Oceania Burning

Merry Christmas...there I said it!

2009-12-18T08:58:00.000-08:00

It’s time to take a little break. Christmas is right around the corner, and while the rest of the world is tearing itself apart with the global warming hoax, state-run health care, higher taxes for all, and the end of the world in two years, I think it’s time for the rest of us to sit back and relax a little.
Increasingly, the holidays themselves (The reasons for the season, if you will.) have become faux pas. I’ve noticed more and more that everyday folks are reverting to the socially vanilla “Happy Holidays” instead of wishing me a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah and I can’t help but wonder why.

Here’s the idea: two thousand or so years ago a baby was born in to a nice lower-middle class Jewish family in the Middle East. This son, after realizing that he didn’t really want to go into the family business of carpentry, decided instead to take up street-corner evangelization. He said a lot of things that made a lot of sense to a lot of people. He also said things to piss a lot of people off. Those pissed off people eventually got around to nailing him to a tree.

One of the things he said that irked people the most was that he was God’s only son. More importantly (and more irksome), he also said that he really, really loved everyone and wanted them all to be forgiven of their sins and come to heaven with him. Christians celebrate Christmas in order to commemorate the idea that God loved us so much that he sent his son to a nice lower-middle class family, so that we’d get the chance to know God personally and hear his message of love and forgiveness.

When someone wishes you a Merry Christmas, all they’re really saying is “God loves you personally and wants you to go to heaven to be with him”. Is that REALLY that offensive of a concept? The message of Christmas speaks to the eternal and the spiritual while the phrase “happy holidays” speaks of commercialism and an acute, temporal, span of time near the end of December.

Hanukkah, while not a High Jewish holiday, is celebrated to commemorate the Maccabbees victory over an oppressive Syrian king. At its core is the idea that the Jews achieved their victory through the strength of God. While I’m not technically Jewish, I can still manage to smile and find the meaning and spirit of Hanukkah a comforting and encouraging one. The idea of an active and protective God should be welcome idea in these troubled times.

Kwanzaa (like Scientology a decade before) was made up in the late 60’s by some goof-ball social malcontent, but its message seems basically harmless and I’m all for black empowerment (and white and brown and yellow and purple empowerment), so…right on.

The point is, let’s not hide behind some crappy slogan like Happy Holiday’s. Let’s say what we mean…
If you’re Christian, stand up and say “God loves you and wants to hang out with you in eternity.” by saying “Merry Christmas”.
If you’re Jewish, stand up and say “God loves you and will give you strength.” by saying “Happy Hanukkah”.
If you’re a Kwanzaa, stand up and say “Kill whitey!” by saying “Merry?…Happy?…er...Delightful?...Kwanzaa”.

No, no. I kid. I kid. Little holiday humor.

Finally, if you’re one of the loud-mouthed atheists that are trying to get the rest of our practices banned or labeled as taboo, don’t say “Happy Holiday’s”. Say what you really mean, “I think you’re nuts and it confuses me.”

We’ll all be better for the honesty.

Scratching our heads...

2009-12-09T11:26:00.000-08:00

A stupid person should keep silent. But if he knew this, he would not be a stupid person. ~MUSLIH-UD-DIN SAADI

Now that global warming has been decisively eviscerated, and the debate is truly and finally over, watching these fools run around like well-fed Chicken Littles evokes an odd response in me. Instead of feeling like I am being surrounded by a pack of wolves, I now feel like a group of malevolent (but terribly inept) clowns make up the global warming cabal.

Case in point: Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009. Apparently, talks have derailed after “secret” documents were leaked. These agreements seem to indicate that developing countries will have to curb their carbon emissions. This is obviously an issue for those countries, not only because they would like to be able to continue to “develop”, but they don’t seem to like the superpowers (the U.S., the U.K., and Denmark?) dictating terms unilaterally. Further, the leaked documents also seek to limit the role of the United Nations in future global warming treaties and deals. This is a problem for many less-successful (and dare I say jealous) countries, because the U.N. has now become the vehicle by which the United States can be punished for its success as a nation.

So let’s walk through this. We found out a few weeks ago that the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) issue has had to be ginned up by man made global warming “facts” to maintain any sort of credibility. We’ve seen huge companies like NBC (parent company: GE) and Enron dump tons of money in the pockets of politicians to encourage them to legislate their lines of “green” technologies into profitability. We’ve watched the “superstars” of AGW tells us that we should all lower our carbon emissions to save the planet, while they get on private jets and limos as they globe-trot to various conferences and rallies and concerts. Now we get to witness first hand the true “eat the rich” mentality in the AGW movement as these folks go after each other. (Admittedly, with the intention of going after us afterwards.)

Ergo: Anthropogenic Global Warming is simply a device by which rich and powerful people seek to expand their empires and fortunes by deceiving the uninformed and forcing the powerless to relinquish their rights and wealth.

How can anyone still take these people seriously any more?

Post-Script:
Also, I have been upbraided on occasion for calling it “global warming” instead of “climate change”. If the issue truly is climate change and not global warming, then these folks are even sillier than I imagined. Anyone who wishes to discuss the dangers of “manmade climate change” needs to first understand that the climate has been changing for millions of years, well before we ever got here. It's always changing, always has been, always will, no matter what we do. Go read a book, fool.

For Those Without Imagination…Why Lying Matters.

2009-12-02T07:33:00.000-08:00

“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”-Adolph Hitler

I have argued with many people over the last few years over the idea of anthropogenic global warming. I once asked a friend, point blank, “If I could PROVE to you that you are being lied to, would you care?” To my shock, he quickly said “No.” Sadly, he is not alone in his myopia.

While arguing, I will weave convincing and elaborate arguments. Document and cite sources. Make the nuanced- readily available. The convoluted- clear. But ultimately, the faith in global warming is stronger than the facts in global warming. I am consistently stymied by the same final argument, “If it gets people to stop polluting, then the lie is worth it. Even if it only does a little good, it’s worth it.”

Unfortunately, many of these people cannot see the paradox of their logic. Fortunately, I am here to point it out. Simply put, the absurdity in tolerating a lie “because it does a little good” comes in the assumption that the liar is operating in your best interests and always will. In other words, assuming that a lie is ok because it’s your “side” that’s doing the lying, fails to take into account that it might not always be your “side” doing the lying.

