Monday, July 30, 2007
This morning, I got my weekly email message from Ron Paul, this one titled, The Fear Factor.
As Dr. Paul points out, this fear, when manipulated by a government, produces a pliable citizenry that willingly gives up rights. We have the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA fights - hell, the war in Iraq - as a result of selling fear to the country.
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty. [emphasis mine]
I'm reflecting on his piece, trying to think of what to do to stem this tide of fear. A few minutes later, this article on a new poll by ABC News comes across with this news:
I read this, and I'm in the bowels of despair. The article goes on to describe how the thousands of cameras in London helped to find (but not prevent) the recent bombers. NYC is installing 100 cameras right now, and will have 3,000 in three more years (can't have the Limey's out-camera us, can we?). Baltimore and Chicago are close behind.
Crime-fighting beats privacy in public places: Americans, by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, support the increased use of surveillance cameras — a measure decried by some civil libertarians, but credited in London with helping to catch a variety of perpetrators since the early 1990s.
Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn't close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.
Honest to God, what has become of our National Resolve?
"Let us chip away at this right, and we'll make it safer."
"Let us erode this freedom, and the bad guys won't get you."
"Give us a little more money, and you can sleep well at night."
Seventy percent of us want to drop our drawers, bare our collective ass, and let the world see us for the frightened little sheeple we've become.
We have so few true leaders. Instead of encouraging us to "buck up" and steel our spines, they advocate cowering and submission, and deterioration of ideals.
Dr. Paul finishes his piece with this:
Truer words were never spoken. Anyone listening?
Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
I really need a vacation. I read crap like this, and I wonder why I even give a damn. The supposed rationale for decisions like this simply defy logic, yet they continue to flourish.
As reported by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, it seems that City College of San Francisco (CCSF) does not allow its own police force (sworn officers) to carry guns. If the college police get a 911 call, they have to call 911.
In light of the Virgina Tech slaughter, Chief Koehler of the CCSFPD tried to get the policy changed.
Koehler said that after the Virginia Tech massacre that his officers were at a disadvantage without guns. "We are here on campus and we know the buildings and we are going to be the first ones on scene," he said. "Now our plan is to have our officers back off and get the armed officers there. . . When something happens, minutes are very important and we do rely on the San Francisco Police Department. They are awesome, but they do have their issues of staffing."It's all about creating a feeling of peace and serenity. Love and joy. Knowledge and reflection. Chief Koehler saw things differently, and quit.
Chancellor Day, are you retarded? Sorry. Are you Intelligence Challenged? You think that because you are non-violent, all of those around you will think and do the same? What planet are you from? Perhaps the one shown in this, "Gun Free Zone" video?
The insistence on a no-guns policy is unusual on college campuses but is a long standing tradition at City College, Chancellor Phillip Day said on June 11. Day said he had received Chief Koehler’s letter of resignation, dated May 29, which was scheduled to be effective June 22.
"I know that some other community college districts have their police force armed," Day said. "We do not, and I think that’s a reflection of the overall culture and climate of the school in San Francisco. . . in terms of nonviolence."
Chancellor, in case you didn't get it, that video was a parody. Look it up. Oh never mind. I look forward to your explanation if a Virgina Tech-like horror ever occurs at City College.
But you don't have much to worry about. San Francisco is full of stable, well adjusted individuals. Lots of them. You can identify them by their scabbed out arms and faces, or that crazed look in their eye that just screams, "I'm stable". You have nothing to worry about.
Good luck with that.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
I was watching
To put it bluntly, Matthews gave Moore a velvet hand-job.
With furrowed, journalist-like brow, Matthews would ask the hard-hitting questions. "So, Michael, do we really need socialized medicine?" Moore would go on to tell how the US sucks so badly, and basically answer with, "Of course we do, silly boy."
Yeah, it was just ball-busting question after ball-busting question.
It was disgusting. I think I saw Matthews wiping his chin after each commercial break.
As is my style, I vented my disgust by firing off an email to Matthews:
Chris,There is just so much information out there showing how horrible this would be, and Matthews would not even broach the subject. Those of us who understand how this will hasten the bankruptcy of America have got to raise our voices and speak out loudly against this socialist plan.
