NW and US Politics

Found a new product to share

2013-09-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

It's a little off topic for this blog, but I wanted to share a note about a new product I found. I'm a bit of a Linux nerd. I worked for MS for 2 years, and enjoyed it. I own a computer support company doing mobile IT work, and that's mostly Windows systems.

I have nothing against Windows or Microsoft, but I prefer Linux. The only problem is that many companies will release software to work with their services and not bother to make any versions for Linux. Forget the fact that it's really not that difficult to take the Mac software and compile it differently, they just don't bother because Linux is traditionally a smaller user base.

On of the most surprising offenders is Google. Google Docs, which later became known as Google Drive, has turned into a competing service for Dropbox and other similar online storage solutions. Being an Android fan, and a fan of Google in general, I choose Google Drive for my main storage. I use the free versions of other online storage for various things as well, but my primary is Google Drive. Except, they didn't bother to make a Linux version of their sync software.

Dropbox did.

Copy.com did.

So where is Googles? At insynchq.com This is not a free solution, but for a one time price of $9.99 it solves several problems. First, for Linux users like me, it allows an easy method of setting up a regular data sync for files on Google Drive. Better still, it has MANY more features than your average sync software, including support for multiple accounts. There are versions for Windows and Mac as well, so you won't be left out. Even though you have a Google Drive sync product that is provided for free download by Google, this may meet your needs better as well. The comparison between the Insync client and the free Google Drive client is below. You can clearly see that there are a ton of great additional features.

Multiple accounts

Convert Google Docs to Office

Symlink, junction and alias

Built-in sharing without a browser

External & network drives

Non-admin Windows install

Recent changes feed

Desktop notifications

Right-click share

On-demand shared files syncing

Linux

Selective sync all folders + files folders you own

Name your own folder

Revert read-only files

Awesome support

Whether you're on Linux looking for a simple solution, or you're on a Windows or Mac machine just looking for more features, it's hard to beat $9.99 ONE TIME for this service. I've seen others that are only $.99, but they charge by the month. 10 months in, you'd have been better off paying the one time charge.

I've been using the free 15 day trial for 3 days now, and I've already decided to buy it. There's simply nothing better out there, and I don't expect to see anything better any time soon. Check out insynchq.com today to start your free trial.

If you're interested in getting free cloud storage, you can choose between a few service providers. Google Drive is of course one of them (drive.google.com). There's also Dropbox (dropbox.com) and Copy (copy.com). As of this writing, Dropbox is only offering 2GB for free, while Google Drive and Copy both start at 15GB. For Google, that is shared storage for all your Google services. For Copy that is a starting point. You can earn 5GB free for every person you recommend as well as 2GB just for posting a link to Twitter for them. You can rack up some free storage fast, so I suggest Copy.com if you're just looking for free cloud storage.

Starbucks and Guns

2013-09-22T11:54:00.001-07:00

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz released a letter last week that I find a little annoying. But even so, I can't fault the guy for it, and he worded things exactly perfectly. I disagree entirely with the decision, and had I been CEO, that letter would have been very different, but the fact is that people have brought this on themselves.

Anti-gun groups are holding rallies and pitching a fit that Starbucks dares to allow people in the store to exercise their rights in a legal fashion, based on the laws of the jurisdiction they're located in. Meanwhile, gun rights groups are going completely bat-S crazy holding events and demonstrations at stores.

Both groups have this in common. Neither one bothers to get permission, or cares how their demonstration affects the businesses. Ok, maybe the Anti-gun groups are actually TRYING to hurt the business, but the pro-gun side of this debate is doing a happy dance that Starbucks 'supports' them, and just crapping all over Starbucks for it.

Here's the deal, folks. Get a clue. Starbucks is a business. They are here to make money. You're hurting them by being stupid and holding your little gatherings in their private place of business. Did you not expect them to react? Do something to try to stop the stupid and keep their business from harm?

Do I agree with Schultz's decision? Absolutely not. My letter would have said something along the lines of "any group holding an un-approved event in our stores without our express written permission, supporting or opposing anything, will be escorted out by the police and given a trespass notice. There will be no warnings and no discussion, and we will not have our private place of business turned into a three-ring circus for your cause."

Do I understand why he did it? Absolutely. Do I support his right to do so? Absolutely.

Will I disarm before going into a Starbucks? Not a prayer in hell. I'm not an open-carry guy, and I think openly having a weapon is an invitation to all sorts of trouble you don't want. Assuming I go to a Starbucks, which is a rare event since I really don't like coffee, I will go armed. Like I always have.

You can read the full text of the letter below:

Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

SCOTUS does something right, but ....

2013-07-01T07:56:00.001-07:00

If you noticed, this week the Supreme Court has handed down a few decisions. As usual, homosexual issues were a hot topic, and two decisions from SCOTUS really hit the nail on the head in regards to this issue.

It's nice to see SCOTUS vote on the side of the Constitution and Individual Liberty. If you're homosexual and you want to get married, it's nobodies business but your own. This same sort of idiocy played out over half a century ago when some people DARED to want to have an interracial marriage because (gasp!!) they fell in love with someone who wasn't the same color as they were.

