad my parents didn't kill me so i can't see my way clear to do anything but try and protect those kids whose parents are trying to kill them.
There are kids who have survived botched abortions--the only time screwing up a surgical procedure results in the patient living-- and they seem glad to be around. Similarly people who have handicaps aren't eager to be killed, if you'd asked them in the womb they wouldn't have opted to be hacked to pieces. But aborting the unborn if they may be handicapped--even though the tests are wrong about 20% or more of the time--is considered a great thing. By the way if anyone could prove that 20% of the people on death row are innocent i suspect we wouldn't have any more executions.
In fact i can't think of any group of people, other than the clinically depressed who need our help, who would say that they'd be cool with their parents killing them.
So if no one wants to be killed in the womb doesn't the golden rule say we should protect the unborn?
What is a liberal?
In my youth i was once asked by a liberal friend of my fathers what a liberal was. My answer was simple and a statement of the obvious
A liberal is someone who wants to be philanthropic with other peoples money.
Studies have shown the conservatives give way more money to charities, all types of charities not just religious ones, than do liberals. Fat cat liberals give very little to real charities that help people. But they continually inform us that they care. To them caring means they want to increase taxes so they can use other peoples money to help whomever they think needs helping.
Liberals always feel that the government is better at taking care of problems, except for defense, even though history has shown the government is always grossly inefficient--through no fault of the government workers who are forced to follow the bizarre rules that come out of Congress and whom are allowed no latitude for common sense--and rarely succeeds in what it sets out to do. Did the war on poverty really do much for the poor? Was your last visit to renew your drivers license a fun experience?
Liberals also continually extoll public service as being the best thing you can do. But what public servant cures the sick like a doctor? What public servant raises food to feed the hungry like a farmer? What public servant builds a better cheaper computer to open our horizons? Public servants are necessary and most of them are great people but the nature of their work is hardly the ultimate in importance. But liberals think so. Why? Well because they think they, the liberals, are smarter than the rest of us and should be running everything. They think they should spend our hard earned money because they're better people than we are, even though they don't give their own money to charity. The bigger the government the more power and control the liberals have. So in their minds public service is the most important thing to do because it let's use spend other, dumber, peoples money to do the right thing.
A liberals idea of charity is working to raise taxes so the liberals in Congress can have more money to spend. I'd take a lot of liberals proclamations more seriously if they actually gave their own money to charity. Till then I'll leave them to meditate on what hypocrisy really means.
A liberal is someone who wants to be philanthropic with other peoples money.
Studies have shown the conservatives give way more money to charities, all types of charities not just religious ones, than do liberals. Fat cat liberals give very little to real charities that help people. But they continually inform us that they care. To them caring means they want to increase taxes so they can use other peoples money to help whomever they think needs helping.
Liberals always feel that the government is better at taking care of problems, except for defense, even though history has shown the government is always grossly inefficient--through no fault of the government workers who are forced to follow the bizarre rules that come out of Congress and whom are allowed no latitude for common sense--and rarely succeeds in what it sets out to do. Did the war on poverty really do much for the poor? Was your last visit to renew your drivers license a fun experience?
Liberals also continually extoll public service as being the best thing you can do. But what public servant cures the sick like a doctor? What public servant raises food to feed the hungry like a farmer? What public servant builds a better cheaper computer to open our horizons? Public servants are necessary and most of them are great people but the nature of their work is hardly the ultimate in importance. But liberals think so. Why? Well because they think they, the liberals, are smarter than the rest of us and should be running everything. They think they should spend our hard earned money because they're better people than we are, even though they don't give their own money to charity. The bigger the government the more power and control the liberals have. So in their minds public service is the most important thing to do because it let's use spend other, dumber, peoples money to do the right thing.
A liberals idea of charity is working to raise taxes so the liberals in Congress can have more money to spend. I'd take a lot of liberals proclamations more seriously if they actually gave their own money to charity. Till then I'll leave them to meditate on what hypocrisy really means.
Where does the buck stop?
