With Liberty & Blues For All!

Common Sense: Part II

2011-06-15T01:40:00.003-04:00

(See my previous post for the comments I'm responding to)

Ahhh ... Erin ... much like the person whose original post started this discussion, you too have the nasty habit of ignoring or avoiding the lion's share of what I write and simply pressing on with telling me what you think ... regardless of whether or not it's related. For instance, I notice you continue to insist that words mean whatever you think they do, and although you approach it in a different manner, you're still insisting that formal education is somehow negative. Plus, you have a real knack for invoking logical fallacies. I notice this time the ad homenim fallacy is particularly prevalent, so let's start there.

While it's totally irrelevant to how science works, or what the scientific evidence says, or the existence of a magical sky-god of some sort, my life is neither sad nor empty. I'm also not at all angry that someone disagrees with me. I'm used to being disagreed with. In fact, I encourage my students to disagree with me ... especially if they can sustain and back up their positions with logic, reason and valid, objective evidence. Nonetheless, in a country where roughly 90% of the population believes in a magic sky-god, has minimal understanding of science, and votes either Demopublican or Republicrat - I'm usually solidly in the minority. Yet I continue to indulge in discussions like this one. I actually kind of enjoy them. It's one of my many satisfying hobbies.

Now, continuing on the ad hominem theme, accusing me of being an "elitist" doesn't change that a.) the majority of the population is intellectually average or worse (the Bell Curve) b.) the majority of the population makes very poor decisions on the whole (look at levels of household debt, irresponsible breeding practices, electing Clinton, Bush & Obama, pop music, network television, etc.) and c.) appears to put more thought into the car they drive or the clothes they wear than they put into their theological or political perspectives. Truth is not a democratically arrived at thing, and neither is logic or science. It doesn't matter what people think: evidence is the what makes or breaks a position.

And speaking of evidence, I'd love to see something other than hyperbole to support your claim that "alternative" medicine has a solid basis in science. A fair bit of stolen taxpayer loot is funneled into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine every year, and yet when push comes to shove, it always turns out the same: if a natural thing can be proven, under controlled, replicable scientific conditions, to be effective in treating a given ailment or condition, it becomes medicine. If it can't, it's just magical thinking. In fact, this is where your profound ignorance of science and the scientific method becomes readily apparent: no reputable scientist would object to any new herb / leaf / root / practice if it could be proven to work according to the scientific method. Pharmaceutical companies would like it too -- because they could produce it and sell it (and if you really want a surprise, look at how many big pharmaceutical companies also manufacture a lot of the herbs, supplements and other products that the "alternative" folks hawk). Just to repeat myself again, science isn't a belief ... it's a methodology. But when something that is demonstrably nonsense (i.e. homeopathy) and has been repeatedly proven to be nonsense continues to be trotted out as "alternative" medicine, don't be shocked if it's called nonsense. But if you can produce actual studies (or links to actual studies) of some kind of magic thinking that you consider to be "scientific", I'd happily look them over.

Another thing that you obviously fail to grasp about science is that anecdotes do not make science (they don't stand up in court either). Knowing a person or two who have had a particular experience establishes at most one thing: the person you know has had a particular experience. That's all an anecdote proves ... if it hasn't been colored or filtered through a particular perspective. Statistical relevance requires more than a few carefully chosen examples. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking to prove your point. For instance, as a libertarian, I absolutely support the right of the individual to choose whatever treatment they wish to undergo, from whomever they wish to receive it from. If you wish to trust a physician who believes in both "alternative" medicine and a magic sky-god ... be my guest. But that hardly proves the validity of a person's credentials or the extent of their abilities. That could only be established by doing research into the status of their medical license, the results they've had, the complaints filed against them, etc. While belief allows one to simply decide what is or is not true on the spur of the moment, a reasoned approach takes time and effort.

And speaking of taking time and effort, I fully understand (as someone who does a lot of writing), that in the draft phase of any writing project, one simply tries to get ideas onto the screen before they evaporate. This happens to me all the time as well. But one of the many signs of both education and attentiveness to detail is putting in the extra effort to actually use the spell-checker, as well as to re-read and edit what you've written. It not only makes it easier for your readers to follow your argument, but it lends credibility to your position if only because it makes you sound like a literate person instead of someone who just sat down at the computer and rambled. Perhaps this too is elitist of me ... but then again ... it is a part of the formal education I've received: the same one for which you have so much disdain.

Finally, I must chuckle at your need to make political threats against me regarding what the heroic conservative movement is going to accomplish in 2012 and how it's going to fix my wagon. As with so much of your thinking, you obviously really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, or that the libertarian position simply does not lend itself to being pegged on the traditional right-left spectrum. Should you be interested, a simple illustration can be found here. But in a nutshell, libertarians value both personal and economic liberty, and hence oppose the welfare-warfare state as it currently exists. Moreover, if in days like these, when our currency is being debased, our liberties are being eroded, and our economy is poised to crash and burn ... your biggest concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade, well ... it explains much to me about why you believe in magical sky-gods, magical "alternative" medicine charlatans, and the wisdom of the common people.

Common Sense: I Don't Know Too Much ... But I'm Sure I Know Enough

2011-06-13T01:49:00.003-04:00

As many readers of this blog (all three of you) well know, I can't resist engaging in the verbal thrust-and-parry of a good argument from time to time. I admit it's usually an exercise in working through things in my own head ... I don't really delude myself that I'm having the impact on society of a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ... but it's fun and occasionally it results in my clarifying something in my own thinking.

A few days ago, I decided to post a few critical thoughts on someone's Facebook page about a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. This resulted in no actual meaningful dialogue with the poster ... unless one would consider angry scolding "dialogue". But a friend of the poster (hereafter FOP) did respond in at least a civil and pleasant manner, and as a result I endeavored to lay out a brief summary of why I have serious doubts about the existence of any kind of magic sky-god, a soul, or an afterlife (while this post isn't exactly the same thing I wrote, it conveys the same general idea). Yesterday I received a response from FOP, and it inspired me to post a far more detailed response here than would be practical on Facebook. But I will be posting the link to this blog entry, just in case FOP would like to continue the discussion. Also, instead of having to type (sic) repeatedly, I'll just mention that all comments from FOP are in italics and reproduced exactly as FOP typed them. This discussion begins by FOP elaborating on how "too much college" makes people ... well ... less likely to know things:

"... it is the kind of education one recieves that is important. i prefer the real world kind and i also prefer the commonsense kind. when i say "too much college" i'm taking about people who have too much formal education and not nearly enough street smarts. i'd pick street smarts anytime between the two."

Now this is a common lament. It's so common in fact, that I've heard it from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, religionists, new agers, homeopaths, anti-vaccine activists, non-dairy raw foodists, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, "common sense" is a magical phrase that appears to actually mean "whatever I want to be true". As far as I can tell, it's a combination of two common logical fallacies: the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. The underlying premise is often that the world (and universe) are inherently simple, or at least can be made inherently simple, by forcing everything into a black & white, good & evil paradigm.

"Street smarts" is another phrase that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. For instance, when I think of "street smarts", I think of thugs, con men, common thieves, drug dealers and their addicts, etc. In other words, to me it means people who live on the streets in a bleak and stark fight for daily survival. But I suppose "street smarts" could also mean a slick businessman, a savvy door-to-door salesman, or an ethically challenged used car salesman.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that FOP is using these two terms simply to draw the contrast between the common folk and those who have had too much "formal education". This has always amused me, because it's essentially asserting that people with less formal education are somehow smarter because they're ... well ... uneducated. Yet one only needs to understand a Bell Curve to realize that the majority of people are at best of middling intelligence, and a fair portion of them are below average. So if "common sense" and "street smarts" are valuable because they are rooted in the opinions, perceptions and experiences of the majority, it would probably be best to avoid them.

For instance, I'd wager that FOP wouldn't want a surgeon who relied on street smarts and common sense, or -- for that matter -- a mechanic, a pharmacist, a bridge engineer or a computer programmer. I'd bet FOP would like a highly educated, formally trained expert -- especially if FOP's life, job, or economic future depended upon it. It's just for the big questions ... like the magic sky god, that common sense are reliable I suppose.

Moving right along ....

"...most of what you learn in college, as in any formal schooling, is what you are being force fed by a person that wil add his slant to it.

While this is a favorite claim of conservative talk radio hosts, it's only partially true. Yes, there are cases where leftist professors attempt to turn their classes into socialist indoctrination centers ... especially in the Humanities (and, for the record, I am employed as an instructor by a major American university ... and I'm a libertarian ... and I've seen it and experienced it). But it's a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification. I suppose in this case FOP is using it because I had argued that science provides evidence-based answers to the big questions while religion is just a bunch of made-up stories. Hence, the only way to defeat science (without bothering to actually learn it and understand it) is to reduce it to the same level as religion: simply a matter of opinion. This is a common tactic used by creationists as well.

"... as you said, you don't believe any of the scientific stuff because you don't have true evidence.

My actual comment regarding science and belief was: "Now -- I don't BELIEVE any of this. Belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. I provisionally accept it for the time being because the preponderance of evidence supports it." In other words, I was attempting to refute the religionist claim that everything is simply a matter of belief, and underscore that science requires evidence. Apparently FOP is not only challenged when it comes to spelling and punctuation, but also doesn't read very carefully .......

"... i think that believing in the science of how the world began, is much more of a myth and fairy tale than anything the God theory prvides. i'm sorry that you don't have any proof for your theory. it must be hard living in a world that is so accidental.

Now this is classic creationism. FOP ignores my overt rejection of belief as the basis of scientific inquiry, pushes the requirement for evidence aside, and then totally misrepresents evolutionary theory by invoking "accident" as the driver of the evolutionary engine. This is truly a classic strawman fallacy: First set up a wholly oversimplified, false, and absurd view of evolution, then proceed to attack it while ignoring all of the actual arguments and evidence.

Now it just becomes fun:

"... i, on the other hand, do have much proof that their is a higher power. because of my commonsense, i can look at a 70 foot tree, that grew from a very tiny seed and can conclude that this was no accident. even if it had been an accident, would it happen over and over again? i think not!"

Indeed it isn't an accident. The seed of the tree contains the necessary DNA and genetic code to grow into a tree. It happens all the time ... over and over again. While this is splendid proof of how DNA and reproduction function, it offers no evidence of a magic man in the sky.

"... then i can look at my grandbaby and conclude that this is one of the greatest of miracles of all. but, then again, because of my pesky commonsense, i have to ask myself, could this of happen by chance? then comes the answer, "how could this be chance, when there are millions of grandmas beore me that have had one of these pefect humans in their lives and wondered the same thing?""

A common definition of "miracle" is as follows: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Millions of babies are born every day. Many of them are not perfect ... some are retarded, some have birth defects, some have congenital disorders. It's just how life works. There's nothing special or miraculous about it. If birth is a miracle, so is urination. Moreover, no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that all this happend by chance. But, again, to know this one would have to actually take the time to read what evolutionary biologists really assert and put forth the effort to understand it. Religionists are not only poor logicians, they're also often intellectually very lazy.

"... how about all the plants that have just the right vitamins and nutrients that we humans need to survive, could that be by chance also?

Ummm ... no ... but I think it should now be clear that it's not all about "chance". Plus, lots of plants are poisonous to us. Certain species die as environmental conditions change. Some plants are quite pleasant, but eating too many of them is unhealthy. And, of course, there are the ever evolving and improving sciences of botany and animal husbandry which improve the quality of food produced and increase the quantity. There'd be a whole hell of a lot fewer of us if we had to depend upon the mythical sky god to provide enough wild food.

"... i could go on for days about all the miracles that sit before you but you would not change your mind because you have been "educated" to believe in science when admittedy, you have no proof!"

As I've said repeatedly, I don't "believe" in science, nor have I been educated to "believe" in science. One of the key differences between science and religion is the way they process evidence. Science gathers evidence, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, and ultimately draws conclusions that are technically provisional (i.e. new evidence could augment, update or disprove them) but for all practical purposes are "true". Religion begins with conclusions, and then does anything necessary to justify and rationalize those conclusions. New evidence is simply not allowed, because the underlying conclusions cannot be challenged. I honestly doubt that even if FOP did bother to learn biology, or evolutionary theory, or enough astronomy and physics to understand how the universe really works it would make any difference: the underlying conclusions are sacrosanct, evidence is irrelevant, and "common sense" trumps reason and logic.

But I don't want to convey the impression that I'm posting this just to argue with FOP, because I'm not. I'm posting it because I hear this kind of argument on a weekly basis from all sorts of FOPs out there. This deification of "common sense" and folk wisdom and corresponding rejection of science and education is found in so many different places: creationism, the anti-vaccination movement, so-called "alternative" medicine, conspiracy theories ... the list goes on and on. And underlying it all is ignorance and profound resentment of education, science and the scientific method.

This is probably why we get the government that we do: the sheeple want good education, but not too much, and certainly not enough to challenge their silly beliefs, irrational superstitions, and precious status quo.

Wisconsin Union Wars: The Social Contract

2011-03-28T00:58:00.002-04:00

Found this happy little gem on my newsfeed today, and just couldn't resist taking to the keyboard for a little fun.

Today's topic is The Social Contract -- a favorite leftist rhetorical device used to justify wealth confiscation and redistribution. This is taken from a real exchange between real socialists, discussing an article (in the Huffington Post, naturally) called "New York Millionaires Offer to Pay Extra Taxes to Offset Budget Cuts":

Socialist A: Sounds like responsible citizenship and patriotism.

Socialist B: One of them says this: "This is what is decent and sensible as part of the social contract". The notion of the social contract is what seems to be missing from US society these days... And PS I have long wanted a bumpersticker that says "Please raise my taxes." I mean, I'm not a millionaire but I can afford to pay taxes and I believe those taxes should go towards social programs. Why is that so hard to understand???

Well, for one thing, because it's nonsense.

The first thing that's hard to understand is how two people can so totally misunderstand what a real contract is, and what the rules are that govern a legal contract. For instance, for a contract to be legally binding (and I just clipped this from Wikipedia to keep it simple):

a party must have capacity to contract

the purpose of the contract must be lawful

the form of the contract must be legal

the parties must intend to create a legal relationship

and the parties must consent

Hence, anyone under the legal age of consent can't be bound by this "social contract", because they don't have the capacity to contract in the first place. The same goes for those who are legally incompetent to agree to a contract. And as far as everyone else is concerned, in order to be bound by the "social contract" they would actually have to consent to it. That means it would have to be drawn up as a legal document, and each and every individual who would be legally bound by it would have to voluntarily consent to it. Last time I checked, no one was bothering to do this.

And that's precisely because, as far as the socialists are concerned, the very fact that a person draws breath obliges them to abide by an unwritten, unsigned, non-existant "social contract" that is nothing more than a blank check to seize and redistribute wealth. It's also not a contract in any legally acceptable sense.

Now if you're rich, and you feel guilty about it, and you want to give more of your money to your favorite causes, be my guest. As long as there's no coercion involved, do whatever you want with your money or property. If you believe in social programs, donate to them. Volunteer. Organize fundraisers. That's called voluntary charity, and that's a great thing that I wholeheartedly support. It does more good than throwing public temper tantrums when you lose elections, and it'll probably make you feel better when you're done.

But that's not what most socialists want to do. It's too time intensive, and it cuts into their vital moralizing and problem-solving time ... especially when they've got cushy public service or education-related jobs. Instead, they'd rather use the guns of government (or at least the implied threat of the guns of government) to force everyone, regardless of what they believe in, to cough up more of their hard-earned money for their pet projects.

Which leads me to one final point. I can't resist pointing out that Socialist B obviously hasn't thought much about how government really works. Paying more taxes in no way insures that more money goes to social programs. Paying more taxes just means giving various levels of government more money to spend on something. When you send in the check, there's no mechanism to distribute your contribution according to your wishes. That only works in the private sector (and only if you bother to make such stipulations). So if, dear Socialist B, you really want your taxes raised, good luck making sure that extra cash goes to the welfare recipient you so cherish and not the next Tomahawk missile that gets fired at Libya.

Personally, I'd rather just keep my money.

Wisconsin Union Wars: Return of the Hippies

2011-03-07T17:21:00.003-05:00

When the hippies gave up the faith of their fathers, they didn't give up faith per se, just the faith of their fathers. Their fathers' Judeo-Christian, button-down, suburban conformity may have been rejected, but the credulity and acceptance of unsubstantiated claims never wavered ... they just chose to believe in a bunch of new unsubstantiated claims that were different than the ones they'd been brought up with. At no point did they say "We were lied to, so we're going to apply a rigidly objective, scientifically-based methodology to test claims and ascertain what is actually true". Hell, that would have taken actual time and effort. Instead, they just took a stand that was 180% opposite to what they were brought up to believe.
In some ways this was easy, because much of what they were brought up to believe was indeed factually wrong. Plus, rejecting middle-class, suburban, religion-based claims was often pleasant. Smoking pot didn't make you a criminal, masturbation didn't make you go blind, monogamy was not required to have a good relationship and a fulfilling life, dressing casually didn't make it impossible to do a good day's work, and dropping out of the rat race didn't mean you couldn't earn a living.
But this spirit of rebellion also led to throwing the proverbial baby (in this case, reality) out with the bathwater. This has become abundantly clear to me in the past several weeks as I've watched the unfolding of events in Wisconsin. In particular, five things have really gotten under my skin, including (but not limited to) watching the socialist ... ahem ... progressive protesters:

reliving their 1960's salad days in the "movement"

bonding with young socialists who weren't even alive during the "movement" but are equally as confused as their leftist forefathers

parroting 1930's-vintage Marxist class warfare and pro-union rhetoric

displaying astounding economic ignorance

when all else fails falling back upon the "tu quoque" logical fallacy

For years I've been developing the hypothesis that what the 60's were really about was a wholesale rejection of reality, and a corresponding inability to recognize hypocrisy. Lo and behold the Madison protesters confirm this. Consider, if you will, this little gem of reasoning I found on Facebook recently:

"In their rush to make Wisconsin a one-party state, they don't care if they kill democracy in the process. All's fair when they've decided it's a moral war, and they need to win by whatever means."

