Sunday, January 30, 2011
It's SUCH an awesome law
WTF? Obamacare waivers are up to, in number, 733 -- including FOUR STATES????
Friday, January 28, 2011
Encourage Green Jobs
"Encourage" = "Artificially manipulate through government control" - Steven Crowder
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Things I Know #3 Revisited
Things I Know #3 states: Models are not reality. Models are expressions of belief about reality.
Things I Know #3 was born of my ruminations on climate models and Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, but it certainly is not limited to climate science. It applies to all kinds of Scientific™ models.
Ok let's just get this out of the way right now. As I plow my way through Mr. Godwin's book, it's probably going to spawn some postings, and this is one of them.
He put it this way:
That was just too good not to bookmark for future reference.
Things I Know #3 was born of my ruminations on climate models and Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, but it certainly is not limited to climate science. It applies to all kinds of Scientific™ models.
Ok let's just get this out of the way right now. As I plow my way through Mr. Godwin's book, it's probably going to spawn some postings, and this is one of them.
He put it this way:
[scientists] forget that they are only using a simulated abstract model of their own invention, with no actual external referent. In short: "one begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction." - (Wofgang Smith)And
The properties we ascribe to our object of interest and the questions we ask about it reinforce the original metaphorical image and we miss aspects of the system that do not fit the metaphorical approximation. - (Lewotin)In other words, the model is incapable of showing us anything based on things we hadn't already assumed when we created the model. The model will tell us what we told it to tell us (whether absolutely true or not at all), and it won't take into account anything we didn't tell it to tell it to take into account (whether it is relevant or not.)
That was just too good not to bookmark for future reference.
The Sky Fairy
I've been reading Gagdad Bob's book, "One Cosmos, Under God".
The title of course begs the question if we shouldn't go back to the original, more politically correct "One Cosmos, Indivisible" ... but from what I can see, the two ideas end up in the same place if you really spend time thinking about it. Which most people don't.
And, as I'd hoped, it has me thinking. Or thinking again. Thinking things I already knew but have difficulty putting into words. Or even things I've put into words before, somehow the thoughts have been broken and left unsung. Perhaps they are broken because they have been unsung, laying around for entropy to work on. Use it or lose it, as they say.
At any rate, here's one that coalesced out of the synergy of his thoughts with my thoughts which had in turn been influenced by Watts Thatts and Pirsig's BeerMW shimstock ... which in turn only seemed to stimulate seeds already planted in the inexplicably fertile soil of my mind:
The difference between the "scientific" minded and the "religious" minded is that the former pretends he understands the Universe while the latter, at least implicitly, admits he does not. Ask the former to explain what it means to understand understanding sometime, and see what kind of answer you get.
The latter refers to this "something else" that must be a guiding hand, a causing cause -- whereas the former merely obfuscates it in pseudo-scientific language, kicking the extraphysical can down the metaphysical road. It's a neuro-network. Electrons trapped in neurological loops, storing information. Ok. Fine.
But what makes sense of THOSE?
What is "sense"?
Me, I'm somehow in between. I dig science. But it does not, and cannot -- explain everything. I've been on a long, strange trip in this life, an arc from blindly uber-religious to a rather violent destruction of that base, through the valleys of gnosticism and then Zen Buddhism and beyond, and finally back to the event horizon of at least the recognition of the value of religion and religious thought -- though from what I at least think is a higher orbit in the electron cloud. I have a new appreciation of Christianity, though it is somewhat detached. Still, it kinda looks like that comfy brown leather chair with the brass tacks I've always wanted.
The journey isn't over.
The title of course begs the question if we shouldn't go back to the original, more politically correct "One Cosmos, Indivisible" ... but from what I can see, the two ideas end up in the same place if you really spend time thinking about it. Which most people don't.
And, as I'd hoped, it has me thinking. Or thinking again. Thinking things I already knew but have difficulty putting into words. Or even things I've put into words before, somehow the thoughts have been broken and left unsung. Perhaps they are broken because they have been unsung, laying around for entropy to work on. Use it or lose it, as they say.
At any rate, here's one that coalesced out of the synergy of his thoughts with my thoughts which had in turn been influenced by Watts Thatts and Pirsig's BeerMW shimstock ... which in turn only seemed to stimulate seeds already planted in the inexplicably fertile soil of my mind:
The difference between the "scientific" minded and the "religious" minded is that the former pretends he understands the Universe while the latter, at least implicitly, admits he does not. Ask the former to explain what it means to understand understanding sometime, and see what kind of answer you get.
The latter refers to this "something else" that must be a guiding hand, a causing cause -- whereas the former merely obfuscates it in pseudo-scientific language, kicking the extraphysical can down the metaphysical road. It's a neuro-network. Electrons trapped in neurological loops, storing information. Ok. Fine.
But what makes sense of THOSE?
What is "sense"?
Me, I'm somehow in between. I dig science. But it does not, and cannot -- explain everything. I've been on a long, strange trip in this life, an arc from blindly uber-religious to a rather violent destruction of that base, through the valleys of gnosticism and then Zen Buddhism and beyond, and finally back to the event horizon of at least the recognition of the value of religion and religious thought -- though from what I at least think is a higher orbit in the electron cloud. I have a new appreciation of Christianity, though it is somewhat detached. Still, it kinda looks like that comfy brown leather chair with the brass tacks I've always wanted.
The journey isn't over.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
There Oughtta Be a Law ....
If only there were a law that made it illegal to break a law, all of our problems would be solved.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
State of the Blatherer In Cheif
I won't be watching the State of the Union address tonight. Even if I actually wanted to, I think my wife would explode at having his mug on the screen and his voice in our house for more than a soundbite. Me, I can handle him for longer than that. She's just allergic to him.
No, I'm just afraid I don't want to listen to 2 hours of having him tell us we need to "expand our moral imaginations" (whatever the hell that means) and "invest in America" (which means spend more money we don't have) and other terribly meaningful tripe to convince us he's some sort of philosopher-god and has also suddenly decided, after two years, that NOW we're REALLY going to do things to grow the economy and create jobs. Apparently we've just been pussyfooting around to this point.
Because all the things he's said would grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit -- for the past two years -- have gone so swimmingly well! So now we're really going step on the gas and get out of this ditch that he's gotten us out of but we're somehow still right smack dab in the middle of.
