Rat Spleen

pothole repair

2005-01-30T06:34:00.000-07:00

I have a new favorite term; a "frame" if you will. Sure it's still wordsnitchery -- sorta. No shock I found it spewed from a braindead Leftard.

Conservatives used to speak derisively of liberal social engineering. Yet the attempt to create private Social Security accounts is essentially conservative social counter-engineering.

Social counter-engineering! Brilliant! Although "social unengineering" is more accurate; or even "damage control". But when talking broadly about getting rid of all the math and moral challenged laws and quasi-legal measures foisted upon the American public to grow them into Stalin's wet dream of roads paved to the horizon with the corpses of the Indiviualists and dissenters I think social counter-engineering has a better ring.

Of course this nimrod thinks that it's hypocritical to undo a thing you've been hollering about undoing... Well, some are simply beyond help so it's no wonder he completely misses the point.

VI day

2005-01-30T06:14:00.000-07:00

VI would be Victory for Iraq, of course. Some time ago Vox asked the question of what cheerleaders of Iraq would consider a failure of Bush's policy. Considering myself such a cheerleader I answered that these very elections not occurring would be defeat. I never said it would be a victory for Bush nor do I consider it so still. I have no doubt that many I agree with on Iraq will call me everything except a white man for saying that; but there it is. Bush could never win this fight as it wasn't his. His ended with the overthrow of Saddam. The only thing Bush could do was force a loss for the Iraqi's by taking his ball and going home. But this day doesn't belong to Bush, America, the Right or Left; and when today Americans come back from church and tune in to whatever news source they prefer they will see the true victors.

Common men and women in Iraq.

Without one hint of irony many may see an election such as this illegitimate. For violence, or voter turn-out not meeting their expectations, or even -- shock and horror -- that it is not a "pure" democracy, but one with geographic skewings in place. Plenty of all the same is had here on a particular day in November every four years as well; and aside from the losing party's inevitable huffs things tick along in a perfectly legitimate way.

Make no mistake in thinking that I don't expect to see much drama in the coming weeks from this, and more likely because of it. Don't think I'm blind to the dangers ahead or the road that still must be travelled. But you can no longer tell me of the deck chairs on the Titanic either.

Today every Iraqi wins self-determination. For the first time in 50 years they have found the freedom to choose; even those that choose not to wear a blue finger.

rethinking abortion, trois

2005-01-30T04:03:00.000-07:00

Without any surprise the core question is one of the beginnings of life. Well, perhaps not the beginnings of life; but the beginnings of the Right to it. Further of course are the distinctions brought by Roe v. Wade and the first trimester.

Understood and understated in every argument I see about abortion is the distinction, if any, between the beginnings of life and when the Right to it is granted. What amazes me is that the discussion more often than not revolves around when life begins. Inevitably one side proclaims that life does not begin until a successful live birth whilst the other can do more than shake there head in amazement and proclaim it to begin at conception.

So in the effort of making this as clear as possible: Life begins at conception. Full stop. If you still believe life begins as Athena's did you may go sit in the corner with the other nuts.

That said, we have not defined when the Right to Life begins. This is not a trivial question, nor can the answer be picked by whim alone. Worse still is that by designing qualifications for "Life" we also qualify the definition of humanity and when it may be snuffed out like so many candles.

If we define the concept of protected life as that of full self-awareness then we have inadvertantly made hunting chimpanzee's murder -- which some will be elated with -- while we have also fully allowed for the wanton destruction of 6 month old infants. If we define it as a minimum amount of cognitive power, say 65 on the IQ scale, we then have the problem of allowing the random destruction of the young, the elderly, and the handicapped alike.

Fortunately for pro and anti abortionist the answer to the question has already been provided by the Constitution. Though I guarentee neither side will be happy with the answer.

Taking a strict view within Natural Rights and the Constitution - the answer is very clear. Unscientific, but clear. The Founding Fathers and the American People understood at the time this country's founding document was penned that life did not begin until the quickening. Roughly 21 weeks, or Blackmun's first trimester if you prefer the distinction. My personal view on the matter is as much in conflict with as it is irrelevant to this argument. All abortions after the quickening are covered and made illegal therein by the founding document from which our nation sprang. No amount of teeth gnashing will change this singular fact.

However, if we were to choose to take a less Constructionist view of the Constitution. Something more... living and breathing; something better equipped to be interpreted in light of the expansion of scientific knowledge we see a different picture. We, as enlightened post modern peoples, understand that the decision of the quickening was simply the outcome of primitive hysteria and religious dogma. We understand that to fully square the Right to Life with modern scientific knowledge we must turn to scientists to determine when we are imbued with our unique character; a thing the primitives like to call a "soul". And scientists say that such happens at the very moment of conception; as such it renders, under our more modern and enlightened view of the world, all abortions to be a violation of the Right to Life.

The grandest of ironies is that it is most commonly those that champion Constructionism are the ones to be most offended by the outcome of the Constructionist argument. Likewise that the Living Document adherants are most likely to be frustrated by the outcome based on the alteration of Rights to accomadate scientific knowledge. Indeed, I would be far more pleased to have the outcome granted by a Living Document than otherwise; but I am not the law and I was not granted the Right to Alter the Constitution at Whim.

As previously discussed there are no abortions that are not elective. There are no abortions that fulfill a self-defense doctrine for a just killing. The Right to Life begins at the quickening. The simple answer is that, until the Constitution is amended, all abortions after the quickening are murder and all before it are not. Any brain-addled decisions from the Supreme Court that condradict such will eventually go the way that the Living Document concept will - The dustbin of Dredd Scott.

In the end I have rethought abortion and changed my opinion on one thing: The standard pro-life exceptions to an outright abortion ban are a purchase of heartstrings paid with murder; and I will have none of it. Perhaps, I should let Ann Coulter know that there is at least one out there with that opinion.

rethinking abortion

2005-01-30T01:54:00.000-07:00

Bothered reading Ann Coulter for one and it turns out to be an article on abortion. In it she stated:

I've never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be "available" to save the life of the mother. There was never a law in any state that prohibited abortion to save the life of the mother. If Hillary "respects" even this (nonexistent) lunatic fringe of the pro-life movement, she must adore the rest of us!

Honestly, I've never thought much on that point beyond parroting the line that "of course that would be allowed" as the only means of showing my sanity to be of a satisfactory level to condtinue debate. Though as it stands now, and Coulter makes a point of, Abortion debate is an item that's been removed from the table so discussion tends to revolve around the "how" more than the "why". So should abortion be available to save the life of the mother? Is that acceptable?

Let us take first the stance that a fetus is a human life and that elective abortion is murder. Is having an abortion to save the life of a mother elective or not is pretty simple. Let's say you're a parent of a proud little boy -- we'll call him Hansel. Your spouse is found to have a terminal condition that may only be cured by killing Hansel -- say... to harvest his spleen for transplant -- so you pick up your .357, cock the hammer and...

I guess we'll chalk that one under the murder column.

What about a case of rape or incest? Many hardened pro-lifers would insist that noone could be so cruel as to force a woman -- who being the victim of a crime -- to carry to term such an unwanted little bundle of criminal cells. The standard pro-life line is that elective abortion in this case is not murder.

Taking only a brief nod at the hypocrisy involved in any such argument that uses the word "unwanted" we'll move straight to the case of the fetus being partly that of a criminal seed. Let's say you're at a family style wilderness outing whereupon there are many parent/child pairs. At some point for an unknown reason Jim walks up and busts your chops. After the police have hauled Jim off, you are given the dubious honour of taking care of his child for the remaining duration of the outing. Being well within your Rights as the victim you are, you pick up your .357, point it at Jim's daughter, Gretel, cock the hammer and...

Maybe only 3rd degree murder?

For a third example let's look at the health exception that occasionally come up should the child be destined to be seriously deformed or mentally handicapped. Just covering the bases mind you. So you walk up to this year's Special Olympics, throw the bolt on your AK and...

Yeh, yeh, no difference yet.

I think it's safe to say that the rape, incest, health exceptions commonly touted still leave such abortions as an elective choice. One that considers abortion to be murder cannot likewise say these exceptions are not just as arbitrary as the "viability" line that has been drawn by the pro-abortionists.

All of this is so patently simple to see if you accept that abortion is murder that it took more time to smoke a cigarette than think these issues to their ends. So my question is: Why is it so infrequently heard from the "abortion is murder" crowd? Do they, like me, just toss this out as a point of measuring the distance between their knuckles and the floor while discussing other, unrelated, points of abortion so that the debate will stay on course? Or have they never thought about it, like me, beyond the ick-wisdom of "I would never do that! What do you take me for?"

rethinking abortion, zwei

2005-01-30T01:45:00.000-07:00

Conintuing a reexamination of abortion, I wondered if any of the normal litanies would sway me.

Many of the various arguments revolve around the concept that the expecting mother wouldn't make a "good mother" so abortion is a Good Thing. Much of which presumes that the person making that argument knows precisely what a Good Mother is, and the expecting sperm sock in question doesn't meet that definition. Trying to encourage abortion as a corrective seems to be a pretty haphazard and unreliable way to breed an army of UberMom's whose qualities have been Certified Good. It would seem to me that going back to forced sterilization seems to be a much more effective way to ensure the continuance of "proper" genes. When it comes right down to it forced sterilization is the end all be all of any argument that tacks "good mother" on to it and has no place in a debate about elective abortion.

Another common argument is that of income insecurity, whereby it is put forth that abortion is a better recourse than financial hardship. So at the local job fair, you see another woman talking to your chosen mark -- er... prospective employer -- so to prevent competition of your financial resources you pull your .357, cocked the hammer and...

Smells like murder to me.

A personal favorite of mine is the excuse that "the father wasn't around enough" so the abortion was obviously the best option. So after Consuela got a divorce from her husband, who had strange habits with his secretary, she found herself in the bind of having no strong male role model for little Ivan. So she picked up her .357, cocked the hammer and...

20 to life.

A somewhat, to me, uncommon rationale is the riff that "my father sexually abused me" and as such there whole sense of worth was damaged causing them to have sex with various things in risque manners. So Jane, after being routinely abused by her boyfriend El Jefe, jumps into the arms of Jack after a long night of Tequila Sunrise's and donkey shows and winds up pregnant. After giving birth to Jack's child -- named Donald in an effort to attach mimetic magic to The Trump -- she has a moment of enlightenment in which she realizes that Jack isn't much of a winner himself, picked only due the bruises El Jefe gave her inner child. So she pulls out her .357, points it Donald and cocking the hammer screams "Damn you El Jefe!" ...

... That didn't seem to work out well either.

Or how about the argument that they are too young too have children? Ignore for a moment that it is biologically impossible for a woman to have children if she is too young. Ignore that if such were true that the human race would, literally, figuratively, and pun-wise have died in its infancy. This is just a variation of the "my life isn't ready yet" argument. That is, that they are too busy enjoying themselves to have children; which is how we will treat it.

"I'm sorry Jane, I can't play bridge this friday. I can't find a baby-sitter. Though, if I could borrow your .357..."

I don't see a jury giving much to sympathy on such a case.

Unsurprisingly, I find precious little to alter my opinion on whether these examples make valid excuses for murdering a human being. So long as the definitional proposition remains the same, the argument will. The pro-abortionists are not gaining ground on that however, which is why I believe they harp so overmuch on -- supposedly -- heart rending stories to justify their stance. Which may indeed answer the questions I asked in my last post.

take my job, please

2005-01-29T02:28:00.000-07:00

Is there really anything to outsorcing that is worrying? Now I'm certainly no economist, but then after awarding the Nobel Prize to those blokes that proved that markets are completely yonkers; noone is. And that's where I tip my hat to the Libertarians. They've said it all along since, at least, Mises first threw his hat in the ring. What we like to fool ourselves into believing is the "science" is really an ad hoc mix of Psychology and Logic. Of course, that's where things go plainly awry.

It is said that a rising tide lifts all boats, and so we ought to drown the Indians that now dominate the call center industry. Well perhaps that's not what they meant. Perhaps they were trying to say that by enriching a some poor snake handler with a dashing dot on her forhead, that we will benefit in two ways. The first way is that by decreasing the cost of goods that more can attain it -- here in America at least -- and that the increased competition for labout will increase remuneration among the poor in India. The second is that the poor lowbrow that slaved over an AT&T handset may now go on to more productive endeavours thus enriching himself. You see! Everyone wins! Which is lot of bollocks. Let us apply logic, and skip something so based on gut insticnts as psychology, to see why.

Will this increase the competition among the labour pool in India? Absolutely. That then raises the cost of that service provided which results in a zero sum game long term. Short term? Well I suppose it's better economic aid than welfare. Except that the corollary is that it lessens competition in the labour market here, which leads to declining wages.

"Not so!" they cry, "Joe Unemployed may now go on to better pursuits!" The obviously enlightened aryan American male was simply overqualified for a call center job and will become an overnight millionaire! Wait. Let me back up and relate a study I've heard mention of yet have not verified. Assuming the accuracy of the report it is said that companies that outsource create jobs locally faster than they outsource them, and faster than those that do not outsource at all. But even the most ganja-endeared among us can see that this is as temporary as the previous mentioned equalising of global income disparities, so back to the overqualified aryan American.

Joe Lowbrow, recently having given away his valuable phone skills to a poor Indian family, looks for better application of his underutilized skills in the American labour market. Sifting through the paper he finds... no employers looking for someone to answer the phone.

"No problem! Joe Lowbrow can simply retrain his vast unused aryan potential in a better job!"

Which costs money that Joe no longer has naturally. So while someone else had their boat lifted, Joe-baby's sank.

Now everyone pause a moment to let the Libertarians confuse my argument with Marx' defunct economic model.

Capitalism succeeds through increased efficiency only. Shifting production to a differing national currency across a different national border does not increase efficiency; in fact it is rather likely to decrease it in the short run. In the long run, should all boats be so lifted, it would be no different than a completely isolationist economy on a single currency for the populus so involved in the scheme.

In the short view outsorcing makes things far worse; in the long one it becomes no different than economic isolationism. While I harbour no ill-will for the charity of tossing Joe's job at a starving Indian family for the sake of world benefit I must ask: While I am willing to sacrifice Joe for Mumbai are there additional detractions that I have not yet considered?

Indeed there are. Even people that attended public school are likely to notice that blue country, or the orange one, next to America. Couple that with the fair wind friendship America and France have: Wouldn't it be monumentally stupid to let France have domination over the ongoing industrial, if not warmaking or food, industries of America?

In an unusual trait for me, I mean no disrespect to France by that example; it just makes a cleaner point than that of wars for oil. And let me not mention the 800 pound China in the middle of the room.

Simply put, like many things Libertarians desire, utopia is thwarted by the unfortunate accident of national borders.

Of course that's just a logical argument. Psychologically? Fuck you moron! Don't you have something better to do with your time? Like work? Ah, right.

kill it again

2005-01-28T02:57:00.000-07:00

Apropos to my recent post about criminaling insanity sans crime comes this little tidbit of journalistic and logical loss of sanity... Oh fuck quoting a snippet at the start - read the tripe that the jackass formerly known as Andrew Cohen thinks is worthy of the lofty title of "graduated the 3rd grade" and come back to understand the rest of my post.

Done? Good. Here's the bit that got my hackles:

Not only that, isn't there something counterintuitive about pushing to execute someone who got into this mess in the first place because he was trying to commit suicide? Won't someone at trial suggest that a death sentence is precisely what Alvarez was hoping for in the first place, that to authorize the state to execute him would give him the satisfaction and the ending he initially was hoping for when he parked his Jeep? I'm sure that some of the family members of Alvarez's victims will ask prosecutors to push to keep him in prison rather than to allow him to exit his tortured life. It will be hard for prosecutors to ignore those pleas.

Bullfuck. What kind of perverse misreading of reverse psychology did this mindless fuck buy into? "Let's get revenge on a mass murderer who was suicidal by... not killing him! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Whatever this dumb sonofabithch had as intention when he parked his Jeep on the tracks, and whatever he had as an intention when he left his vehicle there to get his indecisive ass to safety is immaterial. The one thing that remained the same through all of it is that he intended to cause his vehicle to meet public transportation in as violent a manner as possible.

Should this hapless fuck get the chair? You betcha. Just as sure as I should if I fired a rifle randomly in the direction of a school. "Well, it wasn't my intention to actually hit and kill 6 year olds." It wouldn't fly there, it shouldn't fly here, and Mr. Cohen is in severe need of having his brain matter converted to an ink blot test on the bathroom wall for showing as much courtesy for human life as the mass murdering fuck he wrote about did.

If you're going to kill yourself swallow a .45 ACP; unless you have a problem with guns or aren't a pussy about pain.

opinions for sale

2005-01-28T01:15:00.000-07:00

I admist to being unimpressed by the recent screeching about journalistic disclosure.

"Bush had to pay for his opinions! Lies!"

"Yeh, well Clinton had to pay for his as well."

"Fascist!"

"Rapist!"

Here's my take: If your opinions can only upheld by the inglorious writings of various amateurs you have much larger problems at stake than a byline with a warning label.