Now, I've been out of Wisconsin for a while, but I think if anyone bothers to check, the current governor, assembly and state senate were, in fact, elected democratically. There was no coupe de etat. They just got more votes than the other side (despite, I'm quite sure, considerable union contributions to their opponents). Sounds like democracy is pretty much alive and well to me. I don't see them proposing or passing laws to keep themselves in power for life (unlike leftist hearthrob Hugo Chavez). But -- they did win, and as none other than lovable old Barak Obama pointed out to the Republicrats in 2009, if you win the election and you've got the votes to do what you want, you get to pass your agenda.
While I have no doubt that my socialist ... ahem ... progressive friends in Wisconsin were grinning from ear to ear when Obama told the Republicrats that they could take a flying leap in '09, they don't seem to like their own governor doing the exact same thing in 2011. All of a sudden, they want to redefine "democracy" to mean that the winning party is supposed to essentially defer to the losing party. And they'll march, picket, and set up a virtual underground railroad to spirit Demopublican senators out of the state to stop government from functioning. They seem to see this as a noble resistance to tyranny. I have another explanation: just as they did in the 60's, spoiled, dependent, petulant, hypocritical children are acting like ... well ... spoiled, dependent, petulant, hypocritical children.
Despite all of their singing, chanting, drum beating and other flower-power inspired gum beating, the bottom line is that they simply will not take "no" for an answer. If they don't win at the ballot box, they'll take to the streets and pitch a giant temper tantrum. If they're not happy, nobody is allowed to be happy. They can't even wait for the next election cycle, where -- if the policies this governor enacts are really so terrible -- they should be able to re-assume power and go back to voting themselves rich. Nope, the socialist ... ahem ... progressive vision entitles them to rule, even if they lose (which is curiously reminiscent of the god's-own-lobotomy culture warriors of the christian right).
Plus -- and this is where the hypocrisy really kicks in -- they're whining endlessly about how the Republicrats are trying to stack the deck against them, when in fact it's the attempt to unstack the deck in favor of the Demopublicans that has everyone so cheesed off in the first place.
Think about it: when the Republicrats take contributions from their corporate buddies or defense contractors, get elected, and then dole out expropriated taxpayer loot in the form of government contracts, the socialists ... ahem ... progressives get their Che Guevara monogrammed boxers in a bunch and angrily send granola flying across the room in a fit of indignant outrage. But, when public employee unions contribute equally large amounts of money to the very same Demopublican politicians with whom they then negotiate their employment and benefits, this is somehow supposed to be non-collusive and "democratic". And this troubles me, because I agree with the Demopublicans when they criticize the Republicrats for doing this. I just wish they'd apply the same standards to themselves.
But it's not just the petulance and hypocrisy of the Madison socialists ... ahem ... progressives that shines through. There's also their romanticized view of unions, their vintage 1930's class warfare mentality, and their almost fundamentalist belief in Keynesian economics that really sets them apart. But I'll leave those for the next installment.

But It's "Free" .....

2011-01-03T23:54:00.003-05:00

One of my favorite acronyms from the land of free market economics is TINSTAAFL: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". The underlying principle is pretty simple to grasp. Regardless of whether you or someone else actually paid for it, all things – time, goods, services, etc. have value, and some poor bastard gets stuck with the bill. I've been reflecting upon this mightily over the past few weeks, as I've been visiting one of Europe's premiere free lunch welfare states: Germany.

It's almost ironic that a large section of the American electorate in one form or another looks at European social democracy as something we really need to import into the US. Even our esteemed Community Organizer in Chief is often heard advocating the same kind of wealth-spreading, equalizing government intervention in life that is the norm in Europe. Personally, I'd suggest that this is one case where being careful what you wish for is good advice, because cradle to grave security comes at a high price, and it's not just a price measured in dollars and cents. There is a profound moral and ethical cost to the proverbial free lunch.

One thing you immediately notice when you follow European politics is that there's this vicious circle that is slowly spinning out of control. On the one hand, there are always an almost limitless number of people with outstretched hands insisting that they have a right to money from the government. On the other hand, the governments themselves are slowly coming to realize that the money they're paying out is outstripping the money coming in at an alarming rate. In fact, as Europeans watch Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland spending themselves into oblivion, it's almost accelerated the rate at which everyone's trying to get something out of the system before the whole damned thing crashes and burns.

On top of this, economic initiative is a generally unknown thing. In Germany, I can think of no form of economic activity that isn't licensed, regulated and thoroughly bureaucratized (even hookers have their own trade guild and pay into the social welfare system). Moreover, "regulated" means really, really regulated … down to the last minute detail … and then some. So if you've got some seed money and the desire to start a business, your best bet is to get a whole lot more seed money, at least one good lawyer, a doctor for sedatives, a therapist for the inevitable stress-related issues, and then start the treacherous climb up Mount Paperwork. That's the funny thing about a society where things are "free": if you're generating any money at all, you're a social resource to be mined and exploited as much as possible … at least unless you're rich and connected enough to get subsidized by the state one way or the other.

To be fair though, I did notice one form of initiative in Germany that was plentiful: trying to figure out how to play the system. I'd describe it as being something between a hobby and a passion depending upon the individual in question. It's so pervasive, that even people who are otherwise decent, motivated, inherently industrious types can be sucked into the endless cycle of trying to get someone else's resources reassigned to them. Moreover, the very process absolutely strips away any remaining human dignity you may have, because while the welfare state is often marketed by politicians and socialist weenies as the warm hands of the state catching you when you fall and helping you back up again, in practice you're simply reduced to the status of a case number and treated with all of the respect and tenderness of a cow in a stockyard.

This happens because bureaucrats suddenly wind up with almost dictatorial control over your life. Your every activity – economic or otherwise – must be duly reported and calculated. I've seen the forms … they don't forget anything. Some wormy little unionized government employee takes a book the size of War & Peace off the shelf, and that book determines everything. It's all "free" if you're "entitled" to it, but that doesn't mean they actually want you to get it. You have to convince them.

For instance, an old friend of mine is currently unemployed. Not his fault actually – he's worked for years and still wants to work -- but that last dip in the economy did him in. So now his life is governed by a wonderful German law known as Hartz-IV. As a long-term unemployed person, his apartment is paid for by the state, and he receives a monthly payment as well to live on. His better half is officially physically disabled (there's a license for this … and she has it naturally), which means that she too is "entitled" to certain things for "free". But, in order to save money and motivate the long-term unemployed to seek employment, the amount of "free" they get is being reduced.

Now, in practice, this makes sense: get people off the dole and back to work. However, when you've already hamstrung your economy by choking off the job-creating forces of the free market with an endless series of laws, regulations and taxes, this is easier said than done … especially when one is older. But there would still be an incentive to hit the pavement and look for work … unless, of course, you take the time to actually read the laws and figure out that you're entitled to more "free" than the bureaucrats think you are. Then, you can literally have a new full-time job doing nothing more than fighting bureaucrats, filling out forms, and making trips to various magistrates and pleading your case. And since the longer you're unemployed the more they come after your assets, the more incentive you have to take on the state in the quest to keep what you have and/or get more "free" rather than going out and trying to find work.

And so goes the vicious circle. The price you pay for the "free" you get is that you essentially become a ward of the state. Your privacy is gone, your freedom to make many choices for yourself is gone, and you have to justify your every need to someone whose job it is to say "no" as often as legally possible. Everyone who works (including the bureaucrats) view you as a parasitic deadbeat, and while they're not wrong, they're certainly doing their best in any number of ways to put as many roadblocks as possible in your way as you try to once again become financially independent.

All of which brings us back to TINSTAAFL. A Finnish friend of mine once told me that the difference between private charity and the welfare state is that the welfare state preserves your dignity because you don't have to say "thank you" and you don't have to feel like you owe anyone anything. But, in fact, regardless of whether it's private charity or public seizure of earned wealth followed by government redistribution, the end result is the same: nothing's free, and if you're the one footing the bill you're going to inevitably begin to resent those who are consuming the unearned. Moreover, all of that "brotherhood" that social democracy is supposed to unleash is nowhere to be found. Even the folks on the dole are happy to explain to you why they're entitled to what they get (and then some), but why [insert favorite scapegoat] most certainly is getting way too much.

Personally, I find it kinda creepy. For all the moral high ground the welfare statists and other assorted socialist weasels like to claim for themselves, the welfare state really brings out the ugly side of human nature. From the politicians to the workers, from the bureaucrats to the people receiving some kind of handout, everyone's fighting like the third monkey on Noah's gangplank for a piece of the pie. No one ever seems to happen upon the notion of baking another pie, however.

As allegedly brutal as a true free market may be, at least a poor person can become wealthier and there's a lot of economic upward mobility if you're willing to get off your ass and work. Europe is like a stagnant caste system. Unless you become a pop star or top athlete, chances are where you start is pretty much where you're gonna end up. It's a dehumanizing, incentive-killing, jealousy-promoting mentality where carefully watching what everyone else has and resenting anyone who has more than you is the norm. It's also the logical end result of the assumption that a free lunch is really "free".

Too Much Smug

2010-10-31T17:20:00.004-04:00

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons – Michael Shermer

So there's an election coming up. We're all supposed to be frightfully excited about this latest exercise in democracy, but try as I may, I just can't get too worked up about it. In fact, to me it sounds like just another case of 'same shit, different pile'. The powers that be know how to hang on to power, and I often think that they encourage the dumb masses to participate in elections as an act of misdirection. If you really think voting for candidate X is going to make a difference, you don't pay attention to what's really going on. You just pull that lever, feel like you've done your job, and continue with your life.

Despite the rumblings that the Tea Party has awakened a libertarian streak in the electorate, I'm skeptical. It's easy to talk about wanting to reduce the size, scope and power of government, but when it comes to your favorite government program, that's a different story. I find it more than a little disturbing that the alternative to the Messiah's efforts to create a European-style cradle-to-grave social welfare state in America is a collection of candidates and supporters who betray their ignorance of … well … a whole bunch of stuff. With the exception of Rand Paul in Kentucky, it still seems like the same old, tired choice between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber: mootbats vs. wingnuts, hippies vs. christofacists.

Yet despite the fact that many of the Tea Party people aren't necessarily our brightest and best, that doesn't automatically invalidate many of their basic points. If you're at all concerned about objectivity, we really are up to our armpits in debt as a nation, we really have created an entire class of people who live on the backs of the taxpayers (both the moochers themselves and the politicians who endlessly pander to them), and the federal government really has grown and expanded beyond all control. These notions may be poorly expressed by the Tea Party crowd -- but they are not wholly wrong.

However, you'd never know it if you read the profound musings of the American Left. They're sane, they're rational, and damnit they're intelligent. If you'd just obey and let them run your life, it would all work out just fine. You know the type: they'll smugly look down their noses at the beliefs of a creationist, yet their own beliefs in the virtue of wealth redistribution and social engineering - while equally faith-based - are not even open to discussion.

Well, I for one am really getting sick of it. If Facebook is any indicator, it's time – to borrow a phrase from South Park – to issue a major Smug Alert. Break out the wine glasses and begin savoring the vapors folks, because the Smug is really flying now. Listening to everyone pine romantically about yesterday's Rally to Restore Sanity, coupled with strawman cartoons about Tea Partiers and the tendency to refuse to seriously discuss any challenge to their statist faith is remarkably similar to the flag-waving, war-loving, Jesus-hugging hyperbole that my christo-facist acquaintances insist upon filling my inbox with. But the Left brings that extra bit of smugness with their rhetoric: we're right because we're smarter than you.

Yet being smart doesn't always make you right. In fact, I agree with Michael Shermer on this one: being smart often simply means that your skill at rationalizing bullshit is superior to those with whom you disagree. You can wrap your bullshit up in a much nicer package, you can formulate more eloquent sentences, and you can spell all the words on your picket signs and banners correctly. It's well-fitting, university-tailored bullshit. But it's bullshit nonetheless.

Don't believe me?? Instead of being smugly dismissive of contrary views, take a good, long look at the actual situation found in the European Union. After all, it's that very social democratic model that the American Left and their Messiah are so enamored with. Look at what it all costs. Look at how it works. Look at how economic growth has stagnated in the past 20 years and how entrepreneurial activity is virtually impossible. Look at how the government employee unions have a stranglehold on everything. Look at how they're rapidly going broke, how their currency value is eroding, and how their multicultural and diversity efforts have allowed a very real threat to establish itself within their borders. Most importantly, look at what they're actually doing, which is the exact opposite of what all of the highly intelligent Obama/Pelosi/Reid supporters are advocating – reducing deficits, cutting budgets and trying to encourage private enterprise. They've got a long way to go, and I'd wager that they won't go nearly as far as they need to, but at least they're willing to commit thoughtcrime and challenge well-established social democratic notions of the relationship between the state and its citizenry.

And that doesn't mean I'm saying anyone should go out and vote Republican on Tuesday. In fact, PJ O'Rourke's recent book pretty much sums up my feelings: Don't Vote – It Only Encourages The Bastards. I'd really like to see all these smug, smart people start using all that amazing brainpower to think outside the box a little bit and realize that the biggest problem with the American political system is that it's fundamentally broken, and that voting for Demopublicans and Republicrats (i.e. believing that your guy can successfully rob Peter to pay Paul and ignore reality a little better than the other guy) is not the way to fix it.

After all, when you've got a boot on your throat, it doesn't really matter whether it's the left one or the right one. It's time to stop pretending that the boot isn't there. It's smug, and it's not very smart either.

You Go Stephen!

2010-09-04T23:07:00.003-04:00

Hoo boy .... has Stephen Hawking ever annoyed the faithful. Seems the sheeple are OK with science when it gives them cooler technology, better health and longer lives, but they get really hacked off when the same scientific principles and methodology are applied to their favorite magic man in the sky.

Turns out that in Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, he has the audacity to further apply science to all those mystical areas that religions like to claim for themselves. It will surprise no one who knows me or reads this blog that I'm thrilled that he decided to take this step. But the outrage of the British religious leaders quoted in the CNN story is just so irrational, that I can't help but comment on them. It's not only fun, it's also rather therapeutic for me .... so here we go.

First up we have the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose cassock is obviously chafing him something fierce. He says:

"Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."

Of course, he offers no evidence to support his claim that an intelligent, living agent exists, nor does he betray even a fleeting acquaintance with the scientific evidence to the contrary -- but hey, he's an archbishop. And he's got a cool purple shirt to prove it.

Next up, we have a Chief Rabbi who's trying to dodge the issue of objective truth by sidestepping Hawking's claims while still objecting to them:

"Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."

Except, of course, that the book of Genesis makes specific claims about how the universe came into being, as well as how life came to exist upon earth. These claims are powerfully contradicted by any number of sciences, including (but not limited to) physics, astronomy, biology, zoology, genetics, geology and anthropology. But let's just sweep all of that under the rug .... after all, this is "interpretation" we're talking about. Facts just get in the way.

Just to prove that they're being politically correct, we can't have a discussion of such issues in Britain today without including the opinion of the Imam and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, who is unwilling to be outdone in the broad statement, zero evidence department:

"If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror."

For anyone who missed it, this is the old "blind watchmaker" argument from Richard Paley's Natural Theology (written in 1809). Of course, Hawking has lots of evidence on his side to support his contention that as long as there's gravity, everything can create itself out of nothing, but evidence isn't important to the Imam either. (Note to the "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd: if your magic man in the sky is an "almighty conqueror", this indicates that he resorts to force and coercion to get his way. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me).

But my favorite comment comes last, from a guy who is described as "an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science":

"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Hang on a minute here: "reasonable" and "credible". HOW??? Reasonableness is determined (at least in most pursuits) by evidence, rationality, and logic. A group of people just deciding that something is "reasonable" doesn't make it so. Lots of folks used to think that bloodletting was a "reasonable" medical treatment. Their agreement didn't make it any less dangerous and deadly than it was. And then there's "credible". The creator "god" myth is only credible (i.e. believable) if you ignore -- either deliberately or conveniently -- the fact that absolutely no objective evidence exists to confirm any of the 5000-plus deities humanity has dreamed up during its existence. Plus, we have 150-plus years of scientific evidence that the universe itself, along with life, evolved without some outside force directing it. Reasonable and credible my ass!

Of course, this is to be expected. It's no different than when you tell a small child that their invisible friend isn't real, or that Santa Claus isn't real. Denial isn't an unexpected response. The same goes for schizophrenics who really see the people and hear the voices in their heads. The nature of belief is well documented, and the human capacity for self-delusion is almost limitless.

But the real kicker here is that religious leaders are taken seriously. I'm not saying they should be censored or repressed or anything like that, but they're never even put on the spot and asked to back up their claims with anything other than the power of their belief. Despite the fact that they have no substantive, evidence-based arguments and they keep repeating the same old, thoroughly debunked logical fallacies and illogical beliefs, they get this giant pass from the majority of people and most of the media. If a car manufacturer advertised that their new vehicle could go from 0-1000 in the blink of an eye and get 150 miles per gallon while doing it, they'd be nailed for false and misleading advertising. But get somebody on TV, affiliate them with some religious belief that's popular, and they can claim anything without any fear of even having to justify their claims. Plus, when some whackjob takes them seriously and injures or kills people in the name of some "god", we get the old "our religion isn't at fault, this person just misunderstood our claims" argument.

To have carte blanche to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, practice deceptive advertising, bear no responsibility for the damage you do (directly or indirectly) and claim that you should be respected and/or venerated is absurd. The only thing that's more absurd is how many people are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement.

Take it away George .....

Mencken Was Right

2010-09-01T22:53:00.002-04:00

H.L. Mencken was correct when noted that "Democracy is a form of worship: it is the worship of jackals by jackasses". This became clear to me today on my way home. Since I commute on a bicycle, I have a bit more time to reflect upon my surroundings than your average automobile driver (especially since I can't be texting or talking on the phone). As look up ahead of me, what is careening down the bike lane but "Activist Hippie Woman".

Mind you, this isn't all that uncommon in Gainesville. Being a university town, it's full of old hippies, young hippie wannabes, and lots of bums who make a living getting handouts from guilty old hippies and young hippie wannabes. But this woman is almost a caricature. She's on a Walmart special bike, wearing a big white hat with plastic flowers on it, she has about 10 cans tied to the back of her bike for maximum acoustic unpleasantness, and her purpose for all of this is to show everyone the huge "Obama 2012" sign on the back of her bike. I zip around her, but alas fate is cruel and we wind up stuck at a traffic light. She noisily pulls up next to me, and the conversation is roughly as follows:

Activist Hippie Woman (hereafter AHW): "Do you vote?"
Me: "Yes."
AHW: "Obaaaaaamaaaaa whoooooohooooo!"
Me: "I can't vote for him, I'm not a socialist."
AHW: "Then you shouldn't vote."

[This is indeed an interesting statement ... guess the only people who should vote are required to agree with her. Freedom is obviously not her utmost concern.]

Me: "I believe people should be responsible for themselves."
AHW: "Yeah, but they're not .... so we have to take care of them."

I've been thinking about this mental giant all day. It's 2010, and the upcoming election cycle isn't for President, but that doesn't stop this motivated Obamabot. She's so caught up in the cult of personality that she's fighting an election campaign that hasn't even started yet in a way that accomplishes nothing (except perhaps tempting someone to mistake her for a speed bump). It's kinda reminiscent of the old school Stalinists, or Maoists, or those poor folks in North Korea who worship Kim Jong Il.