Let’s take a little trip to imagination land for a second. What if…

…there was a scientist in the global warming movement who was also pro-eugenics? Let’s say this scientist discovered certain facts that proved that people of darker skin pigmentation produced more CO2 then others. Now what are we to do? We’ve already accepted the lie that CO2 causes global warming. Now, there are new sets of facts that say one group of people (based on the lie) is jeopardizing the continued existence of everyone else based solely on their skin color. Does the lie still seem “worth it”?

Ok, back to reality. Those that understood the point of the previous paragraph, you’re dismissed. The rest of you, stay after class. You folks, of course, are the types who possess a disastrous lack of imagination. You read the previous paragraph and rolled your eyes. “Pure right-wing propaganda.” you said. “Fascist hyperbole”, you chortled.

Ok, fine. I’ll make a deal with you all. It seems that “bad things” are acceptable to you if it does “a little good”. If we’re going to play the “The Ends Justify The Means” Game…I’ll play along, too. I will stop complaining about my “bad things” if you stop complaining about yours. Specifically, I will stop complaining about the lying socialists that run the global warming movement, if…

…the next time a 2^nd Amendment gets brought up, you don’t say a word. The right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis has saved some lives. So, it’s at least done a little good,right? So from now on, when the 2^nd Amendment is discussed, you shut up.

…the next time a president tells us there are weapons of mass destruction, you don’t say a word. Taking out a crazy Middle Eastern despot, who had his own personal torture rooms and had a nasty habit of gassing his own people; that was a little good, right? So from now on, the next time a president tells us there are weapons of mass destruction, you shut up.

…the next time the idea of not publicly funding abortions comes up, you don’t say a word. Limiting the subsidization someone else’s carelessness, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of morals will force at least a few to become responsible, so it does a little good, right? So from now on, the next time the idea of not publicly funding abortions comes up, you shut up.

…the next time you hear someone complaining about Obama’s unprecedented spending spree, you don’t say a word. Saving money now (by not spending it on unnecessary and failing social programs) will put less burden on future generations in the sense that they won’t be owned outright (bodily even), every man woman and child, by the Chinese. That’s at least a little good, right? So from now on, the next time you hear someone complaining about Obama’s unprecedented spending spree, you shut up.

That’s the deal, the trade off for self-inflicted ignorance about the global warming hoax. Ignorance has never been bliss. (That’s just what stupid people say to make themselves feel better.) And self-inflicted ignorance…that comes at a price.

Time to pay up global warming acolytes.

Carl Sagan on the CRU emails.

2009-11-25T10:01:00.000-08:00

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."~Carl Sagan

I suppose it might be considered poor taste to use and abuse Mr. Sagan, so long after his ability to defend himself has expired. But it now seems that the great Mr. Carl "Billions and Billions" Sagan was himself, bamboozled.

Recently, a thousand emails (or so) have been (ahem) released to the public. These emails chronicle several discussions between various members of the scientific community who concern themselves with the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Both sides of the debate (which was over a while ago, I thought) are represented in the emails, although the pro-"our fault" side has the most interesting moments.

Among them are the admissions that data must be manipulated to fit the global warming script, missing information is replaced with whole-cloth data creation, and that dissenting scientific opinion is to be stifled and silenced.

It is as many of us have feared. The institutions and procedures that have helped to make mankind distinct from other forms of life and assure our ascendancy, have been co-opted by those with an agenda for their own short-term and short-sighted personal gain. The scientific and socratic methods of thought have been held hostage by the jack-booted thuggery of the socialist demands of the environmental activism.

It is strange. Initially men of science, were often viewed with a eye of suspicion. Then after many years of trying to convince people of gravity, a round earth, and germs (and often receiving death as thanks for their insights) scientists seemed to enjoy a position of reverence and prestige. We now view those in the world of science as "experts". Men who "know more than the rest of us". Men who's opinions have been elevated to near "gospel" levels. These men now enjoy positions of power and policy making in our world. Positions that the "common man", like you and I are subject (and subjected) to. It seems now, with the release of these emails, that the old adage of power corrupting absolutely is not confined to politics. It is possible now, that we have come full circle and that perhaps, through their own actions, men of science will once again be viewed with suspicion (although I'm not expecting much in the way of burning them at the stake).

Carl Sagan was a big proponent of global warming theory. He was also, however, a big believer in the scientific method. As much I disagreed with his conclusions (he was also a believer in global cooling in the 1970's), he always seemed to present himself as a man that would "follow the science" no matter where it lead him. In fact, in his landmark work "Comos: A Personal Voyage" he says:

"All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond if it we are, must be discarded or revised."

I would like think that Mr. Sagan would look with distain on these so-called men of science and use this occasion to reexamine or (in his words) "revise" his position on global warming theory (or global climate change or whatever they are calling it this week). But I wonder if, like so many others who have decided to kneel at the altar of "global warming", if he would instead allow himself to continue to be captured by the bamboozle. Would he continue to play the fool or free himself from the bondage placed upon him by unscrupulous "men of science"?

Will we?

Hysteria, Abortion, and Breakfast

2009-11-18T10:40:00.000-08:00

"Whatever hysteria exists is inflamed by mystery,suspicion and secrecy. Hard and exact facts will cool it."~Elia Kazan

Recently, in response to the Stupak Amendent that was attached to the 2000 page Frankenstein's monster that is HR 3962, a group called Credo Action decided to invoke the horror of back alley, coat-hanger abortions. Essentially, you sign an online petition, and they send a coat hanger to the 20 Democrats that supported the Stupak Amendment (H.AMDT. 509).

This is hysteria at it's finest. First of all, the notion of coat hanger abortions are ridiculous. A great article (here) posits a few common sense ideas. Ask yourself, do you know an actual person that committed a back alley abortion? Or even an actual "friend of a friend"? Secondly, the amendment, doesn't prohibit abortions, it only prohibits public funds going to pay for abortions.