And while all the screeching is a novel take on impugning the ethics of everyone from blogger's to journalists, Left to Right, if your bullshit meter is so broke that you require someone else -- in theory impartial -- to do your thinking for you... well, grab your ankles and welcome your new overlords. Or do it Islam-style and just hike it while you kiss the rug; I hear tell they're real good at letting you know what to think.

For the volume so far reached one might confuse the issue with a Barbie commercial.

nerd expectancy

2005-01-27T02:34:00.000-07:00

I've been gone for awhile now so I have to catch up on my regular reading lest I incur the wrath of the blogGods. In the course of my time travels I come across a couple of interesting mindless bits from Drumwater that, in fairness to those that I at least hold as much respect for as garden slugs I must participate. So herein, I represent my nerdness, lifespan, and a useless meme thing from the undying highschool clique-ology:

Oh, the humanity! and...

At least I'll die younger than the fucks that make such a good social security racisn epidemic issue.

guilty until innocent

2005-01-27T02:05:00.000-07:00

The best quality of lawyer's are that they are emotional writers. Glenn Reynolds is perhaps the most famous of these examples in the modern, connected world.

But as proof that Freedom of Speech doesn't mean that you have anything intelligent to say, Mr. Reynolds vomits this upon the eternal condemnation of the world wide web:

despite a clear recognition that she was dangerous to herself and others;

Now in general I would chalk this stictly up to an Ambulance Chaser's doing their finest; but Mr. Reynolds is a paragon of moderation. A pinnacle of nonpartisanship. A Constitutiontal scholar. And yet this bombastic twit cannot fathom that nothing in the nominally free land of America can be determined to be a "danger to others" until post-conviction of a crime. But I cannot blame him as his wife made a heart wrenching documentary about it. Pussy uber alles.

Due proceess, Dipshit; amd all hail Shakespeare.

If you cannot think critically, no amount of schooling will help you.

quizling

2004-12-03T18:03:00.000-07:00

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Seventh Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	Very High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Very High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Extreme
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very High
Level 7 (Violent)	Extreme
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Extreme
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Very High

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test

Given that Bane got a decent muppet after I got stuck with the deranged navel of all styrofoam toys this is just sweet return. Not only did I out-violence the Bane I landed square in the hell of ass-beatings. "Grab yo ankles, bee-yotch!"

On another note: My wife can't stand politics and the such and I'd rather stuff glass shards in my anus with a toilet plunger than hear about the latest pitfall that befell some random daily soap. So quality time in the Public house usually involves an internet quiz. Drunk.

Courtesy of a "world leader" quiz I found through Drumwaster I've been branded as JFK the original. But my wife? The Great Poonani of the Undeserving JQuip took the same test, measured and weighed. And came up Hitlers.

"Don't worry, Hon, your mustache is much better than his."

After a week of being locked out of the house I shall have my revenge by starting the Poonani Files. A weekly, or more frequent as Hitler irritates me, collection of the wit and wisdom of the Hitler of the Undeserving JQuip. No worries. I've already installed a space heater and a Playstation in the shed.

auto abortion

2004-11-28T01:33:00.000-07:00

A lovely mockery of a media piece by Crystal Lake (Read it.) got me thinking abortive thoughts again. What I found intersting was the close of Crystal's commentary:

But what right do we have to dictate how people choose to live their lives? Isn't this a free country?

Is abortion a right in America? Is it one of those niggley little things, even unenumerated, that government is not allowed to so much as look at sideways? Right now, a number of pro-abortion pundits are shaking their heads in disbelief at the monumental ignorance of those questions. But this really is not a settled question. Simply, a Right is what is held by the People and government is disbarred from legislating - no matter how true that may be in practice. Moreso, what falls under the agaes of a Right is rather broad.

Take, for example, Free Speech. Speaking, writing, clothing, and flag-burning are all Speech; and all protected. The government is barred from sanctioning you for the given speech irrespective of how the message is communicated. However, it is allowed to regulate that speech which has an effect on interstate commerce. Firearms and religion also fall under the same guidelines.

The above examples are intentionally simplistic, and somewhat at odds with current practice, to keep some clarity in this issue. If abortion is a Right, then what would be the consequence?

Like other Rights we would expect that the government would treat it in a content neutral manner. That is, it couldn't disallow late-term abortions only, or those of down's syndrome fetuses. We also would expect that government would not interfere with the method by which the abortion Right was exercised, whether that be by pharmaceuticals or roto-rooters. In fact, the only place where the government would have place or cause to interfere is when the concept had to do with interstate commerce.

Does this square with practice at all?

Certainly, clinics engage in interstate commerce in a nearly continuous fashion when purchasing equipment and the such. And we do not question the authority of Congress to regulate such items. But if it is an abortion clinic, the government is disallowed from any regulation, even that of ensuring that the clinic is operating in a safe and healthy manner, under the rubric that it violates the "Right" to abort. So in this instance abortion is entirely backwards to the way in which Rights are maintained.

How about exercising the Right?

The act of exercising a Right is that of the inidividual acting for themselves. I speak. I own a firearm. I manufacture a firearm. I am in the privacy of my home.

My exercising my Rights is not: You speak for me. You own a firearm for me. You manufacture a firearm for me. You seek your privacy for me.

So if I were to exercise my Right to an abortion, I would then be protected from government interference in whacking my gullet with a ballbat, or digging around my vulva with closet utensils, to affect an abortion. But such a thing regularly falls under the crime of foeticide. So once again abortion is at odds with what Rights are and how they are maintained.

Abortion cannot be a Right for it has none of the characteristics of it; unless one wants to argue that we have had the whole thing backwards since 1973. If that argument is to be made then foeticide needs to come off the books as it is a violation of abortion Rights. Congress must be allowed to regulate the abortion clinics as it sees fit as they engage in interstate commerce. And as with all things of Rights that are exercised versus intrinsic, it must have an age limit that children must attain before being seen as responsible enough in the eyes of the law to exercise the Right of abortion appropriately. After all, kids don't have a Right to firearms because they might kill kids.

dumb grunts

2004-11-26T10:03:00.000-07:00

I simply love when barking moonbats make the following accusation:

The fact is, the government schools are so rotten that they graduate millions of illiterates whose only chance at something better than working at the Wendy's window for minimum wage is the military. This is not to say that there are not a lot of well-educated people in the military, but that there are also, in fact, an awful lot of illiterate, uneducated "grunts" of the sort who were put in charge of running the Abu Ghraib prison.

That's right: "All you military folks are dumber than dyed-blondes. Except, you know, those that are really smart - please don't make me swallow my teeth." I just love the irrational hatred and identity politics of the "educated" and rational folks.

From his wonderful representative of the party of Individualism we get the following cliches commonly bandied about by Authoritarian Left:

- You cannot teach youself. Only the proper authority figures can.
- You canot make anything of yourself. Only the proper teaching can.
- Your failure is not your fault. It's the fault of the wrong authority figures.
- No one would be dumb enough to *willingly* volunteer for the military. Except war-mongering uber-patriot jack-booted Bush-fellaters.
- And of course the tired old Marxist class warfare of the scary ol' Burger flippin' job.

Offering himself as evidence, DiLorenzo aptly shows that while the Military has a minimum standard of aptitude, society most certainly does not.

giving thanks

2004-11-25T20:04:00.000-07:00

After narrowly avoiding the yearly turkey-coma by the quick and repeated application of scotch I figured I would wish the lot of you bastards a happy Thanksgiving. Even you French types.

There are two things that irritate me about Thanksgiving. The first is those people that feel the need to tell me, a complete stranger, what they are thankful for. You know what? I don't give a flying fuck how pleasant your children are or how large your salary is; keep it between you and your God you egotistical fuck. The second is the expectation of everyone else to congratulate them on the lottery their laziness won them.

"Oh yes, Aunt Ginny, I'm so pleased your husband finally gave up the drink! Now he won't toss you over the railing on Fridays."

"Cousin Dave, I'm so heartened that you could find enlightenment in a mushroom. Now if you could only find another family in one."

Thanksgiving is, has, and always will be, a self-help group doused heavily in hard liqour trying to save itself from the certitude of life that just hit everyone between the eyes will a nail-studded 2x4; the whole point of which is to drown ourselves in comfort-cranberry-sauce and other delicacies that turn the gullet backwards for the sake of remittance in our own self-indulged whims. Fuck it, them, and the lot of you.

In this oncoming cold fucking season, if you want to give thanks, give a leg up and a hand out.

Not to the people that beg for it, but to the people that don't want your high, holy charity. It'll save you money and keep the spirit alive.

career mobility

2004-11-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed let's me know that Dan, Dan the Moonbat Man is moving on from reporting the fakes to making them. Swell. "Move over Mapes! I'd Ra^ther drive!".

The first Moonbat that compares this to the denigration of Bush for moving his cabinet around without uttering "corporatist" gets the respect.

sex ed

2004-11-23T11:54:00.000-07:00

In light of the newest addition to homohabituation and the latest WHO bits on the rise of HIV among the world's wimmin, I thought it necessary to take the time out to correct some of the sex ed received of late via toddler indoctrination centers.

1.) The best way of conquering your fear of incurable disease is to pick up the soap for the nice fellow with the speech impediment in the prison shower room.

2.) Letting oompa-loompas play in the polyp fields has as much anatomical sense as sticking green peas in your nostrils; just don't, or things will start to rot and smell foul.

3.) Making a bet that you can hide a summer sausage in your colon without breaking your butt-pucker is a losing proposition.

4.) Becoming a blood brother with a methadone clinic dropout is not a hallmark of cultural tolerance.

5.) If you have open sores on your third leg don't deposit your privy in any holes; least of all the one between the toilet stalls at the truck stop.

6.) Just because your brown eye has less hair than his doesn't make it cleaner, it just chafes less.

7.) Only you should diddle with your tender bits; until you find someone that will dedicate themselves to a lifetime chore of carrying that torch for you. And only you. Chain them to the water main to be sure.

8.) And if all else fails remember that goats are not carriers.

holy mother of...

2004-11-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

I'm sure everyone's heard by now of the eBay auction of a piece of Christian iconography - Mary on a nibbled piece of grilled cheese - which sold for a smooth 28 grand. My reaction? Not only am I heartened to find a use for Mickey Mouse toasters, I am utterly pissed that I didn't realize there was such a lucrative market in existance for virgins that are only half-eaten.

in abstentia

2004-11-21T04:32:00.000-07:00

Holy mother of Moses this has been a busy week. Thankfully, crunch time has past; the check is collected, and I'm off to greater pursuits, like doing all the household chores I've skipped out on... Now I can spend some time fixing up the wife and her car. At least I'll be able to get some money out of the belligerent beauty when I'm done.

The car. I meant the car.

hamburgler

2004-11-19T03:44:00.000-07:00

Ok this is just fucking assinine:

Michael Jacobsen, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says this is a heart attack in a bun.

"These 'Thickburgers' are quintessential food porn — oozing with artery-clogging fat," says Jacobson.

Food porn? Just who does this self-sanctimonious prick think he is? Two-Thirds of one pound of pure dead cow to avoid the estrogen laced death. Three whole slices of American - oil that is - based cheese. Four fucking strips of bacon? The only nitwtis that worry about this crap are vegetarians; who, I might add, don't lube up and jam the monkey over red meat anyways. And if I don't die by 50 from my arteries being so clogged that my heart wheezes like an athsmatic in a hayfield, then I'm no kind of American. Bring on the food porn!

And if any of you twig-built emaciated animal rights ghosts get in my way be forewarned that I'm bearing down on you with an extra 2/3 pounds per diem to crush your gaunt ass from the face of the earth. Eat beef or die you tofu infected estrogen factories!

(Via: Somebody - Hey, nobody's perfect.)

speaking in twain

2004-11-18T02:30:00.000-07:00

JRL commented:

"Inscrutible is a very good word. So many people are unaware they are operating inside a vast framework of presuppostion. All of us are to some degree. Some have gone further in recognizing it than others. It's frankly sort of mysterious."

I've been intending to expand on my distaste for wordsnitchery for some time but keep procrastinating on the matter. So while the fire is lit...

Turn left at Miller's barn

The human mind works by shortcut alone. Certainly one can sit down and tackle a problem looking for a satisfactory answer; but to do that every time over for every issue becomes a crippling burden. For instance Mathmeticians regularly rely on previously proven formula to do their work without troubling themselves to reaffirm every proof every time. That said, in mathematics one can reaffirm to proof of anything as needed to assure oneself of holding correct knolwedge.

Unfortunately a great deal of human conception is beyond formative proofs and the rest would be impossible to prove, individually and for the individual, within the span of a single human lifetime. Without presupposition the human mind could not function in general, while in specifics it would not be able to function in a timely matter. For instance, one does not trouble themselves with all the individual motions needed to walk from the desk to the coffee pot in the morning. Instead the shortcut "must. get. cafeine..." is used as an encapsulation of everything required When expanded out from the indiviual to a group that communicates regularly on like subject and typically of like mind various shortcuts of language are used to encapsulate the premise, proof, and outcome of a given topic.

Jargonology

These shortcuts of group communication are found everywhere. Ask any pundit: "What is meant by 'Corportatist Right-Wing Meda'?" to see this in action. Depending on whether you ask a Right-wing or Left-wing pundit will change the entire argument and conclusion from get to go. Another example is to ask why Socialists are referred to as Liberal. All jargon is represented as complete by its outcome, and not how one reached it. Where this becomes an issue is when one questions how the outcome was reached.

Kafka Syndrome

A common way an outcome is questioned is by a turn of phrase employed the by interrogated such as: "Well, Kafka said..." This is not to say that Kafka was right or wrong on any given point; simply that the one answering the interrogation trusts in the intellectual hoops that Kafka had undergone and have themselves not redone the proofs. Where the Kafka Syndrome becomes a problem is when the one attempting to formulate the answer, cannot, and rather than admit ignorance of the matter simply reply by applying the Kafka Syndrome again.

Duh Factor

Another common way of presenting how an outcome was reached is to say: "Duh. It's perfectly obvious that..." At which point one of two things occur. Either it drops into invective as it is "obvious that this is true and I'm tired of teaching the point" or it will drop into a long winded explanation using the same jargon that was used to reach the outcome in the first place. Of course, if the questioner does not share a common definition of the jargon used then they will not be able to fathom the conclusion. On repeated application of questions the interrogator will usually continue to press the Duh Factor in the explanatory manner until they reach the end of their patience; then invective ensues.

Worldviews

If any hope of straightening out either of the above problems is to be had then one or both participants have to first understand the other's jargon. Doing so, however, is often a matter of taking the grotesque amounts of time needed to prove or reprove all opponents positions from their own view starting from square one. Further it requires being of an open of flexible enough mind to grasp how one could come to those conclusions.

But you typically cannot argue your point from their jargon. Their jargon is intrinsically linked with their worldview in such a way that using their terms fulfills their conclusions. Breaking this tautalogical problem is tricky at best. If you use the jargon of their ideological opposites, even if you do not subscribe to those opinions, will drive them into an oppositional mode whereby they retreat to the jargon used to deal with such. While you can avoid all jargon inasmuch as possible it becomes dreadfully long-winded and dry. Given the reliance on shortcut you will usually lose your audience's interest long before you've made your point.

Frames

This brings us to the newest weapon in the pop-subculture of punditry: Lakoff's Frames. The the use of Frames is two-fold. One: Avoid the jargon trap. Two: Break the self-fulfilling worldview/jargon cycle. In the first case new jargon is invented to prevent the reflexive positions that come of the use of pre-existing jargon. The second case is to create new, and advantageous, reflexive positions by owning the emotional end of the debate.

When the emotional end of the debate is owned properly, it becomes much easier to "win" an argument via the Kafka Syndrome. Of course, this just sidesteps any logic to win the debate by relying on emotional blackmail. Then once the emotions behind the new jargon are accepted the worldview will naturally change.

Wordsnitchery

None of this is to state that applying Frames is an evil thing as every single common word and common phrase has a Frame associated with it by default. Rather it is evil, and thus wordsnitchery, when it is with aforethought used to deceive or confuse an issue by stringing on raw emotion. It is noted with irony that "wordsnitchery" is itself a use of Lakoff's Frames in such a manner if a description of why a given Frame is wordsnitchery is not given. It all hinges on intent and explanation.

Emotional Logic

At the beginning it was mentioned that the human mind works by shortcut alone but how it reaches those shortcuts is another matter entirely. The human mind is a miraculous pattern matching machine that will attempt to match any "thing" to any known "thing" even if the known item is nothing more than a base emotion. Indeed, everything eventually boils down to base emotion solely. As such the less emotionally travelled an individual is the more stongly held are their presuppositions as their jargon is very closely tied to emotional archetypes. Even those that are more emotionally robust will have many tightly tied Frames in this nature.

If one is to question or challenge a presupposition as an honest matter the jargon that evokes an emotional archetype has to be avoided at all cost. With others it is a matter of knowing the individual. With the self it is an impossible matter until one can comprehend the emotive and/or logical constructs underlying differing jargon by repeated study, by repeated discourse, or by wordsnitchery.

But then, this may all be my own presuppositions and at odds with reality.

except when...

2004-11-17T19:27:00.000-07:00

Paraphrasing Illinois' new take on self defence and gun control:

"It shall be punishable by law to own tiny firearms. Except when said tiny firearm is used in legal self defence."