But she's really just another jackass worshiping another jackal. (And just for the record, I'm in no way implying that the jackasses who worship the Jesus-loving Christo-facist jackals are any better.) When politics is drained of fact, reason and evidence and reduced to a cheerleading, quasi-tribal popularity contest, it's no wonder we consistently elect the thieves, con-artists and despots we do. The masses really do get the government they deserve.

Mencken would be proud ... or maybe just disgusted. I know I am.

Skeptical Or Just Anti-Conservative?

2009-05-07T00:18:00.006-04:00

As a linguist, I naturally pay a bit more attention to language than the average user. In fact, this is why linguists often aren't the most popular people at parties: we have this nasty habit of listening to exactly what people say and how they say it. Sometimes it's as innocent as noticing a particular dialect feature, or a new acronym, or the slow death in American English of the venerable adverb (which I blame primarily on sportscasters .... but that's for another post). On other occasions, however, it's noticing patterns in language. This entails things like word choice, phraseology, and how speech can be colored or twisted to convey a thought that lacks ... for lack of a better word ... clarity (such as when the grocery store receipt proudly informs you that you saved $4.27 today ... and it only cost you $97.65 to do it).

A recent blog post by Michael Shermer explaining how he became a libertarian got me thinking about what words and phrases actually mean as I read through the comments and starting reflecting upon the vitriol Shermer garnered from various readers who were, to be kind, somewhat left-of-center in their political views. It wasn't the disagreement that surprised me. What got me thinking was the fact that many of these folks identify themselves as being skeptics, yet they were not applying any skepticism at all to the political ideas they seemed so certain of.

Being a libertarian makes one think about this a lot, as no matter what the topic may be, you can almost always be assured that your views will be in the minority. It's been my observation that there really is very little truth-seeking in the average person's political thinking: it's really just a giant exercise in confirmation bias. Another way I like to put this is that people are more concerned with not being wrong than they are with being right.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are first and foremost inherently skeptical of authority. Whether it's the authority of the state or the authority of the moral guardians of society, libertarians ask the same question of demopublican or republicratic policies: By what right? The very notion of being coerced is distasteful, because at some gut level we feel that if the evidence were sufficient for a given course of action, coercion wouldn't be necessary. To my mind, this is the essence of applied skepticism.

In Shermer's essay, he attempts to lay out a picture of how various pieces of evidence led him to his conclusions. Again, applied skepticism. His book The Mind of the Market lays out even more evidence. Most of the authors he refers to - Ludwig von Mises, Fredrick Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman - have also done this ... at great length. Granted it takes time and dedication to hack through these volumes, but I know many skeptics who have waded through books about biology, physics, paleontology and other equally dry sciences in search of the evidence. The same skepticism that drives one to challenge scientific ignorance should - at least in theory - equally motivate one to shed and ultimately challenge economic ignorance as well.

This issue has troubled me for a while. When I first heard and later read Daniel Loxton's Where Do We Go From Here? essay, I found it astoundingly unskeptical in the way that it dismissed libertarian thought out of hand. The good folks who do the Skepticality podcast, especially co-host Swoopy, often show great insight when it comes to most exercises in critical thinking, yet remain amazingly credulous when the topic becomes political. The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe gang do a bit better, but I still often get the feeling that if I had the pleasure of sitting down with them for a beer or three, we'd be pretty far apart on economics (but probably equally adept at quoting Monty Python movies chapter and verse).

In fact, I'm coming to realize that when I hear the word "skeptic", it actually has different meanings to different people. I think a lot of it has to do with how you find skepticism. My background is a lot like Shermer's: once I saw through religion I pretty much decided that nothing was sacred and everything needed to be viewed with a skeptical eye. Truth - even unpleasant, disquieting, point-of-view-changing truth - was the prime objective. On the other hand, if you come to skepticism as a by-product of liberal political inclinations, you're still playing the mainstream game, you're just able to see through non-political bunk better than the average person.

After all, it's relatively easy for liberals and libertarians to agree on why conservatives are seriously misguided on many issues. For the most part, they have a genuine distain for science (especially when it encroaches upon their religion), they're believers in some sort of mystical absolute morality that gives them the last word on which forms of human behavior they'll happily forbid, and although they often talk a lot about individual freedom and free markets, when they're in power the first usually means "the freedom to be a Christian", and the second gets redefined to mean "use government to make my already rich supporters richer". The fact that they campaign as libertarians and govern quite differently certainly makes them hypocrites ... but it doesn't mean that individual liberty and free markets are inherently bad things.

And this is what I'd like to humbly ask my leftist skeptical cohorts to consider at some point. Try to divorce your mind - if only as an experiment in thought - from notions of right/left, demopublican/republicrat, and look at the actual results of various political & economic systems throughout history. Be precise in your definitions as well. What Nixon, Reagan, Bush & Bush presided over was most emphatically not capitalism. We haven't had a true free-market system in the United States for well over 150 years (in fact, the last time I checked, the union of a strong central government and big business was actually called "fascism"). Nonetheless, while no system is perfect, you have to engage in some massive mental gymnastics to avoid recognizing that von Mises was absolutely correct: capitalism - even in its various watered-down forms - has nothing to apologize for. Coercion (economic or otherwise) has never produced the peace, prosperity and individual liberty that markets have.

The old adage about avoiding politics and religion at parties isn't wholly unwise: many people are so emotionally attached to a point of view that they become completely irrational at the mere suggestion that they might be wrong. The presentation of evidence usually results in the evidence either being dismissed out of hand, or simply ignored. This is certainly the case with Shermer's critics. It may be an understandable response, but it's not a skeptical one.

Interesting Story ....

2009-01-29T22:19:00.003-05:00

I know it's been a while since I've opined here, and I promise all of my millions of readers to write more soon, but for the time being, here's another short history of the anthropogenic global warming theory that may well be wrong, but then again may be on the mark. Since old Ozone Al was yet again back before the Senate (in a near blizzard, no less) beating the drum about how the science was settled and the argument was over, here's another well-educated professional whose actual job involves understanding weather and climatology who claims there's still a bunch to discuss. Enjoy.

PS - just in case you're inclined to say he's just a lone nut, take a look at the bios and qualifications of some of the other scientists who don't buy into the claims of anthropogenic global warming

Do It For Me!

2008-12-18T14:00:00.003-05:00

This is sad, but also sadly believable. A woman's car comes to an unexpected halt on the railroad tracks, and a train is bearing down on her. What would you do? I'd be out the door and setting a new land speed record for people with arthritic knees and unstable ankles. What did she do? She called 911, then sat there waiting to be helped. Alas, the train got there first, and she died.

Yet another reason I'm so down on both socialism and religion. What happens when you abandon individual responsibility and take comfort in the fact that no matter what happens, some entity (natural or supernatural) will be there to take care of you?

You wind up seeing your tax dollars go to bail out Wall Street fatcats and powerful Detroit unions. You wind up having your freedoms stripped away, layer by layer, in the name of public safety or "diversity". You wind up having parents kill their children by insisting that praying over them (or not getting them vaccinated) is superior to scientifically based medical care.

And, in this case, you wind up expecting the government to come save you as a train is coming straight at you. This is truly the model citizen for the new United Socialist States of America (USSA).

Speaking of Climate Change

2008-12-10T20:50:00.003-05:00

Saw this today, and couldn't resist a short comment. Over 600 scientists who express skepticism about anthropogenic global warming ... sounds almost like ... dare I say ... a different consensus. Needless to say I'm looking forward to reading the actual report, but this sounds potentially interesting.

One of them even has a Nobel Prize in physics. Go figure.

Climate Change, Political Bias & Skepticism, Pt. 1

2008-12-09T21:51:00.002-05:00

I've spent the past couple of years mulling over the issue of climate change. To be honest, it's a tough hill to climb if you're serious about it. There's a lot of information to absorb, and there are a lot of different books, websites, and disparate bits of information floating around out there to read, evaluate, and digest. Then, I hear someone say something that gets me going on a tangent, and I'm thinking about it from another angle.

My current angle was triggered while listening to my favorite podcast: The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe. In Podcast #174, a brave listener wrote in to put forth his take on the climate change issue, and in the ensuing discussion by the rogues someone raised the point that at least some skeptics of anthropogenic global warming use "denier" tactics.

While I doubt this will surprise any of my readers (and there must be at least 1 or 2 of them out there somewhere), I'll confess a few things right up front: I'm a skeptic - I'm a libertarian - I'm an evangelical atheist. But most importantly for this topic, I'm a linguist (as in holder of a Ph.D. in the discipline). Hence I feel professionally qualified to assert that political discourse - much like advertising discourse (which is essentially the same thing) - is far more concerned about persuasion than truth. Hence, the use of the term "denier" caused my ears to perk up, because it's an inherently loaded term.

Usually, when I hear denier, I think in terms of "evolution denier" or "holocaust denier": i.e. someone who denies the legitimacy of a claim that has been well document, well challenged, and well established over a protracted period of time. Now it's true that there are denier tactics that transcend evolution and holocaust denial. But the tactics aren't the real crux of the issue. If the tactics had legitimate evidence or salient points behind them, we could really just chalk them up to rhetorical style (i.e. picking around the edges of an argument could be a legitimate way of zooming in for the kill and laying your trump cards on the table ... if you actually have trump cards). But what moves evolution or holocaust denial into the realm of motivated disinformation (i.e. a line of argument that is used to justify established assumptions) is the fact that it's just plainly, demonstrably wrong.

I have a hard time applying the term "denier" as a general way of referring to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming for a very simple reason: while evolution or the holocaust are exceedingly well documented, well attested things, anthropogenic global warming still an educated guess. There may be a consensus among a fair number of researchers that it is true, but that's very different from being able to truck out a ton of evidence and lay it on the table. Some skeptics of anthropogenic global warming may indeed use denier tactics, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed, as Patrick Frank pointed out in Skeptic Vol. 14, No. 1, climate models are of questionable value beyond a certain point. I've often marveled at the fact that modeling and predicting the path of a hurricane yields wildly variable results until the storm is almost ready to make landfall -- yet many people will happily believe that we can accurately model the future climate of the entire planet 200 years into the future! Maybe we will learn to do this. It would certainly be a good thing. But I have my doubts about our ability to do this accurately right now.

However, there are other things about the issue that get my skeptical hackles up. Political language, as I said before, is a tool of persuasion - not investigation. When politicians start lining up on sides of an inherently scientific issue, it's usually because they feel that they can use the issue for -- anybody want to stop here and guess what's coming next -- no? -- OK -- here it comes: political gain. I know to many this sentence will amount to heresy, but I have seen much evidence to suggest that politicians have both distinct ideological agendas and very practical instincts about how to hornswoggle voters into voting for them. Hence, they view science, economics, and most other forms of knowledge through the filter of "how can I use this in the upcoming election?".

So who's lined up on the consensus side of anthropogenic global warming? Well, we've got Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, etc. etc. etc. Gee, what do they all have in common? Could it be an appreciation of centralized power and the expansion of the federal government into all walks of life? Is it more probable that they see this as another way to accumulate power for themselves? Are they really altruistically motivated to save the planet? I have my doubts ... especially since even attempting to discuss the subject with politically-motivated anthropogenic global warming advocates generally results in the same kind of passionate hyperbole that one finds among ... dare I say it? ... evolution or holocaust deniers.

How about the scientists behind the consensus? One of my favorite parts of Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" is where he points out on pg. 112 that a good way to illuminate the agenda behind something is to "...employ the tried-and-true method of political analysis: Follow the money." This is often a criticism directed against global warming skeptics: that they're on the payroll of the oil companies (the same ones who're sucking up government subsidies for "alternative fuel development" as quickly as they can). Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that JunkScience.com, The Science & Public Policy Institute, Friends of Science, ICECAP and everyone else who questions the anthropogenic theory are rolling in dirty, corporate dough. How does their nest egg compare to the billions of dollars that have been spent by governments around the world to confirm the hypothesis that climate change is primarily the result of human activity? How many scientists (who are probably somewhere left of center politically) will bite the hand that feeds them? When it comes to dishing out cash, no one can compete with Uncle Sam (just ask the banks, mortgage companies, and auto makers). So I would argue that we might be wise to take their consensus with a grain or two of salt (ditto the IPCC -- which also survives on governmental funds). In short, one does not have to be a crackpot to see how a scientific hypothesis that benefits ambitious politicians might be shanghaied for political gain -- especially when application of the hypothesis results in the advancement of blatantly anti-capitalist, pro-state, collectivist policies.

On the other hand, there's good reason to be skeptical of the politicians on the right who are essentially anti-science at the core. It's not much of a surprise to see that conservatives and creationists who reject evolution also reject anthropogenic global warming. They're living in a world of magic and faith, and they also recognize that being anti-science plays well with their constituencies and contributors. Plus, conservatives generally love business as usual, so the notion of any kind of change is viewed as a negative thing.

As for the scientists who remain skeptical -- these are the folks who are harder to figure out. Their careers would be advanced by hitching their wagon to the consensus, they'd get more grant money, and they wouldn't have to be essentially shunned by their colleagues for being heretics. Yet they soldier on. Maybe they actually believe they're onto something. I usually root for the underdog by default, so I've got a soft spot in my heart for these folks. But when I read their publications (especially the folks who claim that the sun plays a major role in earth's climate) I can't help but think that they should at least be involved in the debate. Might it not be possible that while humans contribute to global warming to some extent, they might not be the only cause? Is it so incredibly silly to think that the sun plays a major role?

And that's what really bugged me about the use of the word "denier" by the rogues on the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe. Anthropogenic global warming has not been proven to the point where one could even call it a theory in the strict sense of the word: it's a politically popular hypothesis, and there's a great effort being made to oversimplify and sell it with the same sincerity that one sells used cars or diet books. What it really deserves is open, spirited and extended debate -- not between politicians or bloggers as much as between scientists who confront each other with their data and slug it out in the journals until a real, evidence-based, non-politicized consensus can be achieved.

What She Said ....

2008-11-06T14:54:00.001-05:00

I can't improve upon this editorial, I really can't ... :-)

Hope? Well yeah ... kinda.

2008-11-05T14:22:00.002-05:00

This morning, a friend of mine posed the following question to me:

"Are you even a bit excited about the election results?"

My initial reaction, probably to no one’s surprise, was to point out that to me it’s all part of a great continuum: the continuum of statism. We’re coming to the end of the reign of a statist, war-making president, who will be replaced by an even more statist but perhaps (hopefully?) slightly less war-making president. In other words, we haven’t had a president since Calvin Coolidge who actually read, understood and followed the principles of limited, constitutional government, so why should I get excited about the election of yet another collectivist who will centralize even more power in Washington? As I pointed out in my last post, the cult of the president and the wisdom of the majority are illusions of belief anyway.

But on the other hand, I guess I am a bit excited. My objective in life is to convince people of the benefits of liberty: limited government, free markets, and free people - enlightened by science and learning and liberated from the shackles of mind-numbing religion and pseudoscience. And taking this into consideration, there’s a part of me that believes that Obama may help the cause more than anyone realizes.

After all, he’s probably the most openly socialist president we’ve ever elected. Where in the past it was possible to blame our economic woes on capitalism and the pro-capitalist president who was sitting in office at the time, this time it won’t be so easy. Moreover, hope as people may, socialism doesn’t work in the long run. You can only spread the wealth around as long as someone is still creating the wealth, and since human greed tends to outstrip human production in the long run, it doesn’t take too long before those with their hands out outnumber those with their noses to the grindstone. Socialism encourages parasitism, dependence, and that childlike reliance upon a mother/father figure to always be there for you (in this way it's really just another religion). Enter the Chosen One - our new president.

But there’s a big difference between promising things on the campaign trail and actually delivering them. Just as legislating morality is difficult (you’ll note that laws against "immoral" behavior haven’t really stopped any of it … for thousands of years no less), trying to direct the economy from above doesn’t yield particularly good results either. And while many old hippie boomer types have a love affair with labor and the unions that wish to have a stranglehold over it, it’s also well documented that unions restrict employment, raise prices, and reduce competitiveness in the marketplace. In other words, if Obama actually does what he promises, the economy is going to go even further in the tank than it is now, because just as Bush couldn’t spend and legislate his way to prosperity, neither will Obama be able to pull off this reality-defying feat.

And that’s why I’m slightly hopeful. When a well-attested socialist, collectivist, "progressive"* president dusts off the same old tired socialist policies that have insured decades of economic stagnation in western Europe and then ratchets them up even more than his predecessors, there’s no place to go but down.

Maybe government has to get REALLY big and REALLY oppressive before people notice it and start to rediscover limited self government and true federalism. I think Obama’s up to the challenge.

Maybe there is indeed hope for real change.

------------------------------------------------------

*Just as an aside - I love how socialists now call themselves "progressives". Nice little semantic shift. Instead of owning up to the fact that they are indeed socialists, they instead wish to gain power so we can progress ever forward toward socialism.

PS -- if you want a neat little flashback to show just how little political discourse and our perceptions of our system have changed, take a gander at this little Pete Seeger clip from 1964.

Election Reflection

2008-11-04T23:41:00.002-05:00

People, for better or worse, tend to be a credulous bunch. Sure, there are exceptions, but all in all the overwhelming majority of the human race is quite comfortable believing things they know little about, and then turning that belief into an identity ... or even worse ... a suit of armor that is used to deflect anything that contradicts their belief. This is the root of a logical fallacy called confirmation bias. It's also the thing that keeps religious and political enthusiasts closed to new ideas, interpretations, etc. I always think about this on election night. I think even more about how to crack the armor.

Before I begin, I will be honest with you. I sit here this evening proud of the fact that in 28 years of voting and political activity, I have never voted for a winning candidate for president. I've voted in every election, but always for the candidate with whom I agreed. I realize it's a futile gesture on my part. Liberty is not palatable to the overwhelming majority of the electorate, because they're addicted to government. They're truly convinced that government is there to help them with their problems, catch them when they fall, and bail them out when they're stupid. Before we can convince them of the value of liberty, we must first cause them to question the very notion that government works, and that the majority is wise.

So the Chosen One has been elected. Soon his followers will reach new heights of ecstasy as they envision a world of bliss instantly coming into being thanks only to the benevolent light shining off of Barack Obama's smile. They've won. It's all gonna be alright now. This naive notion of the president would astound me, had I not long ago accepted the utter ignorance of large parts of the American electorate.

For the most part, this supermajority ignores two basic facts:

Winning an election doesn't mean you're right - just that you've hoodwinked more people into believing in you than your opponent did.

History gives us a good idea of how wisely the majority has chosen in the past.

Let's take a quick look back in time. I'll arbitrarily begin in 1964, only because that was the first election in US history that some baby boomers were allowed to vote in (the world was a different place before they came along and subsequently spawned, and I would argue that the changes have not all been for the better). So, here's how wisely the majority chose:

1964 - LBJ wins big. His guns and butter policies are going to end poverty, cure racism, protect South Vietnam and generally solve everyone's problems. By 1968 he managed to cheese off so many people that he dropped out of the race rather than be embarrassed any further.