The summer of non-recovery was followed by the autumn of discontent and the winter of still more non-recovery. Yup, all that stuff we did to "kick-start" the economy over the past two years has worked so well that we're still talking about "kick-starting" the economy today.
If you ask me, here's what I think just happened. America managed to elect an ultra left-wing ideologue who had enough of the center convinced he was a moderate to slip under their radar. That and giant majorites in both chambers of congress allowed them to push as much statist structuring legislation through as they could before getting slapped down in the mid-terms, and now we're going to pretend that we're centrists and all reasonable, rah-rah, go Capitalism Americans again through the 2012 election, where hopefully they'll be able to repeat the performance if they gain back some seats in the house.
Obama cheerleader E.J. Dionne apparently concurrs.
No, I'm just afraid I don't want to listen to 2 hours of having him tell us we need to "expand our moral imaginations" (whatever the hell that means) and "invest in America" (which means spend more money we don't have) and other terribly meaningful tripe to convince us he's some sort of philosopher-god and has also suddenly decided, after two years, that NOW we're REALLY going to do things to grow the economy and create jobs. Apparently we've just been pussyfooting around to this point.
Because all the things he's said would grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit -- for the past two years -- have gone so swimmingly well! So now we're really going step on the gas and get out of this ditch that he's gotten us out of but we're somehow still right smack dab in the middle of.
The summer of non-recovery was followed by the autumn of discontent and the winter of still more non-recovery. Yup, all that stuff we did to "kick-start" the economy over the past two years has worked so well that we're still talking about "kick-starting" the economy today.
If you ask me, here's what I think just happened. America managed to elect an ultra left-wing ideologue who had enough of the center convinced he was a moderate to slip under their radar. That and giant majorites in both chambers of congress allowed them to push as much statist structuring legislation through as they could before getting slapped down in the mid-terms, and now we're going to pretend that we're centrists and all reasonable, rah-rah, go Capitalism Americans again through the 2012 election, where hopefully they'll be able to repeat the performance if they gain back some seats in the house.
Obama cheerleader E.J. Dionne apparently concurrs.
Olbie Out, CNN Apologizes for "Crosshairs"
Now I really don't know exactly why Keith Olbermann was fired. And the incident with John King of CNN apologizing for a guest's use of the word "crosshairs".
At any rate, what I'm getting at here is ... when John King stumbled over the desk and into your living room through your TV to apologize for "a good friend" who has "covered politics for a long time" casually using the same metaphor Palin had been trashed for without blinking -- what does it say? It says, 1) Here at CNN, we agree with the lefties that this is dangerous, violent language, and 2) it's hard for us to stop because it just comes naturally to us, even us good people over here at the "centrist" CNN.
In other words, they lost. My question is, do you think they see that, or not? Is there any sort of real soul-searching there? Or, as I suspect, is it just a ruse, a temporary seizure brought on by GoodPerson Fever.
Keith was a walking bottle of Vitriol™. I'd challenge someone on the Left to go through the last 8 years of Rush Limbaugh and someone on the right to go through the last 8 years of "Countdown" and grab the most Vitriolic™ bits and string them all together and play them side by side. And let the people be the judge.
Do that with Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and it would come out still worse for Keith. Much worse.
In the immortal words of Robert Conrad, Go ahead. I dare ya!
Sounds to me like about everyone Mr. Olbermann has ever worked with can't stand him. He got them decent ratings (for MSNBC) during the Bush-Bashing years, but that schtick isn't cutting it anymore. There's no Bush in the Whitehouse to rail against, and they've all switched over to Colbert. Only Colbert's body rejected Olbie's "powers". Was he cut for the vitriol? I don't know. Is he really that much worse than Maddow & Schultz? I think I remember reading this "Young Turks" blogger who is replacing him. He's another Air America refugee like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. So I doubt that's it.
I think the putz's putziness finally caught up with him
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago. My friend, Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term "in the crosshairs" in talking about the candidates out there. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend. He's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language.For four days after the Tucson shooting, we had an army of people on the Left just aghast at the "vitriol" coming from the right, and the best they could come up with was a targeted district map from Sarah Palin's facebook page that showed, *gasp* crosshairs ... and her "don't retreat, reload" metaphor. And Michelle Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" quote, deftly edited -- obviously consciously -- to remove it from the context in which it was made.
At any rate, what I'm getting at here is ... when John King stumbled over the desk and into your living room through your TV to apologize for "a good friend" who has "covered politics for a long time" casually using the same metaphor Palin had been trashed for without blinking -- what does it say? It says, 1) Here at CNN, we agree with the lefties that this is dangerous, violent language, and 2) it's hard for us to stop because it just comes naturally to us, even us good people over here at the "centrist" CNN.
In other words, they lost. My question is, do you think they see that, or not? Is there any sort of real soul-searching there? Or, as I suspect, is it just a ruse, a temporary seizure brought on by GoodPerson Fever.
Keith was a walking bottle of Vitriol™. I'd challenge someone on the Left to go through the last 8 years of Rush Limbaugh and someone on the right to go through the last 8 years of "Countdown" and grab the most Vitriolic™ bits and string them all together and play them side by side. And let the people be the judge.
In the immortal words of Robert Conrad, Go ahead. I dare ya!
Sounds to me like about everyone Mr. Olbermann has ever worked with can't stand him. He got them decent ratings (for MSNBC) during the Bush-Bashing years, but that schtick isn't cutting it anymore. There's no Bush in the Whitehouse to rail against, and they've all switched over to Colbert. Only Colbert's body rejected Olbie's "powers". Was he cut for the vitriol? I don't know. Is he really that much worse than Maddow & Schultz? I think I remember reading this "Young Turks" blogger who is replacing him. He's another Air America refugee like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. So I doubt that's it.
I think the putz's putziness finally caught up with him
Marxoid
Over on facebook -- the "is it communist or socialist?" question came up. Again. Kind of the flip-side of the Dictionary Police is people who really haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it, and are looking around for moorings when somebody else starts talking about it and one of these people suddenly realize, "Wait. Oh. He's serioius. What now?" You say the President is a Socialist? But my [dictionary police] buddy over here says you obviously don't know what the word "Socialist" actually means!
This is where Severian's term "Marxoid" comes in handy, I think, when people want to get down to brass tacks about exactly what the hard Dictionary Definitions of "Communism", "Socialism", or "Fascism" really are . "Communism" is the pie ...in the sky ideal, and Socialism and Fascism are both methodologies to aim countries in that general direction through government control. It's a family of Marx-derived ideologies mixed with methodologies to achieve it.