Or, if you prefer (Paraphrasing again):

"It is illegal to own handguns as they may be used improperly. Excpet when it is shown that the handgun was used properly - in which case you get a pass."

The need for such exceptions highlights the idiocy of the underlying law. Likewise, having fun with a different Right of the American people, one could say:

"It is illegal to speak as you may use your speech improperly. Except when it is shown, after the fact, that your speech was proper."

No different than the recent idiotic FCC excuse about "Saving Private Ryan".

(Via: Volokh)

thoughtcrime

2004-11-17T16:58:00.000-07:00

Can democracy survive unethical journalism? Screamin' Dean doesn't think so:

"[The media] are incapable of regulating themselves," Dean said. "What's at stake is our democracy. If you think that American democracy can survive without an ethical media, then you are wrong."

Dean received a standing ovation and an enthusiastic response from the audience. Approximately 200 members of the Yale community attended the symposium.

Many students said they agreed with Dean's comments.

"Dean was spot-on," Aaron Ring '08 said. " He talked about [the media] as being entertainment and just profit-seeking, and he's absolutely right."

There are 2 problems here. First, media is still a business and without entertainment they have no sales - thus no business. Second, the idea that regulation can make expressed opinions more ethical is simply absurd.

Let's be completely honest here, all the statements decrying the Liberal/Right-wing-coporatist Media boil down to one thing only: Despairing a difference in opinion. All media is driven by the personal opinions of those producing a journalistic piece whether it be outright or simply a matter of tone. Further, any opinion presented to any audience on any subject using any source is journalism. When someone agitates for the regulation of the media it has nothing to do with media itself; it has to do with regulating what opinions of the people are considered appropriate by the Powers That Be.

The only regulation necessary for opinions both professional and amateur are libel and slander - which are already on the books - if only we would enforce them. Anything else beyond which is unquestionably an infringement of either Speech or Association; and only those that fear the share and spread of opinion have anything to fear from those Rights.

(Via: Drudge)

skivvies

2004-11-16T23:40:00.000-07:00

Denise Richards on her Playboy shoot

The stylist had no bottoms, period, for me. Nothing. No underwear, no bathing suit bottoms. I said, 'You better find me some frickin' bottoms.'

Naturally. Otherwise she would have lost her dignity.

petalization

2004-11-16T22:37:00.000-07:00

PETA has been so successful that...

A drug sniffer dog working at a prison in northern England has received death threats because it is so good at its job, a British newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Yes, dogs are people. So we should extort them with death threats because they can, you know, like, read and stuff.

a woman scorned

2004-11-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

Here's hoping this ain't a pipe dream

Powell, who long has been rumored planning only a single term with Bush, told his aides that he intends to leave once Bush settles on whom to succeed him, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Now don't get me wrong. Powell's a decent beauracratic dick. Nuanced, sophisticed, and most importantly utterly white washed to the point that he's a shade lighter than Michael Jackson to comfort the sensibilities of those tolerant New Englanders. But he's been getting this disturbing Jimmy Carter Syndrome lately; so if this comes to pass hopefully we can someone like a Miss Raging Rice in his old seat.

Now before you get all shrill about "rebuilding alliances" and such: Gettin' snarky on your homeland in a Peanut moment ain't gonna build no alliances. Might get you a Peace Prize as a token Murkin, but that's about it. You want to build alliances? Put a no holds barred crazy bitch with "drown the children in the bathtub" PMS moments in charge. A girl that'll look 'em all in the eye and tell 'em to put up or shut up. Then if they put up we got an alliance and they get the neat toys and a little cash on the side; but if they shut up just discard them in the blood soaked soil of the rising Islamism that's coming for them.

Cut the grass low and the snake's head pops up.

the more things change

2004-11-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

I was a Socialist for two weeks but when a couple of Socialists assured me I had no right to think differently from any other Socialist and then quarrelled with each other about what Socialism meant, I ran away. - Stephen Crane

church of godless

2004-11-15T01:15:00.000-07:00

What is Atheism?

It would seem patently obvious to anyone you would ask. So why then the mini-war I've seen over the past few weeks on a few blogs discussing the matter?

Irrational Rationale

Generally, the battle begins when someone makes the statement "Atheism is ..." or "Atheists believe" and of a sudden every Atheist under the sun pops up and decries whatever statement was made. After some time in combat the final rebuttal of the Atheist is that their interpretation is the correct one for they are, after all, the one who self defined and described it. Ironically, the initial statement that kicks off the war is often made by another Atheist!

This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle whereby the subject of the study defines what the outcome should be, with the caveat that the outcome will change every time the study is repeated.

Further when an Atheist initiates a battle against some other range of philosophy they have a habit of picking the most despicable character they can to attack, even if that character's coreligionists would have disavowed his beliefs as representative. "Never you mind," says the Atheist "as you can plainly see by the Heisenberg Philosophy Principle that this unscrupulous bastard defines himself as your ideological equal. Who am I to disagree with him?" This gives us a very odd strawman-by-proxy argument that refutes all attempts at disabusal.

This is the Law of Contagion which states that all people self labeling as X are contaminated by that label. This allows for one to be representative of all. Whatever is a valid manipulation of one is a valid manipulation of all regardless the distance between them.

Unfortunately we now have a problem. As can be seen the Law and the Principle are mutually exclusive to one another. This is known as the Twin Paradox. We solve this paradox by noting that they share the same relativistic Lakoff Frames.

So it is, for example, that attacking any Buddhist that states they are a Christian is the same as attacking all Christians because they share the frame "accepting Christ" in discourse. This is, of course, lunacy. These are all silly games to prove the unprovable or to refute the irrefutable by arguing semantics. This won't do.

Joe Bitter - common Atheist

Atheists like to employ the etymology of the word as a means of wordsnitchery and semantic games. Depending which etymology you choose Atheism is either "godless" or "lack of a god"; which becomes to the Atheist "disbelief of all gods" or "a lack of belief in all gods" respectively.

Without fail an Atheist whose prefers to refer to Jesus Christ as a "schizophrenic desert wandering zombie" will always declare that they personally do not say the Christian religion is bunk - just that they simply don't believe in it. They also love to point out that they didn't "choose" Atheism which they submit is the natural order of things and that they allow that the Christians may be correct if only proof of the Christian God could be presented.

Their arrogance, hubris and antogonism bely not a "lack of belief" but open war and hatred upon the Christian faith. This is an open denial that they refuse to make by playing the above mentioned semantic games. The marginal excuse for these games is simply that if they engage open denial then the hypocrisy of their demands for proof, typically of the scientific variety, is put on open display. For Atheists cannot prove the absence of the supernatural and they know it. If their claims had to meet open scrutiny then Atheism would be revealed openly as a religious framework itself, no different in character than Monotheism or Pantheism. This ties directly into the claim that they did not "choose" Atheism as a rational matter.

This is why they claim that Atheism is the natural state of things versus the same Leap of Faith required to believe in any religious framework. For example that the mentally deficient and babies are incapable of holding religious (theist) views because they lack the brain power to do so. So by holding that they only "lack belief" they have equated themselves with the retarded they claim are the natural order. If that is not odd enough, the same Atheists that claim a "lack of belief" will unquestionably state that religions are mere Mythology. Whereby, in their argument, only men that have sufficient intelligence to use the toilet without assistance are capable of believing in sky-gods - those that require adult diapers are Atheists.

All this nonsense flows from the singular fact that an Atheist, who often proclaim their superior rationality and intellect, can not deal with the inscrutable Faith that underlies their religious framework just as it underlies all the others.

Oh [blank] who art in [blank]

So is Atheism a religion? The standard argument is that is not. Even if you accept that it is a religious framework ala Monotheism it is not a religion. However, unlike other Faith driven concepts of the supernatural there is only one Atheism. Monotheism can have, and does, many differing religions under its tent. Pantheism even more. But there is only one possible concept of the godhead in Atheism. Certainly, if Judaism were the only Monotheistic faith it would be fair to call Monotheism a religion, and so it is with Atheism as well.

The usual rebuttal to this is the tenet that even if all that was written above were true that it still not a religion due to the varying "kinds of Atheists". This makes as much sense as saying the Cristianity is not a religion because there are so many different Christian denominations.

Another common tack is to say that Atheists cannot be a religion as they do not have a written tract from which to decipher or determine their moral framework. However to take this argument literally would be to ignore the vast number of religions throughout history that were based on a strictly oral tradition.

Further many Atheists will proclaim that Athesim is not a religion as they have no formalized houses of worship or rituals. But there is no requirement that a religion have formalized rituals or places of worship - only a shared belief in the nature of the supernatural. Rituals and formal gathering places and times only help classification, advertisment and orthodoxy of a religion.

Yet another common claim is that they are not a religion as the individual's morals are based on social science and not mythology. Of course, every religion's moral code is a social science so this is nonsense as well.

There is simply no credible argument to be made that Atheism is not a religion like all others. Except that they say they aren't; and who are we to question that?

jackpot

2004-11-13T05:31:00.000-07:00

Something I've only heard once in passing that bears repeating: "Risk pools are simply wealth redistribution schemes" That isn't to say that having insurance for your home is a poor concept; but all too often in discussion people forget that single fact. Insurance policies are lottery tickets.

What would happen, socially, if you had a mandatory state lottery where each individual was assessed $10 for a shot at the monthly lottery? Certainly everyone would gripe about it but that's not the interesting part. What would happen if the state also allowed punitive tax measures to be taken against this or that class of individual based on some construct? Back biting would ensue as each individual that was not from a penalized class strove to up the ante by forcing the penalized classes to pay more.

An argument all too common to hear would go something like this: "The poor are winning more lottery sweeps than anyone else. The amount they donate to the system does not account for the egregious costs they force everyone else to bear. For this reason we should charge a poor tax of $5 per lottery to account for this injustice."

Of course one might note that as there are far more of the poor than the rich that it's patently obvious that they would tend to win more lotteries as a fiscal class. However that would account for nothing compared to the belief of the other classes that they were being cheated. This is no different than the age old psychological study that presents a 5 year old with two 8oz glasses with juice in them - one tall and skinny, the other short and fat - who is asked which one is greater? The answer is invariably the one that is percieved as larger, the tall one, when in truth they're identical.

Putting aside the absurdity of a poor tax, in life we see this behaviour on a rampant scale as various classes do battle with others for the purpose of assessing penalties. Either to lower their own cost, or increase their own payout. Whether the attacked class provides any extra burden or not, as an issue of fact, is completely beside the point. Until full discrimination based on any factor is allowed or banned completely this will always be true of risk pools.

Those that lose always pay for those that win and all players are looking for the power ball - so long as someone else buys the ticket.

i have a secret

2004-11-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

Oddly profitable stock picks by Senators are explained thusly:

As reported in this article in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, the authors of the study conclude that these results "suggest that senators are trading stock based on information that is unavailable to the public, thereby using their unique position to increase their personal wealth...." The study adds that it is as if "senators knew appropriate times to both buy and sell their common stock." The article quotes Ziobrowski as stating in a recent interview that "there is cheating going on, at a 99 percent level of confidence."

Ignore for a moment whether you think SEC regulation is the incarnation of the nameless one or not. By law as it stands using information gained by privelege is illegal. Ask Martha if you're not inclined to take my word for it. If we are a nation that governs by rule-of-law this needs corrected.

The article also points out that "the SEC may have little incentive to tangle with the Senate, given their relationship. Senators approve members of the SEC's governing body, as well as the agency's budget."

Who watches the Watchmen? Those the Watchmen hire. Idiocy.

(Via: ProfessorBainbridge.com)

party of tolerance

2004-11-10T08:41:00.000-07:00

Flogging the dead horse:

Three high school students face charges for using a bat to beat another student who taunted them about being John Kerry supporters days after the contentious election. ...

"We were sitting in the computer room at school, and there was kind of a political debate," said Chad McKay of Arden Hills. "Some people said only gay people vote for Bush." Chad said the victim said "only gay people would vote for Kerry because he supports gay marriage."

If you want to train 'em right you gotta start young.

quote of the day

2004-11-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

"Dude, give me the sniper rifle. I can take them out - I'm from Alabama." - Sgt. Aynett

(Courtesy of NRO Corner)

passing bucks

2004-11-10T05:10:00.000-07:00

Just say no:

Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like. ...

David Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman from Colorado, led the opposition in the House to the 1996 bill. He said it would be foolhardy now for Congress to pass legislation that would produce a "huge shift in power to the presidency" and open possibilities of abuse. He saw the possibility that lawmakers, to protect a project in their district, could be pressured to support a White House policy they otherwise opposed.

"The answer is self-discipline on the part of Congress, not derogating its central power," said Skaggs, now head of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the Council for Excellence in Government.

While I understand the utility of this concept it's simply a bad plan. Of course, in response to Skaggs, so is believing Congress will gain some self-discipline. The answer is to simply start by getting rid of riders. Which hasn't happened yet, and won't in the future, as it would require Congresscritters to stop acting like a kid in a candystore.

it's a test

2004-11-10T05:04:00.000-07:00

Now we unfortunately get to see how stern is the stuff Allawi is made of:

A posting on an Islamic Web site by a group calling itself Ansar al-Jihad group claimed responsibility for kidnapping three Allawi relatives, and threatened to behead them in 48 hours if their demands aren't met.

They demanded that Allawi and his government release all female and male detainees in Iraq, and lift the siege on Fallujah.

into the mouth of madness

2004-11-10T03:44:00.000-07:00

If you want to know how to successfully use terror attacks to make your gains - you ask someone down with Marx. To that end Pericles has put up an interesting essay over at Daily Kos. Read it. It is important to understand what is both correct and false about his analysis. Some of the faults are rather obvious while others are not. Either way it is a well thought piece.

The biggest fault in Pericles' piece is his conclusion of what the next target will be:

But one class of targets seems all too obvious: red-state megachurches whose leaders have made virulently anti-Islamic statements. They are relatively undefended. They are the heart of Bush's political power base, and so can be blamed for his policies. They can easily be portrayed as enemies of Islam. And, last but not least, an attack on a church would rile American hawks like nothing else.

If you accept his concept of "inverting the bell curve" then this conclusion is completely off mark. No, if you want to radicalize your enemy you must hit his doves hard and get them to see blood. The hawks will be motivated regardless of the target. Furthermore, it has to be against an extraordinarily visible icon (for both sides) for getting the airtime. Further, it cannot be a depopulated icon such as the St. Louis Arch or the Statue of Liberty or it lacks the humanity needed.

If you're going to rile the doves you need targets that expose them and make them fear; visible, populated, iconic, financial or defense.

Another point Pericles made is the desire to broaden the war. I think that's a correct argument but I think he misunderstands how. There is no doubt Bin Laden desried the war in Afghanistan as a starting point. He'd already drawn the Russians out and it would have allowed him broadening the war into neighboring Iran and Pakistan. One of which is a nuclear power and the other soon will be. This would have allowed him a shortcut to atomic weapons with which to galvanize and motivate the Islamic community.

But that is not what happened, and where much of the specifics of his analysis fall apart. That Cowboy in Washington did what the Russians couldn't and took down Afghanistan. What's more he went and gave it back! This is not a good way to radicalize your sympathizers. Worse still, instead of the war in Afghanistan being protracted and spreading to its geographic neighbors it jumped right over them and landed in Iraq. Which will itself be returned to the Iraqi's soon.

(An aside: It's worth noting the recent report that came out that correlates terrorism - not with wealth - but the transition period between totalitarianism and democracy.)

If the war is to be broadened it must broaden into a geographically contiguous area for Bin Laden's gains. And that will be Iran. Not within a year, as Pericles suggests, but between 6 and 12 months from now. After there is a second state with an Islamic bomb.

America, both Left and Right, needs to realize one thing: This conflict will not likely end util the world is once again scarred by the wartime display of an atomic blast. If Pericles is correct in his argument for causation and method, Bin Laden and those of his ilk will allow nothing else and Americans, indeed the World, needs to become comfortable with the thought of plying their quantum arsenal for the second time in history.

rampant grievery

2004-11-09T11:19:00.000-07:00

Classical Values seems to think all the screed from the left ain't rage. No it's more sublime.

There is an undeniable sense of genuine loss. And with that, there's a genuine need for grieving. This might not be something that most Republicans will readily understand (although I think Democratic crossover voters will), but I think it's worthy of discussion, because it isn't an opinion so much as it is a feeling.

Feelings, it's only feeeeelings... Alright this is about enough of this crap. The various displays aren't grief. They're an orgiastic circle-jerk of incitement. The smegma being tossed about violence, secession, assination and other fun caterwauling of the freshly castrated are not how a sane person grieves.

Which may give more light to the last posting here mocking "post-election selection trauma". This is asisnine beyond the pale. By the definitions of their most holy priests of psychology an emotional disorder is defined by not being able to function as a result of your emotional malfunction. You know what? Fuck 'em. This is their medicine by their rules. Give 'em a dose. Lock the puling little fuckers up for their own safety and pump 'em full of Thorazine until their face is paralized. We can let them out once we're absolutely sure they can rejoin the human fucking race as a productive member of society.

invertebrates

2004-11-09T10:53:00.000-07:00

I truly hope this is a parody:

"I had one friend tell me he's never been so depressed and angry in his life," Schooler said. "I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated," he told the daily.