Democrats wreck the economy. To be more precise when Democrats control both houses of Congress the economy tanks. This is pretty obvious. The economy was doing fine then two years ago the Democrats took control of the house and Senate. Within a year the economy was going south, according to the Democrats themselves. Back in the 1990's when the Republican's took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years the country began an unprecedented period of economic growth. While the media and the liberals credit Clinton it only started when the Democrats lost congress and it continued during most of the Bush presidency until the Democrats retook congress. If you want to go further back look at the stagflation that occurred under Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Congress. If Reagan hadn't pushed through the tax cuts that resulted in all Americans getting richer and the government revenue's increasing we'd probably still be living with a disaster.
Do you think for one minute that if the situation had been reversed the media wouldn't blaming the Republicans? Nah...
The Democrats continually push for higher taxes, more government control of business, restrictions on personal wealth, income distribution, and more bloated government programs which help no one but do provide jobs for those who vote for the Democrats. Basically Democrats are socialists who think you're too stupid to know how to spend your own money so they should let you keep as little of it as possible. Given that history shows capitalism provides the best way to generate wealth is it any surprise that the Democrat socialist policies which depend on government control and planning of the economy don't work?
Is it any surprise that business hunkers down when the Democrats are running the show?
So what's the obvious?
Democrat policies lead to economic stagnation and downturn.
If the issue is the economy and it's the Democrats who are running the show shouldn't Obama be campaigning for Republicans for Congress?
Do you think for one minute that if the situation had been reversed the media wouldn't blaming the Republicans? Nah...
The Democrats continually push for higher taxes, more government control of business, restrictions on personal wealth, income distribution, and more bloated government programs which help no one but do provide jobs for those who vote for the Democrats. Basically Democrats are socialists who think you're too stupid to know how to spend your own money so they should let you keep as little of it as possible. Given that history shows capitalism provides the best way to generate wealth is it any surprise that the Democrat socialist policies which depend on government control and planning of the economy don't work?
Is it any surprise that business hunkers down when the Democrats are running the show?
So what's the obvious?
Democrat policies lead to economic stagnation and downturn.
If the issue is the economy and it's the Democrats who are running the show shouldn't Obama be campaigning for Republicans for Congress?
Through a glass darkly God's infinite beauty
I take photos, albeit not very good ones. 
I usually don't take pictures of people because I 
don't want to invade their privacy. But even though my pictures don't include the pinnacle of God's earthly creation they do, to the limits of my poor abilities, capture a tiny portion of the wonder He has given us. It's too easy, especially during election season, to forget how blessed we truly are. So here are a few of the shots I like. I hope you enjoy them too.
I usually don't take pictures of people because I 
don't want to invade their privacy. But even though my pictures don't include the pinnacle of God's earthly creation they do, to the limits of my poor abilities, capture a tiny portion of the wonder He has given us. It's too easy, especially during election season, to forget how blessed we truly are. So here are a few of the shots I like. I hope you enjoy them too.
Caesers Wife, Does she matter?
Obamas wife said that the first time she was proud of her country was now that B. Obama is running for president.
So she wasn't proud when we won the cold war and liberated millions of people oppressed by communism?
So she wasn't proud when the civil rights act was passed and we recognized that racism is bad?
So she wasn't proud when we went in to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
So she isn't proud that every year Americans of every social class give billions of dollars to charities?
So she wasn't proud that we liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and their terrorist friends?
So she wasn't proud that the economic quality of life in America has improved for everyone year after year--look at how poor Americans lived in 1950 and now?
So she wasn't proud when we won in the Olympics?
So she wasn't proud that she and Barack could go to the most prestigious schools, only a generation after black people were forced to ride in the back of the bus?
Of course we're being asked to vote for Barack not his wife. But Barack has his wife campaigning for him. She's clearly no idiot who just says things without thinking. Barack knows what she's going to say, unless we assume they never talk which is, hopefully, very unlikely. Further the person that Barack will spend the most time with if he's elected is his wife, the ultimate lobbyist if you will.