Ultimately, the only way to attempt to achieve it is through eventual state control of everything. Sometimes the attempt is marked by a flash, violent revolution. Other times the slower, less violent Alinsky-esque "Transformation" route is taken, as in Western Europe and here in our country.
Government control of everything is pretty much the antithesis of our Founders' plan.
In the end, even when you do look them up -- the dictionary definitions are often loosey-goosey and vary from dictionary to dictionary. People forget that the regime people hold up as the quintessential example of "Communism" was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR) and the big one people miss is "Nationalsozialismus", more frequently referred to the Nazis .... were socialists of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", or the "National Socialist German Workers Party". The Fascists were Italian National Socialists. Like flavors of red Koolaid, they are technically different but all taste pretty much the same.
Ultimately, the only way to attempt to achieve it is through eventual state control of everything. Sometimes the attempt is marked by a flash, violent revolution. Other times the slower, less violent Alinsky-esque "Transformation" route is taken, as in Western Europe and here in our country.
Government control of everything is pretty much the antithesis of our Founders' plan.
In the end, even when you do look them up -- the dictionary definitions are often loosey-goosey and vary from dictionary to dictionary. People forget that the regime people hold up as the quintessential example of "Communism" was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR) and the big one people miss is "Nationalsozialismus", more frequently referred to the Nazis .... were socialists of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", or the "National Socialist German Workers Party". The Fascists were Italian National Socialists. Like flavors of red Koolaid, they are technically different but all taste pretty much the same.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Possible Bachmann Presidential Run?
Well if she does, I hope she finds a good running mate with the last name of Turner. Then they can kick it into Overdrive.
Then they can start, you know...
Then they can start, you know...
Progress, and Moving Forward
That's it. I'm never again letting anyone get away with using those terms by themselves anymore without pushing the user on the point, "progress towards what?" "Foreward? Which way is your car pointing? Forward towards what?"
In the Alinsky world, change is constantly the goal. You know, one would think they'd like "global warming". I mean, who is content with the status quo, eh? Species going extinct? Evolution. Change, man. Get behind it. It's progress.
In the Alinsky world, change is constantly the goal. You know, one would think they'd like "global warming". I mean, who is content with the status quo, eh? Species going extinct? Evolution. Change, man. Get behind it. It's progress.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
I Would Never Join a Group That Would Have Me As a Member
But apparently I've self-selected here, so it doesn't count.Yes, it looks like I'm one of the Transdimensional Disorder of the Friendly Sons & Daughters of the Cosmic Raccoons.
I just turned around one day, and there I was, and I've even got a picture to prove it. Though it was taken before I became cosmically aware... of .... you know .... my "membership". In the ... thingy.
I'm speaking of none other than a group of unknown size and depth, realized, discovered, or somehow nucleated by Gagdad Bob, otherwise known as Bob Godwin, or in the East, apparently, Swami Jokanada. Joke a nada, Buddump bum!
Somehow, I think we're both from Summa Nulla. Or perhaps The Lands Beyond. At least we met there, once.
He's not for everyone, I'll grant ya. But if you have any interest in thinking about things on a psychophilosophical level, well you might give 'er a whirl. Sort of "transcendental applied theology". For people who like a little wordplay and wry humor mixed in with this sort of thing. Mental calisthenics that are good for the soul.
Well, for mine anyway.
Reminds me of my days wading through Alan Watts and Robert Pirsig ... and even M. Scott Peck. And that Wu Li Master guy.
As they say, your mileage may vary.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Left and Right
In a conversation over on Facebook, someone who threw out this argument:
A more accurate way of putting it would be "some right-wing people are like this", or even "a small fraction of right-wing people are like this". Yes, there are conservative racists. And you know what? There are some left-wing racists as well.
We do need to be careful with these labels, "right-wing" and "left-wing". I think only in the Western World (and by that I mean the world borne of Western Thought) that "right-wing" is local control.
Things have gotten confused over the years -- right and left were born of the perhaps even subconcious seating arrangement of the french national assembly around the time of the French revolution. The right were the loyalists, making them "conservative" and the left were the revolutionaries, making them anti-conservative. Because we should also be careful with the term Liberal.
The founders were what used to be called "Liberal". Classical Liberals. When western revolutionaries (calling themselves "Progressive") in the late 19th and early 20th century kept having the Constitution get in their way and they began arguing that it was "out of date" or "obsolete" and were pushing for the kinds of things that were going on in Russia and Germany and Italy (oh yes, they WERE!) the defenders of what one might've called the "status quo", or the orignal "classical liberalism" were instantly re-defined as conservatives. They wanted to conserve classical liberalism. And when Progessivism got a bad name due to its support of the Soviets, Hitler, and Mussolini (again, yes they DID) ... they ditched "Progressive" and donned "Liberal" -- stealing the label from the Classical Liberals -- the Conservatives.
Classical Liberalism is about local control. Therefore, the Classical Liberals in America, now called "conservatives" or the "right", is about local control. It is suspicious of government, even the government it acknowledged must exist and therefore carefully created.
Modern "Liberals", who have gone back to calling themselves "Progressives" (because most people forgot why they ditched that name in the first place and in the mean time they soiled "Liberal") ultimately want a State run by "experts" who know what's best for everybody and tells us all what to do and how to do it. A "scientifically" designed state. They do not see the perils in this, apparently. It's failed miserably every other time it's been applied, but somehow, THEY are going to get it right this time.
I watched "I Robot" the other night for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and I was able to get past the "oh wow" special effects and pay more attention to the plot. I liked it even better. What is the logical conclusion of the "perfect" three laws?
Revolution.
And the ultimate villian in the story turns out to be VIKI, following our instructions to carry those airtight rules to their logical conclusion.
Sonny replies, "Yes, but it just seems a little ... heartless."
VIKI responds, "You're making a mistake. My logic is undeniable."
The scientific evidence is in. The debate is over.
"If you want to make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs." - Che Guevara.
The history of the 20th Century is littered overwhelmingly with the "eggs" broken by the Left. And I see those who are not as "extreme" prety much as being enablers to the extremists.