Way to go, SCOTUS. Way to go. Now, about those other individual rights that have been trampled...... get on that.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=12

Obama says Congress is dysfunctional...... well, DUUUUUHHHHH

2013-04-30T08:26:00.003-07:00

Jamie Dupree

Obama calls Congress "dysfunctional" but says he's confident he can get immigration reform bill approved

That's the tweet I got from Jamie Dupree, Washington Correspondent. For the record, Dupree is the ONLY person I bother listening to or reading for actual news out of DC. You can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jamiedupree or catch his blog from the AJC at http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/. I suggest you do both, as he's all over it like stink on the Congressional records.

But back to the topic at hand. OBAMA says CONGRESS is dysfunctional. Isn't that a bit of slight-of-hand on his part? It's like when two white-trash neighbors are feuding, and one calls the cops on the other because the broken down car parked in his front yard is an eyesore. Then the other neighbor calls the cops of the first neighbor and claims the motor swinging in his tree devalues the trailer, and it just escalate from there.

Here be some facts:

1) Congress is dysfunctional. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Barack.

2) The Executive branch is dysfunctional. SNAP! Didn't see that comin, didja, Obama?

3) The Judicial branch is dysfunctional.

4) Politics is dysfunctional.

For the record, I feel it's important that I take a moment to point out that Barack Obama was absolutely, 100% correct in his assessment of Congress. Even if it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Sequestration Woes = More DC BS

2013-04-24T18:30:00.000-07:00

What a load. Sequestration causing flight delays. Sequestration causing police and firefighter cuts. Sequestration causing blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Bull. The sequestration was 2%. It was nothing. It was a drop in the bucket. Delays, fuss, muss, and bologna happen because the government and it's departments are the most incredibly inefficient constructs ever to disgrace the planet with their presence.

Anyone who's ever run a business, or for that matter, successfully managed a families finances, knows full well that 2% is a significant figure to find a way to cut, but it's easily accomplished by prioritizing your needs. The Federal Government couldn't prioritize, and for decades has kicked the can. Then they ended up making this ridiculous deal as a "compromise" between the D's and R's so they could punt once again.

Now it's back and it's biting them in the ass. The D's are blaming the R's, the R's and blaming the D's, and nobody seems to recall that this was a bipartisan compromise on a neglected budget.

Any department could easily cut 2% and still do their jobs. As a matter of fact, I'd venture a guess that most departments could trim well over 25% and still be effective in doing what they are actually supposed to be doing. They need to prioritize. Get it straight. Stop wasting money. People are tired of working and working and working to give 1/3 of their earnings to the Federal Government to be used to support duplicate and triplicate projects that aren't a necessary or proper role of Federal Government in the first place.

Enough is enough. Congress, stop bitching about the 2% cut hurting services, and start talking about why you have people in charge of departments that can't be trusted to run their departments properly. Don't fight the symptom, fight the problem!

April 24th, 1915.... We'll NEVER Forget

2013-04-24T00:00:00.000-07:00

We remember. 98 years has passed, but we remember.

How could we not? More than a million perished. Friends. Families. Neighbors. Gone. You marched them into the desert. You murdered. You maimed. You left the bodies where they fell along the long march into nothing. You 'relocated' hundreds of thousands of people to the afterlife.

And to this day, you still can't be bothered to admit your wrongs. 98 year ago today, you began an autrocity. An autrocity that the world is still shaky about remembering. Many deny. The guilty won't accept their guilt, and attempt to punish others who speak out against it. The guilty still hold many of our lands, as if they were somehow entitled to it because of their bravery in murdering 1.5 million of our countrymen. Buthering our people and claiming our lands for themselves, then denying the entire thing for generations.

When will it end? Will a nation never address it's previous wrongs? Simply admit that something horrible took place, at their direction? A known and proven fact, that is ignored, glossed over, forgotten, or denied by a large portion of the world for nothing more than political reasons.

We don't ignore.

We don't deny.

We will NEVER forget the Ottoman Turk Murderers who attempted to raze our people from the surface of this earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Martyr_day

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/the-politics-behind-the-armenian-genocide.html

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html

A sad day for liberty....

2013-04-08T06:17:00.000-07:00

Today marks the passing of a legend. Margaret Thatcher, the first and thus far only female Prime Minister of Great Britain, has died. Initial reports mark the cause of death as complications resulting from a stroke.

More details: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-dead/?hpt=hp_t1

The Iron Lady, one the of greatest defenders of liberty in the 20th century, will be sorely missed by those who cherish individual liberty and know the humongous part she played in defending it over the years.

'The Problem With Liberalism Is Eventually You Run Out of Other People's Money!'

- Margaret Thatcher

Madam Prime Minister, you will be missed as long as their is still individualism and liberty alive on this earth. May your example be the shining light that guides us through the dark ahead and on to freedom in the future. Rest in peace, dear lady, you have done your work and surely earned a high place in whatever afterlife you may find yourself in.

Announcement

2013-01-08T06:11:00.000-08:00

This is just an announcement about what is going on with this blog.

I recently spoke with someone who was interested in having some specific types of articles posted to this blog. He is a proponent for Social Security reform, and as this is 1) political and 2) something I support, I offered to make him an author on this site. I suspect there will be at least one new post coming from him in the near future, and possible more. He is welcome to post as often as he'd like, as much as he'd like.

I'm also exploring the idea of having multiple authors allowed to post, in order to continue to have fresh content coming up on a regular basis. I have yet to try to contact anyone to see if they'd be interested, but it's an idea I have and will follow up on sometime in the next several weeks.