1968 - Richard Nixon wins. In 1972 he wins big. He taps into the heart of the "Silent Majority", promises to end the Vietnam war with "honor", and vows to bring law and order back to the country. He also extends the Vietnam war into Cambodia, institutes wage and price controls, and winds up having to resign rather than be impeached for breaking laws about wiretapping, perjury and burglary.

1974 - Jimmy Carter wins. In a folksy rejection of a GOP that gave us not only Richard Nixon but also our only unelected president (i.e. Gerald Ford), Carter rolls into Washington as an outsider who will fix everything. Within two years he's firing most of his cabinet, and two years later he's soundly run out of town by Ronald Reagan as inflation and unemployment skyrocket.

1980, 1984 - Ronald Reagan wins big twice. He campaigns as a libertarian - asserting that government is too large and the cause of most of our problems. Once elected, he proves this point by doing nothing substantive to reduce government. But he does succeed in spending the Soviet Union out of existence.

1988 - George Bush Sr. wins pretty big. He asks us to read his lips when promising no new taxes. Then he proves his ability to be bipartisan by raising taxes. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapses on his watch AND the fact that we won the first Gulf War, he still manages to be a one-termer (the fates are indeed fickle).

1992, 1996 - Bill Clinton wins, then wins bigger against the personality-free Bob Dole (who later winds up doing Viagra commercials ... wasn't that disturbing?). He proves he's a "new kind of Democrat" by screwing the labor unions with NAFTA (not a bad thing, but it happened nonetheless), getting us involved in a couple of mini-wars in Bosnia and Somalia, and helping America discuss the exact definition of "sex" (not to mention "is"). Passionately loved and viciously hated, his presidency helped depreciate the level of debate in America to epithets and absurd emails from mysterious people.

2000, 2004 - George Bush Jr. wins (barely), then wins again. Where to begin? Can we all just agree this guy was really, really bad regardless of which party you support? Please?

In other words, the majority may have been right twice. Reagan and Clinton at least managed to leave office with a significant group of satisfied supporters and a fair number of people who at least weren't wishing for their deaths. That means - for purposes this unscientific discussion - that 5 of the 7 winners of the presidency managed to leave office with the majority of folks disliking them (to put it mildly) after having been elected by --- tah dah!! -- a majority of the folks. The fickle whims of the uninformed electorate underscore how little thought most people actually put into voting.

So how do we save liberty? As H.L. Mencken once observed:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

In other words, politics is all about raising expectations. We've got be the ones to help people clearly formulate what their expectations are. Then we wait. At some point in the future, we should try to help them see how their expectations have not been met. We need to nurture their disappointment ... and THEN apply the wedge of skepticism (i.e. when they "feel" that something is wrong, use facts and reason to help them go with that feeling). Believers are naturally gullible. Until their belief is shattered, their minds will be insulated from thought. Thought liberates.

And liberty will only prosper if we get people to think. Relying on their feelings, they'll just swing back and forth between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, the Demopublicans and the Republicrats, and things will only continue to get worse.

Preach On Brother!

2008-09-29T15:32:00.003-04:00

As I recently blogged, I'm not all that happy with Ron Paul's actions regarding the ongoing presidential election. But as I've said many times, politics is about working toward common goals. When it comes to sound money, economic sense, and free markets -- Ron and I are on the same page, and I wholeheartedly support him.

Today's House rejection of the Bush Corporate Welfare Act was a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. If you're ever looking for a concise summary of why the proposed bailout was a bad idea, please check out Ron's comments on the matter. Keep it in mind regarding future bailouts as well.

Warts and all, this man should still be our next president.

The Cult of Ron Paul

2008-09-27T03:08:00.003-04:00

While it's taken me many years to learn this, I'm happy that it's finally computed: no one is above criticism, and no one is exempt from scrutiny. In fact, the endless quest of large numbers of people for a messianic leader has historically been one of the greatest threats to liberty. And no -- I'm not just talking about the Obamamaniacs who really believe that Barack can do no wrong. This also applies to many of the folks who have become so enamored with Ron Paul that they can't see the trees for the forest.

I've been a Ron Paul supporter for years. I enthusiastically worked on his 1988 Libertarian Party bid for the White House, and when he declared himself a candidate for president in this election cycle, I was 100% behind him. He's been right about so many things over the years that I'm willing to overlook the few points of disagreement I have with him (mostly involving his religion-based opposition to abortion).

The "Paulistas", on the other hand, are a different story. There is something -- well -- disquieting about people who build a cult of personality around an individual who is promoting individualism, capitalism, and liberty. It's not unheard of though. Were it not for George Washington's unwillingness to be made king, he probably would have been. Many great leaders in the fight for liberty have refused to be made into semi-deities. I always figured Ron would resist the urge as well. Maybe he's just getting bad advice from his staff -- maybe his success has gone to his head a bit. I don't know ....

When he called his press conference a few weeks ago to encourage Americans to abandon the two-party system and support a third party of their choice, I could appreciate his message. It wasn't a bad media stunt, and I certainly can't fault anyone for encouraging people to think beyond the typical democrat-republican / right-left / lesser of two evils mindset.

And if it had stopped there I could have bitten my tongue and lived with it. If there's one thing I've learned over the years is that politics is an endless series of compromises, and I've abandoned the notion that one must be ideologically pure in order to be a good Libertarian. I guess that's why, if Ron wasn't going to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, I can live with Bob Barr. I'd never claim that Bob is the perfect Libertarian. I just met him for the first time a few days ago, and after chatting with him a bit, I'm think he's still discovering some of the nuances of Libertarian thought. But he's doing a reasonable job of promoting a relatively consistent Libertarian message (in many ways it's pretty similar to what Ron has been saying for years), and that's good enough. After all, no one who advocates constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets is going to win the presidency. In a nation divided between those who worship government and those who worship an imaginary man in the sky, liberty is nothing more than a fire a few of us keep burning in the hope that some day it will again be appreciated.

But apparently there's bad blood between Ron and Bob. Maybe it's between Ron's staffers and Bob's staffers. I'm not really sure, and it's a shame that it's come to this. After all, Ron is still a member of the Libertarian Party, and he often embraces the small-l libertarian label. There's no political or ideological reason I'm aware of that the two of them shouldn't be on the same page most of the time. And hence, I'll commit heresy and assert that Ron should have, once the fun in Minnesota was over, endorsed Bob Barr for president and thrown the support of his PAC behind Bob's campaign.

But he didn't. I was, to put it politely, appalled (pardon the pun) to go to the Campaign for Liberty site and discover that Ron had endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. By all means, please to go their website and read what they stand for. While they cloak themselves at times in libertarian-sounding rhetoric, they're really just religionists who want to create their own version of a christian theocracy in America. In many ways, they're just a slightly more superstitious version of George Bush with less socialism on the economic side of things.

But what's really frightening (as though Ron's endorsement of Baldwin isn't frightening enough), is the reaction of the Paulistas. I heartily invite you to read their comments. How can anyone claim to be a supporter of liberty (which includes the notion that one can be non-religious or enjoy a non-traditional lifestyle and still enjoy equal protection under the law) and possibly vote for Baldwin and the CP?? These are the folks who, on their home page, proudly declare that their intention is to "... restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations". But many Paulistas line up, like the microcephalic lemmings they are, and thank Ron for - essentially - telling them what to think.

There's something very, very wrong going on here. Liberty and christianity are inherently opposite concepts. Christianity (much like Judaism) is an authoritarian mindset. Sure, believers try to emphasize the "love" theme, but the bible is replete with reminders that "god" is jealous, vengeful, and unwilling to share the spotlight with anyone else. The believer has a simple choice: knuckle under to the supreme dictator of the universe, or burn for eternity. These authoritarian beliefs are most definitely NOT the foundations of the Constitution (which is a product of the Enlightenment -- and was a definite move away from religiosity), and how Ron can overlook this escapes me.

However, the fact that many of his supporters are willing to let him think for them is even more disturbing. Maybe Napoleon was right when he noted that: “Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.”

Cultural Genocide for Jesus

2008-09-13T23:44:00.003-04:00

Being close to Gainesville in the fall is never an easy thing. Not only does the town become overrun by thousands of new, expensive-car-owning, cell-phone-yakking, text-messaging-while-driving, semi-literate undergraduates, but it's also football season. I guess if you're one of those Gator fans who bleeds orange and blue it's a good thing, but since my alma mater stopped playing college football in 1956, I just never got into the whole rah-rah school spirit thing. And when I find myself stuck in an endless traffic jam surrounded by the faithful members of the Gator Nation, let's just say my sympathies aren't with them.

What's even worse is the ridiculously high pedestal upon which quarterback Tim Tebow has been placed. The fact that he won last year's Heisman Trophy has pretty much elevated him to god-like status in the Gator Nation, and I suppose that's all well and good. Unless he learns how to play quarterback between now and graduation, he's not going to light up the NFL, so he might as well enjoy it while he can.

But what really infuriates me is the fact that this young man is endlessly lauded by sportscasters and other molders of public sentiment for the fact that he travels around the world doing missionary work with his father. From the average American, christo-fascist, cultural imperialist viewpoint this is great stuff I suppose. I mean, he plays football, and he brings Jesus to people -- whether they actually want Jesus or not. Christians refer to this as "spreading the gospel". I disagree.

Theology aside for a moment, let's reflect a bit upon the role that wealth plays in human relationships. Let's say you're a poor villager in the third world nation of Tooweaktostan. When I say "poor", I mean really poor -- as in living in a hovel and not having anything -- rather than the American definition of poor (roof over your head, car with spinny rims, cell phone, TV and air conditioning, plus food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, earned income tax credits, and a big Obama for President sign on the front lawn). Suddenly these strange foreigners walk into your village, and offer to help you out. They bring food and medicine, they build you better buildings to live in, and they want to be your friend. Since you have no education to speak of and don't really understand much about how the world works, who are you to argue (or perhaps more importantly, know any better)? Besides, they also have things you need to survive, like food and medicine and the ability and means to build shelter. But there's a price for their friendship and charity. They've got this religion they're rather fond of, and they're really eager to make it your religion too. Whether or not it screws up your culture, rewrites your values system, or does some kind of long-term damage (like inciting your neighbors in the next village to kill you for forsaking your native faith) is totally irrelevant, as we all know that there's only one "real god" out there, and naturally it's the "god" of the Christians. It's good for you -- in fact it'll save your "soul" -- and it insures that more missionaries will come with more stuff in the future.

This attitude toward missionary work confuses me. After all, we'll work to preserve dying languages, protect cultural artifacts, and support independence movements of small ethnic groups who want to run their own flag up their own flagpole. If we're not careful, we'll wind up in a shooting war over whether or not South Ossetia and Abkhazia belong to Georgia or Russia. We're constantly deluged with reminders to respect cultural diversity, and large numbers of Americans may even buy into the argument that Islam itself really isn't an evangelical faith that calls for the world to be subjugated in the name of Allah ... it's just being abused by a small minority of fanatical hotheads who are giving it a bad reputation. To sum it all up, in most areas of human interaction taking advantage of the poor and ignorant to promote your own best interests is seen to be unethical and perhaps even immoral.

But once again, Christianity gets a free pass and is exempt from rational examination or critical inquiry. As long as we're spreading the gospel, it's all OK. And history lends great support to the value of missionary work. In Europe, spreading the gospel contributed greatly to a particularly bloody period known as the Dark Ages. It destroyed the lives and cultures of countless native peoples of North, Central and South America. In Asia, it adds more fuel to a brightly burning fire -- helping even more people die at the hands of others who pray to a different imaginary man in the sky. And in Africa, evangelism and other forms of western cultural imperialism have rendered a continent rich in natural resources and native cultural traditions an impoverished, politically fragmented mess. But who cares? As long as they go to heaven when they die, it was worth it.

So the next time you hear some half-witted football commentator droning on about how wonderful it is that Tim Tebow does missionary work, please ask yourself this question: How would you like people from a distant land coming into your community, lauding their wealth and power over you, and telling you how to live? How would you like being told that your belief system is wrong, and being force-fed a new one that reflects the world view of the outsiders?

Because that, gentle reader, is what missionary work really is: cultural genocide for Jesus.

What's Really Wrong With America

2008-08-19T12:36:00.003-04:00

I don't know if anyone found this little gem on CNN's site yesterday, but I think it brilliantly illustrates what's really wrong with America these days. Over 57-bleeping-percent of people who responded to this survey believe that "divine intervention" can "revive dying patients". That's right ... forget doctors, forget technology, forget science ... most of all forget facts ... these folks believe they can pray their loved one back to health even when all empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

However, the root cause of what's really wrong with American is contained in this quote from the author of the study, Dr. Lenworth Jacobs:

Jacobs said he frequently meets people who think God will save their dying loved one and who want medical procedures to continue.
"You can't say, 'That's nonsense.' You have to respect that" and try to show them X-rays, CAT scans and other medical evidence indicating death is imminent, he said.

Excuse me? "You have to respect that" ????? WHY??? Since when is it required to "respect" that fact that someone is an irrational, superstitious person? If the person in question believed that Xenu, or Shiva, or Baal, or Apollo, or Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster was going to save their loved one, we'd probably call the guys with the little white coats to haul them away.

Why is it that irrational, superstitious beliefs magically become worthy of respect when they reflect a mainstream delusion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), but are safe to lampoon when they're either long dead or held by a relatively small minority of gullible people??

This level of doublethink and hypocrisy is what's really wrong with America today. Reason is something you reject at your own peril, because reality doesn't much care what you believe. Yet we remain enamored with this notion that belief, in and of itself, has some sort of magical properties. Saying "I believe" is no longer a statement of your personal point of view; it's now become almost a synonymous with "This is reality".

Hence, our presidential candidates (i.e. McBama & O'Cain) have to convince voters of their faith ... rather than defend the failed and unconstitutional policies they will enact. They can hit the stump with vague allusions to poorly-defined concepts like "fairness", "change", "duty", "patriotism" -- and thereby deftly avoid actually declaring what they really think or plan to do. Details and clarity are sacrificed to political expediency and the emotional pacification of voters who make decisions based on everything except reason, logic and good information.

Instead of "respecting" this kind of irrational behavior, we should be debunking it at every opportunity (which, to be fair, is pretty much what CNN is doing here). We should be teaching our children how to think instead of what to think. We should be encouraging critical thinking and questioning.

But the faithful could at least be a bit more honest. If you really believe that "divine intervention" is going to save your loved one, at least have the courage of your convictions. Don't hedge your bets by relying on science and reason until you don't like the answer. Stop trying to have it both ways. Pray your empty little heads off, and deal with the results.

If you don't have the courage of your convictions, why should we act as though they're worthy of respect?

Sniff, sniff .... hack, hack ... everything's fine!

2008-08-06T23:10:00.001-04:00

Y'know, there is simply something dangerous about people who are afraid to stand up for the truth ... especially when it's obvious to see and smell.

I refer, of course, to the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing, and the kerfuffle caused by some American cyclists who showed up for the games at the Beijing airport wearing masks. This (surprise, surprise) cheesed off the Chinese, and today the athletes issued an apology kissing up to the Commies who run the place and the IOC.

I find this kind of PC nonsense disgusting. Frankly, I don't know what the IOC was smoking when they awarded the games to China in the first place. Sure ... in many ways they have discovered the wonders of free(er) markets and capitalism ... but the price for their prosperity is a one-party dictatorship with an abysmal record on human rights. This is a government that was willing to mow down lots of its own citizens at Tiananmen Square not that long ago, a government that was happy to squash opposition in Tibet, and a government that will arrest its critics at will and incarcerate them for very long periods of time. They've also strong-armed Google to censor its own Chinese site, and continue to employ an Orwellian-style information control system.

On top of that, industrialization has resulted in enough pollution to choke a cockroach. They're poisoning their own rivers and soil and air at an alarming rate, and most Chinese cities exist under a pretty good cloud of airborne pollutants. I know this because I work with a large number of Chinese students, and they all pretty much agree that air pollution is a major issue -- especially in Beijing and other really large cities. Wanna have some fun? Just Google "Beijing Smog Watch" and follow the links.

Hence, I don't blame any athlete for being cautious about air quality. Instead of apologizing to the very government that is to blame for the problem, they should be proudly wearing their masks rather than apologizing for illustrating what everyone already knows: Beijing has an air pollution problem.

Then again, politics and truth have never had a very cozy relationship -- and since the Olympics are the ultimate politics-meets-sports event in the world, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. However, if I were one of the countless individuals who have suffered at the hands of the communist dictatorship that runs China, I'd probably be telling the cyclists to grow a pair.

Touched ... In The Wallet

2008-07-22T20:52:00.011-04:00

Y’know, I’ve always been a great supporter of Apple. The first computer I ever bought was a Macintosh 512ke (yes … I’m that old) and I’ve bought a bunch of Macs and iPods over the years. Needless to say, the iPhone just blew me away when it came out, and although I waited until version 2 came out, I was all ready to plop down my hard-earned money and snag one this weekend. In the process, I was reminded of an old saying: If you lay down with pigs, you start to smell like them.

As I’m sure almost everyone on the planet knows, Apple entered into an exclusivity agreement with AT&T where the iPhone is concerned. This means that you can’t actually have an iPhone if you don’t do business with AT&T. Not surprisingly, AT&T is using this exclusivity to absolutely shaft iPhone enthusiasts … and their own customers.

Take me for example. I switched to AT&T less than a year ago just to be ready to get an iPhone. I also have my land line, my DSL, and my satellite TV on my AT&T bill. To put it mildly, I give them a lot of money each month. Granted their coverage is pretty good, but I’d expect to get a bit of smooch back for turning all of my communication needs over to them.

Alas, AT&T isn’t very smoochy. In fact, they outright punish you for being a customer. I discovered this when I popped into the local AT&T store this weekend. After signing in and having my name horribly mispronounced by some pimply-faced boomerang kid who’s no doubt still living at home, I got down to brass tacks. What would it cost me to take an iPhone home and bask in its coolness?

A lot. A whole lot. First of all, my reward for already being an AT&T customer is that I can’t get the iPhone for $299 because I haven’t been a customer long enough. But they’d happily let me have one for $499. Still hopeful (although I could feel my blood pressure rising), I asked about the data plan. That would obliged me to shell out an additional $30 per month, along with the mysterious $18 “upgrade fee” that I’d have to pay (at this point, I was assured that the “upgrade fee” was only a one-time charge). HOWEVER …. it turns out that the plan I have now is considered to be a “special promotional plan” … so I’d have to add another $10 a month to the extra $30 a month. And that doesn’t even include text messages!!! Those cost extra too. So … whipping out my calculator, I came up with the following numbers to illustrate what the phone that Apple advertises as being “Twice as fast. Half the price” actually would cost me. It looked like this:



Item           Cost       X24 Months      Total
iPhone         $499          n/a          $499
Data Plan      $30           $720         $720
Plan Upgrade   $10           $240         $240
Upgrade Charge $18           n/a          $18
                                          $1477

Naturally, if the wife wants one, that’s another $1477 (plus tax)!!!!!