I find it interesting that Barack has said discussing what his wife says, which he referred to as attacks, is forbidden. If that's the case she shouldn't be out there campaigning. I always felt it was unfair that people brought up Jimmy Carters brother because that relative wasn't campaigning. But if you send your wife/daughter/son/in-law/neighbor/third cousin on your mothers side out campaigning what they say is fair gist for any discussion.
In this case the obvious conclusion is this:
Barack and his wife are part of the ultra liberal hate America fringe of the Democrat party.
Now that's fine, this is a democracy and we allow, thanks be to God, all points of view. But it is something that should be taken into account when voting. Presumably the Obamas honestly believe America is a source of evil and they just want to do the right thing. While their intent may be noble do we want someone as president who thinks the country is mostly bad, that most of what we as a nation have done in the last 50 years is evil and wrong? Do we really think the US needs to be completely redirected in order to be good? If you do then Barack is your guy. If not...
So she wasn't proud when we won the cold war and liberated millions of people oppressed by communism?
So she wasn't proud when the civil rights act was passed and we recognized that racism is bad?
So she wasn't proud when we went in to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
So she isn't proud that every year Americans of every social class give billions of dollars to charities?
So she wasn't proud that we liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and their terrorist friends?
So she wasn't proud that the economic quality of life in America has improved for everyone year after year--look at how poor Americans lived in 1950 and now?
So she wasn't proud when we won in the Olympics?
So she wasn't proud that she and Barack could go to the most prestigious schools, only a generation after black people were forced to ride in the back of the bus?
Of course we're being asked to vote for Barack not his wife. But Barack has his wife campaigning for him. She's clearly no idiot who just says things without thinking. Barack knows what she's going to say, unless we assume they never talk which is, hopefully, very unlikely. Further the person that Barack will spend the most time with if he's elected is his wife, the ultimate lobbyist if you will.
I find it interesting that Barack has said discussing what his wife says, which he referred to as attacks, is forbidden. If that's the case she shouldn't be out there campaigning. I always felt it was unfair that people brought up Jimmy Carters brother because that relative wasn't campaigning. But if you send your wife/daughter/son/in-law/neighbor/third cousin on your mothers side out campaigning what they say is fair gist for any discussion.
In this case the obvious conclusion is this:
Barack and his wife are part of the ultra liberal hate America fringe of the Democrat party.
Now that's fine, this is a democracy and we allow, thanks be to God, all points of view. But it is something that should be taken into account when voting. Presumably the Obamas honestly believe America is a source of evil and they just want to do the right thing. While their intent may be noble do we want someone as president who thinks the country is mostly bad, that most of what we as a nation have done in the last 50 years is evil and wrong? Do we really think the US needs to be completely redirected in order to be good? If you do then Barack is your guy. If not...
Introduction or Warning. You pick.
We live in a world where the obvious is hidden and the absurd is considered true. Even as Europe fades from the demographic map we're told that killing our babies is good and having more than 2 is bad. Gas prices soar while Democrats block exploiting US resources while trying to blame the president. In what they call a recession politicians scheme to raise taxes even though higher taxes always reduce economic activity.
The media lie, frequently, through both omission and commission. On global warming they lie by never citing the thousands of climatologists who do not believe there is strong evidence for anthropomorphic , ie human caused, global warming. On Iraq they lie by only reporting the bad news, just as in Vietnam they turned a massive defeat--the Tet offensive-- into an enemy victory. Lest you doubt this General Giap, head of the North Vietnamese army has stated that Tet was a massive defeat for North Vietnam. They lie by ignoring any ethical or moral problem liberals have and pontificating for months on anything conservatives do. Look at Obamas pastor. Does anyone really believe that if Bush went to a church for 20 years that preached white supremacy that he could ever have been nominated to anything?
Unfortunately for truth man is a social animal. We tend to want to go along to get along. We don't like to think ill of others or to buck the trend. So when the ideologically monolithic media keep repeating the same message over and over people tend to start believing it or at least acting like they do. Another factor is that liberals are great hypocrites. They attack people of faith for supposed intolerance but then the liberals turn around and viciously smear the personalities and beliefs of all they oppose--if you oppose gay marriage you're homophobic, if you think that abortion is wrong you want to oppress women etc.