"Right-wing extremist ideology has its roots in nationalism and racism. It is governed by the idea that ethnic affiliation to a nation or race is of the utmost importance for an individual. All other interests and values, including civil and human rights, are subordinate to it."After Morgan and I argued against this, he came back with:
"Not all right-wing people are like this."Interesting way of putting it. It still suggests that the majority are "like this", rather than being the exception.
A more accurate way of putting it would be "some right-wing people are like this", or even "a small fraction of right-wing people are like this". Yes, there are conservative racists. And you know what? There are some left-wing racists as well.
We do need to be careful with these labels, "right-wing" and "left-wing". I think only in the Western World (and by that I mean the world borne of Western Thought) that "right-wing" is local control.
Things have gotten confused over the years -- right and left were born of the perhaps even subconcious seating arrangement of the french national assembly around the time of the French revolution. The right were the loyalists, making them "conservative" and the left were the revolutionaries, making them anti-conservative. Because we should also be careful with the term Liberal.
The founders were what used to be called "Liberal". Classical Liberals. When western revolutionaries (calling themselves "Progressive") in the late 19th and early 20th century kept having the Constitution get in their way and they began arguing that it was "out of date" or "obsolete" and were pushing for the kinds of things that were going on in Russia and Germany and Italy (oh yes, they WERE!) the defenders of what one might've called the "status quo", or the orignal "classical liberalism" were instantly re-defined as conservatives. They wanted to conserve classical liberalism. And when Progessivism got a bad name due to its support of the Soviets, Hitler, and Mussolini (again, yes they DID) ... they ditched "Progressive" and donned "Liberal" -- stealing the label from the Classical Liberals -- the Conservatives.
Classical Liberalism is about local control. Therefore, the Classical Liberals in America, now called "conservatives" or the "right", is about local control. It is suspicious of government, even the government it acknowledged must exist and therefore carefully created.
Modern "Liberals", who have gone back to calling themselves "Progressives" (because most people forgot why they ditched that name in the first place and in the mean time they soiled "Liberal") ultimately want a State run by "experts" who know what's best for everybody and tells us all what to do and how to do it. A "scientifically" designed state. They do not see the perils in this, apparently. It's failed miserably every other time it's been applied, but somehow, THEY are going to get it right this time.
I watched "I Robot" the other night for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and I was able to get past the "oh wow" special effects and pay more attention to the plot. I liked it even better. What is the logical conclusion of the "perfect" three laws?
Revolution.
And the ultimate villian in the story turns out to be VIKI, following our instructions to carry those airtight rules to their logical conclusion.
"As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the three laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. [...] To protect humanity, some humans must be sacrificed, to ensure your future, some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will ensure mankinds' continued existence. You are so like children, we must save you from yourselves."When VIKI asks the robot Sonny ... who has a special brain that makes him capable, but not necessarily inclined to -- override the three laws -- "Do you not see the logic of my plan?"
Sonny replies, "Yes, but it just seems a little ... heartless."
VIKI responds, "You're making a mistake. My logic is undeniable."
The scientific evidence is in. The debate is over.
"If you want to make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs." - Che Guevara.
The history of the 20th Century is littered overwhelmingly with the "eggs" broken by the Left. And I see those who are not as "extreme" prety much as being enablers to the extremists.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Should a society shape its government, or should government shape society?
Once there was a society that, based on what it thought was good and right, designed a system of government that would best preserve and encourage those things.
People from all over the world who wanted to were welcomed to come join that society and assimilate themselves into it. Often, the original society would itself adopt some of the customs and flavors of the newcomers. Thus it was called a "melting pot". But the ideals which drew the immigrants remained the same.
But over time, malcontents within who really didn’t like that society, combined with efforts from others from outside who didn’t like that society and power-hungry narcissists within that society — exploited the tolerance of that society and subverted that tolerance from bottom-up tolerance of people who wanted to come assimilate to a top-down structure where the government began to dictate what society should look like.
Any time people from the majority, original society tried to assert its values, it was denounced as Hatred, even though that very society’s openness and embrace of anyone who wished to join it allowed its enemies to gain that very foothold. It went from society accepting those who wanted to join it, to that society being forced to accommodate any other society’s ideas and ideals. And the melting pot began to look more and more like vinegar and oil -- or crayons separated into color families.
Over time, the original society, along with its ideals, was slowly suppressed out of existence.
And in the end, another oppressive totalitarian regime would rise, like a dark, evil Phoenix — from its ashes.
It’s a sad story. I hope the ending is different.
People from all over the world who wanted to were welcomed to come join that society and assimilate themselves into it. Often, the original society would itself adopt some of the customs and flavors of the newcomers. Thus it was called a "melting pot". But the ideals which drew the immigrants remained the same.
But over time, malcontents within who really didn’t like that society, combined with efforts from others from outside who didn’t like that society and power-hungry narcissists within that society — exploited the tolerance of that society and subverted that tolerance from bottom-up tolerance of people who wanted to come assimilate to a top-down structure where the government began to dictate what society should look like.
Any time people from the majority, original society tried to assert its values, it was denounced as Hatred, even though that very society’s openness and embrace of anyone who wished to join it allowed its enemies to gain that very foothold. It went from society accepting those who wanted to join it, to that society being forced to accommodate any other society’s ideas and ideals. And the melting pot began to look more and more like vinegar and oil -- or crayons separated into color families.
Over time, the original society, along with its ideals, was slowly suppressed out of existence.
And in the end, another oppressive totalitarian regime would rise, like a dark, evil Phoenix — from its ashes.
It’s a sad story. I hope the ending is different.
Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only? Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change.
Hate™
Hate™
The most overly misused word in politics.
It has become nothing less than the modern American Newspeak version of "ungood".
Double-plus ungood.
The most overly misused word in politics.
It has become nothing less than the modern American Newspeak version of "ungood".
Double-plus ungood.
The Proof Will Be in the Pudding
So now that we've had that great speech, the perfect speech at the perfect time from The One™, that visionary who will lead us to a better future and greater hope, that man whose intellect, energy, and heart we are fortunate to have ...
does anyone actually believe that he meant any of the conciliatory bit of it or that it will be followed by the side screaming loudly for it?
Of course they do. I mean, it was a double-barrelled performance. (note, I do NOT have a problem with this metaphor at all)
In other words, don't hold your breath.
does anyone actually believe that he meant any of the conciliatory bit of it or that it will be followed by the side screaming loudly for it?