Now I ask you, gentle reader …. does that sound like “Half the price”?? What it sounds like to me, to quote the immortal words of George Carlin, is AT&T’s way of saying: “Come over here, bend over, and let us stick this big **** up your ***”. I think they’re banking on P.T. Barnum’s old adage that no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the general public. And they’re probably right. In an age when monthly payments are more important than overall price -- where deficits are considered normal (especially amongst the government types) -- I have no doubt that lots of people in similar situations will pony up the dough.

But not this cowboy. I picked up an iPod Touch (i.e. the iPhone without the phone) for $299. True, it doesn't do everything that an iPhone does, but since $299 divided by 24 months comes out to whopping $12.45 a month, I think it’s a substantial enough savings to put up with the inconvenience of having two devices with me.

And while it's pretty clear that AT&T are blood-sucking scumbags who take every opportunity to stick it to their customers (what a surprise ... a blood-sucking giant corporation ... whoda thunkit?), there's another guilty party here: Apple. For an allegedly customer-friendly, old-hippie, non-corporate corporation, they hung their customers out to dry by agreeing to an exclusivity agreement with AT&T. You'd think - having dealt with the evil giant that is Microsoft for so many years - that someone at Apple would grasp the danger of giving monopoly control of a product to one company.

Unfortunately, Apple and AT&T will fleece enough suckers to call the strategy a success. Hopefully, somewhere down the road, market forces (i.e. competition between carriers) will bring down the price of both the phone and service to where it's not totally overpriced. Until then, I'll probably wish I had an iPhone from time to time when I touch my iPod Touch, but at least a certain special area of my anatomy won't be bleeding because of the consumer-screwing alliance between Apple and AT&T.

E Coli Evolves - But Not Creationists

2008-07-02T16:28:00.008-04:00

Y'know, I'm really getting tired of creationists lying for Jesus. This doesn't mean that I'm surprised. After all, when your entire approach to truth is based upon blindly believing a heavily-edited collection of ancient books without any corroborating evidence, you're obviously not thinking too clearly.

There is, however, a critical distinction between making a false claim because you honestly don't know any better, and persisting in making a false claim even after it's been conclusively debunked. The pattern is becoming both familiar and disturbing: whenever creationists are confronted by scientific proof of evolution, they employ one of two very base and disingenuous techniques:
1. Ad hominem attacks against the authors
2. Either pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, or resurrecting long-debunked criticisms of evolution to exploit the scientific ignorance of the general public

And so it went in Dover, when the creationist attempt to inject Intelligent Design creationism into the local science curriculum failed (you can watch a wonderful documentary going through the whole process at the NOVA website). Despite the fact that it was clearly shown in a court of law (before a Bush-appointed judge, no less) that the proponents of ID were being wholly disingenuous about their aims and goals, the IDers continue to repeat the same line about how they're really doing science and that it isn't at all religious.

Then came Expelled, where Ben Stein narrates a film that attempts to link Nazism and Evolutionary theory, ultimately making science responsible for the Holocaust (see the wonderfully produced Expelled Exposed site for voluminous details about this sordid little drama). Not only does the film itself get most everything wrong, but the producers deliberately lied to the scientists they interviewed about the name, purpose and editorial position of the film (both Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers go into the story at length on their respective websites/blogs).

But the latest development in the battle to promote science shows just how far the creationists will go to deny the ... well ... obvious. Enter Richard Lenski, a distinguished professor at Michigan State who has taken 20 years to carefully cultivate, observe, and document the evolution of 40,000 generations of e coli bacteria (two very good descriptions of of this research and its implications can be found here and here). To summarize his research even more briefly: evolution is a fact. Period.

Some of the creationist responses to the research (found on The Loom Blog) are really just too good to be true (my personal favorite is: "If the bacteria changed, it was clearly because God willed it. He does that sometimes, you know. ... You'll go to hell for your blasphemy."). But to get a real feel for the difference between science and scared religion, read the exchanges between Lenski and the editor of the Conservapedia.

I'm beginning to see why playing loose and free with the truth, the facts, what evolutionary theory actually predicts, etc. should be expected from the creationist camp. It actually makes sense that they've adopted a battle plan to win by any means necessary (even if it contradicts traditional Christian notions of fair play, truthfulness, not bearing false witness against your neighbor, etc.). It's because they're fundamentally right (if you'd like to stop now and blurt out "What the hell are you talking about??" go right ahead .... I'll wait ....)

To paraphrase Sam Harris, someone has to be right in the evolution / creation debate. The key difference is this: Science can still exist if it's wrong. After all, science has been wrong many times in the past -- and this is a good thing. Germ theory, plate tectonics theory, evolutionary theory (especially paleontology) -- all have benefited from errors and corrections that made the theories stronger and more accurate. That's what's great about science: the method of inquiry is not damaged by positive or negative conclusions. I don't believe in Darwin or evolution as deities or sacred things. But, based upon the available evidence, these are the best, most consistent explanations I've heard of how we got here. Give me a better explanation that fits the data, and I'll happily accept it.

The creationists are in a totally different boat. They want to interpret their bible literally, and hence their litmus test for truth or falsehood isn't concerned about the evidence: it's concerned about confirming what they already believe. If the world wasn't created in 6 days, if their particular "god" isn't responsible for this creation, if there was no single great flood, if the sun didn't stand still in the sky, if ancient people didn't live over 900 years ... then the whole house of cards collapses. They must be right or else they're wrong.

And because of this they will fight tenaciously to resist any and all evidence for evolution, the big bang, and anything else that contradicts their literal interpretation of their "scripture". If they can't win the argument with facts, they will resort to a time honored tradition: they'll lie for Jesus.

I'll Be Dipped!

2008-05-25T23:57:00.003-04:00

I'm stunned. Happy, but stunned. For the first time in a LONG time, the Libertarian Party actually nominated a ticket that might have real appeal to real voters. Granted, there's a very good chance that the Barr/Root ticket will gather it's usual 400,000 - 600,000 votes nationwide and fade into obscurity, but as someone who's watched the ideological purists and holier-than-thou "radicals" in the LP serve up exciting and savvy presidential candidates like Michael Badnarik and David Bergland, it's nice to think that IF, by some miracle, Bob Barr gets into a presidential debate or gets an opportunity to present the LP message on TV or radio (or on the internet, for that matter), at least he won't embarrass himself and the party (which ... in fact ... is an OLD LP tradition).

This isn't to say Bob Barr is a perfect candidate. He's certainly no Ron Paul. Whereas Ron has been a libertarian pretty much from the first time he stepped into the Capitol, Bob was a pretty typical statist Republican. He certainly did some unlibertarian things (i.e. the Patriot Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, among others). Do I really believe that he's changed his mind and seen the light and become a "real" libertarian??

Could be. It's certainly possible. At least he's learned to look and sound like one. He seems to have grasped the philosophy. He carries himself professionally with a certain amount of dignity and class. And since the function of an LP presidential campaign is to spread the message and attract new members, that's good enough for me.

On top of this, it's been nice seeing the "purists" take it on the chin again. I don't get this "purist" thing. I never did. All the through the 80's and 90's, when I was very active in the LP, I could never get over the fact that the "purists" were more concerned about keeping the LP a small, ideologically pure club rather than building it into a real political party. Real political parties work to win races. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everyone else about every issue ... it's about getting to the point where you win enough votes to do something productive. If there's one thing we should have learned from the Ron Paul campaign this year, it's that people respond to libertarian ideas when they're communicated as compact, individual issues. The smarter voters (i.e. the overwhelming minority) may actually recognize there's a coherent, reasonable philosophy behind libertarian ideas. If they do, great. But if streamlining libertarian thought into compact, digestible sound bites motivates the dumbmasses to vote for us .... even better!! Votes are what political parties need to get the power to make change happen.

And then, I read proclamations in the blogosphere that run like this: if Bob Barr is the LP nominee, then I'm going to vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. What? Bob Barr isn't libertarian enough for you, so you're going to support the candidate of a party that is christo-fascist beyond even the GOP? Read the CP platform, then read the LP platform. If you really think that the Barr/Root ticket makes the LP "just like" the CP, I want some of whatever you're smoking.

The LP now has a platform that is quite libertarian, but not fodder for journalists looking for crackpot ramblings. There are signs that the national party leadership is professionalizing. The LP has a credible presidential candidate. And since (most unfortunately) Ron Paul isn't going to win in Minneapolis this summer, come November there will only be one libertarian candidate to vote for: Bob Barr.

It may not be the "purest" vote you'll ever cast, but it's a hell of a lot closer to Ron Paul than any of the other rabid statists out there.

Time For New Slogans

2008-05-22T12:40:00.001-04:00

So ... after large victories in West Virginia and Kentucky we hear that Hillary does better with "older, white and blue-collar" voters than Obama? That's what CNN says. She also does better with people who are not college educated (what a surprise).

I think this is interesting for one reason: as a collectivist / socialist, she's made a career out of pandering to group identity politics. You'll never hear Hillary utter words like "individual" or "self reliance" unless she's describing the enemy. She's all about group identity and communal "rights" (i.e. 51% of the population can gouge the other 49% at will ... and screw the Constitution). Besides, she was supposed to be the anointed persecuted minority group candidate this year, and this upstart member of another officially sanctioned minority group had the audacity to not only run for the Democratic nomination, but he's actually beating her in the process. Things are tough in group identity land.

Being a Clinton, I have no doubt that she's completely comfortable with the fact that she's the clear choice among the people she'd normally distance herself from: racist peckerwoods, reactionary old farts, and beer-swillin' blue collar types who go to church and mean it. But being a Clinton also means being about power for the sake of power. To this end, I'd like to offer some potential slogans for Hillary to use in the coming weeks that may help her reach out to this new source of votes:

Hillary 2008: At Least She's Not A N****r!

Hillary 2008: Fre Edjukashun & Helth Kare Fer Awl!

Hillary 2008: I'm Old -- Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie!

Hillary 2008: She May Not Have A Pecker, But Close Enough!

Hillary 2008: She's Found Jesus .... Again!

Feminists for Hillary: Vote For Her Or You Hate Women!

So go get'em Hillary -- ever forward on to Democratic National Convention and beyond!

Afterthought:
Needless to say, I can't wait to see how this all plays out in the next month. The American-Idol-Watching, literacy-eschewing, knee-jerk-deciding, magic-man-in-the-sky-worshipping dumbmasses in this country will roll the dice and vote for their favorite statist to run the Imperial Federal Government. And I have no doubt that they'll get the government they deserve.

For A New Tolerance

2008-05-13T23:27:00.004-04:00

Some things in life are just disturbing. For instance, did you ever notice that although you can agree with people on a given issue, when you actually come together with them you also discover that many of them are downright frightening? This probably first struck me back in about 1992 when I was still a political activist, but it struck me again after visiting the website of the Middlebury Institute.

In a nutshell, the Institute is an intellectual gathering point for people who advocate the peaceful secession of their states or regions from the Empire of the Imperial Federal Government. All things being equal, I would prefer to deal with a local tyrant rather than a national one, and I do think that an honest review of American history in general (not to mention Constitutional history) shows that the founders of this nation understood that secession was a natural right. Granted, the cult of Lincoln has worked hard to pretend that none of this is true (just as Lincoln was happy to kill anyone who disagreed with his interpretation), but I invite you to actually look at the source documents yourself (and if you want a quick summary, get yourself a copy of Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln).

But my sympathy for and support of the right of states to secede from the union in no way prepared me for actually listening to the ideological underpinnings of the secessionists. What a colorful collection of interesting people! One little video laid out the following points of view:

There's a bunch of christo-fascist wingnuts who want to make South Carolina into a place where "paleo-conservatives" can do their thing (which probably means they would institute an Iranian or Saudi form of government -- the only difference being that Jesus would get the credit for their 14th-century worldview rather than Mohammed)

There's the League of the South, who according to their website aren't a "Christian organization" but nonetheless "...recognise (sic) the legacy of Christianity and the universal sovereignty of the triune God. Most League members are Christians, and we base our movement on Christian principles. Trinitarian Christianity can not be separated or removed from Southern society or culture without both ceasing to be Southern."

A couple of guys who, respectively, claim that Hawaii and Alaska aren't really states (guess they were kidnapped or something??)

Several more people who sound a lot like tree-hugging moonbats -- going on about creating a "sustainable economic future" or "direct democracy" or "social justice" or some other such commie-sounding collectivist ramblings

And I'm listening to this thinking to myself "What a bunch of loonies!"

However, upon further reflection, it struck me that they had, in a way, hit on the true meaning of tolerance. Unlike the commonly understood meaning of the word (i.e. "tolerance" = letting people do whatever they want at public expense and sentencing critics to diversity or sensitivity training), these guys -- nuts though they may be -- get it. Tolerance actually means respecting each other's space. As Mr. Garrison pointed out on an episode of South Park, if you tolerate something "it can still piss you off", you just grit your teeth and bear it.

With that thought in mind, I must confess that a north American continent consisting of 50 independent states (or however many confederacies, unions or collectives things eventually shook out into) might not be such a bad thing -- as long as the individual entities respected the rights of the other ones, and people were free to move between them. Of course, this assumption is predicated on the hope that trade would continue between each group -- we'd just choose to live with people who were more or less on the same page as we are (which means, for instance, that I won't be going anywhere close to South Carolina should the "paleo-conservative Christians" get their way).

Do I really think this will ever happen? Nope. Not in a million years. Unlike my friend Neal, I have absolute faith that the Imperial Federal Government would in fact roll in tanks and physically occupy any state or group of states that attempted to succeed. The folks in Washington DC aren't pikers: they're out to maintain and expand their power, and will use whatever means are necessary to "preserve the Union" (gee ... haven't we seen this already as a matter of fact?).

But, in the true spirit of guerilla libertarianism (and as a professional linguist with an axe to grind), I think we need to take back the word "tolerance". We need to show, through our actions, that we can disagree with someone (intensely, in many cases) but respect their right to be an idiot as long as they are willing to grant the same right to us. No nonsense about "mutual respect" -- just tolerance of the other person's right to be an ignorant fool.

Before we can even begin a meaningful political discussion of many important issues, we first have to stop giving in to the compassion fascists and language Nazis and sensitivity trainers. We need to establish again that tolerance means neither approval, nor any willingness to subsidize another's silliness. It just means that we all agree that First Amendment is a good thing, but it doesn't protect you from being offended.

That would be a step - albeit a small one - on the road to making 1000 flowers bloom.

Kosovo: Yes -- CSA: No

2008-02-19T21:53:00.003-05:00

So the Kosovars have gone and done it. Good for them. Much like the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Czechs, and Slovaks, they have peacefully asserted the right of the governed to choose who does the governing. They no longer wished to be part of Serbia, so they withdrew from the Union. The US government supported their move. I'm glad.

But it seems that back home in the good 'ole USA, such treasonous thoughts are strictly verboten. Our government has already shown what happens to people who attempt to peacefully withdraw from a government they have come to deem oppressive: war, oppression and "reconstruction". Foreigners are encouraged to break away from oppressive regimes and form new nations. Just don't try it at home.

Think about that the next time you look lovingly at the image on your $5 bill.

Electability

2008-01-11T00:49:00.000-05:00

While watching the South Carolina Republican "debate" on Faux News, I was rather taken aback by a question from one of the status-quo cheerleaders ... ahem ... moderators, who asked Ron Paul about his electability. On the surface, this may have seemed like an appropriate question. After all, the purpose of elections is to win, and it does make sense to think about whether or not a candidate will be able to win in the general election. But when one looks a bit deeper at the whole purpose of elections, there's a more important issue to consider -- namely whether or not the candidate in question is seeing the world realistically.

The unfortunate necessity of trying to sway voters often leads to strategies that one finds in the business of advertising: selling a product regardless of its actual quality or value. When candidates become solely focused upon electability, the campaign shifts from a serious discussion of issues, values and philosophy to a slick, canned, packaged contest to see who can pander to prejudice, ignorance, and emotion. And this is perhaps the greatest threat to constitutional government and liberty in the United States today.

Is Ron Paul "electable"? I would argue that there's a far more important question voters should be considering: "Is Ron Paul right?"

What did Ron Paul say tonight? I think a fair summary might be as follows:

Government manipulation of the economy doesn't work and hasn't worked.

The Constitution is important as a whole -- not just when it's popular.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are just as important as the 1st and 2nd Amendments (not to mention the 4th and 5th Amendments).

Empires always fall when they overextend themselves.

Our interventionist foreign policy not only costs too many lives and far too much money, but is hasn't worked in the past, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future.

Poverty is not vanquished by throwing money at the problem and pandering to interest groups. Poverty is only reduced when individuals make good decisions and are personally responsible for their actions.

Providing incentives out of the public treasury for illegal immigrants to stream into the United States encourages them to keep streaming in.

We have strayed - greatly - from the founding principles of the United States: limited government, individual rights, private property and the rule of law.

While I realize that many people are far more impressed by a candidate who looks good, smiles nicely, and amuses them -- they should really be asking themselves if Ron Paul is correct in his assessment of our current situation.

This is my challenge to my fellow citizens. Rise above the beauty contest that the networks and "focus groups" call politics. Don't fall prey to the emotional manipulations and shallow populism that passes for "debate". Ideology is not an inherently bad thing, especially when one retains enough of a critical mind to reconsider one's comfortable assumptions. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, reality cannot be altered by a wish, but it can destroy the wisher.

Ron Paul is right. That's why you should vote for him.

"God" to Redskins: You're Not A Team Of Destiny

2008-01-06T20:53:00.000-05:00

Just a quick sports observation:

Last week, when the Redskins beat the Cowboys to get into the playoffs, everyone got all emotional and mystical and "spiritual" (i.e. superstitious) about the fact that the Redskins' margin of victory was 21 points -- which nicely dovetailed with Sean Taylor's #21. The mystics and woo-woos and Jesus freaks just couldn't get enough of playing on this to make it sound like Washington was a team of destiny, or that Sean Taylor's spirit was watching over them, or some other sort of nonsense.

Well, fast forward to this week. Seattle beats the Redskins 35 - 14. Margin of victory?? 21 !!!!

Does this mean that Sean Taylor has become a Seahawks fan all of a sudden? Maybe he sent a message from the grave to the Redskins to remind them that Seattle is the team of destiny this season. Maybe his appeal to "god" for Redskins victory was turned down, and this was his way of telling his former teammates that he gave it his best, but couldn't swing a miracle.