I realized you were a liberal, but I didn't think you would totally disregard your journalistic responsibilities. Your interview with Moore should have been done by Larry King. That's how "hardball" it was.
If you ever get the chance to redeem yourself, here are some questions you might ask:
1. How will this be paid for? What SPECIFIC current programs will be discontinued, or how much taxes will need to be raised?
2. Of your 47 million uninsured Americans, how many are people that make over $50K per year that choose not to have insurance? How many over $75K per year? How many are in their twenties that also choose not to purchase insurance? Were you aware that 20% of that 47 million are illegal aliens? (btw, Chris, the answers to all of these questions are on the Internet - make some effort).
3. Does not the State paying for yet one more necessity further entrench Americans into the Welfare Mentality? When do individuals have to take responsibility for themselves?
4. Is this not charity at the point of a gun? Along the same lines, where is the constitutional authority to do this? I can't recall the "healthcare for all" amendment.
5. Without exception, private enterprise always delivers a product or service with higher quality and lower price than the government. Without exception. Why would you want a massive, non-accountable entity to take over the best healthcare system (even with all of its warts) in the world?
Moore also brought questioned a couple of times, "Do you think the government should pay for the healtcare of soldiers?" Yes, because it is part of an employment package, just like what I have at work.
If you'd like answers to any of your other Softball questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
You should be ashamed.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
I was over at Posts From Helms Deep and we were discussing taxes. The Hermit had mentioned how our tax dollars were generously being given to the Palestinians. I did some hunting around, and found a press release:
As President George W. Bush noted in his July 16 speech, we are strengthening our commitment to the Palestinian people and the government led by President Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad. On June 20, shortly after Prime Minister Fayyad formed a new Palestinian government committed to the Quartet principles, we lifted financial restrictions on transactions with that new government.The press release goes on to tell us how we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars this year to help out those
If the unconstitutional diversion of American dollars was not maddening enough, near the end of the press release, they slipped this in, and my blood began to boil:
On security, today the President announced our intention to reorient 80 million dollars as a direct contribution to help reform the legitimate security services of the Palestinian Authority – a vital effort they are undertaking with the guidance of U.S. General Keith Dayton.Great. An additional $80 million for guns.
Now, you're all aware of who the two Palestinian leaders are, right? Abbas is the head of Fatah. They have a military (security) arm called the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Fayyad is the head of the new "independent" government. Oh, but he was appointed by Abbas. Not exactly, "arm's length" independence, eh?
Do you know what's so special about Al-Aqsa?
Surprise! They're on the State department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
I wrote about this dirty little secret last October.
How can Secretary Rice be allowed to do this [supply terrorist with weapons support]? The fact that we're openly providing "material support" to an FTO is irrefutable. Why isn't she in shackles? Why isn't she in the cell next to The American Taliban?I'd now ask the question now about Bush. How can this be allowed? How can he openly provide American dollars to a terrorist organization and not be punished?
I'm no longer shocked by what this idiot does. How sad is that?
I ended my previous post with this:
But what do you do? Bush is a lame duck. He doesn't give a rat's ass what fall-out comes his way. He's out of here in two years. Let some other poor sap clean up the mess.Nothing has changed my mind...
Mark my words: Someone, somewhere in this country is going to crack because of crap like this. Our president and his cabinet preach "tough on terror" out of one side of their mouths and openly support terrorists out of the other. Republicans that elected this dolt - twice - have got to be going out of their minds.
Someone is going to crack, and it won't be pretty when they do.
Monday, July 16, 2007
I'm on the mailing list of TerraPass.com. TerraPass is one of those enviro-scam outfits that sells you a piece of paper, and tries to convince you that you've done something for the environment. You get a sticker for your car and that warm fuzzy feeling that says, "I care".
You may recall, I had a little run in with one of their founders, Adam. The first signs of Adam's LOSS (Lack Of Spine Syndrome) showed up here. He has yet to answer any of my direct, straightforward questions. Shocking, I know.
So I get one of their email announcements, and they're talking about how mean all of the, "Man Made Global Warming Is Bullshit (tm)" crowd can be. We have the audacity to question their commitment to protecting the planet. On the one hand, they slam anyone that wants to eat a steak because of methane from cow farts, while on the other hand, they're having concerts that are sucking up grotesque amounts of fossil fuels. They don't see the hypocrisy in all of this.