But barring that, let's look at what groups like Credo are defending. Though the arguments for abortion have been hashed and rehashed, and people are generally unswayable in their convictions, the recent conversion of a former planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson leaves room for hope that hearts can be changed. So I solider onward.

Argument One: It's just a mass of tissue, not a life.
To be blunt, if that was truly the case, then I want my California Condor omelette. Or my Kemp's Ridely Sea Turtle Frittata. You can't have it both ways, either it's a life or it's a tasty treat. Pick one and go from there.

Argument Two: Keep your hands off my body.
Um... excuse me? Here's a little Bio-101 for you. The split second an egg is fertilized by sperm, the resulting mix of DNA is completely distinct from every other person on the planet. If that child was allowed to be born and later went on to, let's say, commit a crime, the authorities using DNA forensics would only be directed to the child! The mother's DNA, while sharing similar traits, would be distinct. It isn't your body we're talking about, narcissist.

Argument Three: I don't want to bring a child into this bad situation (pick one) I'm in.
This is so ridiculous... So, a better alternative to poverty or drug addiction is the slaughter of the individual? I suppose this would be a more interesting way for the government to engage in its war on poverty and drugs. Hooked on crack? Are you living below the poverty line? We'll suck your brains out with a vacuum, 'cause that'll be better for you.

I realize that I could be construed as using hysteria myself, but frankly I didn't even broach the subject of Margret Sanger and the genocidal tendencies of the pro-abortion movement. Abortion is barbarianism at it's pinnacle. It's defense is absurd and reprehensible. I'm just trying to demonstrate absurdity by being a little absurd myself.

I suppose I could send Congress some condor eggs.

This is unreal...

2009-09-29T16:56:00.000-07:00

I got scolded the other day for not posting recently. I finish school in 5 weeks, and will no doubt being my weekly tirades again at that point. In the meantime...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TitlKON2-GM

This is the most unreal thing I've seen...

Promises Made, Promises Kept?

2009-07-01T08:40:00.000-07:00

So it comes to this.

When I started blogging two years ago, global warming was all the rage. I thought it was crap then, and I know it's crap now. Global mean temperatures have been dropping or leveling off for the last decade. The list of global warming skeptics (or as I like to call them "realists") have been growing rapidly. Even the EPA is having trouble suppressing the actual science of anthropogenic global warming.

So you'll forgive me for being more then a little skeptical about the recent passage in the House of the new "cap and tax" scheme to reduce our CO2 emissions and do our part to stop global warming. To put a fine point on it, this "plan" is nothing more than a power and wealth grab.

But here is my favorite part...

Some time ago we got this promise...

I'm going to forego the usual rant about the passage of the "stimulus" bill that was 1500 pages long and was only available 10 hours prior to the vote on it. That's old news. And as we know, things that are old are unimportant (like the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights). So instead, I'll rant on new news, like this..

The upshot of it all? Here we have another bill that was not read by the House of Representatives before it was voted on.

And again, the best that the acting speaker can come up with is "The gentleman is not asking a parliamentary question." and "The chair is not responsible for disseminating these documents." It's enough to make you want to scream. They're trying to pass a bill that is unnecessary at best and un-American at worst and they can't even read the bill, let alone finish WRITING the damn thing, before they foist it upon us poor peons.

These arrogant schlemiels.

Is this what all you Obamatons voted for? Is this the America you wanted? You wanted a country that has a bunch of little dictators running around? You wanted your needs and rights to be subservient to your representatives needs and wants?

Make no mistake, is always has been and always will be about money. It's about business figuring out that it can get government to take out the competition. It's about taking your rights and money giving them to someone else. This isn't about you, your kids, your health, or your future. These people do not care about you.

They only care about your money. They care about taking it and giving it to someone else, to curry favor and win elections.

Is that the Promise you voted for?

So...a guy walks into China and says "Give me a loan."...

2009-06-15T15:31:00.000-07:00

Absurd: adj

1) at various with reason; manifestly false

2) ludicrous; ridiculous.

According to an article in January, from the New York Times, China has bought up more than 1 trillion dollars of America's debt. In fact, they've bought up so much of our debt, that they are starting to sour on the possibility of buying any more. Mostly because it's bad paper. It has no real value. Regardless, that's a lot of money that we're borrowing from China. Money we're borrowing and paying back with interest.

So, can someone explain this article to me?

Let's forget for a second that man-made global warming is a hoax. Let's forget that China is not our biggest fan. Let's ignore their record on human rights for the moment. Let's suspend all disbelief about all things Chinese and just look at the simplistic stupidity of the premise of this article.

U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said that there was “no question” that China would receive both financial and technological assistance from the United States as part of upcoming climate change talks to be conducted in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Are you kidding me? Financial and technological assistance? (Say it with me now) What... the... hell? Is this not one of the stupidest things you've ever heard of? Think about this for a minute; what does that phone call sound like?...

America: "Yeah, hey China? I'm kind of in a bind, can I borrow a trill or two. I'll pay you back."

China: "...with interest?"

America: "Of course, I'm good for it."

China: "Ok, sounds good."

America: "Awesome. Hey, by the by, nice work on that whole Olympic Games thing. Real high-powered stuff."

China: "Hey, thanks. To tell the truth, most of it was green-screened, but whatev's. Oh, hey look, while I have you on the phone can we get some cash and technology to reduce our carbon-emissions?"

America: "Wait, you want us to borrow money from you, pay interest on it, and then give you the cash we just borrowed?"

China: "Yeah."

America: "Well, I'm not real good at math...but that seems like a good deal. Ok."

China: ...just laughs as it hangs up the phone.

Are we just the biggest chumps in the world these days or what? When do we wake up?

This would be the funniest damn joke in the world...if the punch-line wasn't coming out of my pocket.

More reasons why I was right about the bailout...

2009-06-14T12:20:00.000-07:00

<I was reading some interesting commentary on Obama's speech to the Muslim world by an Arab woman here. After I was done with the article, I fished around israpundit.com a little and came upon this video. This was filmed back in early May and is a fascinating look into your government in action. The video mostly speaks for itself, but this wouldn't be much of a blog if I didn't comment, so I will.

This is not about Bush. This is not about Obama. It's not about Left or Right. This is about the inherent dangers of a governing body moving too quickly.