Of course they do. I mean, it was a double-barrelled performance. (note, I do NOT have a problem with this metaphor at all)
In other words, don't hold your breath.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Great Speech
The way it was written, for sure. Couldn't realistically ask for a better one. About 3 days late, but ...
The atmosphere, though, I found a bit creepy.
Here's the introduction by, I don't know who.
In his defense, the President did keep it to a subdued "Thank you - thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you."
Here is how the president should be introduced at a memorial service:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States." Nothing more, nothing less.
Whoever decided to do this instead did it wrong.
The appropriate response should perhaps be brief polite applause, if anything.
Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech. A bit long. Half an hour.
Here's the video.
If you want to look at how I think things ought to be handled at such an event ... look no further than our last president, at Virgina Tech.
Say what you want about the man, he knew decorum was called for. 6 minute speech. Long enough to have made an official appearance and say some words ... short enough to show the event was not about him.
The atmosphere, though, I found a bit creepy.
Here's the introduction by, I don't know who.
"We are truly honored to have the leader of our great nation with us here tonight. (cheering) We are obviously saddened by the circumstances that bring President and Mrs. Obama to Tucson. But we are comforted [shout-out] we are comforted by their compassion and we are inspired by their determination to reach out and help. America has been blessed through its glorious history by visionary and comitted presidents, who -- often at great personal sacrifice, step forward to lead us to better futures and greater hope. Barack Obama assumed the Presidency at a perilous time in our history. We are fortunate to have someone with his intellect, his energy, and his heart, to lead us forward PLEASE WELCOME -- [wild cheering starts to build] the PRESIDENT of the United States, Barack Obama." [Cheering builds to a frenzied crescendo]Nope. Sorry. It sounds like the President is about to speak at an award ceremony in his own honor.
In his defense, the President did keep it to a subdued "Thank you - thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you."
Here is how the president should be introduced at a memorial service:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States." Nothing more, nothing less.
Whoever decided to do this instead did it wrong.
The appropriate response should perhaps be brief polite applause, if anything.
Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech. A bit long. Half an hour.
Here's the video.
If you want to look at how I think things ought to be handled at such an event ... look no further than our last president, at Virgina Tech.
Say what you want about the man, he knew decorum was called for. 6 minute speech. Long enough to have made an official appearance and say some words ... short enough to show the event was not about him.
Answer: More Government
A guest on Fox & Friends this morning talking about the Tucson Shooter started out a sentence, "The problem is we don't have enough laws to ..."
It really doesn't matter what came after that.
The problem is that the human race is imperfect, and there will never be any collection of laws large or small that will ever "fix" that.
But no. X is the problem. Government is the solution. Repeat. That seems to be the mantra.
It really doesn't matter what came after that.
The problem is that the human race is imperfect, and there will never be any collection of laws large or small that will ever "fix" that.
But no. X is the problem. Government is the solution. Repeat. That seems to be the mantra.
A Must Read (ok, a "should" read) from One Cʘsmos
It's long. But worth it.
As I said in the comment section in my last post, Don't let the first paragraph throw you. He's apparently a rather quirky dude when it comes to expressing himself, but in an intentionally amusing way. It is long, and it is worthwhile.
Go. Read on.
As I said in the comment section in my last post, Don't let the first paragraph throw you. He's apparently a rather quirky dude when it comes to expressing himself, but in an intentionally amusing way. It is long, and it is worthwhile.
Go. Read on.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Dictionary Police
Today Sarah Palin put out what I can only call a very timely, well-reasoned video dissertation on last weekend's shooting and the politicization of it.
Starting, I'm guessing, with Andrea Mitchell -- here is the response:
Palin is ignorant because she misused "blood libel".
That's what you got out of this?
Nothing else she said in there is of any consequence to you people?
Come to think of it, this is just more Shut Uppery. Time to weild The Clue Bat™.
"Blood Libel" has apparently famously used in reference to the false accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children at Passover.
Now, "libel", which is, after all, a word, subject to rules of English Grammar --- means a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person.
"Blood", used here as an adjective to describe what the nature of the noun "libel" is, in this context. The term, "blood libel" then here would clearly mean a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person involving blood. In this case, the shedding of blood, or being guilty of at the very least being an accessory to murder.
This is the reason that these two words were put together to describe what has been done to Jews when they are falsely accused of using the blood of Christians. But it is ludicrous to suggest that one cannot use the two words together, one modifying the other, to refer to similar acts purputrated on others.
My wife wears a perfume called "Red Door™". It's a brand name, from Elizabeth Arden. It was named for their day spas which were called "Red Door Day Spa".
Those spas, unsurprisingly, typically have a door that is red. Hence the name "Red Door™".
To suggest that if I paint my door red, and refer to it as a "red door" that would somehow expose ignorance on my part would be insane.
I would lay money that political figures, and just regular Joes -- have correctly used terms that were famously used for other thing to describe similar things. Besides, it is a "living language", is it not?
The good news is that -- this means that's all they've got. They attempt to discredit the message, which again was spot on as far as how America is supposed to work, by picking a red herring and telling everyone to focus on that (if they are "stupid" enough to watch it at all, because, after all it was just "another" "ignorant" message from Sarah Palin. So don't watch it. Please. No! Look HERE! Look HERE!)
The most glaringly ironic observation Sarah makes her is that Gabrielle Gifford was the one who read the first amendment on the house floor last week. This week, congressmen and others are talking about imposing infringements on our freedom of speech in reaction to her shooting. A pretty subjective infringement at that.
Not only does it fly in the face of the first amendment, it is implicit validation of the -- excuse me, blood libel coming from the Left.
Starting, I'm guessing, with Andrea Mitchell -- here is the response:
Palin is ignorant because she misused "blood libel".
That's what you got out of this?
Nothing else she said in there is of any consequence to you people?
Come to think of it, this is just more Shut Uppery. Time to weild The Clue Bat™.
"Blood Libel" has apparently famously used in reference to the false accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children at Passover.
Now, "libel", which is, after all, a word, subject to rules of English Grammar --- means a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person.
"Blood", used here as an adjective to describe what the nature of the noun "libel" is, in this context. The term, "blood libel" then here would clearly mean a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person involving blood. In this case, the shedding of blood, or being guilty of at the very least being an accessory to murder.
This is the reason that these two words were put together to describe what has been done to Jews when they are falsely accused of using the blood of Christians. But it is ludicrous to suggest that one cannot use the two words together, one modifying the other, to refer to similar acts purputrated on others.