"We're calling it 'post-election selection trauma' and we're working to develop a counseling program for it," said Rob Gordon, the Boca Raton-based executive director of the American Health Association.

"It's like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but it's a short-term shock rather than a childhood trauma," he told the daily.

Otherwise it does not bode well. I wonder how much therapy they would need if the kid at McDonalds yelled at them?

(Via: lgf)

blueheart

2004-11-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

Oh swell...

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party.

"He told me he was thinking about it," Steve Grossman, himself a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Monday. Grossman was a Dean backer during the former Vermont governor's failed presidential bid.

If this happens we can look forward to bad Gibson parodies of the Donks charging down upon polling stations in blue facepaint and plaid skirts screaming "We will take their freedom! YYEEEEAAARRGGHHH!"

eat your greens

2004-11-09T06:46:00.000-07:00

How does this work?

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's condition has worsened and his coma has deepened, according to the Paris hospital where he is being treated.

"I'm sorry to report that Mr. Arafat's condition has worsened from a mere carrot to a solid rutabaga."

your reservation is ready

2004-11-09T06:40:00.000-07:00

It's been a week now and the Leftward Loons are still screaching at high pitch. New on the rounds? Secession:

Secession, which didn't work very well when it was tried once before, is suddenly red hot in the blue states. In certain precincts, anyway.

Ah, well. After the New Englanders got done whuppin' the Southron Boys in the Civil War they had to turn their ire on the Indians to finish slaking their bloodlust. If they're that itchin' to leave then I say we return the favor. Geronimo gets a New York penthouse and Michael Moore gets a patch of nowhere in Iowa.

(Via: Power Line)

hazardous chemicals

2004-11-08T07:27:00.000-07:00

Well this explains a lot:

Britons' love of convenience food packed full of 'invisible' soya is a cause of declining sperm counts and a host of fertility problems, new research into its impact on Western diets reveals.

Many healthy foods such as soya milk and soya yogurt are also implicated. ...

Other research has linked the hormonal chemicals in soya to certain cancers, brain disease and developmental abnormalities in infants.

Not that I put much, if any, stock in these sort of studies but... Cancer! Defective Children! Brain Disease! (explains the vegetarians anyways) Rainforests! European cultural imperialism destroying the way of life of the Brazilian Indios! This unsafe product must be banned for the good of the world!

Like that'll ever happen.

Vegetarians will give up the Bean Curd of Doom when you pry it from their cold, dead emaciated fingers. Though it would be fun to see them walking around with a bag crammed in their ass to measure their contribution to global warming.

public unions

2004-11-05T21:16:00.000-07:00

A simple question: Given current legislation should civil servants be allowed to engage in collective bargaining?

- Standard definition used:

Taking the most caustic view of Capitalism: A standard employer has in mind only the profit motive and steps must be taken to ensure fair wages are paid to the employer. By this token the Employer will engage in negotiation with organized labour under the basis of balancing maximum profit and maximum overhead. In those negotiations the Employer's only concern is maximizing gain to the companies shareholders. The Employee's concern is in maximizing his own gain. But because the Employer has a lock on the locality, the incomes of a whole township, it has the ability to bargain unfairly. Thus, legislative protections are needed to allow bargaining to take place fairly.

Taking the most caustic view of Government provided services: With notable exceptions for "pork", government services are vital to functioning and safety of the entire community. Without such government provided services such as roads, schools, police and fire departments the community would be destroyed.

- Is a governmental agency the same as a company?

It is certainly an employer and can be very specific regionally; but it is not answerable to shareholders. More strikingly, a government agency has no competitor and no customers. Certanily, the government agency provides services to the citizens; but the citizens do not have the option of abstaining from those services, nor do they have the option to seek services of higher quality and/or lower costs from another provider.

This breaks the traditional bargaining model from the Employer's side of the table as the downward spiral of wages due competition and profit motive is missing from the calculus. The agent engaging in bargaining negotiations is instead beholden, at some level, to an elected official whose motive is the continuation of his own employment rather than a profit motive.

- What bargaining model applies to the government agency?

An elected offial was granted the power to negotiate on behalf, and look after the best interests, of the citizens of the community that elected him. He is their bargaining agent, or is empowered to appoint a bargaining agent. His position is not so much maximizing the gain of those he represents as it is to minimize the loss.

As all government services are paid for by expropriating income by legislation then an increase in the price of those services is a loss of income. The fair wage for all citizens under this guideline is the wage they earn unencumbered by taxation. This applies as well to excise and sales taxes as they reduce the purchasing power of the income earned. Quite obviously it is impossible for the citizenry to earn their full fair wage as there will be always be government services burdening them.

So the government agency has to work under the bargaining model of the employee. He is trying to protect the citizens wages from the downward spiral.

- Are civil servants then employers for bargaining?

It is tempting to say then that the legislative protections provided the bargaining model are wholly backwards and that the definitions of Employer and Employee should be reversed when dealing with collective bargaining in the public sphere. After all, the civil servants as a Union then have the power to destroy the community by refusing to allow the citizenry a fair wage. Likewise, the Union could destroy the community by "closing the plant", as it were, by refusing service and destroying the community. But the members of civil servant Unions are members of the citizenry as well.

This gives us the odd position that the employees, the citizenry, are likewise the customers. This is not unlike Union employees of a grocery market purchasing their food at the place of their employment. But, as addressed before, all citizens are employees and are not allowed to shop at any other market.

This gives the odd position that each individual Peace Officer, as an example, is an employee and negotiates under the bargaining model of the employee. However when all Peace Officers cartelize by forming a labour Union they have now now become share holders in the local Peace Enforcement business. As such if the citizens - the employees - do not accept lower wages then the Peace Enforcement business may figuratively "shut down the plant" and starve out the community.

So, on bargining models, an individual civil servant is an employee while a civil servant Union is an employer.

- How does current legislation effect this?

Current legislation is predicated on the idea of "good faith" negotiations and the concept that the bargaining positions flow directly from the economics involved. But given that the bargaining and economic positions with the citizenry and civil servant Unions are vastly different the current legislation fails to address the issue.

For example: It is considered "good faith" if the employer can show that increasing wages would casue the business to be unviable as a sole reason for refusing to increase wages. However, if it can be shown that the employer is manaufacturing its supposed unviability as a means of depressing wages then it is not arguing in "good faith".

Would it be "good faith" for an employer to say that the average price of goods in their industry is $19.52 so they must charge $19.52 or more as well or they would be unviable? Absolultely not. But this is how wages are negotiated by civil servant Unions.

Would it be "good faith" for an city to argue that Police Officers are overpaid at a national average of $19.52 an hour when their private sector counterpart, the security guard, is paid an average wage of $10.59 per hour? Certainly. But this is not considered "good faith" under the status quo.

So the standards model of bargaining and legislative protections based on economic power is flawed when applied to the public sector.

- What is the outcome?

Given that the civil servant and the citizenry break the standard economic models the legislation is based on the power disproportionately falls in the hands of the civil servant Unions it can be seen that the Unions have take on the role of pre-Union legislation Employers.

Without meaning to pick on Peace Officers unduly, it can be seen that their Union holds the community hostage with demands that the citizenries fair wages be decreased. The decreased income of the citizenry leads to increasing crime rates. As the crime rates increase the Police Unions demand further decreases in the fair wage of the citizenry to combat the problem. Not unlike the pre-Union Employers the downward spiral of wages is encompassed by the empoyers bed-feathering and nepotism.

For a differing example Teachers Unions can be seen to take the same strategy. When test scores fall they demand increased wages with which they then feather their beds and practice nepotism through tenure. Continuing the same cycle as before.

- Is there a better way to regard civil servants?

If we accept that Unions are necessary to prevent predation of employees then it is not sufficient to simply disallow civil servant Unions as without organization each individual civil servant is properly a classic employee in all senses. But the problem is mostly one of classification.

Public servants are best considered as having a monopoly of a necessary commodity or service not unlike electricity, water or taxicabs. These services are typically considered too volatile and necessary to leave to the whims of the free market. The tenet being here that the citizenry would be held hostage by price gouging and inadequate service which we can readily see in civil servant Unions as they stand now.

States have typically regulated these issues by enforcing Quality of Service requirements and regulations as well as either strict price controls or price caps on the service provided. This allows an economic basis to be formed for engaging in collective bargaining issues in "good faith", for all sides, without barring civil servants from Union membership. This also prevents tenure or other nepotistic tendencies that arise in all Unions from leading to the destruction of a necessary public service via concrete licensing terms to the individuals engaged in public service. It also clears up the distinctions between Employee, Employer, and Supervisor in collective bargaining.

Furthermore, this allows a measure of flexibility that does not exist in current state of affairs. By putting strict QoS and price guidelines in place the market for providing public services can be opened up to private companies without suffering the frailties of the market. Indeed, because of the licensing guidelines put in place it should lead to an increase in the quality of service in which everyone wins.

For the Libertarian this concept should appeal due to its allowance of the public sector and the defanging of the coercive monopolistic nature of government by making privatization feasible.

For the Conservative this concept should appeal for the increased efficiency of governance that comes with a infrastructural change without otherwise changing legislation on what is, or is not, a suitable piece of legislation.

For the Liberal or Progressive this concept should appeal as it holds civil servants to more well defined concepts of what is and is not applicable within the bounds of Social Justice while likewise decreasing the cost to the poor that most heavily bear such burdens.

For the general citizenry it should appeal for lowering the cost of governance while increasing the quality of services provided.

For the elected officials it should appeal for taking the burden of fatalistic propaganda out of their reelction campaigns.

Only for the civil servant Unions should this be unappealing. Or rather, not to Union members, but to the Union leadership, as it removes a measure of the disproportionate power they wield over everyone else.

Eveyone wins except those that would plunder the public treasury and trust.

nosferatu

2004-11-04T10:05:00.000-07:00

First he's dead; now he's:

"Mr. Arafat is not dead," he said, concluding the brief statement.

Undead apparently. Freed from the confines of the mortal coil to drink deeply of Palestinian coffers and Jewish blood. Or maybe he's a registered Democrat in Chicago. Who knows, but at least this has got more action than waiting for CNN to call Ohio.

clipped the corner

2004-11-04T09:52:00.000-07:00

Snagging a couple quotes for NRO's Corner:

From the London Daily Mirror:

"As for the ones who put him in, across the Bible Belt and the South, us outsiders can only feel pity...the self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong"

Sounds about right. That Pom must have seen my sister.

From WaPo:

“Compared with 2000, his vote totals and margins of victory soared all across Ohio's Appalachian southeast and its southern and western farm belt. He even won over Ohio's Amish, capturing Holmes County in the heart of Amish country with 76 percent of the total.”

You silly English. "Yoders for Bush" just sounds... wrong.

God Bless America. Still pissin' on the Brits and motivating the Amish to go places.

smile

2004-11-04T07:32:00.000-07:00

I love this bit over at Drudge:

The Daily Mirror: A large pic of Bush with this caption: “How can 59,054,087 be so dumb!”

But multiculturalism! Unity! The trans-atlantic divide! Seems they're about as real in Britain as dentistry.

exiting a blackhole

2004-11-04T04:47:00.000-07:00

Proving his irrelevane Stephen Hawking spewed this:

"The war was based on two lies," said Hawking. "The first was we were in danger of weapons of mass destruction and the second was that Iraq was somehow to blame for Sept. 11.

"It has been a tragedy for all the families that have lost members. As many as 100,000 people have died, half of them women and children. If that is not a war crime, what is?"

His proof of Bushilter warcrimes? Regurgitating the fraudalent death toll numbers. I give you the theory of Lefty Relativity: Hawking = Barking times Moonbat squared. QED

unreasoned reasoning

2004-11-03T22:52:00.000-07:00

This is exactly one of the problems with Libertarian moonbat PR. You can read the article if you want but a summation will suit well enough.

1.) Objectivists promotes reason
2.) Objectivists promotes individualism (whereby comes tolerance)
3.) Ayn Rand was quite totalitarian
4.) Ayn Rand was quite intolerant of differing views
5.) Objectivism can be used to "reason" up all sorts of things

- Therefore Objectivism is bunk because Rand couldn't live it up to it and "reason" can lead one astray. He says this should be obvious as he has been able to deduce through "reason" that all things are subjective that their is no such thing as "reason" or "truth". Well, score him a browny point for having not one lick of reason in his brainpan whatsoever.

Wrapping up his whinge about how everything is subjective and nothing is objective he uses a study to support his point. One that is known to be completely bunk. Or less charitably, so absolutely bunk that it is an obvious scientific fraud. (Of course, he has already denied the existence of "reason" by the use of his "reason" so...)

The kicker, with his anti-war screed, is when he spews this: (Based on the bogus study)

There is little hope to be found in a philosophy that can generate the kind of twisted thinking that so many leading Objectivists openly express. Collectivist assumptions that readily accept the systematic slaughter of so many innocent people need to be confronted by a sentiment rarely voiced by Objectivists: love for the humanity of which we are all part.

Hello? Jackass? Mass graves? So much for not accepting systematic slaughters. Fairly enough though, he made his decision on the matter by using his his grasp of "reason", which he professes does not exist, to support his point with emotional arguments and a subjective belief in a bunk study to come to an individual decision that condones "systematic slaughter". While the collectivist "we" may not be proud of him, I'm sure his individualist "me" is. Frankly I fail to see a difference.

Lastly, he wraps up his Objectivist hit-piece with a plea that all Objectivists should be cast out of Libertarian thought. What magnamity! What... tolerance? What a dimwit.

In the end this asshat does everything he decrys the Objectivists of doing, or being capable of, and missed the greater point. Any shill can use "reason" to justify emotion; just like he did with his very long winded tripe.

Calling all Libertarians: Please lock up your moonbats - they do you a disservice. Oh, wait. You're too busy being intolerant of the voters that made individual decisions to put George W. Bush back in office to bother. Well, when your done wagging your collective fingers at individuals would you mind, terribly, showing that same tolerance to your own?

notes 1

2004-11-03T20:35:00.000-07:00

Well notes is what I do.

On 2 Americas:
Everyone seems to carry on about this. Are there 2 Americas? Well, yes, roughly but not in the general sense that gets bandied about. Which, of course, is to say that there is an amorphous flock of Democrats and an amorphous flock of Republicans floating around somewhat equally. This is sheer ignorance and this issue needs quashed.

There have always been 2 Americas and they have always roughly been Rural and Urban. You can verify yourself looking at the county by county presidential election maps and doing the rough pop. density math.

Currently the Left is doing the introspection bit and trying to figure out what went wrong. They blame the media, the confusing nature of their message, their candidate, the party strategists and so on.

- Urban areas:
2 broad classes of people here. The scared and the middle-management. The scared are what give the Left strength via the various socialist natured wealth expropriation and distribution programs they love. These issues are something of a pass with the middle-management as long as the burden is spread broadly enough that it doesn't pinch them too hard. The middle-management are an easy bunch as they are nothing more than beauracrats in the private sector that have, in urban areas, some modicum of property ownership. They shovel up the various fear programs aimed at their desire for security in their never-ending job, such as the outsourcing issue. Secondly, they have dread fear of anything that could devalue their property values; leading rise to their love of home-owners associations and gentrification programs.

- Rural areas:
Only 1 broad class of person. The "leave me alone" crowd. So long as you don't piss in their pot they are content to continue life as they have. Rural areas tend to have high property ownership and lower incomes. Anything that burdens either will be seen as disastrous. As they spend more time with their immediate neighbor's they are inclined to have more community and stronger social mores. Due the heavy reliance on their neighbors anything that is seen to possibly disturb the social order destroys the very fabric that makes it all work.

- Intelligentsia:
Rural folk are easy on this count. Good ideas come from people nearby; the further you are the less trust you get. Urban people are about backwards on this count. The closer you are, geographically, the more fear they have. But ideas carried from far away are treated in an almost messianic manner. This leads to the odd abundance of differing and disparate intellectual leaders of the urbanites that range from European Prime Ministers to peanut farmers. In rural areas, it's usually a single guy in town.

- The Left:
Urban naturally, and they only need keep the status quo to maintain the lock. Where they lost in this presidential election was that fear is indeed the motivator of their base and terrorism is pretty high on the list at the moment. But the plans of the Left fail to carry in rural areas. Unless the Left can fix it's one-size-fits-all socialist policies they will continue to get spanked by flyover country. Connecting with flyover country will require tailoring policy on regionality grounds and producing candidates that are "down home" types who can easily take the crown of the philosopher king from both rural and urban centers.

- The New Right:
Or more the new right of "compassionate conservatism" is making decent headway in straightening the urban/rural dichotomy out. As they continue on this path they will consistently refute the standard demonization of the Right as the evil fag-hating hillbillies; as they should be as the New Right will be taking the ground once held by the Left in politics. Past perception is working very hard against them on this count but should not last much longer.

- The Old Right:
Or what Conservatives think of when they say the word. The status quo that endears them to rural areas is fine and well but will not carry to urban areas. As long as the Old Right insists on legislating cultural norms that are not found in urban areas they will be unable to touch this constiuency. (Compared to the New Right's take on the matter of waffling on an issue or punting it to a State's Rights issue.)