Or maybe this is just another case of coincidence being turned into something "deep" by undereducated, superstitious people who live in a world of magic and make-believe.

The Reward For Courage

2007-05-16T14:59:00.000-04:00

"Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting..." -- Ron Paul

I've been watching the net for the past 18 hours or so and marveling at the inability of the neo-cons and their christo-fascist allies to understand exactly why Ron Paul was right when he pointed out the above inconsistency in American foreign policy. There's a huge disconnect going on here. Many of these people who are gutting Ron Paul oppose illegal immigration because they don't want their country "invaded" -- yet they apparently have no qualms about the U.S. going into other people's countries (with guns, no less) and running the show.

But I think Ron's best point that virtually everyone missed was when he pointed out that if this war we're engaged in was such a great idea, why didn't we declare war on Iraq? Now I know a lot of people (like Sean Hannity -- who was a raving lunatic and wouldn't even let Ron talk afterwards) happily say that congressional approval is just as good (I suppose when you've hitched your wagon to Shrub you have to rationalize a bit) … but there's a huge difference between the two. When you formally declare war, you commit yourself to a few things, such as:

A definition of what "victory" means

A willingness to achieve "victory"

A definite endpoint (i.e. the unconditional surrender of nation X)

A declaration of war is serious business and should not be entered into lightly. And that's precisely the point. The founders had the sense to realize that if we as a nation were going to commit lives and resources to a military undertaking, we should make sure we're all on the same page first. Aside from being constitutionally required, a declaration of war also means that Congress and the Senate commit themselves on paper to the war and its completion.

The difference between a congressional resolution and a declaration of war is the difference between a one-night stand and a marriage. While both result in some initial action, one is much more difficult to walk away from than the other and should require a hell of a lot more forethought.

Unfortunately, most politicians are so frightened of being pinned down on any issue that they always opt for the one-night stand. Sadly, that's what last night's debate really showed: nine blowhards unconcerned with principles, consistency, history, economics or liberty. It was all about pandering to the party base and playing on their fears, prejudices and superstitions. Ron Paul had the courage to be a principled defender of liberty and constitutional government. And that's precisely why he should (but never will) win the Republican nomination.

Sanity

2007-05-16T03:06:00.000-04:00

Kudos to Ron Paul tonight for being a voice of sanity, reason and constitutional understanding in a sea of neo-conservative, saber-rattling, christo-fascist nonsense. If those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, voting for any of the other 9 candidates will only insure many more decades of entangling foreign alliances and terrorist attacks (not to mention a continued growth of government, taxation and restrictions on personal liberty).

I'm also amused to scan the news sites tonight and see the Republican stooges spend an inordinate amount of verbage demonizing Ron Paul. That alone should encourage sane people to seriously consider his candidacy.

A couple of other related thoughts:

Is it just me, or is John McCain remarkably good at not answering questions?

John Kerry was in Vietnam. Rudy Giuliani was in New York on 9/11. Does either claim really lend their political insights any genuine credibility??

Someone ought to tell Tommy Thompson that Wisconsin isn't an important state -- regardless of how many times he claims it is.

Just remember --- if the majority likes it or believes it, it's probably wrong.

Two Cheers For Democracy

2007-04-16T23:55:00.000-04:00

I'm often amazed at the belief that many of my otherwise intelligent, rational university colleagues have in democracy. For reasons I've yet to grasp, these people -- who not only make up the educated elite of our society but who also, generally speaking, have had precious little contact with the masses and the realities of the day-to-day world of the worker -- hold tightly to a romanticized view of the "common person". Some have a genuine affection for collectivist / Marxist thought, but many are much less ideological, "mainstream" left-of-center folks who just automatically accept that labor and the poor are somehow both worthy of our attention and resources. They appear to view democracy as an equalizer and even an agent of justice, and they appear to view themselves as the keepers and protectors of the masses (at least as long as the masses support to their particular issues). When the masses oppose evolution, gay marriage, sex education, or the welfare state, then they're just ignorant, reactionary peckerwoods -- but as long as it's a good collectivist, green, pro-union, anti-capitalist cause the masses support, it's Vox populi, Vox dei.

Personally, I give democracy two cheers. It's a better way of doing things than authoritarian rule (be it secular or religious), but without something to contain it it's hardly all that it's cracked up to be. Many authoritarian rulers have been "democratically" elected (i.e. Adolf Hitler, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hosni Mubarek), but I can't think of any offhand who have been consistent respecters of the rule of law, property rights or individual rights (including everything that goes with "human" rights). Democracy can go as wrong as any other system. That's why the founders of this nation established a constitutional republic with an independent judiciary, ample protection for private property, a well-defined and limited role for government, and appropriate guarantees of the rights of individual citizens (especially Amendments IX and X).

The inherent flaw in democracy is basic: objective truth cannot be determined by opinion. To give a simple example, the earth is not flat and it is not the center of the universe. The fact that the Catholic Church believed otherwise for centuries did not make it true, despite the fact that they were willing to go to extremes to protect their belief. Correspondingly, the fact that a majority of people believe anything and are willing to empower politicians to enact their will does not necessarily make it a good idea.

This is not to say, however, that I don't understand why politicians and other power-craving types love democracy. If I control the public education system and the media, I can mold the masses to salivate virtually on command. Each time the masses are riled up enough to take to the voting booths and "solve" some problem (real or imagined), the real winners are those in power. Each additional power granted to government expands the domain of the politicians and bureaucrats. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but once a governmental agency is established, funded, and empowered -- it seldom if ever goes away.

Just for fun, consider this short list of democratically enacted pieces of brilliance that have failed (for any number of reasons) to live up to their hype:

Poverty can be eliminated by spending lots of money on it

The War on Drugs will solve our drug-related problems

Bussing will promote racial equality in education

Alcohol prohibition will usher in a new golden age

Sending US dollars and troops abroad to intervene in foreign conflicts will promote world peace and stability

Standardized testing will insure quality education

Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman

In each case, the rush to "do something" outweighed and overshadowed everything from debate to reason to constructive criticism. But it felt SO good at the time ....

Bottom line: Democracy, without some serious checks and balances, is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. When politicians get hold of it, it quickly morphs into mob rule, and may the deity of your choice help you should you find yourself on the wrong side of the mob. The masses are far more dangerous than they are wise, and politicians and their ilk know how to manipulate the masses. This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of a strictly limited government that protects the rights of the individual against the will of the mob. We actually had one of these once -- until "the people" began democratically voting it out of existence.

A Quick Observation

2007-04-09T23:39:00.000-04:00

Don Imus' biggest mistake was not making questionable comments about a female basketball team. Granted that was not a particularly bright move, but it wasn't his biggest mistake. His biggest mistake was cowtowing to poverty pimps and race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He should have apologized to the women he offended and then told Al and Jesse to take a flying leap. Hell, he was gonna get in trouble anyway ... why not do it for a good cause?

Besides, who elected these two well-heeled blowhards as the co-emperors of black people?? Isn't it pretty obvious by now that they and those like them absolutely live to be "offended"? If there isn't something to be "offended" about, they don't get headlines, TV interviews, and donations to their organizations. Every time we give in to this hypersensitive, race-baiting nonsense, we just insure that we'll get even more of it in the future.

Is that what you really want???

Just What The Doctor Ordered?

2007-03-05T23:03:00.000-05:00

Have you been watching the news over the past day or so? Have you heard about the complaints being made against the Army medical system and the way it treats recovering GIs? Regardless of how you feel about our ongoing involvement in Iraq, if a guy gets himself blown to pieces in the service of a government, it's really only fair that that government should give him decent medical care afterwards. It seems, however, that our government doesn't maintain its hospitals any more efficiently than the INS secures the border or the Postal Service delivers the mail.

Keep this little fact in mind the next time you hear someone self-righteously demanding socialized medicine (a.k.a. "Universal Health Care"), because that's exactly what the VA Hospital system is. Without market forces and competition, the VA Hospital system is a "free", "equal", one-size-fits-all approach to health care. How do they keep drug prices down? They only buy a limited number of drugs to use and distribute. What happens if there's not enough room in the budget for things? Well, that's just too bad -- people do without.

It's neither surprising nor unheard of in other countries with socialized medicine. These issues are well documented in places like Canada, England and continental Europe. But the "Universal Health Care Now!" crowd doesn't mention this. They picked health care from their magical tree of endless "rights", and now it's just another freebie they use to buy votes.

But nothing is "free". Someone has to pay for it, even if it's not you. When the government nationalizes health care, that doesn't mean that there's suddenly an endless supply of funds to take care of every ache, pain, twinge, and hypochondriacal urge. In fact, without something to limit access, the demand for services will go up. Mark my words, there will be a budget of some sort for every nationalized health care facility, and if you've ever dealt with government bureaucracies, you know how they get when it comes to budgets. They get bloated with red tape and extra employees, then the funds get short, then we have to start cutting costs. Naturally, the logical place to cut costs is in the realm of services provided, because government employees are union members who vote for the politicians who dream up these bright ideas. The patient winds up just like the poor guys at Walter Reed: not necessarily dead, but not all that healthy either.

There's an old saying that "freedom isn't free". True enough. But freedom is ultimately a low-cost undertaking: create a limited system of government (like our Constitution laid out before the socialists started ignoring it) and basically leave people alone as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Once government starts doing more, the system gets to be more expensive. Quality, on the other hand, always seems to suffer.

At least that's what the soldiers who've been getting this "free" health care seem to be telling us.

Is This Really What You Have In Mind?

2007-02-28T22:48:00.000-05:00

For those of y'all who think the nanny state - specifically socialized medicine (oh ... excuse me ... "Universal Health Care") - is such a splendid idea, here's a little food for thought.

If you haven't been paying attention, there's an interesting story coming out of England. Seems there's an 8 year old boy who weighs in at about 218 pounds (yeeesh!!), and now the powers that be are contemplating whether or not to take custody of him away from his mother due to "neglect". Now many of us probably are thinking "218 friggin' pounds .... that's not neglect, that's overindulgence!!" But I would argue that this foreshadows an unexpected consequence of surrendering your freedom to the nanny state and it's "free" services.

Basically, the logic works. I think it goes something like this:

Any 8 year old who weighs 218 pounds is really overweight

Being that overweight virtually assures major health problems

Major health problems will be covered at taxpayer expense through the National Health Service

Since the National Health Service is publically funded and resources are not infinite, the state must intervene to prevent a huge (no pun intended) drain on the system

It's kind of like when you were a kid at home. You remember the old song & dance your parents used to do? It was called "My house, my rules". If mom & dad were ponying up the dough, they called the shots.

Now I'll grant you that this junior gastropod would benefit from some serious intervention (not to mention discipline, exercise and self-control). But that's not the point. Do you really want your government -- the one that does such a fine job running the postal service, IRS, war in Iraq, and lots of other things -- making health decisions for you?? Do you really want federal authorities to further define what constitutes "proper" parenting??

Moreover, where does it end? If any of the current collection of demopublican / republicrat candidates becomes President in '08 and pulls off some kind of socialized medicine in the US, I'd suggest that you hold on to your skivvies and hope you don't have any bad habits. Overeating, smoking, drinking, doing the tube steak boogie without a rubber, extreme sports, you name it -- all of these behaviors (and many more) will shorten your life span and cause you to be a burden on publically funded national health service. And since the market will be shut out of this new socialist utopia, there will only be two methods to bankroll the thing: raise taxes or ration care. One form of rationing care is to punish people who don't live the way the health Nazis decide they should. Your rights as an individual quickly evaporate under the weight of "national interest".

So puff your cigarettes and enjoy your Big Macs now. The health Nazis are coming, and they've got you in their sights.

Let's Hear It For AirTran!

2007-01-23T15:34:00.000-05:00

Amazing ... absolutely amazing. A commercial air carrier finally stands up for the rights of passengers not to be terrorized by uncontrolled children.

Seems that rather than hold up 112 people because some uncontrolled 3 year old brat wouldn't sit down and shut up, AirTran booted the monster and both parents from the flight.

Now mommy and daddy are mad at AirTran. Figures. One would hope that they'd perhaps take this as an indication that more discipline was required for their miserable little ankle-biter, but since they're from Taxachussetts, I doubt it will work out that way. Watch out for the new "No-Child-Having-A-Tantrum-Left-Behind" proposal, coming soon from a legislator near you.

Meanwhile, a bunch of touchy-feelie bedwetters in California want to make spanking illegal. Maybe we ought to take all the bleeding hearts from California and put them on planes with a bunch of uncontrolled, screaming 3 year olds and see if it changes their tune ....

She's Back!

2007-01-20T14:15:00.000-05:00

Well, the other shoe has dropped. Hillary is officially in the race for president in '08. I don't know whether I should be be glad or not. I think it's because she reminds me of Rosa Luxemburg: she's ideological (even if she attempts to pretend otherwise), she's focused, and she's pursuing a more modernized but equally socialist goal: to transform what's left of her country's constitutional government into a Euro-weenie-style welfare state. Granted this isn't any different in practice than what any other demopublican politician has done over the past 20 years or so, it's just a bit more out in the open.

I think I like that part. I mean, the problem with Shrub has always been that he's so crazed with superstition that you just feel like you can't reason with the man. I just know that conversations like this one went on in the White House before the whole mess in Iraq started:

Somebody: "But Mr. President, if we go into Iraq it will cost X, require Y troops, take Z years, and potentially bog down the economy and your presidency."

Shrub: "But god told me to do it".

I don't think we'll hear any reasoning like that from Hillary.

Plus, if there's ever any hope to restore liberty and constitutional government to America, I think someone like Hillary might be necessary. I realize this is betraying my youthful enthusiasm for the story line in Atlas Shrugged, but the sheeple don't pay attention to what's going on around them, and they don't think very deeply (thanks to a combination of government schools and years of religious indoctrination), and they don't want to be responsible for their own lives. They're basically happy to continue to transfer ever more power and money to government as long as their basic needs are met and they can watch American Idol on their big-screen plasma TVs. They're really not going to get riled up until things get really bad -- and I think Hillary is the kind of leader who could really send liberty spinning down the crapper in a relatively short period of time.

I say this because Hillary has "it", and "it" puts her in good company. A lot of famous leaders have had "it", including all the Kennedys, Richard Nixon, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro & Mao Zedong. Want to know what "it" is? "It" is the single-minded willingness to pursue power for the sake of power. Some politicians may be naive enough to believe that they're really trying to make the world a better place (like "Junior" John Edwards and perhaps even Ozone Al Gore), but not Hillary. She may not admit it, and her handlers will definitely try to put thick layers of sheep's clothing on this particular she-wolf, but she's out to rule, not to govern. And since we have a majority of people in this country who are more than willing to be ruled, I think her chances of winning the whole shootin' match are pretty good.

And then the American people will truly get the government they deserve.

Schadenfreude

2006-11-08T01:03:00.000-05:00

So ... looks like something positive may have happened tonight in electionland. The demopublicans took the House, and they may get the Senate. Regardless of whether or not the republicrats hold on in the Senate, we should be in for two years of bickering, investigating, name-calling, finger-pointing, and posturing.

Which is another way of saying that it will be very hard for Shrub and his christo-fascists to accomplish anything, yet it will be equally as hard for those who oppose him to promote their agenda in any meaningful way (as an aside, am I the only one who is saddened by the fact that American politics has pretty much degenerated into an endless tug-of-war between the christo-fascists and the socialists?).

However, gridlock is a good thing. A government in gridlock is a government that grows more slowly ... and that's a thought that should warm the heart of every working, wage-earning, tax-paying American.

I'll sleep better tonight.

Voting Blues

2006-11-07T14:53:00.000-05:00

So today's the big day ... time for less than 50% of the eligible voters (80% of whom are so utterly uninformed or misinformed that they shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth) to trudge to the polls and cast their ballots. The media is really rooting hard for the demopublicans to take the House and Senate, and they may well do it. Many of my friends and colleagues are no doubt all excited about this prospect. While I certainly would agree that the republicrats deserve a swift kick in the ass, I can't get too worked up about it. In fact, I would argue that voting is a wholly futile undertaking for the following reasons:

1. Since our system is wholly undemocratic to begin with, voting only helps those in power pretend that the system is open and fair. But it's fixed. The winner-take-all nature of it insures that both demopublicans and republicrats have to essentially stand for nothing and run to the middle. After winning, they then do whatever they can to sure up their bases (i.e. pork, grants, entitlements, etc.), while pretending to run to the middle.

2. No matter who wins, the taxpayer loses. Government will continue to get bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive.

3. Nothing significant will happen, regardless of who wins. We'll still be in Iraq. We'll still be in Afghanistan. We'll still have hoards of illegals crossing the borders to get in on the welfare state gravy train. We'll still have the Patriot Act looming over us.

4. Our domestic political situation is nothing but an endless series of "who robs from whom" pseudo-crises. The overwhelming majority of Americans are totally disinterested in freedom -- what they crave is security. Whether it's saving the children, subsidizing the old geezers' prescription drugs, saving tender liberal lungs from cigarette smoke, or making sure that not a single breast appears on TV during prime time, the sheeple will continue to look to government as a parent-figure, and expect government to solve all their problems and absolve them of all responsibility for their lives. If there aren't enough real problems, the politicians and do-gooders invent more.

5. This election is just a teaser, anyway. Once the dust clears for a few days, the real campaign will begin for the White House in 2008.

So have fun y'all ... it's like the song from South Park says:

Let's get out and vote - Let's make our voices heard
We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd
It's democracy in action - Put your freedom to the test
A big fat turd or a stupid douche - Which do you like best?

The Powerlessness of Prayer

2006-11-01T14:11:00.000-05:00

Since I've been on a sports kick for the past few posts, I thought I'd follow up today with a nice example of the second thing that really bothers me about sports today: the fact that superstitious Christian types have taken it over. You know the kind of athlete I'm talking about. The guy who spends years practicing and training and straining to become great, and then makes a big play and attributes it to Jesus (curiously, Jesus is never blamed when the guy screws up). I challenge anyone to show me tape of Jesus having his ass out on the practice field just once. These guys are successful because they've worked hard and sacrificed a lot to become that good, yet they have to attribute their success to some kind of vaguely defined yet highly personalized supernatural force.

This behavior is not accidental. These athletes were targeted at a young age by fundamentalist recruiters who recognized that athletes are frequently ... to put it kindly ... prone to accept groupthink and authority. And why target athletes? I'd wager that the main, largely unspoken motivation is money. Weak-minded, authority-accepting jocks make huge amounts of money these days, which means they won't miss the few millions that get siphoned off over a few years by Reverend Billy Bob's Old Time Gospel Ministry. Jocks are a bottomless well of money -- money that can then be turned around to brainwash generations of adoring young people and keep us intellectually mired in the 14th century. I would argue that the flow of money from athletes to preachers contributes greatly to our country's medieval attitudes toward science, reason, and logic. Hence, when these cash-laden jocks-for-Jesus blatantly (and unknowingly) demonstrate that their superstition is just plain old hooey, I think we really need to point this out.