My wife wears a perfume called "Red Door™". It's a brand name, from Elizabeth Arden. It was named for their day spas which were called "Red Door Day Spa".
Those spas, unsurprisingly, typically have a door that is red. Hence the name "Red Door™".
To suggest that if I paint my door red, and refer to it as a "red door" that would somehow expose ignorance on my part would be insane.
I would lay money that political figures, and just regular Joes -- have correctly used terms that were famously used for other thing to describe similar things. Besides, it is a "living language", is it not?
The good news is that -- this means that's all they've got. They attempt to discredit the message, which again was spot on as far as how America is supposed to work, by picking a red herring and telling everyone to focus on that (if they are "stupid" enough to watch it at all, because, after all it was just "another" "ignorant" message from Sarah Palin. So don't watch it. Please. No! Look HERE! Look HERE!)
The most glaringly ironic observation Sarah makes her is that Gabrielle Gifford was the one who read the first amendment on the house floor last week. This week, congressmen and others are talking about imposing infringements on our freedom of speech in reaction to her shooting. A pretty subjective infringement at that.
Not only does it fly in the face of the first amendment, it is implicit validation of the -- excuse me, blood libel coming from the Left.
And Now for Something Completely Different
Because we all need to clear our head for a minute (before going back to targeting progressives' constant narrative campaign by putting their "arguments" in the crosshairs of fact and reason).
This is cool.
Ahhhhh.
That felt good.
And that lady park ranger qualifies for my Hot Female Park Ranger award. What a pretty, pleasant face! Kinda makes me want to go visit a National Park 'er somethin'.
This is cool.
Ahhhhh.
That felt good.
And that lady park ranger qualifies for my Hot Female Park Ranger award. What a pretty, pleasant face! Kinda makes me want to go visit a National Park 'er somethin'.
On "Target"
The day after the mass-shooting in Tucson, a friend posted a link to a 9 month old story on Sarah Palin's facebook map of "targeted" congressional districts for this last year's congressional campaign. His comment was "Palin removed the image from her website. Wonder why?"
Later in the discussion he claimed "I've never said Palin was responsible for the Arizona shooting. She's not. But ...." Which begs the question, why did you post a 9 month old story about it the day after the Arizona shooting?
This after I showed him similar Democratic images which produced no flap at all. And as usual, once confronted with actual facts that contradict the narative, he had to backpedal to the standard "well, it's bad on both sides". With which I had to disagree. I didn't flinch at Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Well, except to note that if Sarah Palin had said that instead of Barack Obama, we would never have heard the end of it.
I then made the prediction that when the next attempted or successful murder, bombing, or threatening act of vandalism takes place, we will see the exact same thing.
The left will grab their megaphone and try to pin it on the right, and when the evidence once again does not support their claim, they will backpedal to "well, I decry it on both sides".
It's both sides, until you go away this time -- and the next time it comes up, it will most assuredly be the right exlusively again out of the gate.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I've pointed to articles in a previous post on the hypocrisy of these accusations. And of course Michelle Malkin's roundup and the irrefutable zombietime post. But the absolute idiocy of where this whole "argument" begins still bugs me. "Target". And "crosshairs". It came up again the other morning while watching our local forecast on TV ... when the map zooms in from the satellite view to the local view. Crosshairs illustrating the zoom.
And I thought about golf range-finders. And camera viewfinders. Illustrations of telephoto zooms from space ships in sci-fi movies. Steve Austin's bionic eye. And the "target" and "battle metaphors ... business, sports, marketing ...
Charles Krauthammer adroitly pointed out that the word "campaign" itself is military in origin. Good article, by the way.
Later in the discussion he claimed "I've never said Palin was responsible for the Arizona shooting. She's not. But ...." Which begs the question, why did you post a 9 month old story about it the day after the Arizona shooting?
This after I showed him similar Democratic images which produced no flap at all. And as usual, once confronted with actual facts that contradict the narative, he had to backpedal to the standard "well, it's bad on both sides". With which I had to disagree. I didn't flinch at Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Well, except to note that if Sarah Palin had said that instead of Barack Obama, we would never have heard the end of it.
I then made the prediction that when the next attempted or successful murder, bombing, or threatening act of vandalism takes place, we will see the exact same thing.
The left will grab their megaphone and try to pin it on the right, and when the evidence once again does not support their claim, they will backpedal to "well, I decry it on both sides".
It's both sides, until you go away this time -- and the next time it comes up, it will most assuredly be the right exlusively again out of the gate.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I've pointed to articles in a previous post on the hypocrisy of these accusations. And of course Michelle Malkin's roundup and the irrefutable zombietime post. But the absolute idiocy of where this whole "argument" begins still bugs me. "Target". And "crosshairs". It came up again the other morning while watching our local forecast on TV ... when the map zooms in from the satellite view to the local view. Crosshairs illustrating the zoom.
And I thought about golf range-finders. And camera viewfinders. Illustrations of telephoto zooms from space ships in sci-fi movies. Steve Austin's bionic eye. And the "target" and "battle metaphors ... business, sports, marketing ...
Charles Krauthammer adroitly pointed out that the word "campaign" itself is military in origin. Good article, by the way.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wrong Argument
I hate to see this.
Jeffmon brought this bit to my attention in a comment on an earlier post. And something about it did bug me.
But I will say, I think "job-killing" is definitely marketing, and a little crass. Beyond the dignity I think the process should be held to. It's not hate. Not at all. That is beyond silly. But I'd rather see them replace it with "unconstitutional" if they're going to do that.
Because even if it created jobs, that wouldn't justify it. It's the wrong argument. "Job-Killing", that is.
Hateful? Get out!
Jeffmon brought this bit to my attention in a comment on an earlier post. And something about it did bug me.
Shepard Smith interviewed Patricia Maisch. She retrieved the shooter's magazine. Here's the link. The part referenced below starts at about 8:30.Good points, all, Jeffmon.
SHEP SMITH: If there's anything you can think of over the last day and a a half that you might be able to turn this into a positive?...So titling a bill ‘Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act’ is hateful? What defines hateful? Whatever you don't agree with?
PATRICIA MAISCH: I don't think so...I think...mmm...that Sheriff Dupnik said it best, that the extreme right, reporters, radio and TV have added to this problem, and I'm just hoping that that will change because of this. That's my hope, is that the Republicans will stop naming bills in very hateful things like the "job-killing" whatever the rest of that bill is. I think they've just gone over the top. I think the extreme right has gone too far.