- 3rd parties:
Are essentially daft. Not because 3rd parties are a poor idea, but rather because they are all Purists of one vein or another. Their purism denies the universality and compromise needed to garner a large enough base to be relevant. The internet is, somewhat ironically, the worst enemy of 3rd parties. (Another discussion)

- Relevancy:
If the Left wants to stay relevant it must finally come to grips with why they are losing mindshare. If the 3rd parties want to become relevant they must understand the same. Currently, the Right has accidentally got it correct. However, if the Right doesn't get their head around it; they will surrender the field again to the next individual that hits upon it by accident.

your regular programming

2004-11-03T16:39:00.000-07:00

After hawking over very dribble of info last night I get up and grog around today and find out? Kerry conceded. Good for him and congratulations to W. and the Republicans. More importantly, congratulations are due the American people for having such an anti-climax after all the insanely tense windup.

The Left leaning blogs are taking this election very well and with a bit of introspection. Kos has the best response so far:

As hundreds of Kossacks have been saying since last night (and before), one of our first priorities will be to help transform as best we can the Democratic Party. Resistance there will be fierce, but with two lost elections, the business-as-usual crowd is vulnerable.

Beat's the heck out of the hatred that's been flying so thick before. Who knows? Maybe we'll all be surprised and the Left will recoginize in itself that this is America and not Europe.

But I'm not counting on it.

and the winner is

2004-11-03T03:44:00.000-07:00

The Bar Association. No, not scotch. Ambulance chasers. As much as I hate to agree with Kos (of all people) Ohio looks to be still in play. According to the Secratary of State website for Ohio (The inestimable Kenneth Blackwell) there are 135,149 provisional ballots cast and apparently there are some unknown number of absentee ballots yet to be counted. Mary Beth Cahill slates the combined total at roughly 250,000. I think she's something of an optimist but information being what it is Ohio is still in play.

Bush only leads in Ohio by 138,152 votes. Assuming that half of all provisional ballots are bunk and Cahill hasn't had too much Kool-aid then Kerry needs to carry roughly 80% on the absentees to take the state. That's the fine edge of credulty as any more than 50% of the provisionals get invalidated and Kerry's in the sink. Any less than that and it starts looking like a pretty nail biter. By the same token, if Cahill is overestimating the uncounted absentees by any amount then, likewise, Kerry takes one in his Heinz.

Kos thinks Florida might still be in play on the same issue and believes there are 1 milliyun votes outstanding. I know Kos drinks muy kool-aid so I imagine this is well inflated from reality. That said, if he's right, Kerry only needs to best taking 68.85% of the remaining ballots to overtake Florida. If the uncounted ballots are any less than 1,000,000 in any credible sense then the percentage Kerry needs goes through the roof pretty quickly.

Now Kerry has to manage to best the overall voting trends in both states by quite a degree to manage to take either. But then he has been making a clean sweep on the absentee ballots (I've been seeing 2-1 in his favor generally) so it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

On balance though I don't think Florida is even going to be on the table. But Ohio all depends on how many provisional ballots are bogus. And for that, Patriots, you need lots of lawyers. The bugger being that the provisionals won't be counted for 11 days which gives plenty of time for pre-emptive briefs to be thrown all over the place. Also conspiracy theories. It wouldn't be complete without Zionist Vote Machine Mind Control.

So sit down, buckle up, grab the popcorn and bile and enjoy the show.

Update:

Ignorant sleepless night. Must. Sleep.

calling the states

2004-11-02T16:56:00.000-07:00

I call Pennsylvania a disaster. If the winner of the election carries Pennsylvania then we have a redux of Florida. Though, from the amount of reports coming in about hinkiness there it will likely be worse this time.

twinkie denial

2004-11-02T13:15:00.000-07:00

BLACKFIVE's voting experience:

As I left on my way to the County Election Commission to file a complaint, I asked ten different people who were also denied a vote because they weren't in the book, "Are you Republicans?"

All ten replied, "Yes."

We'll see if this actually gets reported or not by MSM.

Speaking of fraud. In other breaking news...

You're Bettie Page!

What Classic Pin-Up Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

It could have been worse.

(Via: Instapundit)

in abstentia

2004-11-02T10:44:00.000-07:00

Broward County, Florida is looking to be a fun place again this year:

I spoke with Mom again. The poll workers told her that not only did someone request an absentee ballot under her name, they even turned it in. They are making her contest the vote, gave her some paperwork. Mom is completely disenchanted. I'm going to see what we can do about this.

When it's harder to correct the mistake than it is to make it, you know it's all screwed up.

In other news...

You're Newfoundland. You're not a complex person,
but it's not because you're not intelligent;
you just perfer the simpler things in life. You
can work hard and bear harder misfortunes than
most. It's too bad people underestimate you
because you're one tough S.O.B. when need be.

What Canadian Province Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I am the livestock loving armpit of Canada. It must have been all the Beer questions...

(Via: Vodkapundit)

the good die young

2004-11-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

Drudge is reporting that some voting machines already had votes loaded on them when the polls opened. The Kerry campaign had alleged that the claims are false.

That Kerry campaign might be shooting a little fast again. I'm counting the minutes until Kerry declares that his campaign people should have kept their mouths shut and does the flip-flop boogy.

"My opponent has so angered the dead patriots of Philadelphia that their spirits have risen up to vote George Bush out of office. Instead of welcoming this the Republican party is now filing a lawsuit to disenfranchise such noble men like Alexander Hamilton."

In other breaking news...

You're a POLAR BEAR!!!Yay!, Or we could say you're
an albino GRIZZLY

What animal would you be?
brought to you by Quizilla

A freakin' snow bear? Who writes these things?

d day

2004-11-02T09:17:00.000-07:00

Finally, the polls are open and by tonight we know which lawyers will be litigating for the president to be. In the meantime I going to something useful. Like, quizzes...

You are Dr. Bunson Honeydew.
You love to analyse things and further the cause of
science, even if you do tend to blow things up
more often than not.

HOBBIES:
Scientific inquiry, Looking through microscopes,
Recombining DNA to create decorative art.
QUOTE:
"Now, Beakie, we'll just flip this switch and
60,000 refreshing volts of electricity will
surge through your body. Ready?"

FAVORITE MUSICAL ARTIST:
John Cougar Melonhead

LAST BOOK READ:
"Quantum Physics: 101 Easy Microwave
Recipes"

NEVER LEAVES HOME WITHOUT:
An atom smasher and plenty of extra atoms.

What Muppet are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Oh. Dear. Lord.

hey moe

2004-11-01T15:12:00.000-07:00

An interesting post from Aaron over at Right-Thinking:

You know, there *is* a serious debate that needs to be had on what constitutes a “tie”. The Founding Fathers never intended a two-man race. They required a majority in the EC so that clearly popular figures (say, General Washington or Ronald Reagan) could be chosen by the people, but they expected most elections to be decided in the House.

Considering that most vote-counting systems have a margin of error of 3-5%, that means that many state results are statistical ties anyway and the results are bullshit

There is something seductive about this argument; and certainly something pragmatic. With all of the, shall we say, interesting pre-election antics we've seen this season his assertion does follow the "If it's close they can't cheat" vein.

The seductive answer is to simply require more than a simple majority of the electoral college to determine the presidency. However it cannot be much of a super majority or the American public would disregard it as undemocratic. So making it the upper bound of 5% based on Aaron's margin of error argument the successful candidate would need some 296 electoral votes to make him the mandate.

If this had been in place in 2000 it may have saved some of the particular theatrics that revolved around Florida as regardless who had carried the state the issue would have been decided by the House. Unfortunately, due Unionized Education, the very fact that it landed in the House at all would likely have caused a greater stir on the principle of the "unfairness" of the concept. Either way, that would have negated any problem with vote fraud in Florida specifically.

Unfortunately, in the same election and assuming Gore carried the state, the 5% MOE presumption could have switched any of the smaller states from Gore's column to Bush's and thus cost Gore a clean victory under the same 55% majority premise.

Thus it is safe to say that the margin of error problem is not one of the electoral college per se rather than one of how the States choose their electors. The larger question is whether the method by which States choose and apportion their electors should be their choice or one made at the Federal level.

Update:

The previous argument is based on the presumption that the electoral college remains. If regionality was not a factor of the presidential election then the simple solution is to toss it to the house if the result is a statiscal tie. (Spread within the MOE).

right of way

2004-10-31T13:59:00.000-07:00

One of the problems with Austrian style economics and property rights thought is the nature of a public commodity. Now I grant that the Austrians are by and large correct with much of their argumentation; but lacking sometimes is an acknowledgement that not everything can be shoehorned that way. A perfect example of such is the concept of private roadways.

The thought goes that privately owned and maintained roadways would be preferable to government solutions on the matter as the owner would have incentive to maintain their property in a much more fitting manner than a beauracracy. I also grant that this is largely true.

But I have yet to see a not so subtle problem addressed. What happens when the access to your house is owned by someone else? This is not an improper question as such occurances would be reasonably common if one were to have such a society as the Austrians declare fit. Indeed, such issues come up frequently under the current scheme when ever private roadways are encountered.

Under the current scheme the general concept is that you cannot block usage to anothers house. The courts may force the owner of the roadway to allow access and the may likewise force a share of the financial burden of upkeep on the other party. But under the Austrian concepts the rights of property ownership are inviolable. Should the owner of the roadway, needing no other reason than capriciousness, choose to bar access he way do so; trapping the occupents inside their property or barring them from entry.

However, under this concept the homeowner has no recourse in the matter. Now any good Austrian will tell you that the homeowners made a foolish choice in purchasing the property they did without getting a contract on the road usage. Therefore it would be unreasonable to intercede on the part of ignorance. While I concede that such is a proper answer it is not a panacea.

Firstly, let us make the assumption that we have always had an Austrian society to skip the thorny "can't get there from here" issue. What possible failures do we have to account for?

1.) It is foolish to believe that this circumstance would not arise in practice and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Under this guise a malicious roadowner could simply bar access to property he desires for the purpose of destroying the value of that property. Under an Austrian system however this systematic attack on property value could not be addressed as the roadowner has in no way altered or violated the property in any way.

The standard objection would be that the foolish property owner should have simply gone elsewhere in the first place thus avoiding this problem entirely. I don't accept this objection but I will address it.

2.) The property owner should have purchased a more suitable property. However, in a world of total private property ownership it is entirely within the realm of reason that the prospective property owner would be barred from travelling to a more suitable location due the denial of access to properties they require to traverse in the midst such as a privately owned beltway. In the case of a beltway there is simply no reasonable manner by which others can act on a profit motive to allow passage of those inside the beltway.

Now an objection would be that we have the allowance of aircraft to migrate people across the beltway without violating the roadowner's property rights. But that operates under the presumption that the roadowner does not also own the air corridor above the beltway. This objection simply does not allow for the possibilities at hand. (I leave as an exercise why the issue of underground property ownership need not lie with the roadowner to make this circumstance also unfeasible.)

In these two simple cases we have accidentally engineered rent-seeking into the system with disastrous effect. While we may grant that some privately owned roadway's are benign, it is intractable that all roadways should be privately held in the sense of inviolate right to property.

Now a more Rothbardian approach would grant that this rent-seeking behaviour would be disallowed (in some circumstances) based on the detracted value of the property that is cut off. Discarding pragmatic reasoning and staying with principles the general concept is that the roadowner is responsible for the reduction in the property values by his indirect interacting with the property. While this will not cover the gamut of possibilities that can be raised it need not as one simple example will show that this concept is still flawed.

Taking the assumption that the road-owner charges a toll, if he should raise the toll then he has negatively effected the value of the other properties. This effectively bars the roadowner from exercising his property rights as he cannot alter the fee without infringing others of their property rights.

Under the strict property ownership rule of Austrian thought private roadway's are simply fallacious. Nor would the general conception of roadways as a natural resource suffice to address this issue. Now I may be missing some fundamental concept of Austrian thought that would rectify this issue but I am unaware of it. Though as the problem of private roadways are framed as an absolute ownership issue it should not effect the argument here, but would be useful in laying out the possible solutions more properly.

ignorance be thy creed

2004-10-31T02:15:00.000-07:00

Now don't mistake me for being against upfront disclosure, but this is absolutely assinine:

How can users avoid spyware?

For one, they should read licensing agreements that come with free software. Many will name programs that tag along. For more details on what such programs do, try typing their names into a search engine or a spyware database like SpywareGuide.com's.

You know, when the EULA states - "We will replace critical components of your operating system with pieces of code that were internally developed by a 12 year old on Ritalin" - you should rethink the necessity of whatever piece of crap software you just picked up. If you can't bother to read the fine print on something so ultimately inconsequential as a screensaver, why should anyone pity you for making a truly egregious error? You know, like not being able to read a feakin' ballot?

Granted some spyware comes in through security flaws that are exploited by the authors, but I'm not speaking to that. For the honest bits, that actually declare what havok they are about to indulge on your one single lifeline to humanity, is it too much to ask that you read the license? Nevermind. If these people can't read a ballot they certainly cannot be assed to read about what a random piece of software is going to do with their credit card.

dawn of the dead

2004-10-30T22:44:00.000-06:00

I don't mean to be a ghoul, but the sooner Arafat gets out of the way of Palestinian politics the better. When Arafat either dies or decides to actually hold elections the Palestinian people will finally start down the path to self determination. Either happenstance is absolutely critical to furthering the cause of peace and prosperity. Currently it's Arafat vs. Israel and Israel vs. Arafat. One man or a whole country has to change to make any headway in the state of affairs near Galilee. Rightly or wrongly that puts the good money on Arafat's bowing out being the deciding factor.

So here's to you Yassir! Die quickly or bow out gracefully. Either one will be to the benefit of your people you struggled so hard for by killing innocent civilians elsewhere.

livestock ethics

2004-10-30T22:02:00.000-06:00

This is worth considering:

Back to the article, a woman has regained much of her sight because of a fetal tissue transplant. This tissue comes from a child that was aborted. The mother gave her consent. I don't find it objectionable for a parent to give consent for a child that has died. What I find appalling is to allow the rights of consent to a person who was the cause of that child's death. It's just not right.

The utter repugnancy of this concept needs to be driven into all pro-abortionists with an 8 pound sledge and a wooden stake. Perhaps that was a little strong. Let me try again. I am thrilled that this poor, blind woman was able to kill her child to regain some small portion of her failing eyesight. Is that better?

In no uncertain terms combining fetal stem cell tissue therapy with abortion is enough to make even Dr. Frankenstein cring at the sheer lack of ethics. Ultimately, this is my largest issue with stem cell research. For stem cell treatments to be effective they require "your" stem cells.

If you cannot get your own adult stem cells yet - no problem! Just intentioinally create, with malice aforethought, an innocent babe for the purpose of slaughter so you can benefit for the sake of your convenience or cosmetics. When some pro-abortionist bastard has enough balls to state that they would euthanise the poor for the sake of harvesting organs I'll admit their sincerity. Until that day comes Glenn Reynolds, and the rest of the pro abortive fetal tissue crowds are being dishonest.

There is no reason to use "your" stem cells by intentionally creating and destroying and innocent life that is not your own, when your (properly) adult stem cells are just as useful. But hey, I brought you into the world, I can take you out and make another one just like you! (To paraphrase)

i'm gonna be ill

2004-10-30T21:32:00.000-06:00

Following up from my last post. Bane provides an interesting piece on what went wrong with the flu vaccine. It's well written and tame, so I won't spoil the punchline by quoting it here. Go read.

glass house

2004-10-30T13:39:00.000-06:00

You know how Americans always mock the nationalization of Canada's health care by pointing at all the good citizens of the Maple Leaf State come south for service? Well...

Cruise operator, Victoria Clipper, started offering flu shot cruises to Canada for Americans desperate to get their vaccine soon after it was announced that the USA had lost 48% of its flu vaccine doses.

Turn about is fair play, though I don't expect to see many Cannucks crowing the point.

october surprise

2004-10-30T09:20:00.000-06:00

I've long expected that Osama and friends were saving/mustering resources for an October surprise - or more likely a post election one - to sway the elections. What did we get instead?

CRONKITE: Indeed. Indeed. And the thing that in bringing this threat to us, there is almost, in the fact that he dressed well, that he looked well, he was clean shaven, nearly clean shaven as those folks get. It seemed almost, to me, that he wanted to enter into negotiations, that he was really up -- he wants to move into a leadership role in international affairs instead of the role of a brigand.

He managed to save up for a fresh turban? Oh, the humanity.

(Via: Instapundit)

real news

2004-10-30T01:06:00.000-06:00

When the "professional" interest pushers take their weekly vacation you can always count on brevity to carry the day.

A balanced Cannuck strikes again; and a Snowball's Chance to keep it interesting.

surprises

2004-10-29T23:37:00.000-06:00

While the Libertarians continue their screed of the ultimate cloneness of the 2 major parties I would like to point something out. Now granted this is not a formalistic proof but it does provide a good indicator for the differences between the parties. Take a look at the Econ-E scores for senators and representatics of both parties:

Representatives
DNC
Average: 20.1
Mean: 17.4
Std Deviation: 10.4

GOP:
Average: 54.2
Mean: 52.2
Std Deviation: 14.4

Senators
DNC
Average: 40.3
Mean: 41.0
Std Deviation: 10.7

GOP
Average: 68.7
Mean: 68.3
Std Deviation: 9.8

Before continuing that the score is on the basis of economic efficiency; that is, that over 50 means increasing economic efficiency and less than 50 the opposite (A spot check verifies that the "correct" votes tendered were in accordance with the famed Mises). These stats were pulled from the 106th and 107th Congresses.