As you can tell, I haven't posted in a while. Quite frankly, I've been busy with my businesses, and haven't had the time to do much politicing, let alone writing about politicing. I'm hoping to find more time in the future to write more, as I rather enjoy it, but right now I simply haven't got the spare cycles to do everything I'd like to do.

One thing I have done is finally get my website up for my Computer Repair business. I've been doing repair work for years, mostly by word-of-mouth to friends of friends of friends, and such. I finally decided to take the step to make a real business out of it. Anyone who reads this and posts to social media, blogs, or whatever, please please PLEASE!! Repost a link to http://www.colecomputerservices.com.

It takes you almost no time, and could help me in a big way. Part of the way search engines rank pages is based on the number of sites that are pointing to that page. So if a couple of people add it to their blogs, their facebook, or the websites that they run promoting whatever, that would all add up to help my results pop up a little higher in the search results, which translates to more business for me, being able to hire someone to help out, and hopefully having more time to write stories.

So you see, it's really in your best interested to post a link for me. :)

Romney Not Going to Win the Election

2012-07-12T16:34:00.001-07:00

Ok, all you Romney supporters bouncing around out there. It’s time to face some facts. Romney will NOT win this election. I didn’t way he CAN’T, I said he WON’T. It is, of course, possible. All things are possible. The problem is that he won’t pull it off.

Here’s why. Romney is a business man. He’s good at business. He’s also a politician. He’s been pretty successful at that too. But Obama. Oooooo-bama! HE is a CAMPAIGNER. That man could out-campaign damned near anyone on the planet. Add to that the fact that there is a lot of racial motivation at play, and as a black man, he automatically gets the vast majority of the black vote as well as a large percentage of the overall minority vote before he even opens his mouth……

How is Romney going to compete? The only possible answer to that is poorly. Romney is not as smooth as Obama. He doesn’t have automatic drawing power simply because of the color of his skin. He’s not the incumbent (incumbents nearly always have the advantage – better the evil we know than the evil we don’t know, right?). And he’s not preaching the right messages. He still is talking about Obamacare far too much. His message needs to be “get our troops home” and “fix the economy”. Period. Plain and simple. That’s not what he’s saying, though. That’s not what he believes. It’s not what he’ll do. And it’s going to cost him this election.

State + Alcohol = Mass Confusion

2012-05-29T17:44:00.001-07:00

It would appear that stupidity abounds, no matter where you may be. With Washington finally getting rid of the state liquor monopoly, this Friday being the first day that hard alcohol can be sold in non-State run retail space, the confusion that set in before the bill was even passed is still going strong.

All over Facebook and the Twitterverse, people are talking about the 27% “increase” in the taxes on liquor that was included with the bill, and horribly misinterpreting that tax. Even some news agencies, who shall remain nameless, are getting it stupefyingly inaccurate, and these people get paid to present the facts.

Meanwhile, while all of Washington is abuzz with shock and awe, confusion and wonder, Idaho is busily flexing their moral-muscle and banning a certain brand of vodka. Why, you ask? Well, this brand of vodka was obviously dangerous! It has a name that might possibly be insulting to a certain group of constituents. It could even be religiously offensive. Five Wives Vodka, made it Salk Lake City, could possible offend Mormons, what with the name that insinuates polygamy and a picture of five women hitching up their skirts on the front of the bottle.

This vodka was so offensive that the Idaho state-run liquor stores are refusing to carry it. Since Idaho runs their liquor sales in the same way Washington does (until Friday), that effectively closes the entire Idaho market to a manufacturer for no reason but the whim of the powers that be in Idaho.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the 27% “increase” in liquor costs will be more than offset by the fact that the WSLCB is no longer able to tack on their 52% markup on every bottle. If you do the math, you may notice that 27% is less than 52% (25% less, in fact) and store will be competing for your business, so they won’t be able to just tack on that 25% as a profit margin and keep the prices the same that they were. You’re likely to be paying between 10% and 20% less for your liquor purchases now, and you get the choice of where to go and the additional benefit of different stores choosing to stock items that the state run stores didn’t opt to have.

While Washington, by privatizing liquor sales, is looking at reduced cost, increased convenience and increased selection, Idaho continues the government monopoly model and has likely cost jobs for a distillery in Utah because they didn’t have a PC enough name and label for the people of Idaho, who must be easily offended since the legislature has to censor what they see on shelves.

DSHS Employee Arrested for Food Stamp Theft

2012-05-23T18:09:00.001-07:00

A 44 year old Graham woman who works for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, the entity in charge of the States Food Stamp program, was placed under arrest on suspicion of food stamp theft.

The Pierce County DSHS office was contacted by a former client who had turned in his EBT card in September of 2010 when he received a letter stating that he needed to recertify for his benefits. He thought that a bit odd, as he had asked the account be closed, and the office found that the card had been used to make purchases totally more than $3200 since that time.

They asked the Washington State Patrol to investigate, and the subject of the investigation was moved to a different assignment in DSHS for the duration. The investigation concluded with her arrest for four counts of unlawful redemption of food stamps, which is a felony.

On a lighter note, I’m sure she spent the $3200 she save in food purchases for something really awesome, and we all get the joy of helping to pay for it. Now that she got caught, we get to pay her room and board for a few years as well. The only ‘win’ to be found in this story anywhere is the guy who managed to get himself financially stable enough not to need the state assistance anymore. What’s even more impressive is that he voluntarily went in and turned in the card, even though he likely could have kept drawing benefits for at least a little while longer.