Thomas Paine said, "Government, even in it's best state, is but a necessary evil; in it's worst state, an intolerable one." Man has always had a ruled/ruling mentality. It's is part of our dichotomous nature to want power and to want to let others take that power. This video shows us a small part of the large cost that that nature exacts on us.

An unfettered government will always move toward the enslavement of it's people. Whether it's through might and arms or (as in this case) through economic misdeed or mishandling. Both Bush and Obama, the Right and the Left, have severely unfettered a government and we move ever closer to enslavement as a result.

The numbers in this video are staggering. Trillions of dollars ($30,000 for every man, woman, and child in America?) have been printed and spent and this General Inspector could not even give the barest of details as to where it is. Our economy has been devalued by a trillion dollars, and we don't know where it went?!?!?

Further, I watch this exchange and I am struck at how terribly common and low these people seem to me. Inspector Coleman is on the hot-seat and is doing her level best to evade the questions posed to her by Representative Grayson. These people control tons of our money and run large chunks of our infrastructure and they can't even have the decency to just talk straight. The whole 5 minutes and 42 seconds should have been handled like this...

Grayson: "You know all that cash we had printed last year. Um...where is it?"

Coleman: "I don't know."

Grayson: "It's kind of your job to know, right?"

Coleman: "Yes."

Grayson: "Then, what's say you run on out and find out for America, where it's money is, eh?"

Coleman: "Ok"

Grayson: "Cool. And if you could do it kind of quickly, because we're in this recession and all, that would be great!"

Coleman: "Ok, I'll try and have that on your desk by Monday morning."

Grayson: "Super-great. I'm done."

Instead, these people have to dance around each other coming no closer to the truth then when they started, on our dime. People wonder why I am so mistrustful of government...

...it's because government is run by those that I wouldn't trust my cats with. And I don't really like cats.

Grumpy (and Dirty) Old Men.

2009-06-11T05:53:00.000-07:00

I was going to just send this out in an email. But I had more and more to say, so I thought I'd just turn it into a post. Lucky you...

David Letterman has been old news to me for almost a decade. Never really found him and his writers to be all that funny. His "Top Ten's" were pretty good, but I always felt that #2 was consistently funnier than #1 and I could never figure out why his writers didn't see it. Sorry, I digress.

So Letterman opens his yap, and this weird and creepy crap starts falling out of it. I couldn't find the actual video, but here's a link to the audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuy4RV2S4-o

At first, these might sound like they're slams on Elliot Spitzer and Alex Rodriguez, but if you think about it, he'd never say these things about Obama's kids. He's talking about a 14 year old girl. Willow Palin was the only Palin child to attend the Yankee's game. This dirty old man is just pissed off and angry and disgusting.

It kind of makes you wonder why he would even pick out (and pick on) a former candidate for VP that lost. She was in N.Y. for some "kids with special needs" function. So, why the "slutty flight attendant" comment? And why go after Palin's kids? Why mention her at all? Dave and his group won, right? She should be old news. Unless there was something more to her candidacy (past and future) that the rest of us don't know about. Are David and the Dems really that afraid of one woman, from Alaska, that they have to keep firing on her, almost a year after she's stopped campaigning against them? Kind of pathetic really.

And for all those that would defend Letterman under the guise of "it's just a joke, it's his job, it's what he does", imagine it was your 14 year old daughter. Imagine I had just typed a sentence that conjured up the image of your 14 year old daughter and Alex Rodriguez having sex in Yankee stadium. Now, imagine that I had about 10 million readers (oh, to dream). Ten MILLION people are thinking about YOUR underage daughter having sex, in a public place, with a skeezy baseball player. That's not funny. That's not a joke. That's not a job.

Unfortunately, it seems, it IS what David Letterman does.

Zen and the art of self-defense..

2009-05-23T09:06:00.000-07:00

This is where blogs get interesting. An alert reader sent this to me yesterday, so I thought I would pass it on to all of you. The important thing is to note the timeline that has been laid out. Obviously, the gun enthusiasts out in the world know something about something... or someone.

For those of you anti-gun nuts out there, I have two things. First off, this link which hosts a huge repository of stats and knowledge on crime. (It's actually a great website for a whole host of issues.) Secondly, I have a question. We know that the gun, as horrible as it is, cannot be unmade. It's existence will continue in some form from now until the judgement trumpets. We also know that there will always be bad people in the world. Human nature is one of greed, envy, and combativeness and there will always be people seduced by that nature. It stands to reason then, that bad people, who will always exist, will finds guns, which will always exist. How then, does it make sense to take guns away from good people who could defend themselves from bad people?

I lied, I have more questions...

What do you call a bad person with a gun? A criminal.

What do you call a good person without a gun? A victim.

What do you call a good person with a gun? A victim with a chance.

Did you notice that the context of gun never changed in any of those questions? The gun has no "intent"? The gun is neither good, bad, nor judgmental. The gun is indifferent. Or to put it in a more "zen" format...

If a gun is sitting on a table by itself? Does it ever go off?

Just a question...

2009-05-10T08:23:00.000-07:00

I know I am late to the party on this one, but I've been busy living real life. Carrie Prejean, the lovely from California stirred up a hornets nest over gay marriage. We've all seen the clips and heard from the clearly hypocritical and (in my opinion) idiotic Mr. Lavandeira. I say idiotic mostly because, as a pseudonym, he chose the completely moronic moniker of "Perez Hilton". I mean honestly, if your going to change your name, and can therefore choose ANY name in the world why would you choose a name that is essentially the equivalent of "vapid" in American-English vernacular. I digress.

So Miss Cali opens her mouth, exercises her free speech, and gets utterly destroyed (Welcome to the New America of "hope" and "change", leave your opinions at the door.) for it. That's not really the story. The story, or at least the question I have is, why is this a story? Why are gays clamoring so hard to be part of an institution that FAILS 50% of the time it's tried in the country? Marriage is a joke every night on late night TV. It is an afterthought on every major TV program, movie, and album. It is constantly downgraded and debased (ala ABC's "Wife Swap"). I don't get it.