For even the most illiterate Tax Evader it can be seen that the GOP is still headed in the "right" direction despite the fact that they are simply not moving fast enough for good Tax Evader sensibilities. This does not support the argument that voting for either major party is a vote for more Socialism. In fact it shows that voting for the "Right-wing" 3rd parties is a vote for more Socialism.

Do I really think the Tax Evaders will listen? Not at all. Their blinders are on and their racing for the barn. Though frankly, it did surprise me as I thought they were right. I thought that it was not a question of more Socialism, but rather how much more. Instead it appears that for more Liberty/less Socialism the GOP is still the begrudging choice for now. Unless you prefer your blinders to the truth, naturally. Hi ho Silver, Away!

soothsayer

2004-10-29T04:25:00.000-06:00

How about this guy?

Eight months before the White House appointed him the Homeland Security Department’s top intelligence official, retired U.S. Army Gen. Patrick M. Hughes told a public forum at Harvard last year that the government would have to “abridge individual rights” and take domestic security measures “not in accordance with our values and traditions” to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

Read the article for the rest, but the boy is quite right. It all hinges on the trading of security for Liberty. An old adage that is well remembered at this time.

right on cue

2004-10-29T03:31:00.000-06:00

Well that didn't take long at all. Without the impending flash of serendipity this Joker says:

In past presidential elections we have been promised a New Deal, a Fair Deal, and a Great Society. But what we got was politics as usual. In fact, the majority of our presidential elections have not significantly improved things, except for certain special groups, who vote as a bloc. Other than that, the only significant change was in the size of government, which grew larger. Obviously, we shouldn’t expect the results of the current presidential election to be any different.

...

My decision to vote for a third party has caused consternation among some of my acquaintances, even those who seem to have given up on Democrats and Republicans. They tell me I am wasting my vote. The Constitution Party can’t possibly win the election. I agree that the Constitution Party can’t win this election but I am not wasting my vote. I am helping sow the seeds for a future election, possibly the next one.

You might think that reality might hit him in the eyes. Blocs get power. Alternate parties are tools; as I said just yesterday. It's much more fun when they don't contradict themselves.

highest bidder

2004-10-29T03:10:00.000-06:00

Is it possible to sell your Rights? No, scratch that - it is. Rather, should it be possible to sell your rights?

This is a concept that comes up regularly when dealing with contracts. You can see it regularly among Libertarian arguments. You know, the folks that are so prissy on the concept of Rights. Now that doesn't mean that they're alone in this matter as most parties go along with that concept. But how can you concede what cannot be taken away?

What part of inalienable is beyond the ken of these folks? (I grant that I have special derision for any Tax Evader that makes this argument.) Inalienable. Inalterable. Non tranferrable. Permanent for all time. Not for sale for any price. Beyond the reach of mortal man. Endowed by their Creator.

The concept that you can sell your Rights as swiftly as you could sell a mule is surely the most offensive of concepts in America. If it were possible to transfer your Rights as if they were property of no more importance than a Kewpie doll then what it is the point?

Inalienable.

Does everyone get that? By the mere allowance that it can be sold it then becomes a mere privelege. Something to be bartered and frittered away. Something granted by your blessed overlords. A scrap granted to you.

Rights are not priveleges. They are not properties. They are Rights and they are inalienable. They are beyond the reach of Socialists and Anarchists both. No ideology that doesn't take this to its core has a place in America.

harsh words

2004-10-29T02:41:00.000-06:00

For all the complaints that the UN is ineffective and just backs up words with more words, dottering Kofi can't even manage a couple stern words when that at least is called for:

A senior UN official was cleared of sexual harassment earlier this year because the secretary general rejected the verdict of an internal watchdog.

High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers, 65, a former Dutch prime minister, escaped censure in July when Kofi Annan dismissed a complaint.

I guess Lubbers hadn't passed the global test.

lies, damn lies, and partisans

2004-10-28T16:54:00.000-06:00

Something smells in a report pointed out to us by the eminent Lew Rockwell.

The claim?

That deaths per 1000 people per year in Iraq (Exluding outliers like Fallujah - proper, BTW) went from 5 before the invasion to 7.9 since. Those Imperialist Crusader Bushitler Bastards!

But wait. Excluding infant mortality the same rate in the US in 2001 was a record low of 8.5! This stinks worse than literacy rates in Cuba.

Knowing that Lew is a paragon that could hardly be compared to a partisan moonbat we must assume his hokum meter is flat broke. But the lead researcher of the report?:

Les Roberts, the lead researcher from Johns Hopkins, said the article's timing was up to him.

"I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election," Roberts told The Asocciated Press. "My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives," Roberts said. "As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this."

Given that his stats haven't reached the level - excluding outliers - of the US normally and given that his infant mortality rates pre-war disagree with everyone else while his post-war mortality rates agree quite well with everyone else's prewar estimates I feel quite safe in calling this jackass a partisan number-fiddling fraud.

self neutering

2004-10-28T15:57:00.000-06:00

This came up in a recent discussion. Is voting for a 3rd party simply being a useful idiot for the GOP or DNC?

It would seem pretty clearly that that is the case as voting Libertarian is no functionally different than voting for Kerry and voting Green is likewise no different than a vote for Bush. Further as the GOP and DNC leverage third parties to harm their opponent it seems pretty clear cut that "useful idiot" is a more appropriate handle to apply than "voting on principle".

Now I am in no way, shape, of form a fan of the insane regulations that can be found that limit and frustrate the emergence of alternate parties; but the question is if alternate parties do anything to serve their members.

There is a very simple distinction that delineates everything else: Does an alternate party act like a political party or a political caucus? Do they appoint or back a candidate?

If an alternate party puts forward their own candidate they ensure their own irrelevance and give the greatest aid and comfort to their ideological opposites. As the ideological opposites will then help that party to further their rightfully selfish agenda then the alternate party has indeed become a useful idiot.

However, if an alternate party recognizes its own current irrelevance and acts as a caucus by backing either one of the mainstream candidates they both defuse their use as an opposition tool and gain greater pull with those closer to their ideology. There is simply no other credible way that a 3rd party can gain relevance without sacrificing their own principles.

Now certainly, some will argue that voting for Nader, Peroutka or Badnarik is the height of being principled but that is simply not the case. It is the heighth of petulance of pomposity however and shows an utter lack of ability for a 3rd party adherent to show their credentials as a statesman capable of compromise and discourse. It exhibits the fact that they are not serious contenders. It shows the fact that they are simply utopian screechers.

Remember you are not casting your vote for for your benefit. You are casting your vote for your Neighbor's benefit. So vote for Nader if you agree with the Republicans in general but won't vote for Bush. Or vote one of Peroutka or Badnarik if you sympathise with the Democrats but can't stomach Kerry. And next time around, all you 3rd party adherents, beg the party to help establish its relevancy and the worth of your vote by acting responsibly, by acting like a caucus.

good 'ol abe

2004-10-28T13:03:00.000-06:00

Was honest Abe's hat fashion or marketing?

I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama’s well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty’s afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me

Read the LA Weekly article if you need a description of the slang. Doug Ireland, the author of the article (quasi book review) considers this the "most explicit literary reference to actual homosexual relations in 19th-century America" So?

In a year in which those who claim Lincoln as their political progenitor are trying to introduce a ban on recognition of same-sex love into the Constitution that Lincoln loved so much and defended so well ... , it seemed to me that the voters had an overriding right to know how, in doing so, the Republicans and their Christian-right allies are wounding the martyr-president squarely in his heart of hearts.

Already Andrew Sullivan thinks "This is going to become a major controversy". Go figure.

The only reason they think this should be a controversy is because they still cling tightly to a romanticized view of Lincoln. A man who wrote a proposed amendment defending slavery long before it was outlawed. A man who's greatest concern, in his own words, was to preserve the union at all costs. Including keeping/outlawing slavery, keeping/outlawing civil rights though peaceful/militant methods. Anything was fair game so long as Lincoln didn't lose PR points or power.

To add to the batch that he played the mouth harp is hardly illuminating. In fact, if one takes account of the strong correlation between homosexuals and statists it is even less impressive. Lincoln still remains a man who would say or do anything for the simple act of retaining the pageantry of his nationalism, much like another clamed, famed queer known as Adolf.

(Courtesy of Ann Althouse filling in for Instapundit)

1110100011101110110100101110100

2004-10-27T14:50:00.000-06:00

Via Bane comes yet another example of self hypocrisy: (Make sure you read the fisk Bane links - this is just loose ends)

Just look at politics. Thanks to the Net and the so-called New Media, the entire political scene has become one massive virtual Hyde Park corner filled with kvetching, squabbling bores. ... The best example of this is the recent sniping over the fabled George Bush memos in which he was told to take a military physical in 1972. It seemed as if the letter could not have been written on a 1972 typewriter but was some sort of hoax. The two political beehives swarmed over this, making all sorts of accusations against anyone who even suggested that their side might be wrong.

New-Media? His celebrity status as a hack zine scribbler must have blocked Dan Rather from his mind for 60 minutes. Twit.

Rather than benefit from intelligent debate, the public is subjected to a lot of bickering fanned by the Internet.

Which is completely different than Rather did, or Dvorak is trying to do at this moment. Twit.

I used to think that everyone was entitled to his opinion, but no longer.

Drive a Ferrari, do you? Twit.

Most opinions are worthless.

That's because you can't make 6 digits a year off them anymore. Puditry is now a service industry. You have been outsourced to 15 year olds. Twit.

As a culture, we are trained never to believe or say that opinions are worthless.

I think his opinion is worthless - what the fuck is his point? Twit.

Before the Internet, these opinions would have been handed out in leaflet form to just a few people unlucky enough to bump into their purveyors. But now they're on the Net, accompanied by miles of commentary written by people who are frustrated pamphleteers themselves.

Good Lord! We've gone from foisting dead trees on folks to letting them make a choice! Oh, the humanity! Twit.

When you see someone on the street handing out a flyer, it is usually not hard to determine whether he or she is a lunatic. Not so with the haughty blogger who, by hiding behind a good online template, is actually taken seriously.

The clothes make the argument after all... Twit.

Saying from behind a false identity what one otherwise wouldn't dare say is a practice that began long ago, and blogging has just made it worse.

See that's funny; in real life I chase Marines out of a bar in under a minute. Here I'm actually polite because there might be children watching. Twit.

This is the New Media at work, creating false personas that are pumped up by other phonies.

Quoth a talking head. 1110100011101110110100101110100.

goat milk?

2004-10-27T13:09:00.001-06:00

Well the names fit. Courtesy of Drudge is a choice nugget of bile from yet another masked goat-fucker:

US intelligence officials believe the man on tape may be Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman, a California native who was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks.

So what's his plan?

The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead.

Either he's bringing the French with him, or he's unleashing the homeless of LA.

I'll let this moonbat introduce a bit of his past; his torturous upbringing that turned him into a slobbering fool:

I grew up on an extremely rural goat ranch in Western Riverside County, California, where my family raises on average 150 to 200 animals for milk, cheese, and meat. My father is a halal butcher [a butcher who slaughters in an Islamic manner -ed.] and supplies to an Islamic Food Mart a few blocks from the Islamic Center in downtown Los Angeles.

Why is it always goats?

(Via Instapundit and Feces Flinging Monkey)

tax evaders gone wild

2004-10-27T13:09:00.000-06:00

More on When Libertrians Attack! Well, they don't really: "You were not attacked by a Libertarian. There are no Libertarians in Bagdad. There are no Libertarians forcing regulation. May those imposters stomachs be boiled in the hell of their own bile."

I won't even bother quoting the Tax Evader gone round the end as it's shorter to simply paraphrase him:

- Install mandatory private health insurance
- It will reduce costs
- It will ensure everyone without punishing the poor
- It won't stifle economic innovation

Way to go with rent control numbnuts. I mocked mandatory health care brainlessness recently and nothing has changed since then. If you make it mandatory it is:

a. Regressive - de facto punishment of the poor
b. Still nationalized
c. Will further force up medical inflation (see b.)
d. Will stifle innovation (see b.)

Unless! - You cap the price for services, see John Jefferson Kerry's numbnuts plan that this moonbat is screaming about in the first place.

Not only have the Donks gone completely bonkers on the impending doom of a second Bush presidency - so have the Libertarians. I can hardly tell which is which anymore.

whither america

2004-10-27T10:57:00.000-06:00

Which Constitution does America use? Does it have the first 13th Amendment? How about the current 13th Amendment? What about the 14th? 16th?

If you take the argument that the original 13th Amendment was never ratified properly due a lack of existing documentation to that fact - despite prima facia evidence that it was by published Viginia Law books on record at the Library of Congress - and that it was simply dropped many years after the fact then how does one then justify the 16th still existing on the books? No matter how you cop it they both stay or they both go. Read the original 13th and refresh yourself on the 16th and see why the Powers That Be have little interest in fixing any hypocrisy on this count.

But should you take the argument that by the time Virgina ratified the Amendment there were 4 new states in the union, thus failing the needed number of states, that have failed to answer the issue and as such it would fail the test of democracy then how do you justify the undemocratic methods to shoehorn through the current 13th and 14th Amendments during the Reconstruction of the South? Again, no matter which way you take it they all go or stay. Small wonder still why the Powers That Be would fix this one either.

Come this next Independence Day I should hope to find a roll of toilet tissue with the Constitution and all Amendments - including the original 13th - printed on it. That way I can mail one to each of my Congressmen, Senators and the President whoever he may be then with a nice thank you note.

maintenance

2004-10-26T03:50:00.000-06:00

Stop wating time here and read a fellow that is sensible enough to qualify as a professional journalist. (The bonafide kind versus the lacky kind.)

blogclub

2004-10-26T03:36:00.000-06:00

1st rule of BlogClub: Do not use pseudonyms as some picky gits haven't read the Federalist Papers yet.
2nd rlue of BlogClub: Always pander to the blogfather or be linkless.
3rd rule of BlogClub: Only Pajamas as noone wants sticky keys.
4th rule of BlogClub: Do not bring an ass to a brain fight.
5th rule of BlogClub: Be brutal or be seen as a pansy.
6th rule of BlogClub: Be partisan or be seen as a waffler.
7th rule of BlogClub: Make if short, because if you do not come under the fabled 15 second rule, the attention span of the MTV generation, will be violated causing your viewers to find entertainment that is more respectful of their time - which I might add is typically worth $5.15 an hour, a relative pittance, as they are typically lazy, unschooled, unemployed, or house parents - meaning of course that they believe their time is valueless and wasted on spending a whole 30 seconds to learn something novel or factual from the likes of you - who is likely also unschooled, unemploted or a house parent to be able to devote the time necessary to carp endlessly on the web - which noone cares about anyways so why do you bother spemding 5 minutes on a post that 3 people will read for less than 15 seconds before writing you out of their life as a total buzzkill and then proceed to flip on the TV to watch something important like Roswell on SCIFI.

Lastly, don't use FightClub stereotypes - it just pisses people off.

UPDATE:

Inspired by: Politburo Diktat (Spacibo) and remember - friends don't let friends Blog drunk (Unless it's your shtick).

moonbat lew

2004-10-26T03:05:00.000-06:00

WARNING: Cursing follows.

Right off the rails. Full on wonkers. Fully self deluded. Let me demonstrate:

In the weeks before the election, with the usual partisan hysteria becoming ever more intense, public intellectuals are ripping off the mask of principle to come out in favor of one or the other candidate.

Yes, the almighty Purism should always triumph over the here and now. It's a Libertarian Tradmark dontcha know?

Typically, many libertarians are throwing their support behind Bush, and on the usual grounds that he is better than a hypothetical alternative.

Those bastards dare to place hope in reality!? Those Bastards!

Even in a solitary, dark, 5'x5' prison cell there is something worse: the wardens could stop delivery of porridge once a day.

Yes, of course. We should all vote for getting out of prison - despite there being no chance of it - thus ensuring we get no porridge at all. Because, among only those two options, if we voted for prison we would be sell-outs. And if we voted for no porridge we would be insane. So because there is no chance of getting out of prison if we should vote for continued rations we are? Insane. Those Bastards!

But that is no argument for believing in the system, or ceasing to try to find a way out of it.

No porridge should get you in about 3 weeks, Dumbass.

To love one's captors and appreciate their favors is a psychosis, but one that gains a mass following in the weeks before a presidential election.

And starving oneself to death is not deeper psychosis? Those Bastards! As an aside - seriously - how can such Luminaries of the Libertarian Liberators spout on so without having at least the most feeble amount of brass to make a call for arms to throw down Tyranny. This is a pretty simple concept really. Either there is a chance to save America from itself by voting sensibly - which Lib Lums such as this say is impossible - or exercise the 2nd Amendment to its fullest and go the Mr. Wilkes trail to enlightenment.

Skip in the moonbat track...