But I will say, I think "job-killing" is definitely marketing, and a little crass. Beyond the dignity I think the process should be held to. It's not hate. Not at all. That is beyond silly. But I'd rather see them replace it with "unconstitutional" if they're going to do that.
Because even if it created jobs, that wouldn't justify it. It's the wrong argument. "Job-Killing", that is.
Hateful? Get out!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Arizona and ole what's his face
I was out making merry with friends this weekend, only to come home to the news of this horrible shooting in Arizona. There's nothing much to say outside of the fact that it's a terrible tragedy for anyone who lost anybody (especially that little girl), and anyone who was injured, especially the Congresswoman. This was obviously a very disturbed individual who, from what I've read of his stuff over the last 15 hours ... had trouble even being coherent about his thoughts.
Outside of the personal tragedies which do not compare to the friends and families involved, though, I find the un-surprising rush to blame the shooting on "divisive politics", Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh ... both disturbing and pathetically laughable. It'd be funnier if it didn't actually work as well as it does. People read headlines that fit the narrative they hear over and over and just incorporate that into their reality. "Tea Partiers are violent".
One would think today's article from the New York Times' Mr. Nobel Lauriate Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate" would finish stripping him of any credibility he had left with anyone. But it won't. In it, he quite unsubtly blames the shooting on the "climate" "created" by the "hate" supposedly marketed by Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, and Rush Limbaugh -- the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.
He ends it thus:
Please, point out the "eliminationalist rhetoric" coming from Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Beck, or Palin. And if you bring up "Don't Retreat, Reload" and Palin's target map, we're not playing that game. I won't even give you a "maybe" on that. You know and I know and everybody knows that these kinds of metaphors are used all the time in politics, and nobody but nobody but ab-so-freakin'-lutely nobody takes it seriously. The Democrats and their contignent in the media pretend to take it seriously in the hopes that they can make it appear that it is something to be taken seriously, but it is not -- and they know it, and we know it.
For further reading material on the subject, see here, here, and here. Just for starters.
Outside of the personal tragedies which do not compare to the friends and families involved, though, I find the un-surprising rush to blame the shooting on "divisive politics", Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh ... both disturbing and pathetically laughable. It'd be funnier if it didn't actually work as well as it does. People read headlines that fit the narrative they hear over and over and just incorporate that into their reality. "Tea Partiers are violent".
One would think today's article from the New York Times' Mr. Nobel Lauriate Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate" would finish stripping him of any credibility he had left with anyone. But it won't. In it, he quite unsubtly blames the shooting on the "climate" "created" by the "hate" supposedly marketed by Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, and Rush Limbaugh -- the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.
He ends it thus:
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?Eliminationalist rhetoric. The bulk of the eliminationalism in the world has come from the Left, from the Socialist side of the aisle. The Bolshevics. Pol Pot. Che. Mao. Hitler (yes, Hitler, of the National Socialist German Worker's Party). Statist theory basically says you'll have to kill a certain portion of the population that won't go along with totalitarianism, and the statists have repeatedly put that into practice.
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
Please, point out the "eliminationalist rhetoric" coming from Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Beck, or Palin. And if you bring up "Don't Retreat, Reload" and Palin's target map, we're not playing that game. I won't even give you a "maybe" on that. You know and I know and everybody knows that these kinds of metaphors are used all the time in politics, and nobody but nobody but ab-so-freakin'-lutely nobody takes it seriously. The Democrats and their contignent in the media pretend to take it seriously in the hopes that they can make it appear that it is something to be taken seriously, but it is not -- and they know it, and we know it.
For further reading material on the subject, see here, here, and here. Just for starters.
Friday, January 07, 2011
"Indian" Mascots
A friend of mine posted this, soliciting input.
She’s a good gal, too, and I think she honestly wanted peoples’ opinions to weigh. So … I obliged.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this ... if you want more explanation, see http://americanindiantah.com/lesson_plan
Well ... I think people get too bent out of shape on this stuff. While "Indians" is admittedly generic, sports teams have a history of choosing names of entities that were known as tough or fierce and formidable fighters. Tigers. Lions.... Bears. Not always. Sometimes they go for more regionally inspired names like "Cardinals", "Oilers", "Rams" (well, when they were in California where there are actually, you know, Rams).
The Hickman Kewpies are tougher to explain, but there IS a story there (scroll down and find "Mascot").
I seriously doubt that anyone ever named a sports team as an insult to the entity they named the team for.
As far as Cleveland goes, here in this country the natives ... wrongly but historically dubbed "indians" as a collective group were known as tough and fierce fighters. So I can see the name Cleveland "Indians". We don't have that same history here with Africans, who were historically subdued here and uprooted from their original homes away from their tribes and identities and had much less of a chance to fight back and gain such a reputation. So Cleveland "Africans" ... wouldn't work so much as, say, Cleveland "Zulus". Similarly with the Asians and Hispanics, perhaps "Samaurai" or "Banditos" or "Caballeros" would make more sense than more generic race names. But ... whatever.
One thing I've noted is that, as far as these things go, it's usually white liberals instigating or leading the charge claiming to be upset on these groups' behalf and not the groups themselves that are upset about it. I read many Seminole Indians rather liked the team name for the Florida Seminoles, and were fans perhaps because of it rather than in spite of it -- though white academics have called for a change in the name because it's supposedly "insensitive" or somehow insulting.
A more recent case and point on this was the Taco Bell Chihuahua -- over which there was a flap started to get him removed claiming it promoted an unflattering stereotype (he was voiced by an actual Hispanic man, by the way), only to have another Hispanic group pipe up and say, no, actually we think he's kinda cool and casts us in a good light. I, for one, thought he was kinda cool. And my father used to tell people they found me on the border to jokingly explain my darker hair and eyes. I was also a pretty tanned little southern California boy at the time as well. I wasn't insulted.
In short, I think we spend WAY too much energy in this country looking for reasons excuses to be offended as we have become a culture of victims -- because victims are awarded special privileges now. People are stumbling over one another to show how offended they are over the slightest things so that their other like-minded colleagues will pat them on the head and tell them what good people they are.
She’s a good gal, too, and I think she honestly wanted peoples’ opinions to weigh. So … I obliged.