If the argument is that churches should be forced to consecrate marriage for gays, I'd politely tell you to get stuffed. That whole thing where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" kind of precludes any notion of that. That would be on par with the government telling a synagog that they had to eat pork or something. But, if the gay argument is that the government must recognize gay marriage, then I'd say they're on to something. But as usual, the leftists have gotten it all backward, sideways, and all other ways...wrong.

The Constitution is not an enumeration of OUR (the people's) rights, it is (or was at least intended to be) a list of the LIMITED rights of Government. As far as the act of marriage is concerned, the government doesn't have the right to acknowledge it or not. Marriage is the commitment of two people to each other under the watchful eyes of their God. This is not an enforceable situation under our Constitution. Instead the government is acknowledging the contract of marriage which is to say that, the "stuff" that gets merged, the offspring that are sprung, and the assets that are acquired, all fall under the purview of the government to enforce contracts.

The gay community has as much right to engage in contracts as any. Engaging in the institution of marriage however, is based on the denomination they choose to engage in. But my real question is, why would you want to? Wouldn't it make more sense for the gays and the straights to get together and change the way the government sees marriage?

Right now, if your single (gay or straight) you stand as a lesser citizen than if you are married. You are taxed at a higher rate and you receive less services for that higher rate of taxation. Why not join forces and change the law that penalizes the single community? If two consenting adults want to engage in a contract, be it to start a business or start a family, let them draw up the papers, have them signed and notarized, and filed with the proper agencies. No muss, no fuss. If we want the added protection of a government enforceable "marriage" that should be (and quite frankly IS (i.e. civil unions)) available to everyone.

However, if two consenting adults want to get married, let them go to the proper clergy and tell the government to piss off. Our lives are none of the governments business, be you straight or gay. Instead of trying to force governments INTO our lives, wouldn't we all be better served to try and get them out of lives as much as possible?

The Deep Pockets of Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big...People??

2009-04-17T08:16:00.000-07:00

The EPA is set to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act either today or tomorrow. Let's take a walk through the land of insanity.

By being put on the list of pollutants recognized by the EPA as dangerous, CO2 will now be sharing a space on a list of infamy with chlorine, methanol, and asbestos. Let me repeat that.

The stuff that is released from YOUR LUNGS in the process of respiration (read: life) has now been classified to be as dangerous as asbestos!!

And you're going to hear, "Well, they're not going to regulate on an individual level. This is about Big Auto or Big (fill in the blank)." Here's the thing about that. Regulation by the EPA kicks in when pollutant emissions reach "10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants". I found here that the human race, simply through breathing, emits 200,000,000 times the standard that the EPA sets for the danger level.

But the EPA can't stop with simple auto emissions and the combustible engine. A pollutant is a pollutant. If it's jeopardizing my life or my children's life, I don't want it anywhere around me! When Big Tobacco jeopardized our lives, we sued them. When Big Oil jeopardizes our life with oil spills and the like, we take them to court, we make them pay for their tresspasses against our lives. To that end, I propose we begin formulating a class action suit against Big People! Every time someone takes a breath, they are now officially threatening the rest of us. This must stop!! The whole human race can join in. Trial lawyers will make a mint!

... if you have joined a health club, you are purposefully raising your output of CO2... you're sued.

... if you take the kids to the park, you are encouraging their CO2 output... you're sued.

... like having sex?, (if you're doing it right)... you're sued!

... watched a scary movie lately?, breathing a little hard when the heroine is in the dark scary house?...SUED!!!

... cutting your lawn with a push mower...SUED!!

... had an exciting thought?... SUED!!

... are you a politician about to make a speech?.... not so fast buddy....SUED!!

... skydiving...SUED!!

... rock concerts... SUED!!!

... birthday parties... SUED!!!

... pregnant...oh ho!... DOUBLE SUED!!!

And the list goes on and on. Anything that you engage in that gets your heart rate up, that increases your respiration is now officially a hostile act against life itself. You are a bad person.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

What you missed at the Tea Party.

2009-04-16T08:30:00.000-07:00

I took a few snapshots for you all to enjoy.

	Some folks got pretty creative.
	Most were funny
	It was hard to get a clear shot
	The Rockstar of Radio and our heroine.
	Contrary to reports, there were a lot of people.
	The Mess we left.
	More of the aftermath of a conservative rally.
	Not to be confused with a liberal rally.
	Like the 2009 inauguration.

Show me an intellectually honest person...

2009-03-29T09:44:00.000-07:00

I have liberal friends. I can't help it. I grew up with them. Went to school with them. Formed bonds with them, before I had reasonable resources to buttress my conservative leanings. I have generally and (for the most part, quietly) let sleeping dogs lie. I wanted to maintain my friendships over being "right" (using both definitions). But lately, I tire of living this double life. It's not that I mind my friends thinking the way that they do, it's that they never seem to have any reasons to substantiate their opinions. At least none that withstand the light of intellectual discourse.

If we talk about abortion, I mention heartbeats and brain activity in the very early goings (7-12 weeks). All they do is rant about choice (or how that baby was doomed to a miserable life anyways). That's not an argument that counters mine... it's a mantra for an apostle.

If we talk about global warming, I mention several "dissenting" scientists and their science (CO2 levels follow heat rises not proceed them, sunspots, the current global cooling) or how global warming seems to line the pocket of a certain "alarmist" quite effectively, even though he's been wrong time and time again. Their response is "we only have 10 years to save the planet". That's not science, it's the voice of a people with a god-complex.

If we talk about taxes or economy I'll mention Coolidge, Kennedy, or Reagan and their tax cuts and the rebound their economies saw. I'll mention the Lost Decade of Japan. In return I get called a neo-con fascist. That's just poor taste (especially since most fascists were liberal in nature).

The list of subjects goes on and on. Evolution, health care, welfare, the validity of the US Constitution, on and on, round and round. And yet, it never seems like I am getting anywhere. My points of argument are always glossed over in favor of some feel-good emotional punch-line. I actually had one friend tell me that; even if I could PROVE that global warming was a hoax to pick his pocket, he wouldn't care.