One thinks of all the great philosophers, scientists, and artists who have thrown their support behind a terrible despot. They had a million reasons for doing so. But it always ends up diminishing them.

Yeah, like helping Stalin toss out Hitler. That was a real fucking disaster wasn't it? Those Bastards!

Third, there is no reason to believe that a Kerry victory would necessarily result in something worse than a Bush victory.

You know, every single Tax Evader that can say spew this pap with a straight face deserves a jackboot in the posterior pucker. Yes, the Right has lurched Left. In response the Left lurched Left - witness the Dissembler/Trial Lawyer (I repeat myself) ticket the Donks are running. So more Socialism is no worse than less Socialism? Are you blind!? Those Bastards!

Skipping spew...

With a Republican Congress, and a stock market deeply suspicious of an anti-industry president, it might have ended in four years of blessed gridlock instead of the wild ride of the lunatics who currently hold office.

Now recently I harped on stability being part and parcel of the fairness of governance regardless all other claims. But after this spew by the mighty Lew, he harps on the lack of stability? The Lew that would screw the stability by preferring to elect radicals over moderate changes? Never you mind... Those Bastards!

Skipping more spew, though not as inaccurate a spew as before, for the fun part...

The Democrats are easier to steamroll, and so the Republicans in power are able to get away with more.

A great piece of Lew Spew here. The Donks who play to base animalistic emotion are easier to steamroll than the Pubs who play on disciplined principle (regardless of whether they carry through or not). Makes perfect sense. Black is White. Human is Animal. And so on. Those Bastards!

Either party with full power is a terrible danger, but with two parties battling it out, we stand a greater chance of victory for the individual.

Right after he (skipped spew) said that one is no different than the other. "They are the same so don't worry which gets power, it won't be the endtimes. But if one gets power it will be the end times". Ignorance is Strength, Indeed. Those Bastards!

Somehow the mix seems more advantageous to our long-run interests when the Democrats hold executive power and the Republicans hold legislative.

True colors show at last. Thanks for letting us know you are no more than a useful idiot Lew. You Bastard.

There is nothing a priori great about such arrangements. This observation comes about by observing history, and it could change.

If history guides the way it is a priori you mindless fuck. But then, you have revealed yourself as a Socialist Apparatchik already so I don't imagine you, or anyone else, is surprised you Bastard.

Skipping more spew to get to the hardcore mindlessness....

The Democrats are the party of government, with the owners consisting of mostly public sector employees and their dependents. ... [skipping drivel] ... As the most direct owners of the state, they have the strongest interest in its health and well-being.

erm... Lew? Rocket to Mars boarding now. If the previous moonbattery he has spit in his column is to believed; or if you buy into the wholesale Libertarian argument then Lew has just shat over the most holy of Minarchist principle: That which is the state is the Mark of the Beast. Of course they have the strongest interest in making it run well you fucking simian. Note to Lew: This is covered under the Libertarian screed where alkl government is bad and kills its citizens. Geez, you would think a luminary could keep up with the pace of topics that haven't changed in three decades.

The Republicans in contrast are the party of the private sector and the government contractors.

Yes! Good monkey... Love the private...

Their primary interest is in getting their hands in the pot that belongs to the government.

D'oh! Bad monkey! Those bastards!

Skipping a minor piece of phlegm...

Remember the scenes in the first weeks after the Iraq invasion when American soldiers were stealing and abusing everything in sight? That's Republicans when they capture the executive branch.

This again? If the Libertarians are for Truth and they spout nefarious Lies, what does that make them? Those Bastards! BBC and AFP don't provide "Fair and Balanced" Lew. But then you already knew that didn't you?

So a pattern has been established. The Democrats arrive with two agendas: clean up the public sector and make it work better ... [pap skipped]

So much for expecting Lew to pay attention. Work better Indeed.

Under Democrats, despite an ambitious agenda, we get a host of small fixes designed to shore up the status quo: more balanced budgets, Clinton's welfare reform, Gore's "Reinventing Government," Carter's deregulation, and the like. After this, the Republicans arrive in town and work to unbalance the budget, pass out cash to the military and corporate world, reconfigure the tax system to benefit Republican voters, and pass edicts to help old-line industrialists and banking interests.

This one briefly because I tire of spitting on Comrades. Ambitious agenda? Yes - see Waco. Small fixes? Yes - See Hillary Health Care (D'oh). Balanced budgets? See Congress passes budgets you fucking idiot. Welfare reform? See Republican "Conract With America" you fucking idiot. Shall I go on? RumpelLewStiltskin seems to have been asleep at the moonbat switch.

Skipping more feckless twaddle...

The Republicans are best out of power.

Sieg Heil, Mein Lew! Those Bastards!

Finally there is the fear of bad judges. ... [skipped valid, for once, points]

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Many bad things would happen under a President Kerry. But many horrible things have happened under the Bush presidency. This is a regime that has exploded government power at a pace I hoped we would never see again.

It is much better that we take an unknown that is Left of Bush, who is Left (That Bastard!) of Clinton that stick with less Socialism than we have. What a fucking moron.

Just once I would like to see one of the Bush supporters write something like:

Let me skip the crap that he shites all over the World Wide Web and let me tell you what I would like to see the supporters of Badnarik write:

We don't have enough nut in our sack to come clean and demand that America be overthrown by force by the most holy of Amendments, the 2nd, and install a Socialist Utopia whereby we may partake of the maple, and the wheat, and the bunnies at which time we will no longer need the 2nd as you will be dominated by your Progressive Intellectual Superiors! Bow to you overlord, you Bastards!

PS: This is not meant to impugn all Libertarians as some are merely Anarchists.

trees for the forest

2004-10-26T02:08:00.000-06:00

If you are not reading Filibuster Cartoons you really should be.

lying liars and...

2004-10-26T01:49:00.000-06:00

Oh well, I agree with Joe on this one:

While I hate to admit it, I have to agree with the Daily Kos on this one. This story won’t matter.

Everyone expects politicians to lie. The only surprise is that Kerry is so danged bad at it (Yo Donks, does this support the IQ hypothesis?).

When the Donks cry that Bush lied - whether he did or not - everyone shrugs their shoulders. When the Pubs cry that Kerry lied - usually plain as day - everyone shrugs their shoulders. It all gets as much reaction out of non-partisans as telling them that the sky is blue.

You want to disturb the populus? Show how your candidate was telling the truth. Of course if you do, you will lose voters for the simple reason that you defied their expectations. Marketing jazz and all that.

Everyone wants their Hack to be dishonest for that is what they expect.

If you really want to swing votes and motivate the base you need to play to those things that violate the Common Wisdom and Common Etiquette - like how Cheney's daughter is a Lilly Licker That Couldn't Score With A Giraffe or how Kerry's wife is an Appartheid Hooch Sucker To Rival W.C. Fields.

That'll really get 'em going.

fall colors

2004-10-23T22:55:00.000-06:00

Via The Daily Recycler comes a rather disturbing/amusing video of O'Donnel doin' ye ol' shoutdown.

Then there's the case of the GOP campaign headquarter break-ins. Too many to keep track of them all at this point.

The newest bit being the intimidation campaigns being waged at the early vote polling booths.

Despite all the prevarication on the thought that the GOP was getting into the shady tactics of the brownshirts; it seems instead that the DNC's adherents have finally learned a little history and gone full bore with SA thuggery. Right down to the propaganda.

It is instructive to note that while the Watergate and Floridagate scandals, while of much less severity or frequency, got so much endless press that finding current information is much like finding the end of the rainbow. Yet despite the near silence by professional journalists, who know what news is best for you, this news still gets out a trickle at a time. And while there have been perpetrators from both major parties the overwhelming number of them are sympathetic with the DNC.

Yes, the new fall colors are in, and they are brown.

holding a grudge

2004-10-23T09:10:00.000-06:00

Ebert is a whackjob:

The movie, set in Japan but starring mostly American actors, has been remade by Takashi Shimizu from his original Japanese version. It loses intriguing opportunities to contrast American and Japanese cultures, alas, by allowing everyone to speak English; I was hoping it would exploit its locations and become ``Lost, Eviscerated and Devoured in Translation.''

Drat, no anti-Amercian screed to make this movie worthwhile to him. Interestingly, his incessant whining about the movie, which is nominally supposed to be a review, gives a great contrast. From his description alone it sounds like a pretty stock standard Japanese ghost story (Groovy) which he apparently missed in his angst and befuddlement. Once again the a torch bearer of the multicultural left parodies himself.

justice is blinded

2004-10-23T08:46:00.000-06:00

No bias here?

A federal judge in Toledo, James Carr, ruled against Blackwell, ordering that votes cast in the right county -- but wrong precinct -- should count. And last week, when the issue went to an appeals court, Carr chastised Blackwell for not giving instructions to local election officials on how to handle provisional ballots.

Blackwell ''apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000,'' the judge wrote.

This is getting beyond idiotic. Blackwell, a Republican, was part and parcel of tossing Nader off the ballot. Now Carr, a federal judge, tars him with the Dem talking point for vote theft and voter disenfranchisement. Who's the partisan hack here?

Well, maybe both of them:

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell told a Clermont County audience Thursday he'd rather go to jail than follow a federal judge's order that he rescind his instruction that Ohio poll workers not allow out-of-precinct voters to cast provisional ballots.

But there is a valid concern over this point as allowing a vote in the wrong precinct screws with the local elections. So how does that square with Carr's statement that "If even a single vote is lost due to the failure to implement (the law), that loss alone is irreparable"? It doesn't. In fact allowing out of precinct provisional ballot voting simply allows for a rampant loss of votes. And fraud in the presidential election of course.

Both Blackwell and Carr may be appratchik's but to Blackwell's credit he seems to be the only one concerned with limiting fraud, ensuring efficiacy and protecting the voting Rights of Ohio's citizenry in ways both favorable and unfavorable to his chosen political party. But Carr, a federal judge of all things, seems more comfortable in Tammany Hall than in the Halls of Justice. Here's hoping for Ohioans that Blackwell's appeal of Carr's idiocy is successful.

gadzooks

2004-10-22T08:14:00.000-06:00

Man, I'm getting punchy. The worst in life is when your hours are more flexible than you are.

note to all meddlers

2004-10-22T08:02:00.000-06:00

So you want to help out with health insurance and its costs? You have an itching desire to scream, stamp, and demand that the government regulate something - anything - to fix your nagging nanny need? Have I got the cause for you. Free for a limited time at no cost.

Let's talk about the hidden costs of health care. The burden on the poor and the economy. (All data taken from this report and from the year of our Marxist Lord 2000 and 3.)

The BLS reports the per employee hour cost of employer provided health insurance to be $1.71, even if the employee doesn't use it. But that's based on the money spent averaged across all workers whether insured or not. The report I'm using for reference cites the percentage insured as 45% and normalizes the cost to $3.80 per employee hour, but I assure you it is sheer lunacy to do so, so we'll stick with the BLS number.

So what you say? Why do I care? Well, for any state or region that mandates health insurance or for any evil coporatist pig that inflicts employer provided health care on their employees this is nothing more than a tax upon the beknighted worker. Is it a fair tax? Not at all.

For the sake of argument we will reject all flat, progressive and regressive taxes such as State income, FUTA, Worker's Comp, Unemployment, Medicare, and FICA. Instead we'll simply see what a mockery these capitalist running dogs make of our wonderfully progressive progressive (that's not a typo) Federal income tax.

We'll look at the plight of Joe Lowbrow - a man of little remark - unattractive, unsophisticated, overweight, and unsurprisingly single and childless. What is the percentage of income tax he pays compared to his total gross income after he struggles through the 1040 EZ form for the third time? Depends on his income bless the Tax Brackets. In a smooth progression from $5.15 per hour to $20 he pays from 2.7% to 12.7%.

But only if we ignore the societal cost inflicted by employer provided health insurance. What evil besets us when, if the sense of good sport we make the numbers as favorable as possible for our capitalist oppressors, we account for the hidden "tax" the outright theft of Mr. Lowbrows income to line the pockets of the evil Pharmacom industry?

Why it all goes backwards! Now instead of Mr. Lowbrow charitably helping the plight of the less fortunate as his income grows, he helps himself! His percentage of income goes from 27% at the Federal minimum wage down to a paltry 19.5%. As Joe Lowbrow gets richer he. gets. richer. On the backs of the minimum wage slaves.

But there's a cure. There's hope yet for the plight of the poor. Our activism needs your help. Write your congresscritter, loudly, constantly, and get him out of the pocket of special interest. Demand the she ban employers from providing health insurance!

Surely, I jest you think? Indeed not. Let me give you one example.

An common employer provided health insurance plan comes attached with a $5000 deductible. So to make things fair we'll take the worst individual plan that Kaiser Permanente offers which has a vastly lower $2000 deductible. For my age in my region the estimated cost of that plan is a staggering $120.11 per month - or $0.69 per employee hour. The BLS had to normalize the cost over the 55% of Americans that are uninsured by their employer to get the cost down to $1.71! That's how harshly the corporatist pigs and their bought Legislators are raping the poor American worker. Instead of insuring less than half of all Americans, we could insure them all at a 60% discount over the current pillage of the employee's paycheck.
And we get back to the rich helping the poor as the tax rate goes form 14.2% at minimum wage to 15.6% at $20 per hour. And that's only if we consider it the same terms as the theft that happens now!

I implore you all to act for the good of our poor brethren. Insure the nation. Force health insurance back to the free market!

bombs or bics

2004-10-22T03:19:00.000-06:00

No matter the cause, Arabs love using automobiles as a vehicle for their anger.

An incensed Iranian motorist doused his car in petrol and set it ablaze with a match after picking up a parking ticket, media reported Wednesday.

nothing to see here

2004-10-22T02:55:00.000-06:00

How much would they fine you for giving directions?

The woman, showing friends the highlights of the fountain immortalized by a frolicking Ekberg in the 1960 film "La Dolce Vita," was fined for breaking a law against unauthorized guides, the local Messaggero newspaper reported Wednesday.

She was fined 172 euros ($216.5) for "pointing out the historic and artistic beauty of the Trevi Fountain to a group of Italian tourists without authorization," the newspaper said.

Giovanna Pizzorno told the paper she was just showing a group of friends the fountain, but police said she was standing in for a professional guide, and breaking a 1985 law that bans unauthorized guides in a bid to uphold the quality and livelihoods of professionals who have to sit exams to get a license.

Any time you see pompous crap like this you can rest assured that the country has a Ministry of Culture. Of course sohpisticated folks like those in Europe would never install such a jingoistic and xenophobic body in their government... Wait. Jingoism and Xenophobia are still bad and Multiculturalism is still good, Right?

Well never you mind the man behind the curtain you're not sophisticated enough to handle the nuance until you pass the licensing exam.

stratification

2004-10-22T01:00:00.000-06:00

I have probably stated this before but it's pertinent to recent discussion so I feel it bears repeating.

If we define, for the sake of argument, the political line as running from absolute statism on the Left to absolute Anarchism on the Right we have a useful metric for discussing things. On the lefthand side we have Communism, on the righthand side we have Libertarianism and in the middle we have Fascism (or soft-statism if you prefer something less emotionally charged).

Taking the concept of the Night Watchman government what are the furthest left and furthest right points that can hold office for an extended time without destroying the concept of Minarchism? Fascism and Libertarianism respectively. When the political compromise between these two ideologies, if their adherants are "pure", is the Minarchism envisioned by the Constituion. (Or at least it's darn close.)

So while it is useful that the ideological adherants be "pure", it is mandatory that they know on what, and how far they must compromise to make as close a reality to their vision as they can. For if they compromise before meeting their opponents they have already lost, and if they never know the compromises thye can make they will never win.

shepherds

2004-10-21T20:52:00.000-06:00

While neither Christian nor Libertarian I figured I'd toss in my own 2 cents here. This is Joe's rebuttal of Vox on the question of Christian Libertarianism:

By claiming that drug users can “adequately function” Vox is setting the standard rather low. If that is all that libertarianism has to offer it should be no surprise that most people reject it. I also think that he (and many others) are falling for a false dichotomy between libertarianism and statist interventionism. My only contention is that it is precisely because libertarianism doesn’t care if a person is virtuous or not that it is ultimately doomed to fail. According to Christian belief, man is inherently corrupt and will not naturally choose to do good. Society either has to find a way to help develop character (my preference) or it will eventually require a form of government where the state steps in to correct the mess that people make of their lives. Libertarianism prefers not to have either which is why it is untenable. (The comments section on Vox's post are also worth reading.)

As one of Joe's commenters said: "So, by proxy, libertarianism is shaped by Christianity." That sounds right to me. What I find remarkable, however, is how many Christians reject Libertarianism. Put bluntly:

- Judaic virtue ethics are predicated on a hereditary caste system.
- Islamic virtue ethics are predicated on aquiesence at the sword point.
- Christian virtue ethics are predicated on personal acceptance of Christ.

Taking a rougly Christian view no person that has not come to Christ is capable of being virtuous. To be brought to Christ, believers should teach them and show compassion much as Christ himself did. This is the way by which Christians should be installing virtuousness in accordance with their tome. So what accounts for so many Christians preferring the Islamic method?