He used the system for precisely what it was intended for. To help get back on his feet. One could only hope that there might be a few more people out there like this guy. Hat’s off to you, good sir. I hope you have kids, and are teaching them to be as responsible as you are. We could use a few more people like you in this country.

WEA Endorses GOP Candidate & Gov. Gregoire Appoints GOP Senator to State Position

2012-05-22T17:03:00.001-07:00

You didn’t read that wrong, the Washington Education Association, an organization that typically is considered “left-leaning” by people who consider themselves to be “right-leaning”, has endorsed across the void.

Kim Wyman, Republican candidate for Secretary of State, is the first statewide candidate to receive an endorsement from the WEA. As unions typically tend to favor Democratic candidates, and teachers tend to favor democratic candidates, it comes as a bit of a shock that a teachers union might go for a GOP offering.

The WEA also endorsed two Republican candidates for the state Legislature, among the usual smattering of Democratic candidate endorsements.

Added to this unusual showing of non-partisan political maneuvering, we have Governor Gregoire’s appointment of GOP Senator Cheryl Pflug of Maple Valley to a state position on the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which pays $92,500 per year. This is nearly double what a State Senator is paid, and comes with the added benefits of not having to run for election, and being a six year appointment. Some cynical folks will likely say this appointment was made in order to get Pflug, the incumbent, to drop out of the Senate race to allow a Democratic candidate to have a better chance at winning, but being Pflug was one of only 4 GOPers to support legalizing gay marriage in this state, she had already likely alienated a decent sized chunk of her more “traditional marriage” favoring supporters out there.

With all this cross party action going on, one can’t help but wonder…. are we finally going to see a little work in this state towards fixing problems regardless of party affiliation, or is this just a quirk of the game?

Medical Marijuana–The Controversy Continues

2012-05-18T17:59:00.001-07:00

Over and over again, we’ve watch the same debates play out in different places. Should it be legal? Should it be legal only with a prescription? Should it be totally illegal?

There seems no end to the varying opinions on this. Marijuana is a controversy that just won’t go away. As someone who believes the war on drugs is completely outside the scope of the Federal Government, I firmly believe that there should be no Federal level regulations on any drugs. However, the states still have the power to make laws, and they are not constrained by the US Constitution in the way the Feds are.

In Washington State, Marijuana became legal for medical use, with a prescription and a handy-dandy medical marijuana card so you can show the cops that yes, indeed, you’re allowed to have this, a couple of years ago. The state goofed, however, and never codified the system for distribution. This left a giant gaping hole for the Feds to wander in, ignoring the fact that Washington had passed legislation allowing medical marijuana. There have been numerous Federal Raids of dispensaries that popped up since the legalization, and the Feds continue to arrest and prosecute more individuals all the time.

It’s high time (pun intended) that the powers that reside in Olympia get in gear and define exactly what the correct and legal method for purchase, sales, transport, and possession of medical marijuana is, so that there can be clear state laws to prevent Federal Agents from raiding indiscriminately. While most people are unaware, State law actually trumps Federal law in all but a very few, strictly defined matters. The Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution in what it’s allowed to do, and while they don’t follow the laws as they are supposed to, if a State were to stand up for itself and say “hey, this is OUR law, it’s OUR power, stay out!”, there wouldn’t be a whole lot the Feds could do about it.

Washington needs to set the example, pass legislation defining exactly what the mechanisms are for legally obtaining, selling, transporting, growing, harvesting, using, controlling, or possessing marijuana are, and part of that legislation needs to include a clause making it illegal for any employee, official, agent, officer, or representative of this state, or any county, city, or municipality within it, to assist the Federal Governments enforcement of their own illegal drug laws within our borders.

The time has come, Olympia. Stand behind your decisions, stand up for your citizens, and stand firm against the Feds. We are a free state of free people, and DC needs to be reminded of that.

Higher Education Costs on the Rise–Still

2012-05-18T17:44:00.000-07:00

Just read a story at http://www.theolympian.com/2012/05/16/2107098/state-help-for-higher-education.html and felt I really needed to comment on this.

First of all, the main thrust of this article is “we gotta do something, government, help us, help us” in regards to tuition. Tuition is being artificially jacked up because of government interference, and we’re demanding that government do something to “help” with it.

The article continues to sight declining State funding of Universities over the last several decades. A major contributor to declining state funding has been the Federal Government taking on an ever increasing roll in funding universities, as well as subsidizing loan programs, artificially keeping interest rates lower than they would/should be, and other things to “make education affordable for everyone.”

While this sounds like a laudable goal on the face of it, the fact is that this serves to encourage schools to offer programs that appeal to a broader range of people who can suddenly get a government guaranteed loan to go to school, regardless of whether or not the programs is actually useful. It encourages the schools to offer more and more courses that, while appealing to some, offer degrees that are more useful as toilet paper than they are as degrees. The schools encourage people to explore a great many of these programs, increasing the amount of time people spent in school, which in turn increases the amount of money the school takes in.

The students don’t care, since they don’t have to pay for anything until later, and many of them simply do not understand that they are taking useless classes at far above market value prices. The number of people being granted a degree increases every year, which devalues the degrees that others earn, and makes it so a Bachelors Degree is worth about what a High School Diploma was 50 year ago, as far as job potential goes.