I did, and I pointed it out to them.
Here's their blog/post.
Now, somewhere around comment number 8 or 9, I posted this:
Oh, that's rich:Wonder of Wonders, good old Adam deleted my post. His case of LOSS is worse than I thought. He may have a total lack of spine. I sense the end is near...
the point of life on earth isn’t to never use any fossil fuel, it’s to use the right amount for the right things, and having a good time together is one of those things.
So who decides what is the right amount, and what are the right things? Some Carbon Politburo somewhere?
Would flying all of the delegate to a Man-made Global Warming Is A Sick Lie convention pass muster? Why not?
You really don't see the hypocrisy of the tons and tons of pollution that was created for an anti-pollution cause? The irony is palpable...
For a real chuckle, read the replies later on in the post. These enviro-whackos are making excuses for The Reverend Al Gore, Apostle-At-Large, for his excess use of hydrocarbons:
The other thing to consider is not how he compares to the average American (or Canadian, or…) but how he compares to the average person approximately in his socioeconomic segment, the billionaire politician.Mind numbing. Simply mind numbing.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
There has been wide-spread reporting on the recent "gut feeling" comments by Secretary Michael Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security (note: did you know, that's what KGB stood for...?). What has not been so widely reported is the crap that scares me:
In the next 18 months, as the Bush administration draws to a close, Chertoff said he plans to put security tradeoff options before the American public.Huh? Waddya mean, Mike? Why would we have to make choices?
The dire warnings and Chertoff's comments come as the Bush administration faces political and business opposition over its immigration and border policies that have security implications.
With stiff blowback on those issues, the administration has been unsuccessful in efforts to enact broader security measures -- ones opponents fear are too costly and unnecessary, and infringe on people's rights.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Tribune that lasted more than an hour, Chertoff said that the recent failure of Congress to pass an immigration bill has negative repercussions for homeland security and will lead to continued federal crackdowns on illegal immigrants.
Bad for homeland security? More crackdowns on illegal aliens? Why is that a bad thing?
If border crossings are not tightened with stricter document regulation because of economic oppositions from business interests, then Chertoff predicts possible dire consequences.Hey Mike! Why not just enforce the laws we currently have on the books? You know, the ones that fine businesses for hiring illegals? At $10,000 per illegal hire, that will get the attention of most businesses quite quickly. There's also that pesky little document called The Constitution that requires you to protect our border.
So what are ya gonna do, Mike?
There will be security repercussions from Congress' failure to pass immigration reform. Chertoff said he hoped granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants would cut away "the tall grass" hiding criminal elements among undocumented workers.Oh, I see. Because you pukes got your asses handed to you with the Amnesty Bill, you're now looking for political cover via the age-old, "It's their fault!" gambit. Are you going to use, "The Boogie Man" technique as well?
"What do you think is going to happen to your business when a guy comes across the border with a phony document and blows up a target in Buffalo or Detroit?" he asked. "Do you think the American public is then going to allow the border to remain open?"Good boy. You're playing the hand perfectly. Douche bag.
Mike, honest to God, you need to read my blog more often. I've repeatedly given you the way to "cut the tall grass", yet you continue on your same failed path. Here. It's easy:
- Go to your buddies at the Social Security Administration. Every year, they produce letters where the names and numbers don't match. In 2003, they produced over 900,000 of their "Do Not Match" letters.
- Put this list in a database (I know you guys have some extra computers laying around). Tie the Do Not Match folks with their employer's Tax ID Number (TINs).
- Sort your list, in descending order of number of multiple TIN hits.
- Call the local and cable news guys. Tell them to bring cameras. Go visit the CEO's of those companies and perp-walk them out of their headquarters. Leg shackles add to the visual impact.
- Repeat daily for 1 month, or until your list is exhausted.
Your "tall grass" will have been trimmed, and you can do your fucking job. Now get to it.
Yeah, I know. I'm a dreamer...
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Yesterday on Independence Day, I was virtually forced to stay indoors all day. Hotter than hell. It was 102 at 2 in the afternoon. BBQ was supposed to start after it cooled down at 6pm. Wrong. It was up to 105!
Anyway, I spent virtually the entire day in front of the TV watching, "The Revolution" on The History Channel. It was a 13 hour series on the American Revolutionary War.