What am I to do with that? How can I maintain friendship with a group of people that absolutely refuse to engage in honest debate? What is left to talk about if all conversation is some sort of mine field (...dont' go there, don't step on that toe...)? The weather only goes so far as a topic of conversation (and generally trends back to global warming anyways)!

What we need is real debate. No more of this "let's just agree to disagree"-B.S. Because what we're really saying when we say that is "I think you're an idiot and I don't want to waste anymore of my life talking to you." We need to accept the possibility that we could be wrong about a subject.

Indeed, we need to start reaccepting the premise that there is a right and a wrong. For example, two people on opposite sides of the global warming debate cannot both be right. Either the earth is warming and it's man's fault or not.

And before I start getting lambasted for being a close-minded fascist, I will qualify by saying these things are important and there is a right and wrong, because we're making policy that effects everybody. If you are forced to pay taxes, because of something that I have an opinion about, I cannot defend my opinion by simply saying "well, let's just agree to disagree".

Let's start working to change each other's minds. Let us work to engage in real and honest debate. A debate that has purpose and a clear victory of idea. Let's stop dancing around issues. Let's stop talking about "the weather" in all it's boring glory. Let's become better people through the true exchange of real idea even if that means letting some of our ideas be subject to real scrutiny and criticism.

Or we can just keep sniping each other from the fringes of real discourse and just agree to disagree.

A letter to my Rep...you can use it if you want...

2009-03-26T20:28:00.001-07:00

Mr Ryan,

What are you doing voting "Yea" on H.R.1586?

You make yourself look ridiculous sir! You voted for TARP, and as I understand it, these bonuses were permitted specifically by TARP. Not to mention the idea expressed specifically in the US Constitution under Article 1 Section 9. It seems that many in both the House and Congress have lost their copy so I will quote for you...

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

You cannot get yourself out of the hole you dug (in voting for TARP) by needlessly and senselessly digging further. You are nullifying contracts (the very essence of our legal and legislative systems, for what is law if not a contract between the governed and the governing) and you make a mockery of our founding documents.

I would suggest that you gravely consider the notion that, now, more than any time in remembered history, conservatives and all lovers of freedom are watching very closely the moves their government are making. I would proffer the proliferation of Tea Parties all over America as evidence that a movement is taking place, all over the country, on a grass-roots level. It is a movement that will not tolerate charlatans or snake-oil salesmen. For too long we have been ruled by those who see ruling as a right rather than the privilege it is.

Where do you stand sir? Do you stand for freedom, the rule of law, and the God-given right of a people to determine their own course? Or do you stand on the side of those that would look to reconstruct this nation (and indeed all of creation) in their own graven image? History is littered with the remnants of those that would rule with tyrannical whimsy.

I sincerely implore you...

Take your finger out of the air and legislate through the convictions of your character or step down and make room for those that will.

And if this IS your character, then I would implore you to step down anyways...

Sincerely

The imagination runs wild.

2009-02-22T20:37:00.000-08:00

I try and ground myself. I think, overall, I am a normal guy. I love my family and pay my taxes. Perhaps writing has opened the door to my imagination, but I found myself musing over things the other day and then found myself unable to un-think these thoughts. I write now, as much to purge as to entertain... or perhaps just to be able to say "I told you so."

****************************************************

If I were going to be a dictator...

First off, I'd get myself elected over the largest and strongest economic, military, socio-political power in the world.

Then I'd start to keep track of everybody's comings and goings. Maybe even so far as to monitor their health.

Then I'd probably start looking at making sure that the general populace couldn't defend itself.

Then I'd look to centralize all power under my control, to the extent that I would have even the census brought "in house". If I'm going to control people; I have to know where they are, who they are, and how they vote.

Then I'd make sure there was no voice of opposition.

Then I'd generate crisis. A people in crisis are easier to control. Perhaps it would be economic in nature. Perhaps it would be geopolitical. Or even climate oriented. But it would be swift and cause widespread panic.

In "response" to this "crisis", I would issue orders to "control the situation". All the authority I need has already been granted to be through a series of Executive Orders. (This link, while otherwise a little kooky, has a great list of pertinent executive orders... all real. Google them if you don't believe his description of them.)

******************************************************

"A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line."-Jerry Fletcher

Another Piece of News You Won't Be Reading About

2009-02-16T13:13:00.000-08:00

Back in March of 2008, a conference was held by a group that had, apparently, not heard Al Gore's declaration that debate on global warming was over. Several hundreds of scientists got together and debunked the global warming mythology. Though I shouldn't have been, I was surprised that there was little to no coverage in the mainstream media.

So this year the Heartland Institute is holding another Conference and I am interested to see if the media, and indeed all those who have been duped by the global warming bogeymen, will take any notice at all that there happen to be several scientists who do not hold with "consensus". That there are indeed people on the planet that are still willing to hold to the scientific method and not just the latest whimsy of corporate profiteers.

Of interesting note this year Dr Jack Schmitt, the twelfth guy to walk on the moon, is scheduled to speak at the conference and it seems that it gets harder and harder for the eco-oppressors to simply write off dissenting opinions as those of mere crackpots...

Some economic history... tell your friends, if they can stay awake.

2009-02-12T23:04:00.000-08:00

So I have this reader, he is very liberal and very concerned and a very dear friend, and we have been arguing about the solution to the current economic recession (I think I am going to stop using the term "crisis" because this country has weathered much, much worse.). Instead of continuing to back-and-forth with him in the comments section, I am just going to use this as a teachable moment for everyone.

He says…

But why do you believe that lowering taxes is going to help anyone that has actually been hurt by this economic downturn? And how long does your plan take? Years? And at what price? Bread lines and soup kitchens? Widespread bankruptcy and foreclosure? 20-30% unemployment? Do you really think the government should do nothing to create jobs, however temporary, including funding roads projects and other infrastructure projects? I just don't understand such a dogmatic approach that leaves no room for the possibility that another philosophy may work as well.

Here's why I know tax cuts work to really stimulate economies. This is going to be a little boring, but necessary.

--President's Harding and Coolidge passed the Revenue Acts of 1921,'24 and '26. The top marginal rates went from 73% to 58% in 1922, to 50% in 1923, to 46% in 1924, to 25% in 1925 and finally 24% in 1929.