It is not that Libertarianism "doesn't care if a person is virtuous or not" that dooms it to failure. If it was then it is precisely the reason that Christianity has failed; which it has not of course. What Libertarianism recognizes is that it is the function of Family and Religion to develop character not a state that thinks Sha'ria like concepts are a good idea.

In seems to me that not being Libertarian is a most un-Christian thing indeed.

coin flipping

2004-10-21T19:10:00.000-06:00

Sometimes Bainbridge is a joy:

In sum, Supreme Court decisions reflect the personal policy preferences of a temporary and often-shifting alliance of 5 or more justices, but cannot be expected to consistently reflect a dominant ideology in the absence of a much more cohesive grouping than exists on the Court today.

If you like dry bits read his paper on corporate governance as well; it's a decent piece.

This, of course, is why a simple majority on the Supreme Court is insufficient for stability and the cause of the Jurists self professed horror that the public might find them fickle and irrelevant. Stare Decisis is a poor substitute for a super majority.

(Via Instapundit)

decisions, decisions

2004-10-21T18:29:00.000-06:00

Matthew Manweller via Bane:

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

This is precisely why America has the problems it does today. Every vote, every time, carries the same gravitas as this bloke believes only applies to this one election. While it's refreshing that everyone is taking greater stock in the fate of America this time around it's simply dreadful that the status quo has been to place greater stock in whether you'll eat the blue m&m's or not.

which witch is which

2004-10-21T18:22:00.000-06:00

Leaving alone any remark you could make about Wiccans in general or the school pandering to them, this has always irked me:

An internal e-mail from October 2000 warned that "the Wiccan religion is a bona fide religion under the law, and its followers are entitled to all the protections afforded more mainstream religions. Building administrators should not tolerate such inappropriate stereotyping (images such as Witches on flying brooms, stirring cauldrons, casting spells, or with long noses and pointed hats) and instead address them as you would hurtful stereotypes of any other minority."

Firstly, square for me the paradox of only protecting religions that are recognized by law with the 1st Amendment. Can't? Good, let's fix that.

Secondly, what the heck is this twaddle about minorities? Is this jackass really implying that "bona fide" religions are minorities protected like... what? Endangered species? Good grief.

Not that I think that schools should be wasting time and money on holidays of any stripe but justifying these decisions on the protection of the natural environment of the endangered Yellow-crested Whining Wiccan is simply idiotic.

it's good to be the king

2004-10-21T18:10:00.000-06:00

A Mysoginistic Lech, Swindler, and Unilateral hack as the UN Secretary General? Never!

"He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week.

I know the Europeans love him, but what the heck are they thinking?

"Critics of the U.N. complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the U.N. source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."

A man with a penchant for killing his citizens children would be perfect for the UN.

(Via: Drudge)

i, homo sapiens

2004-10-20T17:48:00.000-06:00

This is just cool:

Some 20,000 human genes have been identified for sure, and up to 5,000 more may await discovery, the consortium says in a report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

That's a truly amazingly small number.

Coincidentally, a French group reports in the same issue of Nature that they have decoded the genome of a biologically important fish. They say it has 20,000 to 25,000 genes, the identical range to that now estimated for the human genome.

How can it be that humans, seen by some as the apotheosis of creation, have the same number of genes as the spotted green pufferfish?

Is this good evidence for an upper bound on the number of active genes? No idea, but it's certainly worth looking at.

People presumably overcome the relative poverty of their genetic patrimony by other means. "Clearly the complexity of the nervous system must derive from some other feature than the gene count," said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the federal agency that supports genome decoding in the United States.

How little we truly know. Get ready to sharpen the knives and fire up the arguments about evolution and intelligent design again.

How long will it be until the advertisments for "Crest with new tartar control bacteria!" start up? Fantastic.

Of course this brings a further question. Designer babies. What effect on lineage and family would voluntary mutations bring, if any? More interestingly, what parent wouldn't want their little Timmy to grow up to be a genius?

For now, it is true enough that after a point excess brainage leads to a lessening income. Or flippantly: "I'm so smart, I'm practically retarded!" How would moving the average IQ upwards by some 30-40 points change that point? Certainly we can assume that this would only be realistically available to those that already had a reasonable income, folks who are already more likely to have children with higher IQ's. Would this be considered fair game for socialized - or even mandatory - brain tweaks for a budding fetus? Would it be outlawed for "fairness" or other reasons. Would a voluntary mutation destroy the soul?

And lastly, given that the smarter people are the closer they connect with fantasy ideations what would it portend for society? It's worth a sensible discussion certainly, but the only two issues I ever see discussed in relation to this are culling a fetus for undesirable features - happens already to limited degree - and the ethics of wanting your child to have blue eyes instead of brown.

Are there any sociological tracts out there on this issue that don't descend into the loopy-loo 1930's eugenics? I would like to see them.

lovable lawyers

2004-10-20T16:16:00.000-06:00

Eek. When a lawyer gets on a roll it's painful to see. Dearest Volokh takes his turn at the merry-go-round when parsing Amendment 14, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I'll sum up his lawyering and toss in my own snark:

1. The Bottom Line: Short Version? Doesn't apply to Kerry because there was no intent. Snark: All Kerry's intent belong to Volokh. ::coughBullshitcough:: I can no more say that, on intent alone, that Kerry is guilty than Volokh can say he is innocent. That is not for us mere mortals to decide. That is for the folks in black bathrobes to opine on, and there is an argument of greater legitimacy about Kerry's intent than there is about this portion of the Constituion.

2. Omission of "adhering to their Enemies": Short version, aid and comfort requires intent, thus Kerry is off the hook. Snark: Here lies the problem with all charges that hinge on intent - the jury has to grab the dowsing rod to decide this. Intent has to be simply the most pig ignorant metric in determining whether something is illegal or not. However, I concur with Volokh's contention that intent is part of the "aid and comfort" riff.

3. Speech as or comfort: Yep, still requires intent. Snark: Aside from the mockery that this makes of the 1st Amendment? Nada.

4. Application beyond the Civil War: Short Version? Yep. Snark: Only a lawyer would spend his time discussing whether the current Constitution as Amended still has application. So let it be written, so let it be done.

5. Helping foreign enemies: Short Version? Yep, maybe. Snark: This whole bit applies to "[Any politico or officer of the United States who], shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Volokh twists up his logic and says that there is an argument to be made that "aid or comfort" only applies to the insurrection bit; that it does not mean enemies in general. Is he serious? Let's play the Lawyer parse game for a minute. Taking the supposed argument then engaging in insurrection or rebellion is applicable. So is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of insurrection or rebellion... What the fuck? Is Volokh being willfully obtuse or stuck with fantasy ideations?

6. Congressional removal of disability: Short version? No Amenesty. Snark: Duh.

7. Automatic disqualification?: Short version? Dunno, maybe it requires a statue, maybe Congress. Snark: Anything that the Government is barred from doing is reasonably automatic. Anything that requires the government to act isn't. Of course it would require action, and not necessarily by statute. So on first blush, it should be handled like all issues of Constitutionality brought to the court like anything else. On second and scarier blush, POTUS executes the laws and it is within his edict to enforce this, which would make quite the convenient tool for browbeating your opposition if you had, say, comfort knowing that his disability would not be removed by Congress. A court in good faith would allow it; fortunately our courts don't act in good faith.

8. Who Decides?: Short Version? Congress maybe (Kerry specific). Snark: em... works just like anything else in the Constitution.

9. The Presidency as different: Short Version? Presidency doesn't apply. Snark: Simple majority doesn't overrule the Constitution so sorry, Bub, it's still the same. Of course, you wouldn't expect a lawyer to say anything else; they, like Jurists, think the Constitution is moldable to their every fantasy ideation.

Shakespeare was right.

want some candy

2004-10-19T17:04:00.000-06:00

Good gravy:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio man was arrested and accused of filling out more than 100 voter registration forms that were ficticious, the Defiance County Sheriff's Office announced Monday.

...

Defiance County sheriff's deputies allege the man "was paid crack cocaine for the falsified registrations."

There are inherent and obvious problems with paying canvassers for voter registrations though I admit I didn't see this as being one of them.

(Via: Wizbang)

those that count

2004-10-19T16:26:00.000-06:00

Update: Oh, good grief. Bloviating while drunk or asleep can bring up all sorts of problems. Like blogging twice on the same quote. Somebody smack me with some Columbian slow roast please.

Rampant buffoonery

If this happens as expected, then a very bad precedent will be set for future presidential elections if every precinct where the vote is close in the United States is contested. While I agree that every legal vote should be counted, it is yet another issue entirely to protest every little polling place where the results are tight. This micromanagement of the electoral system is anti-American because it is predicated on an inherent distrust of the system to work in democratic elections.

Which America this guy talking about? "Don't trust the governement" is perfectly American. Moreover if you want to take the Rights carry Responibilities argument then with the Right to vote comes the Responsibility to make sure it is done correctly. Sounds pretty American to me. Maybe he's saying that it's anti-American to simply rock the boat? Nah, Boston has a long and storied history of rocking boats, especially if they have tea on board.

As much as I question the patriotic motives behind the Democrat Lawyer Army it is simply mindless to say that ensuring the validity of the electoral process in anti-American. It's anti-American to Trust that elected officials will sign their own pink-slips without shenanigans. It's anti-American to Trust that apparatchiks won't do any fudging to install their chosen figurehead.

If the security of a system is predicated on Trust then it is guarenteed that those you Trust will betray you.

a fine line

2004-10-19T16:09:00.000-06:00

When I was young, Vietnam was something you didn't ask or talk about because of the horrible experiences the Vets had lived through. Too much trauma. Now, in one short year, it's something you don't ask or talk about because everyone is sick of hearing about it.

That's the interesting thing, before this election season Vietnam was as forgotten a war as Korea. Sure, it happened, but no one could tell you squat about it. All conversation was dominated by the Common Wisdom because it was improper to broach protocol and ask Vets directly. So despite a lifelong interest in the history of the Vietnam War, I learned more factual items in this last year, than ever before. Much of it contary to the official history as written by the demagogues.

There is a fine line between history and myth; and if Common Wisdom will not brook curiosity you know which it likely is.

imperial stormtroopers

2004-10-18T01:28:00.000-06:00

It is interesting that Jimmy Moore considers the questioning of the voting process in such a way:

While I agree that every legal vote should be counted, it is yet another issue entirely to protest every little polling place where the results are tight. This micromanagement of the electoral system is anti-American because it is predicated on an inherent distrust of the system to work in democratic elections.

Two bits, the biggest first.

1. Questioning the validity of the vote is anti-American? The vote counting is handled by the government and the most of American of all values is "Don't trust the Government". Verdict? Mr. Jimmy is a twit.

2. Protesting "every little polling place where the results are tight" is not in accord with counting every legal vote? Given the widespread nature of vote fraud why would one not? After all "If it's not close, they can't cheat" (Book Title folks - see Amazon). Of course they might have cheated anyway but it's still a useful metric. Verdict? Mr. Jimmy is a twit.

Whether or not one agrees with the DNC preparing the Trial-Lawer Death Armada to contest the elections or not it is without a doubt a Good Thing to ensure that the votes are counted and properly. Without such safeguards any Democratic concepts are right out the window and we can start shopping for a new national anthem shortly. A true shame that a GOP pundit can't see this. Or are the conspiracy nuts right afterall? ::Cue Death Star music::

immovable object

2004-10-17T18:36:00.000-06:00

What makes a governmental system fair? Taking a different tack than normal, I'm defining fair in terms of stability rather than Liberty or equality. Let me frame this a little:

Pretend we are looking at the case of the Democratic Republic of Sobaka ruled by the most beneficent leader President Useek. For our purposes, Sobaka is neither Democratic nor a Republic and Useek is the current dictator for life. Now Useek isn't a terribly sane individual and he plays a game each day anew at breakfast whereby he flips a Negozhah, the national coinage, to determine until sunset whether it will be punsihable by death for a man to wear wing tip shoes, or conversely if he does not.

Is this a fair system? Is it stable? That depends. If, at the morning pronouncements of the greatness of Sobaka and how many Volnosts they exported yesterday, the Information Minister Shivot announces the results of the coin toss it is completely fair as every man has the ability to pick his footwear appropriately before leaving the house. However, if Shivot only announces the information on the nightly news after the State Police have been sent to apprehend all the perpetrators they video-taped at intersection cameras during the course of the day, is it still fair? Indeed it is. So long as the system doesn't change it is still fair because it is stable.

However, our valiant leader Useek dies and command of Sobaka falls to his son Ruchka. While Ruchka has been playing the breakfast game with his father all his life, Ruchka instead desires to play the game with Oxfords instead. This is fair so long as all men are already equipped with a pair of Wing Tips and Oxfords. If this is not the case then the system is not fair again until such time has passed that all men have acquired Oxfords to put on the shoe rack.

Unless all men are provided Oxfords by the Shoe Minister of Sobaka, we cannot state that it is pratically unstable until 100% of men have Oxfords; there has to be some useful measure at which point we can consider the change pratically completed. What measure or metric that may be is beyond this topic of discussion, but the trend is not. The lower the instability the more fair a system is, regardless of what particular govermental system we are referring to.

In the example above we take as fact that both Useek and his son Ruchka are unchanging beings with their only difference being a preference in footwear. Regardless, they are both a single point of failure in the system and the stability of that system relies on their unchanging nature.

So the general axiom is this: The more susceptability to capriciousness a system has the less fair it is.

The stability of Sobakian society is goverend both by the stability of their Dictator's whims as well as his lifespan, however. If we assume that all Sobakian Presidents are very stable individuals outside their individual and single differences with their predecessor's outlook on footwear then our fairness is also quite dependant on the lifespan of each President himself. You see, the Sobakian people place quite a high relevance on their shoes as they are a defining piece of Sobakian culture.

Cultural values tend to be formed early in life and remain quite resistant to change throughout the course of each life. An individuals actions and reactions are defined and guided by these values throughout every circumstance they come across. While you and I may place a greater import on such cultural concepts as, say, self defense or free speach rather than Sobakian sandals it is nonetheless not our society we are inspecting and I assure you that Sobakians are quite attached to their footwear. So everytime a new President takes the helm a cultural upheaval takes place.

As Sobakian politics are quite full of intrigue the average Presidential life-span is on the order of 8 years. While this makes for brisk business among cobblers it does not play well with the older citizens who have already become quite attached with to Wing Tips when Ruchka took power.

This leads to our next axiom: The more rapid the changes may come the less fair the system is.

After his average 8 years in power poor Ruchka is replaced by his son Noga. While Sobakians do have an unhealthy attachment to footwear they are quite advanced in genetic engineering. Noga, Ruchka, Useek and all other Sobakian presidents are all indeed genetic clones of the first president, Otesh. The one great flaw in Sobakian cloning science is the failure to precisely duplicate the Scholls Center in the Right Hemisphere of the brain - that portion of the brain that has appreciation for Hush Puppies, Penny Loafers and such. However, Sobakian scientists have made quite the breakthrough with Noga. Noga, like Ruchka, has sensibilities for Oxfords though he prefers black shoes while his predecdessor was uninterested in the particular color.

So when Noga takes the mantle of President he only alters the edict a smidge. All daily pronouncements are still about Oxfords, though now they are about Black Oxfords. As Oxfords were only ever produced in black and brown this is not nearly as destructive a change as when Wing Tips were thrown out.

Giving us: The larger the changes allowed the less fair the system is.

Now most Sobakians had a preference for black oxfords in the first place as they were more like the Wing Tips they used to hold close to their hearts. So when Noga upended things in his turn only a rough 1 in 5 Sobakian men had to run to the cobbler in fear of their lives. This gives us our next axiom.

To wit: The more people a change may effect the less fair the system is.

So for us to have a fair (stable) system of governance it must resist capricousness, rapid change, large changes, and it should limit the portion of the population effected by a given change. Until the rest of us can master Sobakian cloning science we can state that Dictatorial systems are right out as they are too susceptable to capriciousness. We can further state that pure democracies are right out as they tend to effect a substantial portion of the population as well as suffering large changes. A super majority democracy can still fall prey to large or rapid changes it is less susceptible to them and limits the population effected. So this seems the best so far.

I did not mention Anarchy for good reason. Anarchy, of course, limits the decisions of any individual to himself and the rapidity and grandeur of his changes to his capacity for self-improvement. Or more accurately than the inidivdual, who the individual can hold power over. This truly would be the most stable if, and only if, that power never spread beyond an individual and no individuals ever cooperated together for mutual benefit in which case we have devolved Anarchy to Democracy. To preserve Anarchy each individual would have to exercise their individual power over every other individual they know by rudely, and likely lethally, preventing cooperation which devolves Anarchy to a Dictatorship. Thus we have the paradoxical position that Anarchy may only exist so long as everyone agrees not agree with one another. This makes Anarchy the unstable isotope of the political world that destroys itself as soon as it is created. So anarchy is right out because it destroys itself as soon as power concentrates within it. This is likewise true of all political systems and gives us a further axiom:

The faster power can concentrate in the system the less fair the system is.

With no small sense of irony it can be seen that the more fair a system is the faster power will concentrate within that system thus making it less fair. The concentration of power is an outgrowth of the human desire to acquire it and will exist so long as people do. This gives us the last axiom:

No system which people may alter can be fair.