The government has done far more damage than good in their quest to “make education affordable to all.” By artificially holding down interest rates, while simultaneously lowering the bar to qualify for loans, and then backing those loans so the banks don’t have to risk anything, they government has created a situation where tuition can rise astronomically, raising the cost of education while at the same time decreasing the value one receives for that money. It’s like inflation squared. Education is a great goal, but it needs to be a personal goal. If you don’t need to work hard prior to going to college, you’re unlikely to be successful at working hard in college, and beyond. This is why 53% of Bachelors Degree holders under 25 are underemployed or unemployed.

So we demand the government step in to “help” again?

Define Libertarian

2012-05-18T16:52:00.001-07:00

Not too shabby. Makes a solid point. Watch along.

Libertarian is a Verb

Kucinich Not Planning a Washington State Run

2012-05-17T16:54:00.001-07:00

Dennis Kucinich, longtime Democratic Congressman from Ohio, has finally put an end to speculation about his intention in regards to a Washington State Congressional seat.

As strange as this situation is, after eight terms consistently being reelected, Ohio had enough negative population growth to end up losing two Congressional seats. Kucinich ended up in a district that was merged with a neighboring district, and was forced into a showdown with Marcy Kaptur, the Dem currently seated in that other district. After a primary lost to Rep Kaptur, Kucinich

Despite repeated visits to Washington State, even before his primary loss, and a fair deal of support from some local Dems who cite his anti-war, pro-union stands as major reasons to support him, former Rep Kucinich has decided that he will not be moving to Washington to attempt a run at Congress.

I say that’s fine. We need more Democrats in this state like we need more rain in Seattle, and Kucinich is far from what I’d term as a stable individual.

I do need to note that he has shown himself to be a pretty straight shooter in regards to doing what he said he’ll do, and that’s no small thing for a Congressman. I don’t like a great deal of the things he’s done, but at least he’s not lying left and right like most other politicians. That deserves some respect by default.

Obama and Romney–Carnival Hucksters

2012-05-16T19:50:00.001-07:00

This is a great article I found on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Recommended reading. Funny, and makes a strong point that I’ve been trying to get people to see for a bit now.

Walking along the midway of this grand carnival we call national politics, a brightly lit booth caught my eye. Dance music boomed from a loudspeaker, punctuated by the staccato voice of the carnie urging me to play his game.

“Step right up, step right up! Power to the states, right here! Come play the Tenth Amendment game!”

As I approached, I realized none other than Mitt Romney was running the booth. Behind him, I saw six bright yellow milk jugs stacked in a pyramid. Curiosity got the best of me.

“What’s this about?” I inquired.

“Knock down the federal health care pyramid and win a prize!” Romney boomed, somehow managing to speak without disturbing his bright toothy smile.

“What’s the prize,” I asked, still somewhat skeptical.

“Why, your liberty!” he beamed.

I picked up the hard wooden ball. Printed on the side were the words, Tenth Amendment.

“What’s this?” I asked, weighing the ball in my hand. It felt good. Right. Powerful.

“Well, it’s all about the Constitution. The federal government doesn’t have the right to make you buy health insurance,” he said knowingly.

“You mean like you made the folks in Massachusetts do?” I asked hesitantly.

A frown flickered across his face; then the smile returned.

“There are some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there are some big differences. And one is, I believe in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people,” he said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law.” 1

I rubbed the ball absentmindedly, pondering my options.

“Go on, try it,” he urged.

“How much?”

The smile broadened. “Not much. Just one token.”

I pulled a token out of my pocket and flipped it in the air a few times.

“Come on, give it a toss,” Romney said expectantly.

What the hell, I thought. Seems easy enough. And lord knows, I could use some more liberty. So I tossed Mitt the token, took aim and heaved the ball at the milk jugs.

Thwack!

A perfect throw.

Yellow jugs shot into the air, pirouetting like ballerinas before tumbling to the ground. I did a little victory fist-pump and stepped forward to collect my prize.

But Mitt looked angry.

“You lose!” he howled.

“What?” I responded incredulously. “I knocked over all of them. I win.”

Romney pointed at some green jugs scattered about among the yellow. “You knocked over the green ones. That’s against the rules. You lose.”

I hadn’t even noticed the green ones, but as Romney’s assistant reset the jugs, I realized that green ones were positioned in the shadows directly behind the yellow jugs, placed in such a way as to become virtually invisible. The setup made it next to impossible to knock over the yellow jugs without also toppling the greenies.

“So, what are the green ones,” I inquired, trying to contain my anger at being jipped.

“Medical marijuana,” Romney sneered with obvious disdain.

“And I can’t knock those over with the Tenth Amendment ball?”

“I think medical marijuana should not be legal in this country. I believe it’s a gateway drug to other drug violations. The use of illegal drugs in this country is leading to terrible consequences in places like Mexico, and actually in our own country. I oppose legalization of marijuana. I oppose legalizations of other kinds of drugs.” 2.

“But isn’t that also a decision reserved to the states and the people?”

“Go away, loser,” he growled, turning his back on me.

I stomped away, angry. But what could I do? I should have known the game was rigged. They all are, right?

So I ambled along the midway, bought a big stick of cotton candy, washed it down with a cold Coke and then gnawed my way through a funnel cake. I felt better. Giddy almost.