*When taxes were reduced on top income earners, the actual taxes paid to the government increased from $300 Million to $700 Million.

*Also, top income earners went from shouldering 1/3 of all taxes paid in the early 1920’ to approximately 2/3 by the late 20’s

*Also, from 1922 to 1928 the average of those earning greater than $100,000 increased by 15%. BUT, those earning between $10,000 and $100,000 saw their incomes increase by 84%!!

--In 1962 John F Kennedy (a Democrat, by the way) leveled across the board tax cuts by 20%.

*From 1962 to 1966 employment grew by One Million jobs.

*The economic growth rate jumped from 4.3% to 6.6%

* And…federal taxes paid from 1964-68 grew from $48.7 Billion to $68.7 Billion

--In 1981, Reagan cut marginal tax rates across the board.

*Income taxes paid went from $500 million in 1983 to over $1 Billion per year, in 1989

Those are the reasons why cutting taxes work.

Here’s why the government pumping money into the economy won’t. (Borrowed from this article here.)

--[Under FDR] Unemployment remained very high, averaging more than 17 percent throughout the 1930s, and overall output did not get back to the 1929 level until World War II. According to recent research by economists at UCLA, New Deal policies extended the Depression by seven years.

-- Other Keynesian episodes generated similarly dismal results, though fortunately never as bad as the Great Depression. Gerald Ford did a Keynesian stimulus focused on tax rebates in the mid-1970s. The economy did not improve. But why would it? After all, borrowing money from one group and redistributing it to another does nothing to increase economic output. As mentioned above, George W. Bush gave out so-called rebate checks in 2001 and 2008, yet there was no positive effect either time.

-- International evidence also undermines the case for Keynesianism. The clearest example may be Japan, which throughout the 1990s tried to use so-called stimulus packages in an effort to jump-start a stagnant economy… The Japanese economy never recovered, and the 1990s are now known as the “lost decade” in Japan.

All of these numbers and such aside, the very logic of Keynesian economics seems false at its core. How can borrowing money or creating it out of thin air for the purpose of dumping it i anto the economy, be good? If it was good, why wouldn’t we just do it all the time? Why stop at a $789 Billion package? Why not $14 Trillion (the current US GDP)? Or hell, if we really can borrow our way out of this recession, why not just say an even $100 Trillion dollars and REALLY get the economy roaring?

And as far as the “bread lines” and “bankruptcy” and “people dying in a cardboard box”, those are all very bad things. No one wants to see that happen. But you dilute the argument into empty platitudes when you try and use hysterics to make your point.

And to your “Do you really think the government should do nothing to create jobs…?” My answer is… sure they could do some things, like lowering taxes or providing more low interest loans for small business entrepreneurs, or cutting some of the red tape at the Small Business Administration so that you could get help as a small businessperson. But ultimately, your question smacks of the misguided notion that it the government’s job to create jobs, last time I read the Constitution, job creation wasn’t on the list (and don’t try that “promote the general welfare” nonsense, that’s like saying your going to fix the economy with money you don’t ha… oh, wait, nevermind).

Anyway hope this has been helpful or entertaining. But given that it was about probably one of the most boring subjects (economics), it was probably neither. Sorry.

A simple lesson for President Obama...

2009-02-11T13:56:00.000-08:00

All economy is driven by creation.

With that being said it is easy to see why so many are against this "stimulus" package. But there are those who rail against the inevitable truth of my opening statement and so for them, two simple analogies....

#1) Joe and his nine friends each have $10 dollars. There are ten people who, together, have $100. The government comes along and takes $1 from Joe each of his friends. Then, the government then gives that ten dollars to Doug by creating a "job" for him. Now there are 11 people who, together, only have $100.

#2) Joe and his nine friends each have $10 dollars. There are ten people who, together, have $100. Joe and his nine friends pool $1 each to create a company that produces something. This company makes enough money to pay back Joe and his friends the $1, plus hire Doug and pay him ten dollars. Now there are 11 people who, together, have $110.

The government cannot drive economy because in reality, it doesn't produce anything. There are things that the government mandates the production of, but it does so on the financial backs of those that it taxes. It is not real creation or real growth. It is simply the transfer of wealth from one person to another.

Obviously, my analogy is terribly simple. It doesn't take into account things like, corporate taxes, or market fluctuations, or interest on loans etc. But I hope that it shows the idea of taking trillions of dollars from the market place only to turn around and inject them right back into the market place really makes no logical sense. You've not created any growth or stability, you've simply taken (or borrowed) from yourself (or future generations).

Inspiring Confidence in the Obama Era

2009-02-10T13:46:00.001-08:00

February 9, 2009

February 10, 2009

Feb 10, 2009

This is from the Wall Street Journal...

"The vice president also offered some trademark candor about the prospects of success.

He recalled a recent White House meeting with the president and senior aides in which they were discussing the many challenges the country faces. “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong,” was his message at the meeting."

And finally...

In response to Obama's statement about universal agreement by economists on his stimulus bill, this was posted in the New York Times.

If this is how they work when they're urgently trying to get something accomplished, I wonder what it looks like when they don't care as much.

I need Ten Billion "C-Notes" of stimulus...STAT!

2009-02-10T06:57:00.000-08:00

I think it's sad that the truth is so easily lost in this country. While Obama is professing to have the most transparent administration ever, Besty McCaughey and those like her have to chase Obama and the Democrats around like a mother wondering what her kid is getting into next. Ms. McCaughey writes an excellent piece here. The upshot of the article being that the Democrats are slipping little provisions into the "stimulus" bill.

Obama assured us last night that this bill is desperately needed to create (or sustain??) 4 million jobs and that without it we would spiral deeper into crisis. And indeed, the opening line of the bill is "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes." But it's that last little tag ("and for other purposes") that has apparently given Congress the green light to "establish[ed] within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the ‘Office’)." I'll leave it to both you (my educated reader) and Ms. McCaughey to hash out the details, but here are two big ticket items the new Coordinator will handle.

"...provide appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.."

"...[create] specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

Let's parse that out. The government is going to "guide" your doctor in medical decisions and is going to place your health record into an electronic government file. Two questions:

#1) When was the last time the government used the word "guide" and didn't really mean "tell"?