The objective of this blog is to point out the absurdaties that are declared to be true by liberals and their lackeys in the media. The greatest enemy of liberalism is truth. When the light of truth is shone on liberalism it withers like a vampire caught in the rays of the dawning sun. Liberals fight truth with a passion. For liberal positions only appear reasonable when you don't think about them. Take rent control. It sounds good, keep rents low. But the result of rent control is a shortage of apartments. Why? Well if you were going to invest hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in an apartment building would you do so if you knew that the amount of money you could collect would be a lot less than your expenses? But that's what happens when the government fixes the rent prices. Given that in rent controlled areas you're unlikely to make money with apartments you take your capital elsewhere. In the end the only winners in a rent control scheme are the folks who get an apartment and never leave. Assuming of course the landlord doesn't just abandon the building as a loss. If you're a liberal these few sentences probably told you more about rent controls downside than you ever heard before. If you want affordable apartments rent control is probably the wrong way to go. But in the world of absurdity the obvious is excluded from public discourse and as a result well intentioned people support positions that result in the exact opposite of the result they desire. In life feelings will usually lead you astray, even when you're thinking of who to marry if all you do is go with your feelings you could end up married to someone who isn't who you'll want in 2-3 years when the initial infatuation wears off
If you're comfortable with not worrying yourself about the consequences of your positions so long as your intentions are good this blog isn't for you. If you're interested in the rantings on what should be obvious but isn't then come back once in awhile for some insight or amusement.
The media lie, frequently, through both omission and commission. On global warming they lie by never citing the thousands of climatologists who do not believe there is strong evidence for anthropomorphic , ie human caused, global warming. On Iraq they lie by only reporting the bad news, just as in Vietnam they turned a massive defeat--the Tet offensive-- into an enemy victory. Lest you doubt this General Giap, head of the North Vietnamese army has stated that Tet was a massive defeat for North Vietnam. They lie by ignoring any ethical or moral problem liberals have and pontificating for months on anything conservatives do. Look at Obamas pastor. Does anyone really believe that if Bush went to a church for 20 years that preached white supremacy that he could ever have been nominated to anything?
Unfortunately for truth man is a social animal. We tend to want to go along to get along. We don't like to think ill of others or to buck the trend. So when the ideologically monolithic media keep repeating the same message over and over people tend to start believing it or at least acting like they do. Another factor is that liberals are great hypocrites. They attack people of faith for supposed intolerance but then the liberals turn around and viciously smear the personalities and beliefs of all they oppose--if you oppose gay marriage you're homophobic, if you think that abortion is wrong you want to oppress women etc.
The objective of this blog is to point out the absurdaties that are declared to be true by liberals and their lackeys in the media. The greatest enemy of liberalism is truth. When the light of truth is shone on liberalism it withers like a vampire caught in the rays of the dawning sun. Liberals fight truth with a passion. For liberal positions only appear reasonable when you don't think about them. Take rent control. It sounds good, keep rents low. But the result of rent control is a shortage of apartments. Why? Well if you were going to invest hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in an apartment building would you do so if you knew that the amount of money you could collect would be a lot less than your expenses? But that's what happens when the government fixes the rent prices. Given that in rent controlled areas you're unlikely to make money with apartments you take your capital elsewhere. In the end the only winners in a rent control scheme are the folks who get an apartment and never leave. Assuming of course the landlord doesn't just abandon the building as a loss. If you're a liberal these few sentences probably told you more about rent controls downside than you ever heard before. If you want affordable apartments rent control is probably the wrong way to go. But in the world of absurdity the obvious is excluded from public discourse and as a result well intentioned people support positions that result in the exact opposite of the result they desire. In life feelings will usually lead you astray, even when you're thinking of who to marry if all you do is go with your feelings you could end up married to someone who isn't who you'll want in 2-3 years when the initial infatuation wears off
If you're comfortable with not worrying yourself about the consequences of your positions so long as your intentions are good this blog isn't for you. If you're interested in the rantings on what should be obvious but isn't then come back once in awhile for some insight or amusement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