That’s when another booth caught my eye.

This one had louder music and brighter lights. AC/DC blasted from loudspeakers, and a strobe light played over the ground in front of the game. Even from a distance, I could see President Obama manned this booth. The familiar “O” logo painted on the roof was a dead giveaway.

Obama beckoned me over. “Step right up! Step right up! Play the greatest game at the carnival,” he intoned enthusiastically, flashing his pearly whites as he spoke.

“So, what’s this game?” I asked, my recent frustration now a faint memory.

“It’s the Tenth Amendment game,” Obama quipped. “Power to the states.”

“Wait a minute,” I said. “I played that game already over…”

Obama cut me off. “This one is better. Easier. And more fair. Just shoot a duck and you win.”

I leaned in and peered closely at the row of ducks on a conveyer belt slowly making their way from left to right across the booth. The ducks alternated – two males with a tux, followed by two females in wedding gowns.”

The president apparently read the confusion on my face. “Gay marriage!” He handed me a gun with Tenth Amendment printed on the side. “I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.” 3.

“What do I get if I hit one,” I asked, weighing the gun in my hands. It felt good. Right. Powerful.

A presidential pause.

“Liberty.”

I was sold. The sign indicated it just cost one token, so I flipped one over to Obama and he plucked it out of the air. I aimed…steady…slowly pulled the trigger…

Plink.

Over went the duck.

But I knew in that moment I wouldn’t win a prize. A cannabis plant hidden behind the duck fell over too.

“I’m sorry. You lose,” Obama said in a patronizing tone

“Let me guess,” I say, resignation dripping from my words. “Medical marijuana.”

“Let me be clear, I am the president.” Obama lectured. “State medical marijuana programs violate federal law. I must send in the DEA to arrest those criminals so my Justice Department can prosecute them all.”

“But isn’t medical marijuana also an issue that should be left to the states and the people?”

“Shut up, loser.”

I glared at the president. “So you can’t win. This game is rigged. You just want power to do things your own way!” I bellow. “You are nothing but a carnival huckster. Just like that other guy, Romney!”

Obama merely smiled.

“What did you expect?” he asked with a shrug. “We work for the same people.”

Gay Marriage–Everyone is Wrong!

2012-05-14T22:00:00.001-07:00

Ok, first and foremost, I’m failing to see why this entire nation is being blinded by stupidity on this issue. We have religious folk screaming that allowing homosexuals to marry is an “attack on the church” or “attack on <insert religion of choice here>”. So for you folks I say shut up. I know people like this. They are intelligent, well spoken, logical people. So why can’t they see past this BS?

Now, for your gay people out there screaming about this being a matter of the state granting you equal rights. Also, shut up. States do NOT “grant” rights. You HAVE rights. States can attempt to put together legislation that recognizes those rights. States can ignore your rights and not bother to codify it. More likely, though, States put forth laws to try to limit your rights. You don’t need the state to “give” you your “rights”. Beyond that, marriage is not a “right”. Freedom is a right. If you’re free, you marry who you damned well please, whether the state has any laws for it or not.

On to the problem. Everyone is tied up over whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry. Like it’s any of your business what someone else does, or is allowed to do. But the hell out your egomaniacal busy-bodies! Unless they’re marrying you, it’s not your business. The problem is that States and the Federal Government seem to think they have anything to say about marriage at all, whether it be hetero or homo or something as yet undefined. It is not their business. It is yours.

States started licensing marriage as a means of control. Too many people were interested in interracial marriages, and that just couldn’t be allowed! So the states made licensing requirements. If you wanted to be married, you had to apply for a license to do so. Coming up on almost a century of this crap now, and instead of telling people they can’t marry outside of their race, now the state is telling people they have to marry the opposite sex. Oppression is oppression, regardless of the justification you find in religious texts or the basis of that oppression.

Legally defined marriage is a tool for behavior modification, control, and oppression by the State. Period. The problems isn’t HOW the state defines marriage, the problem is that the State defines marriage at all.

Bank of America Messed with the Wrong Guy

2012-05-14T08:53:00.001-07:00

Had an email a couple weeks ago that said something along these lines. Tried to check it out on snopes.com, they had it marked as inconclusive. Since then, this issue seems to have blown up pretty well. Here's an interview with the owner of McMillan Firearms, the person who was on the receiving end of B of A's attempted shafting. Interview conducted and posted by the National Association for Gun Rights.

Support the National Association of Gun Rights at http://www.nagr.org

Illegal Aliens Tax Loophole?

2012-05-13T12:00:00.000-07:00

The news this last week had many mentions of illegal aliens finding tax loopholes to claim child tax credits. (http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions)

The one thing that really stands out to me in this is the whole “illegal immigrants claiming exemptions for dependents that don’t even live in this country is horrible abuse of the tax payers” mentality. There are several reasons I say this.

First, illegal immigrants all pay taxes. The majority of them even pay the IRS their income taxes. Many of those don’t claim refunds at all, even though they are technically entitled to some of that money back by IRS rules, because they are afraid of doing anything that might get them sent back. So there’s a lot of money going into the system. This doesn’t count state and local taxes, such as property tax (paid through their rents) and retail sales tax (paid every time they make a taxable purchase). Not to mention fees for drivers license, telephones, internet, etc. Everywhere you go you’re taxed. So are they.