...and...

#2) Do you really want the same type of people that run the DMV having an accessible database of every time you got treated for...(insert one of a multitude of embarrassing conditions here)?

(Side note: All you smokers out there better beware, it's a short jump from a nationalized "health file" to your insurance agents desk.)

Furthermore, can someone tell me how creating a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is going to pull this country out of this "unprecedented crisis"? It makes you wonder how many other "desperate" measures are tucked away in this 680 page monstrosity.

It does however shed some light as to why Obama is so quick to shove this thing through...he doesn't want you to have enough time to read it.

You can follow along at home...

2009-02-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

Last night Obama made a speech which was essentially a series of condemnations wrapped up in a campaign speech. I'm going to give some commentary based on these two youtube.com postings, but they were a little big to try and post here. I really don't want to make you guys work that hard, but dissecting this piece by piece is the only way, I think, to really address this. Click on the headings to see the speech and then read along to the time signatures…

Part One

00:23- Let me open with an observation, without a teleprompter, this guy is terribly uninspiring.

01:32- What happened to hope? I thought Obama was all about making people feel good. Why is he trying to scare us? For a better series of thoughts on that... check this out.

03:02- How quickly he's changed his tune from two weeks ago...

"By Major Garrett/FOXNews.com/Friday, January 23, 2009

The "I won" comment came after Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Republicans believed cutting income taxed would do more to stimulate economic growth than providing a $500 per person payroll tax refund for individuals earning less than $200,000. The president said, according to those present, that this was an important philosophical divide between Republican and Democrats and that it had already been settled -- and would remain settled -- because he won the election."

04:47- He found this deficit? Wasn’t he the guy, when campaigning, railing on the “failed policies of the Bush Administration”? How did he not know that the country had a deficit? And his answer to the “found” deficit is to increase it almost a hundred fold? (Check out he graph above.)

07:36- His answer to earmarks is…more earmarks? It’s the old, “If all your friends were jumping off a bridge…” thing. Seriously? The leader of the free world’s response to the enormous amount of earmarks in this bill is to say, “Everyone else is doing it.” So much for change…

Part Two

01:28- Let’s assume that that 3M number is correct. According to conservative estimates the stimulus package will run about $825B. That breaks down to $275,000 a job! Man, I’d like to get in on that.

02:29- Is anyone else tired of this old saw? “Firefighters, police, teachers…” Instead of threatening us that we’ll lose “essential services”, can’t you just be honest and say “You’ll lose essential services, because we won’t cut unnecessary spending (see earmarks above) or try and reduce programs that suck the country dry (read: welfare etc).

02:45- Great! Let’s reduce our dependance on foreign oil by using unproven and unworkable technologies, all while completely ignoring the decades worth of our own oil sitting under our feet and just off our shores. Awesome!!

06:18- It was right around here that he stopped whining and started stumping. I kind of lost interest after that.

What kills me the most about this little speech, is that fact that Obama is going to get what he wants anyway. He has control over both houses and the pen that are needed to get this bill passed. I think his real problem is that he doesn’t want this hung around his and the Democrat’s necks alone. This bill is a failure and he knows it, otherwise he’d just tell Pelosi and Reid to ram it through and not worry about making it bipartisan. If it was that good for the country and that pressing of an issue, this would be the perfect way to ensure Democratic dominance in Washington for years to come.

Throwing down the Climate Change Gauntlet

2009-02-05T06:34:00.001-08:00

So you read this story. Nothing really surprising here, another liberal democrat shouting to the rooftops about how the sky is going to fall. Then you read this story, and you might even laugh a little because you realize that MSN-B.S. didn't even have the integrity to mention that Energy Secretary Steven Chu has a PhD in (and won his Nobel Prize for) work trapping atoms with laser light. But then you read this goomba and you get irritated because you see what a simplistic, unoriginal, mouthpiece this guy is.

All of these "news" stories, and not one contrary position. My liberal friends will tell me that there is no contrary position. Regurgitating the scientist Al Gore, they simply say there is "consensus" and that the "debate is over". Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Really sure?

Here's where I am at...I am tired of overblown media hacks who have an interest in scaring the living daylights out of people (read: selling more news copy, airtime, and carbon credits) running around, consuming my Congress' time and flooding my airwaves with half-baked, often fully fabricated, half truths and innuendos. Look at the language they have to use "farms and vineyards could all be gone by the end of this century", "the Sierra snowpack could disappear". They can't truly predict a thing. "Might", "could", "possibly" these are the watchwords of the Environ-mental Scare Patrol (ESP). They don't know a thing.

I propose a compromise. For one year, one short year in our planet's long long history, all the member's of the ESP stop running around and trying to scare and shame everyone. In that year they need to predict (every day) whether the global temperature goes up or down and by how much. They also need to predict at least 50% of every major natural disaster (tsunami, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc) that may occur and be accurate within 3 days of the occurrence.

Now, one year on a global timeline is not very long. The variables for one year of weather are infinitely less than 100 years from now, which is what Mr Chu and his ilk claim to be able to predict. Do this for one year and I will begin to believe that you can tell me what's going to happen 10 years from now. Do it for 10 years and I'll believe you can do it for 100.

But if you can't, for even one short year, use your models and computers and your PhD's to predict the weather future... you have to hang up your spurs and go and find some other way to bilk the public of their time, money, and freedom.

From the "Whatever happened to..." Files

2009-02-02T09:23:00.000-08:00

London has gotten some snow and I guess it's bad. Coming from Wisconsin, I can totally understand how difficult it can be to deal with...wait, how much did they get...TEN CENTIMETERS!??

Holy Crap!, how is this news at the BBC?

For those of you playing at home, 10cm is approximately 4 inches of snow. Four inches, and the country of Margret Thatcher, Sir Winston Churchill, and curry fries (the ultimate in fried gastronomical evolution), is "paralyzed".

How sad is that?

And Enlgand is all over this carbon-credit thing too, right? I thought that this is what they wanted... a cooler Earth right? So what's the big deal? This is just proof positive that human's can affect the world's overall temperature. This shows we're winning. Hooray!