That being said, today's prize for firing intellectual blanks goes to Seahawks running back and 2005 NFL MVP Shaun Alexander. On Monday, September 25th, the Seahawks announced that Shaun had a cracked bone in his foot and would be out for 4-6 weeks while it healed. Shaun, in typical evangelical fashion, came out shortly thereafter and said he'd be ready to go the next week because he'd been healed by "the power of prayer". Fortunately, the team physicians had enough sense to use the secular, objectively-arrived-at technology at their disposal to assess the injury. Turns out Shaun could have prayed until his knees were bloody .... the bone did not magically heal in less than a week. In fact, as of today, he's still on the mend. Maybe by next week (which falls into the medically predicted 4-6 weeks) he'll be ready to go.

What should this teach us? That prayer is powerless to change reality. It may make believers feel better, and it may have a placebo effect in non-serious cases, but when stacked up against the power of logic, reason, technology, and evidence-based medicine -- when its actual, objective efficacy is examined, it's pretty useless. Moreover, every news/sports reporter worth his salt should be riding Shaun about this mercilessly. This man uses his celebrity status to raise money for his favorite preacher/church/outreach ministry, and he has demonstrably shown -- in public, no less -- that he's selling snake oil. He was not magically healed by prayer (or anything else, for that matter). He has objectively demonstrated that the very thing that he's advocating did not do what he claimed it would.

When a politician does this, most would agree that he or she has betrayed the public trust. When a business does this, we can take it to court for false advertising. Why doesn't this simple, fair, and reasonable standard apply to religion and its advocates?

Playa hatin'

2006-10-30T18:50:00.000-05:00

Saw this on TV and had to post it here, because it's a great example of street punkdom in the NFL. Chad Johnson, the Bengal's self-obsessed receiver, has requested that he be called by his number (85) in Spanish as a tip of the hat to Hispanic Heritage Month. Nice idea. Bad execution.

Seems old Chad, whose command of English is often lacking, didn't even bother to get the translation right, referring to himself as "ocho cinco" ("eight five") rather than "ochenta cinco" ("eighty five"). Hell, I can't speak Spanish to save my life, but it took me all of a minute to look up the proper form on the internet. It's not like it's classified information or anything.

But, he's Chad Johnson, he's got a gold mohawk, and the sporting and news establishment have their noses shoved so far up his keister that they could care less.

Let's hear it for promoting illiteracy in two languages.

Street Punkdom

2006-10-30T01:11:00.000-05:00

It's not a secret that I love football (and that includes real football, American football, and Aussie Rules football). It's also not a a secret that if I root for a team, it's basically the kiss of death for them. With precious few exceptions (i.e. FSU's national titles in '93 and '99), I can always count on my teams to somehow find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is my 30th year as a Seattle Seahawks fan. We got close last year, but there still are exactly zero Vince Lombardi trophies in Seattle. Maybe before I die?

But I digress. There are basically two things about both NFL and NCAA football that are really wearing on my patience. Today I'll tackle the first one: "old school" vs. "new school". This is really coded language for "more reserved, civilized, classy behavior" vs. "hip-hop street punk culture". I'm really getting sick of gold-chain wearing, self-aggrandizing, loud, bragging, camera-hogging athletes whose narcissism is only outstripped by their poor command of the English language.

I know we're not supposed to discuss this because of a combination of political correctness and collective white guilt, but I lack both of these blinders. Plus, it has nothing to do with race. Look at how Donovan McNabb handled T.O.'s endless verbal abuse. Look at how Marvin Harrison quietly and competently excels. Listen to Tom Jackson or Marshal Faulk on TV. Look at how they dress. You'll note that their ethnicity has nothing to do with their behavior. They just, for whatever reasons, behave like civilized human beings rather than street punks and dress like professionals rather than pimps.

The thing about this street punkishness that annoys me isn't merely the fact that these punks behave like primitive savages (as in the Miami / FIU game a few weeks ago), it's that they not only come across as being stupid, but they're actually proud of themselves for it. I'm all for rebellion and independence, and I'm the first to admit that people should have a right to be stupid (as long as they don't aggress against others), but I'm sorry: being stupid should not be cool.

Unfortunately, it's obviously quite profitable. From beer to tire commercials, from TV shows to movies to theater, street punkishness is not only in, but making the cash registers ring. Yet more proof that as much as Americans may claim to value education, they really don't.

Just a thought...

2006-08-02T20:37:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are losing sleep over the computer models predicting dire climate catastrophes due to global warming, I had a thought this evening that I'd like to share with you.

Now I'm not saying that there is no global warming, or that it couldn't result in some significant climate shifts over the next century or so. Change is the one constant in the universe, and climate change is no exception. I'll blog more on this topic later -- so all you Ozone Al fans stay tuned.

Getting back to the point, however, point your web browsers to the Weather Underground Tropical Weather page. Click on the link that shows the computer models for Tropical Storm Chris. Note how something as basic as a small tropical storm can result in significant variation in the computer models. All of the variables at this stage of Chris' development result in a wide cone of possible paths. And this is just one little old tropical storm.

Now try to imagine all of the variables necessary to project the climate of the entire planet 100 years from now. Then try to imagine all of the variables that may not have been entered into the list of variables that feed the computer models. When I do this, it reminds me that doom-and-gloom scenarios make for great press releases, but they're far from certainties.

What is certain is that the anti-capitalists will continue to use global warming as a rallying cry to promote socialism, and the wingnuts will continue to deny that anything is happening at all and rally around that old conservative love affair - the status quo. Either way, it's not a happy thought.

Opportunity Knocks

2006-07-26T15:02:00.000-04:00

So ... Andrea Yates, who drowned her children one-by-one to save them from an imaginary boogieman (i.e. "the devil"), has been acquitted of murder and will instead be indefinitely stuck in a Texas loony bin at taxpayer expense. Never underestimate the hallowed position of superstition in this country.

Since, however, this is the USA -- the most litigious country in the world -- I see a potential lawsuit here that I'd file in a heartbeat if I knew how to do it. If there's a motivated lawyer out there, here's your chance to get famous.

Back in 1990, in the case of Berhanu vs. Metzger, a jury awarded $12.5 million to the family of an Ethiopian student killed by skinhead members of Tom Metzger's racist group White Aryan Resistance (WAR). Despite the fact that neither Metzger nor his son actually had any direct role in the killing, the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully convinced the jury that Metzger, who ran WAR and "trained" the skinheads in white supremacist thinking, was as responsible for the killings as the skinheads who actually committed the murder.

Now -- regardless of whether or not you accept the reasoning in this case, it has indeed established a legal precedent, and I propose that this precedent be extended to the case of Andrea Yates. She obviously didn't get this notion in her head that "Satan" was on the loose out of thin air. I'd bet everything I own that some individual or group of individuals in some whack-job fundamentalist church were responsible for brainwashing her to live in her own personal demon- and spirit-haunted world. I strongly suggest that based upon Berhanu vs. Metzger, these superstitious bozos ought to be hauled into court and forced to pay for their folly. At the very least they should pay court costs and whatever it costs to keep this whacko locked up.

Where's the SPLC or ACLU when we need them??

Ours Good - Theirs Bad

2006-07-19T23:21:00.000-04:00

Did any of you see this little tidbit today? Seems with all the weighty problems in the world today, the House of Representatives couldn't find anything better to do than pass a bill that would, if passed by the Senate and upheld by the courts, "protect" the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance¹. Now, anyone who's been paying attention is probably aware that this is just another case of congressional wingnuts pandering to their christo-fascist base. However, I'm confused by something else.

These wingnuts are the same people who are so supportive of the "war" against Islamic extremism. They are willing to sacrifice many American lives and billions of stolen taxpayer dollars to fight an enemy made up of wild-eyed religious fanatics who will go to any lengths to spread their particular religious convictions around the world -- by any means necessary. This single-minded extremism is allegedly both evil and dangerous.

Yet, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) is quoted as saying:

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage, ... It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

Am I the only one who could just as easily picture some local mullah in Iraq or Afghanistan (we'll call him Ayatollah Assahola) saying the exact same thing to rally his mujahadeen??!!

Take a look at the people of the Middle East. They mostly speak Semitic languages. They all look pretty much alike. Their food is fairly similar. They all eschew pork, lop pieces off of their sons' willies with great fanfare, and prefer a form of music that sounds a whole lot like donkey opera to me. The main thing driving them to kill each other is ... drum roll please ... RELIGION.

The next time you're worried about dangerous religious fanatics in the Middle East, I hope you also remember that we have the same creatures running loose in the halls of power in Washington. They're just fanatical about a different "god".

1 - In case you didn't know, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by an act of Congress. Supporters of the addition argued at the time that this declaration of religious conviction was necessary to differentiate us from the "atheistic communists". I'll bet you they didn't add "under God" to refer to Buddha or Shiva or Baal. They were referring to their Judeo-Christian, monotheistic magic man in the sky. Sounds like an endorsement of religion to me.

Now I Get It!

2006-07-17T14:24:00.000-04:00

This could be one of the most insightful reviews of our taxpayer supported, government controlled school system that I've read in a long time.

It also goes a long way to explaining the frustration expressed in my last post. Enjoy.

What's Wrong With America

2006-07-17T13:54:00.000-04:00

So old Shrub said "shit" to Tony Blair at lunch. This is newsworthy ??!!

Some days I'm convinced this country has its head so far up its ass that it'd take a good-sized crane to pull it out. Talk about having your priorities in order.

Shit ....

A Case For Non-Interventionism

2006-07-14T15:20:00.000-04:00

In light of Israel's recent "offensive" against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians, and anyone else they don't like, and in light of the above-mentioned organizations' endless war against Israel, I'd like to touch on two questions that keep popping up in my mind:

a. If a group of people move into your neighborhood and carve out a part your land, refuse to leave, and are so well-armed that you can't remove them, would you be angry?

b. If the offending group was continually funded and supported by an even richer and stronger group from across the state, would you be really angry?

These are questions I often think about because, as a Floridian, I've watched my beloved home state be raped and regulated by endless streams of damnyankees (yes, it's one word) over the course of my life. But at least there are Constitutional limits on what the damnyankees can do, and some of them even come to realize that turning Florida into Brooklyn-South really isn't the best course of action. Compared to the Israelis, the damnyankees are pikers.

Unfortunately, it seems to go against the grain of American thought to consider history when attempting to understand the present. So when you hear someone in the government or on talk radio defending Israel, keep a few historical facts in mind.

1. Before 1948, there was no Israel. Moreover, there hadn't been an Israel since well before the common era commenced.

2. Since a huge amount of time had elapsed between the end of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda and the birth of the modern state, a lot of non-Jewish people had moved into the lands of the former kingdoms, and they'd been there for a really long time.

3. Up until the Zionist movement started actively trying to export, smuggle and sneak Jews into British Palestine in the 20's, 30's & 40's, the Jewish population of Palestine was rather small (Don't believe me? Get yourself a copy of Golda Meir's My Life (1975)). In other words, there was a deliberate policy on the part of the Zionists to move as many Jews as possible to Palestine in order to outnumber the resident Palestinians and legitimize claims to a Jewish state.

4. The United States government, mostly due to political pressures at home, has always treated Israel as though it were the 51st state, which has certainly contributed to Arab resentment and hostility toward the US.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way saying that the situation in the Middle East is a simple black-and-white scenario, or that Israel is always wrong and the Arabs are always right. Unfortunately, the Arab world these days means the Islamic world, and Islam, coming from the same pot as Christianity, is a highly irrational, inherently violent religion. Any religion that claims to have all the answers plus a holy stamp of approval to evangelize is inherently violent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and if that offends your Christian sensibilities I invite you to study the long and violent history of Christianity. But getting back to the point, It is understandable why the Arab world hates us, and it is understandable why our support of Israel has contributed to that hatred. I'm not saying that blowing up buildings and committing endless acts of terrorism are justifiable, but given the current situation I do understand where these fanatics are coming from. In other words, if the US hadn't been meddling in Middle Eastern politics for the past 60+ years, I suspect that while they may still find us morally offensive to their Islamic sensibilities, I doubt they'd be giving their lives to blow us up. Call it a hunch.

But my real point here is that I fail to see how the United States benefits from getting involved in these sorts of conflicts. In fact, I found myself re-reading Washington's Farewell Address to Congress in 1796, and I was particularly taken in by the following statement:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

If you take the time to read this in context, the argument he makes is that we, as the United States, must consider the preservation of our own liberties above the best interests of other nations. Hence, while there may be a reason to construct temporary alliances with other nations, as a general rule we should avoid long-term, entangling alliances that serve the interest of others better than our own.

The modern extension of this mindset is known as "non-interventionism". Not practical in this day and age, I hear you ask? Just for giggles, take a look at this 2001 article from Charles Peña. While it's often easy to play Monday morning quarterback, it's also fun (at least for me) to see how thoughtful people can often predict the future of government policy based upon history. What's sad is that the overwhelming majority of policymakers fail to learn this skill, or assume that this time things will be different.

Just in case you're wondering who I'm pulling for to "win" in the seemingly endless Israeli-Arab conflict, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't care. I don't see any significant moral superiority between a Jewish-Socialist state and a collection of Islamofascist states. Their values and systems are anathema to the American Constitution and system of government. I am convinced, however, that the only way for the US to "win" in the Middle East is to disengage itself politically and financially from the region.

As Thomas Jefferson, my all-time favorite democrat (who would be doing 8000 rpm in his grave if he could see what the modern Democratic Party has become) said in his first inaugural address:

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."

It may not result in world peace (as if anything would do that), but it sure as hell would keep more dollars in American citizens' pockets, and it would keep American soldiers at home.

You Gotta Wonder

2006-07-12T15:57:00.000-04:00

Welcome to today's episode of:

What F#$&*%! Planet Is This Person On???

I really like the folks at EvolveFISH.com. They sell a wide range of humanist stuff, including some really cool bumper stickers, pins and t-shirts that really send the christo-fascists into a first-class, eyeball-popping, rectum-contracting tizzy. Even much of their anti-Bush, anti-capitalist stuff is amusing. But while looking through new products last night, I found this description of a bumper sticker praising Venezuela's soon-to-be president-for-life, Hugo Chavez:

Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela! sticker.
With 10 landslide election victories behind him, President Hugo Chavez is using Venezuela's oil revenues to liberate the poor - building schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, housing and food programs. No wonder Dick Cheney is planning another attempt to assassinate him....Premium quality, political anti-Bush liberal sticker¹.

It's not so much the fact that whomever wrote this likes what old Hugo is doing: they're certainly entitled to their opinion, and as far as I can tell Venezuela wouldn't stop them from going on down and joining the "revolution". I'll even, for the sake of brevity, grant the author the claim that Chavez has 10 legitimate landslide victories to his credit (although I find that a hard one to swallow -- it's virtually impossible in any truly free electoral system to be elected leader of your country 10 times in a row). But what really got to me was the phrase "liberate the poor". I may be the last of a dying breed, but this quasi-moralistic assertion that socialism is somehow noble because of it's concern for the poor (and also immune to critique for its heavy-handed, oppressive methods) really must be challenged.

I say this for a simple reason: redistributing income NEVER ends poverty. If it did, the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, a whole host of African countries, India, and our very own United States of America would be bursting at the seams with people who had lost the ability to comprehend the meaning of "poor". It may temporarily alleviate the poverty of certain individuals at the expense of other individuals, but it's not a viable long term solution, because at some point there just isn't enough wealth to confiscate and redistribute (we won't even get into internal corruption). Moreover, if I'm a wealthy person and can read the handwriting on the wall, I do have the means to split -- and take my means with me. Venezuela's oil wealth may mask the problem for a while, but unless Chavez has a sound, wealth-producing economy to loot, the party will be over sooner or later. History is replete with examples of socialism failing - again and again - precisely because you can't redistribute wealth that doesn't exist. Whether it's a complete and total economic collapse or just a slow death like Germany is going through lately, socialism only works if there's a productive, wealth-producing group of people who can be continually bled to support the parasites. Too many parasites kill a host.

But what really blows my mind is that there is a hard-core group of Marxists (or neo-Marxists) out there who are just completely blind to at least 100 years of evidence showing this to be true time and again. It's almost as though their hatred of capitalism, achievement and markets (or their inability to succeed in free society) compels them to advocate economic policies that most harm the group they claim to care so much about (i.e. "the poor".)

Now if you really care about the poor, what you want them to have the following:

1. A governmental system where the rule of law is established and upheld
2. Private ownership and control of capital
3. Individual ownership of the fruits of one's labor
4. Free and open markets
5. The incentive of accumulated wealth to drive people to succeed

This has also been shown to work time and again. Look at how capitalism and markets have economically invigorated Asia. Nowadays, even Communist China is lifting people out of poverty, and it's not by government decree. Granted, everyone isn't getting rich at the same rate, but it's a hell of an improvement over the pre-WWII conditions in those countries where virtually everyone was equally destitute.

In other words, while no economic system is without its inherent problems, capitalism has a far better track record of creating more wealth for more individuals (and that includes formerly poor people moving up into the middle class and beyond) than ANY other system in human history.

I'd much rather be liberated from an oppressive government and take my chances on my own in a free-market economy than rely on my president to save me. And quite honestly, that applies to George Bush as much as it does to Hugo Chavez .....

Viva libertad! Viva capitalismo!

(1) Footnote: I always hear demopublicans accusing the republicrats of being "mean spirited". While I find the whole debate about "meanness" more suitable to a Sunday school class than politics, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that even old Shotgun Dickey would organize the assassination of a foreign head of state for "building schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, housing and food programs". In fact, it strikes me as a rather "mean", ad hominem attack.

Random Thoughts about the World Cup

2006-07-05T18:36:00.000-04:00

Now that we're down to the last 2 games this weekend, I feel the need to share a few random thoughts about the World Cup.

* I'm sick of hearing Americans complain that soccer is low-scoring, especially if they like baseball. At least soccer players have to run for 90 minutes (i.e. they are athletes, not "players"), the ball is always in motion, and there's always some sort of action taking place on the field. Granted you may argue that watching a pitcher scratch his nuts and spit is action too .... but the other guys on the field are just standing around, and the whole rest of the batting team is sitting on the bench. Plus, ragging on soccer for being low-scoring is really just a confession that your attention span is too short to appreciate a game that ebbs and flows. This is why I prefer watching the post game show on one of the Mexican channels. They show good plays, close calls, good tries, etc. The American post-game show only replays the ball going into the net, then immediately cuts back to the collection of has-been lobotomies they have sitting in the studio for commentary.