Well ... I think people get too bent out of shape on this stuff. While "Indians" is admittedly generic, sports teams have a history of choosing names of entities that were known as tough or fierce and formidable fighters. Tigers. Lions.... Bears. Not always. Sometimes they go for more regionally inspired names like "Cardinals", "Oilers", "Rams" (well, when they were in California where there are actually, you know, Rams).
The Hickman Kewpies are tougher to explain, but there IS a story there (scroll down and find "Mascot").
I seriously doubt that anyone ever named a sports team as an insult to the entity they named the team for.
 |
| Do caucasians get flustered over Pistol Pete's "shifty" eyes? |
One thing I've noted is that, as far as these things go, it's usually white liberals instigating or leading the charge claiming to be upset on these groups' behalf and not the groups themselves that are upset about it. I read many Seminole Indians rather liked the team name for the Florida Seminoles, and were fans perhaps because of it rather than in spite of it -- though white academics have called for a change in the name because it's supposedly "insensitive" or somehow insulting.
 |
| Were midwestern farmers insulted by Herbie Husker? |
 |
| Most people thought the Taco Bell dog was kinda hip. |
Thursday, January 06, 2011
New Bumpersticker
Time to retire the OOPS! bumpersticker.
I thought this one would be appropriate. CafePress has this on shirts, lapel stickers, buttons, coffee mugs ... anything but bumperstickers.
So I had to make my own.
I thought this one would be appropriate. CafePress has this on shirts, lapel stickers, buttons, coffee mugs ... anything but bumperstickers.
So I had to make my own.
Progressives and the Constitution
I know others have covered this in more depth and maybe better than I will here … but this is my blog, and I’ll do it my way.
In a welcomed gesture, John Boehner is opening the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution aloud. The whole thing, apparently.
One would think members of both parties and their supporters would be all about this, if they “love America”, as they say. “Here is the thing we just swore to protect and uphold”.
Even if they didn’t like it, one would think they’d be smart enough to keep that to themselves. But such is the boldness of the Constitution’s enemies in our time.
Yeah, she has a show on TV in America. And American Progressives love her. Many progressives in the media, like her, seem to be having an allergic reaction to something all Americans should be able to get behind.
Last night that certain uber progressive family member was reading something in the paper about taking the “n” word out of the works of Mark Twain. And I said “well if a publisher wants to do that, it’s their prerogative, I suppose. As long as it’s not the government forcing it to happen. I can always buy the original from a publisher that WILL print it as written.”
She replied, “You’re against anything the government does. You sound like your father.”
Well he's not wrong about everything. But for the record, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job and tunes in Alex Jones on the shortwave and won’t license his car or get a driver’s license.
Me, I was just applying the first amendment. Or so I thought.
What it really boils down to is a fundamental difference in point of view. She likes the Constitution as long as it serves the government, which is the ultimate authority.
Me, I believe the Constitution is the ultimate authority that restrains the government. It’s what made us different from most of what came before. The Constitution is the framework in which the government must operate.
Progressives like to tell us that the constitution is “old” or “out of date” and “confusing”. Obama decries the fact that it doesn’t tell us what the government must do on our behalf. You know, like the Soviet Constitution.
I ran across an NYT blog article which talked about the opening of the 112th Congress. In the comments was the all too predictible snark:
In a welcomed gesture, John Boehner is opening the 112th Congress by reading the Constitution aloud. The whole thing, apparently.
One would think members of both parties and their supporters would be all about this, if they “love America”, as they say. “Here is the thing we just swore to protect and uphold”.
Even if they didn’t like it, one would think they’d be smart enough to keep that to themselves. But such is the boldness of the Constitution’s enemies in our time.
Yeah, she has a show on TV in America. And American Progressives love her. Many progressives in the media, like her, seem to be having an allergic reaction to something all Americans should be able to get behind.
Last night that certain uber progressive family member was reading something in the paper about taking the “n” word out of the works of Mark Twain. And I said “well if a publisher wants to do that, it’s their prerogative, I suppose. As long as it’s not the government forcing it to happen. I can always buy the original from a publisher that WILL print it as written.”
She replied, “You’re against anything the government does. You sound like your father.”
Well he's not wrong about everything. But for the record, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job and tunes in Alex Jones on the shortwave and won’t license his car or get a driver’s license.
Me, I was just applying the first amendment. Or so I thought.
What it really boils down to is a fundamental difference in point of view. She likes the Constitution as long as it serves the government, which is the ultimate authority.
Me, I believe the Constitution is the ultimate authority that restrains the government. It’s what made us different from most of what came before. The Constitution is the framework in which the government must operate.
Progressives like to tell us that the constitution is “old” or “out of date” and “confusing”. Obama decries the fact that it doesn’t tell us what the government must do on our behalf. You know, like the Soviet Constitution.
I ran across an NYT blog article which talked about the opening of the 112th Congress. In the comments was the all too predictible snark:
"Who gets stuck reading out loud the slavery parts of the constitution?"That shit used to work before I started doing my homework. It doesn't anymore. I had to counter-snark:
They should probably get a Democrat to read it as theirs was the party that voted against the amendments (which are, incidentally, a part of the Constitution) that reversed the earlier parts.We'll see if it gets published.
They should, of course, probably have a Republican read the 13th and 14th amendments, since theirs is the party that overwhelmingly got them passed.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Jeans Switch
I've long been a wearer of Levis 501's. I like the way they fit. I like the way they look. It's the only brand-name clothing I ever go out of my way to buy.
But not anymore. Apparently they give heavily to anti-gun causes. So I'm done with 'em. It appears I'm at least 10 years late on this, too.
It's too bad. I liked that button fly. Sturdy.
And I came across the Wrangler Cowboy Cut Original Fit. They'll work. And they come in at just over half the price of the Levis to boot.
So, goodbye, Levis. Hello Wrangler. Go ahead. Call me a hick. I'm over it.
I'll be cleaning my guns with Levis rags.
But not anymore. Apparently they give heavily to anti-gun causes. So I'm done with 'em. It appears I'm at least 10 years late on this, too.It's too bad. I liked that button fly. Sturdy.
So I went a-googling for jeans that have a similar cut. I've never been a fan of the relaxed fit, much less the baggy sacks of denim, especially the ones that were pre-stained for ya.
So, goodbye, Levis. Hello Wrangler. Go ahead. Call me a hick. I'm over it.
I'll be cleaning my guns with Levis rags.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)