Second, this mess isn’t the fault of the illegal immigrants. Note, I do not say “undocumented”, because that’s bullshit. They are illegal, plain and simple, stop trying to sugar coat the whole damned world. They are doing much like the vast majority of us are doing. They are using whatever means they have at their disposal to get as much money as they can back out of the government. Now, this method is of questionable legality, so I cannot condone it. However, each and every one of you takes whatever deductions you can find come tax time to try to keep as much as you can, and you know it. Don’t blame them for using this ridiculous cluster of crap we call our tax code in a way that benefits them. That’s human nature. Blame the IRS. Tax codes in this country are a joke. And a poor joke at that, since it’s not even remotely funny. Get rid of the convoluted crap, and magically there will be no way to “game the system”.

Lastly, people are still upset that illegal immigrants are here in the first place. Most people are pretty accepting of legal immigrants. The only real difference between the two is how they got here. Many illegals don’t want to break the law, but they want to try to find a better life and have no other way to get here. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are good, hard working people who want a better life for themselves and their families. We make is so damned hard to get into this country legally that they don’t really have much of an option. I can’t blame them. I’d sneak across the border too. Fix the immigration problem by making it easy to get in legally and difficult or deadly to try to come in illegally, and all of a sudden nearly all new immigrants will do it the right way.

Shocking, I know. Symptoms go away when you cure a disease. Who’d have thought that. Instead of sitting around bitching about all the little things that are bad, how about we remove our heads from our butts and fix the problems that lead to those issues. This entire situation is due to unnecessarily complicated and convoluted tax code combined with piss-poor immigration policies in this country. Both of which are the job of Congress to change, and instead they argue about minor and immaterial nuances of both.

Congress, DO YOUR JOB!

Bookstaber Quotes Karl Marx Online

2012-05-12T22:22:00.000-07:00

Karl Marx, father of Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, three different views of the same overall philosophy, was recently quoted in a blog. The blog of an official of the Obama Administration.

Rick Bookstaber, of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (a mess of unelected goons created by the Dodd-Frank dung-splat) recently posted this little gem on his blog (full post available at http://rick.bookstaber.com/2012/05/class-warfare.html).

The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital

Marx’s theories formed the most anti-American views of the 20th century, and are alive and well in the 21st. This nation was founded on Capitalism, as Capitalism IS freedom. Capitalism is freedom to market your goods and skills and obtain a price for them based on their worth to others. Marxism and it’s brothers are methods of working for what the government tells you you’re going to charge, giving the portion they tell you to give over to their control, and change your rates only when (or if) they tell you to do so. That is not freedom. That is slavery to the Government.

With all the hub-bub that has been around since Obama first came on the scene, with him being a revolutionary Marxist in college, his relations with known Socialists, terrorists, Marxists, revolutionaries, and Communists, and the newest, him using “Forward” for his campaign slogan (a simple word which has extremely strong and numerous historical links to Socialist/Communist political agendas) you would think that people who are working for him would have the smarts to quote someone besides Marx.

Apparently, you would be wrong.

Whitehouse to Curb Wasteful Spending

2012-05-11T18:30:00.000-07:00

Yes, indeed. Did you laugh as hard as I did when reading that headline?

Today around noon, Reuters reported that Obama’s chief budget officer will issue new guidelines on Friday to boost efficiency and protect taxpayer dollars from being misspent. The guidelines will include a freeze in real estate holdings and a cut to travel spending for federal agencies, as well as requiring government owned vehicles not be replaced until they are (don’t take a drink now or it will come out your nose) at least three years old, or have been driven 60,000 miles.

Try saying that with a straight face. No, seriously. Try it. The folks in the White House really should be in Hollywood.

Get a freakin clue! We need someone, somewhere, somehow who has some common damned sense and can realize that saving millions, as this initiative is supposed to do, means jack shit when we’re already TRILLIONS in the hole. My wife comes up to me and says the car needs repairs. The bill is $3500. I hand her a penny and tell her to put that aside to pay for it. That’s where we’re at as a nation, and that’s how clueless the White House and Congress are about these things. They put together a pretty little play to try to get reelected. It’s a fact. It’s actual. Not a damned thing is satisfactual.

Nullification–Not Just for the States Anymore

2012-05-11T16:30:00.000-07:00

The recent outrage against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has sparked a lot of talk of nullification. I’ve written about it once or twice, as have many others more well versed. Nullification, simply put, is the act of a state declaring that a Federal Law is null and void due to being unconstitutional. There is plenty of historic evidence that the states have this power (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; Virginia Resolutions of 1799; 10th Amendment) and some states have availed themselves of this power in the past. Virginia recently passed a law making it illegal for any state agent or officer to assist and Federal agent or officer in detaining a citizen without due process. That’s a big (and beautiful) step.

But is this power limited to States? Why should it be? The 10th Amendment proclaims that all powers not specifically assigned to Federal Government by the Constitution inherently stay with the States or with the People. Seems logical, since all political power originates from the people, and the Government is the tool formed by the people to take care of the daily business. If the power is inherently the peoples to begin with, that means those people have every right to defend themselves, whether at a state, county, city, or neighborhood level. Even if such defense is against the Great Overlords of DC. I’d argue it’s especially so, in that case.

The cities of Fairfax and Santa Cruz, California certainly don’t believe that power is only for the states. Both have passed laws making the unconstitutional deprivation of due process by the Federal Government illegal in their municipalities. Both have made the choice to stand against tyranny and defend their citizens against abuses.