I didn't know how much I didn't know!
I must say, I was taken back by how much propaganda was used - by both sides - in their attempts to win The Hearts And Minds of the populous.
The Americans, thankfully, had Thomas Paine. I had heard of him and his, "Common Sense" pamphlet, but I didn't understand its importance in our fight for freedom. I think I can accurately state that, were in not for, "Common Sense" and Paine's other work, "The American Crisis", we might be eating scones and drinking Earl Grey tea on a more regular basis.
The content and timing of the messages in each document were crucial in our secession from the UK. The parallels with America today are nothing short of frightening. From, "Common Sense":
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Have we come full-circle in 231 years? Do we have a government that is attempting to control our every action, segregate us into classes and punish us when we don't, "play along"? Have they crossed the line with taxation and deficit spending?
The genesis of the revolution was taxation. Well, it was the income redistribution part that broke the camel's back. The localities were fine with the taxes raised and spent locally, but chaffed at the monies going directly into the pockets of others. In the 1770's, it was King George. Today, it's to our welfare class.
Read the two documents. Think about the parallels of the 1770's and America of today. See if it doesn't give you the creeps...
Monday, July 02, 2007
The Uber-Nanny State, The People's Republic of California, had a new law go into effect over the weekend.
Ahhhhh. It's for the children. As I've said in the past, there are a handful of phrases that, when you hear them, should cause you to run for the hills. Nanny will soon be coming for your wallet, or doing something to "help" you run your life. Or both. "It's for the children," is one of those phrases.
Two bills that take effect Sunday will phase out the sale of sodas in high schools and, with some exceptions, limit calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar in snacks sold at elementary, junior high and high school campuses.
The measures are an attempt to reduce childhood obesity and are among several laws that go into effect midyear.
It seems that one of our former fat-assed state senators (she's a former senator that's still a fat ass) had some problems during a pregnancy.
The school nutrition bills grew out of former Sen. Martha Escutia's struggles with gestational diabetes when she had her second child eight years ago. Her research on diabetes and its links to obesity led to a 6 1/2-year campaign against school junk food.Oh. She read a couple of books, maybe Wikipedia, and she now knows how all of our lives should be run. Looking at the picture, perhaps she should practice what she preaches. Sorry, I forgot - the rules are only for us little people to follow.
Ya know what? When my wife was pregnant with our first son, she came down with gestational diabetes as well. Ya know why? I was buying her chocolate-dipped ice cream cones 3 or 4 times a week. Hey, it was my first kid, I wanted to treat my wife special, so I went over-board.
Know how it was cured? I stopped buying her the cones. Shocking, I know. I took responsibility for my own actions.
Now, many of you Nanny Staters will say, "Your doctor is just like the schools. We're just telling kids that this junk food is bad for them."
No, you're not. You're making the decision for them. You are reinforcing the attitude that kids are stupid. They have no capacity to make the "right" decision, so you're going to make it for them.
Instead of educating, you're dictating.
When I was in school (30 year class reunion coming up - do the math), we had fat kids, but nothing like nowadays. In my high school of 2000 students, I can think of 2 mega-fat kids. I must have seen literally 30 or 40 at my son's graduation last month (same size school, too).
She said a broader bill covering full school meals would have been too tough to get through the Legislature and that there is no guarantee students will avoid junk food before and after school.
"But at least during the school day, we're going to see a lot of good things happen in terms of cafeterias serving healthier (food)," she said.
Sure you are. Healthy food that's going to end up in the garbage. If the schools are going to dictate, why not dictate something that produces a positive result? With the new law, as the author of the bill acknowledges, we're going to still have a bunch of fat kids 'cause they'll either just bring the crap with them, or gorge when they get home. Kids always have, and always will, eat crap.
Why not reinstitute Physical Education again?
My boys only had to take PE in their freshman and sophomore years. Optional in their junior and senior years. When I was in school, you had PE every semester. This was in addition to the team sports I played.
We had fewer fat kids, and virtually no one on ADHD drugs. For boys, that aggressive, disruptive tendency that is a result of testosterone was burned off, and we were somewhat ready to learn. We didn't have to take our meds to go to class.
Better shape. Fewer prescriptions. More independence.
What a horrible, horrible thing....