What about your city?

The Hidden Message Behind The Pledge of Allegiance

2012-05-10T06:20:00.001-07:00

I pledge allegiance to the flag…. you know the rest. At least you ought to. If you don’t, your unpatriotic, I’m told. As a matter of fact, if you choose not to participate any time someone leads the pledge you’re not patriotic. Why is that?

Because we’re told so, of course. How DARE you disrespect the country like that. Children are taught from their first day in government educational facilities that they need to stand up, put their hand over their heart, face the flag, and recite this little phrase every single morning before we get down to work. While I love my country, I find this troubling.

One nation we may be, but indivisible we most certainly are not. Nor are we truly supposed to be a “nation” in the traditional definition of the word. A nation is a large area or group of people under control or rule of one central government that claims to be sovereign from other such entities. Is that the United States?

Unfortunately, it is. More and more every day. However, that is NOT what we are supposed to be. We were founded as a collection of states that had delegated very specific and limited powers of governance to a central authority for the sake of moderation in disputes and directing defense. The Federal Government was established to help mediate between the states and coordinate matters of defense. It was never intended to be a “ruling entity” at all.

This “pledge”, which was originally written as a marketing slogan, was instituted in school as a way to slowly introduce the ideas that we are one nation. Over the decades since the founding fathers declared us a free nation and established the rule of law here, we have move, slowly but steadily, towards that which we fought to break away from in the first place. No longer are we a collection of sovereign state. No longer are citizens free to pursue happiness, unless they obtain permission from the government. No longer can we defend what is our from those who would take it from us. No longer can we keep what we make or earn through our own labors. The Government wants a cut so they can help others. The Government won’t allow you to do that for your own good. The Government wants you to pay your “fair share”, which will never be high enough no matter how much it is.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. A broken nation, over regulated, with taxation and penalties for all.

A Little “Journalism” Goes A Long Way

2012-05-08T17:35:00.001-07:00

Lord, have mercy! Reading some of the crap that passes for journalism will just about make you heave. You can read the same story on two different websites and come away with entirely different feelings about what happened, as well as a completely different view of what happened.

The say every story has two sides. Never is that more true than in what we laughingly call “reporting” here in the US. First and foremost, the job of a reporter is to report, as neutrally as they can manage (face it – we’re human – we have opinions) on the actual events of any given situation. Now, just look around at the titles of some of these articles. Don’t even read the article, just look at the titles.

Today, there were two articles I saw about the same thing. One was on the LA Times website, and the title was something like “Republicans block plans to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling on June 1” (July 1? – whatever). Basically, loudly proclaiming that the Republicans are pricks that don’t care about you or your education.

The next one came from a right-leaning site, the name of which escapes me right now. It was an article about the same thing (the Senate vote to invoke cloture on the student loan interest rate debate today) and the title was along the lines of “Democrats refuse to accept GOP plan to curb student loan interest rate hike”. In a nutshell, the title says “Dems are prices that don’t care about you or your education.”

Meanwhile, this doesn’t actually have a damned thing to do with education. The simple fact is that the interest rates on these loans have been artificially held down for decades, but federal regulation (those same idiots arguing over how to artificially hold it down some more). Beyond that, because of federal guarantees, more people have access to loans that they really can’t afford than ever. Also because of that, more people spend more time in school, leading to a shortage of jobs for well educated people, which has lead to the AA being useless, the BA/BS being nearly useless and a Masters landing you roughly the same position that an AA would have gotten you 30 years ago. Except that a Masters requires 5 or 6 years instead of the typical 2 for an AA, and costs you much, much more.

There’s also this great new trend that colleges started to try to keep people there longer, thus spending more money. Classes and entire courses of study dedicated to things that, while maybe interesting, are completely useless to you as a candidate for almost any job on the planet. Things like Art History, African Studies, Dance and Choreography, and Weapons of the Renaissance.

While some of these classes actually sound interesting, what career are you preparing yourself for? About the only thing you can do with a course of study like that is teach classes about that subject. That’s not a hell of a lot of job security. Why not study something that might actually give you a few options for jobs, and allow you to make a living, support yourself, and pay off the student loans?

All of this has been made possible by the Feds keeping interest rates artificially low, and guaranteeing loans to allow more and more people to go to school for longer and longer periods of time at colleges who are raising prices higher and higher. While that might sound like a good thing when you just skim the surface (more people going to college = good), it’s a horrible thing when you consider that many of those people are simply not equipped to make intelligent decisions or use common sense. As such, they get useless degrees in things that really don’t make a damned bit of difference in the job market, rack themselves up with $100k in debt that they can’t afford, default on the loan (sticking the taxpayers with the bill) and then live on food stamps or whatever jobs they can find, which have nothing to do with their course of study in the least.

So, the Feds spend money to weaken the job market, increase the cost of education, promote more “educated” people with useless degrees, increase the number of welfare recipients, and cause a decline in overall wealth and standard of living all across the nation. And they are arguing about how to do it some more, because they can’t agree on which method is best to screw us over with. All the while the media is promoting what they believe to be the right person/group/party/entity’s plan to weaken the nation and cost us all money by specifically writing pieces that they pass off as “news” that espouse the views of either themselves, their editors, or their organization as a whole.

That’s what passes for journalism in this nation today.