* While I'm glad that ABC/ESPN have broadcast the games live, I can't watch them with the sound on. Why do American announcers have to constantly try to add human drama to everything? Can't we just watch the friggin' game? I don't give a rat's rear end why a player has a scar on his cheek, or how much a team manager weighed before his sex change, or what the streets of Rome will look like if Italy wins the title. Mostly though, I hate these melodramatic, rhetorical questions like "Will this be the last game for Zidane, or will Portugal score in the last two minutes?"

* Speaking of annoying announcers, what mental giant at ABC/ESPN decided to make Brent Musberger the anchor-twit for the World Cup broadcasts??!! Aside from being able to dredge up sports homilies ad nauseam, this guy is a moron. I especially liked it yesterday when he said that the Berlin Wall was still standing when Germany won its first World Cup in 1954. News flash, skeeziks! The Berlin Wall was built in 1961. You're now officially proven that you're not only an annoying sports commentator, but also ignorant of history.

* Pop-ups. I hate'm on the net, and I hate'm when I'm watching soccer. ABC is really bad about this. A player takes off down the wing on the attack, and suddenly I can't see the action because we have to put up a graphic telling us how to vote for the man of the match or what the next game will be. The same goes for in-game replays. Save this crap for after the game.

* Am I the only one who finds the need to put a spinning globe graphic up on the screen, highlight the country, and then give five fast facts about it a sad testimonial to American geographical ignorance?

* And speaking of ignorance, what is so friggin' hard about using the adjectival form of a country's name? It's bad enough that sports announcers make up silly-sounding words that never used to exist (like "audibilize" for "to call an audible"), and I can almost (but not quite) get used to the fact that these junior high dropouts can't be bothered to use adverbs ("he fell really awkward on his shoulder"), but saying that "... this Ghana team is the darling of the tournament ..." is too much. Earth to retards!! It's just not that hard: Ghana - Ghanaian, Italy - Italian, Japan - Japanese. Jesus tapdancing christ!

* I am really enjoying watching the DFB eat crow. After all the crap they threw at Klinsmann leading up to this Cup, it was really gratifying listening to them last night singing praises to his name and beseeching him to come back for Euro 2008. I wish Germany would have won the Cup just so he could have brought them back to total glory. Then, at his post-game news conference, he could have greeted the press and the DFB with Helmut Schmidt's famous quote from '82: "Baut Euere Scheiße selber!" I will be happy if he sticks around, however.

* Message to FIFA: if you're going to hand out cards every time a player so much as sneezes wrong, do something about this "2 accumulated yellow cards and you miss the next game" nonsense. We watch the Cup because we want to see the players decide the game, not the refs.

* Message to the divers: your odds of scoring increase significantly if you spend more time on your feet trying to propel the ball into the net and less time flopping around on the turf like a spastic trout.

* Message to the US Soccer Federation: we ain't there yet! Moreover, we'll never get there playing the kind of disorganized kickball we played in Germany. We need to hire a new national team coach -- preferably a Dutch tactician like Dick Advokaat or Guus Hiddinck -- to teach our guys how to play a smart, controlled, disciplined game. Unfortunately, those are qualities that most Americans resent ....

* My prediction for Sunday: Italy 2, France 0. My fondest hope: Italy 6, France 0. As my hero Al Bundy proclaimed as he came down from the mountain after meeting Ironhead Haynes: "It is wrong to be French!"

Does the AP have an agenda?

2006-06-28T12:47:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the Associated Press released an article essentially implying that "scientists" have declared Ozone Al's new flick to be rock solid and beyond reproach. Now it turns out someone has bothered to actually prepare a response to the original article.

Granted, the source of the reply is itself part of the government, so it would be interesting to know who's paying them off .... but what's important is that the debate is most definitely NOT over.

Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

2006-06-27T23:05:00.000-04:00

Call me a skeptic, but I find it interesting how certain individuals seem to believe everything the government says IF it serves their purpose, yet reject claims from the very same government when it's inconvenient for them.

For instance, several folks I know who belong to the "Bush lied - people died" crowd reject any suggestion that anything positive the government says about what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan could be true, yet they can't fall over themselves fast enough to use government pronouncements about second hand smoke and global warming to support their case in a debate.

What seems to be forgotten by many is that very few opinions are formed in a vacuum. When Big Oil or Big Tobacco finance a "scientific" study, we hear about how the results can't possibly be true (or even worthy of consideration) because of the "vested interest" these industries have in promoting their own causes.

But what is the cause of government? I think H.L. Mencken pretty much hit it on the head:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

While all of the hobgoblins may not be imaginary, they're often really distorted or overhyped, precisely because it yields votes and distracts people from the really important issues (like the fact that anyone who works for a living works for 116 days to pay federal, state, and local taxes before earning a dime for themselves -- just one more reason to enact the Fair Tax ... but I digress).

Plus -- if we have good reason to suspect "scientific" studies from Big Oil or Big Tobacco, we also have good reason to suspect "scientific" studies from the National Institute of Whatever, and especially from universities receiving large government grants. If you're a scientist, your research will continue to be funded much longer if you support the positions of the people funding you. Believe it or not, giant corporations don't have the market cornered when it comes to slimy behavior and dirty tricks (not to mention outright lying). Moreover, only government gets to openly use guns.

Whenever I hear a bunch of monied, powerful people declare that the debate is over, that's when I start looking for alternative information. For instance, I highly recommend giving JunkScience.com's pages on global warming a good read. They're not nearly as alarming as Ozone Al's flick, but they are highly informative and worth your time.

Oh, and by the way, I don't believe the government's case for being in Iraq and Afghanistan either ...

Original Intent

2006-04-26T15:00:00.000-04:00

Last week I had the opportunity to listen to a student debate about "gun control" (a.k.a. "victim disarmament"). For the most part, it was the same old uninspiring stuff one always hears, although at least one of the students was clever enough to bring up the idea of "original intent". Unfortunately, the student's interpretation of "original intent" was somewhat flawed, so I felt obliged to interject that the Founder's inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was based upon their belief that the citizens should have the means to resist oppressive government. As a friend of mine in Texas used to point out, the defense of liberty rests upon three boxes: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. We hope not to have to resort to the last one, but it's reassuring to know that it's still an option in extreme cases.

Anyhow, the objection raised to my argument was that since the armed forces have the citizens completely outgunned, there's no real reason to think our handguns and rifles give us any real ability to resist.

I beg to differ. If there's one thing history should have taught us, it's that large armies with superior firepower only work the way they should when they're facing a similar foe. If the large army is fighting a dedicated bunch of guerillas, the whole game changes. In fact, the guerillas win just as long as they don't lose. They only have to hang on until they can get better arms (either by capturing them or by outside suppliers). Don't believe me? There are many examples, but these should suffice:

* China - Mao started out with a small army that got even smaller after the Long March.

* Russia - The Bolsheviks never won an election, and never even came close to a majority.

* Cuba - Castro started out in the mountains with a handful of men, fighting a government that was well-armed and US-backed.

* Vietnam - The Viet Minh started out in the jungle as a rag-tag force resisting French colonial rule. The rest is history.

* Iraq - I know the interventionists of the current administration won't like this one, but I think it's a clear, modern example. Despite the fact that the US forces absolutely kicked the snot out of the Iraqi army as they fought the war, you'll note that they're having a hell of a time trying to secure the peace. Motivated (perhaps even insane) individuals with home made bombs, RPGs, and anything they can scrounge, steal or improvise are extracting a heavy toll on the US military and successfully destabilizing the country and inhibiting the establishment of a stable government.

It seems to me that motivation and dedication to a cause can overcome deficiencies in weaponry - especially when the government is unpopular enough to inspire general resistance. Like so many other things in life, it's a matter of how much you want something and what you're willing to do to get it. The first American Revolution was fought by poorly armed colonists against a world-class military power, and look how that turned out.

Whether or not we as a nation have the necessary guts anymore is a totally different question. At least we still have the guns. It sure makes me sleep better at night.

Child Abuse

2006-02-20T23:14:00.000-05:00

Although I'm not a great fan of children (to put mildly), I'm nonetheless interested in how their little minds are warped by the powers that be: parents, society, religion and government. I've always thought if you look at how a parent wishes to brainwash their kid(s), you get a pretty good idea of the parent's neuroses, psychoses, and general collection of hang-ups. With this in mind, I ran across two children's books today that are just ... well ... another great example of how our political discourse has become rather childlike.

First up is a heart-warming book by a Madison-based leftie named Jeremy Silber called Why Mommy Is A Democrat. In it you find nice little moral homilies praising collectivism and dependence such as: "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like mommy does", "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like mommy does", and "Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like mommy does". (If you'd like to pause and have a good wretch at this point ... I'll wait).

Is this a book written for children, or is this a book written by someone who longs to remain in an eternal childlike state? Obviously, this guy's main regret in life is that the umbilical cord can't be reattached. Each one of these little gems of wisdom essentially reassures children that they don't have to ever really grow up -- they just depend upon their big mommy in Washington to take care of them. Cost, responsibility, individual rights and economic realities be damned ... eternal childhood under the watchful eye of the nanny state is the ultimate goal. Fortunately, a large number of kids grasp the concept of "mine" and reject this kind of collectivist claptrap. Now if we could only get it across to adults ....

On the other side of the fence is a politically incorrect gem by Katharine DeBrecht called Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!. This happy tale recants the experiences of two boys who "...ate most of their vegetables, did their chores, tried not to fight over their toys, and said their prayers at bedtime....". The drama in the story commences "...when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade...".

Am I the only one who hears the theme to Leave It To Beaver playing in my mind when I read this?? We're six years into a new century and the best story line she can come up with is vintage 1950's whitebread America and a lemonade stand??!! What kid in his/her right mind -- should they venture to even have a lemonade stand -- would willingly put up a picture of Jesus in it??!! Plus, it's a real hoot when so-called conservatives - whose current man in the White House is setting records for government spending and expansion - claim to worry about taxation. Talk is cheap. Government is expensive. Think about it y'all.

But what really amuses me is this: Whether liberal or conservative, the underlying theme is always dependence. The only difference is whether the thing upon which you're depending is a massive bureaucracy in Washington or an imaginary man in the sky. Either way, kids are told from day one to forgo their individuality, fit in, and knucle under to some supreme, parent-like power.

No wonder we get the government we deserve.

One Small Step

2005-12-21T00:20:00.000-05:00

Chalk one up for the good guys! A decision came down today in Pennsylvania in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board case, and the court ruled that "Intelligent Design" really IS nothing but old-time creationism in a white lab coat. Kudos to Judge John Jones for getting it right.

Moreover, his opinion on the case is really worth the read. It provides not only a fine summary of the arguments presented, but also clearly lays out how science differs from religion, and why ID is in fact a religious philosophy rather than a scientific theory. Even better, the judge addresses the duplicity of the ID proponents and the extents to which they go to cover up their religious affiliations and motivations.

Conservative talk radio is misrepresenting this verdict, and most news outlets are oversimplifying it beyond belief. Yet this remains an issue that should be of great importance to anyone who values learning and education. Science and faith can be compatible for some people, but they are not interchangeable.

Most importantly, science allows the evidence to determine the conclusions reached - with peer-reviewed critical review and the need to replicate a result on multiple occasions. ID, and all other forms of creationism, begin with their conclusions (i.e. God exists, the Bible is fact, etc.) - then construct convoluted arguments to make these conclusions seem "scientific". ID would be an interesting thing to cover in a theology class, or a social studies class, or a political science class. But it is not science, and to teach kids that it is only contributes further to the woeful scientific ignorance that pervades this nation.

Too Good To Be True?

2005-12-14T23:59:00.000-05:00

Ah the wonders of the World Wide Web. Instant communication, instant information and instant punditry insure lots of fun stuff to read, not to mention giving one that feeling of being on the cutting edge of what's going on in the world. But how much of the web is basically cow cookies? Moreover, do we have the mental discipline to a.) be suspicious of stories that we really want to believe and b.) not be instantly dismissive of stories we want to utterly reject?

This struck me today when a friend with decidedly leftist tendencies sent me this article. It's really pretty believable. In a nutshell, our current resident president allegedly responded to someone's concern that parts of the "Patriot" Act were unconstitutional by responding: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face ... it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

I find this wholly believable, insofar as I've often noticed that NO currently serving member of the federal government (with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul) gives a tinker's damn about the Constitution when it gets in the way of whatever they want to do. Moreover, I really want to believe it, as it confirms my belief that demopublicans and republicrats are just two sides of the same big-government, welfare/warfare coin. But does that make it true?? Honestly, I don't know.

Now you'd think that if there was any real evidence to support this, it would be splashed all over the mainstream media. It's no secret that many members of that august establishment are less than positively inclined toward old Shrub, and no doubt they'd be able to generate a lot of throwable mud if they could make this stick.

That makes me suspicious, despite the fact that I want it to be true. Oh, how I want it to be true! It's always satisfying when the bad guy actually admits to his nefarious scheme (which I think is why James Bond movies are fun .... there's the big confession scene, and then we know the bad guy's gonna get it). Yet, in an age where people will tell you with a straight face that the levees in New Orleans were deliberately blown up, or that we never really landed on the moon, or that Intelligent Design really isn't about religion, it pays to be a bit skeptical. Actually, it pays to be a lot skeptical.

I'm also skeptical of how sincere the majority of people are when they claim to worry about health of the Constitution. Regardless of how much you may hate Shrub, NO demopublican or republicrat supporter has ANY moral high ground to stand on when it comes to ignoring the Constitution or regarding it as nothing but a "goddamned piece of paper." Our current form of government is so unconstitutional I could fill several pages just listing the recent violations (such as the "Patriot" Act, the Income Tax, federal control of education, the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" legislation Shrub signed off on, the mountain of so-called "gun control" legislation that's been passed over the years, etc., etc., etc.) -- and both sides of the demopublican / republicrat monolith have joyfully done it.

The real threat to the Constitution is our collective gullibility. Americans like easy answers to complicated questions, instant gratification, and lots of black and white, good and evil explanations of the world we inhabit. Since the majority of the population (including our elected representatives) haven't even bothered to read the Constitution, can we really expect anyone to understand it? Plus, even if they did read it, would they have the courage and discipline to follow it? I'm skeptical of that too. But until someone starts reading it, what I am sure of is that we'll continue to get the government we deserve.

A Bum By Any Other Name ...

2005-12-11T23:18:00.000-05:00

I saw this story from the AP today, and it reminded me of why the welfare state is such a colossal waste of money (and for those of you on the left, I agree with you that the warfare state is also a colossal waste of money, so don't get all morally superior on me). Anyhow, the bottom line is that the feds are still ponying up money to house and take care of refugees from hurricane Katrina.

Now if the refugees in question are physically unable to work, I suppose I can see supporting them. Ideally, I'd say that private charities should be doing it (since they don't force me to contribute like the government does), but I suppose if we're going to have the government in the charity business, we can take care of those who are unable to support themselves. Let's be damned specific about what "unable" means, however.

And that's what burns me about this story. If I'm displaced by a natural disaster and the feds are paying for my lodging, I've got a great opportunity to get back on my feet much faster. All I have to do is find a job (and from what I see in the want ads, there is no real shortage of employment opportunities), and since I'm not paying rent or other living expenses I can pull a tidy little nest egg together PDQ. Granted, it may not be a great job, or a job I plan to keep for a long time, but when you're down and out you have to start somewhere.

Unless, of course, the government insures that you don't. You can be a bum, or a baby machine, or a lifelong screwup on the dole in one city, and if a natural disaster hits, you just move on down the road and the pattern of government-subsidized dependence continues. As in so many other cases, when "the government" pays for it, everyone conveniently forgets that the people paying for it are the people who are actually working for a living and being looted by our good friends at the IRS.

This is why I respect (and contribute to) private charities. When they help people who are down on their luck, the goal is to get them back on their feet. The Salvation Army will take you in and give you food and clothing, but you'd damned well better try to make something of yourself and stand on your own two feet. If you just want to hang out, get drunk, smoke rock, or pass yourself off as the next great but-as-yet-undiscovered hip-hop artist, they throw you out. They understand that "charity" is, by definition, receiving the unearned. In the old days, everyone understood that too -- so being on the dole was looked down upon (as was irresponsibly pumping out kids).

But once politicians understood that votes could be bought at taxpayer expense, the notion of the "entitlement" was created. Irresponsibility, poor family planning, and addiction became not only acceptable, but also tickets to official sympathy and a totally subsidized lifestyle. Then, the anti-capitalistic leftists trotted out these pathetic excuses for humans as damning indictments of the free market, and demanded more socialism to remedy the problem their dependency-creating policies created in the first place!

If you think I'm being hard-hearted, I invite you to take the following challenge. I hear so many trendy leftists opine about their heartfelt interest in the fate of the "poor" .... so I say put up or shut up. Pick the down-and-outer of your choice, and try to help them. Help them find a job and see if they take it (or keep it). Offer them food for work and see if they take you up on it. If all these people need is a chance, give them one.

However, if you discover that you've wound up adopting a Katrina-refugee-like dependent of your very own, don't be too surprised.

Just The Facts....

2005-12-08T14:58:00.000-05:00

I'm really getting sick of this whole debate over whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays", as well as all the whining by Christians about how they're so persecuted. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to let individuals (and that includes businesses, etc.) decide how they wish to express themselves without making a federal case out of it. Just to be different, I like to respond to the greeting "Merry Christmas" with a response appropriate to the early history of the winter holidays .... something like "And may Odin spare you tonight". Most people don't get it, but it confuses them enough to let me make my escape before the fur flies.

However, just for the record, the holiday that we currently celebrate as "Christmas" is far older than Christianity. Granted the Christians borrowed it (at swordpoint, if necessary) and reconfigured it to fit their needs, but it is most definitely NOT their exclusive holiday. Don't believe me? Then take a few moments to visit The History Channel website for a nice overview of the holiday's history.

So enjoy your holidays, however you wish to celebrate them. I'm still celebrating the fact that I'm no longer in Wisconsin, and therefore am no longer snowed in and shivering from sub-zero cold.

The Sky Is Falling!!

2005-12-07T00:05:00.000-05:00

I tend to spend a lot of time here ragging on socialism, collectivism, and other forms of ant-colony-like thought from leftists. But not today. Today's recipient of the "Somebody Needs To Relax" award is Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist for the online rightist website Townhall.com. Her beef? Apple has now released an iPod that plays video, which means that individuals can now put pornography on their iPods.

Of course, social conservatives seldom admit that what really bothers them the most about pornography is that deep down they'd really enjoy it if they hadn't been brainwashed into an unnatural hatred of themselves via their religious programming. And in their hung-up, sexually repressed world, anything that they'd like to do but can't (due to the whole "I am a jealous 'god' who'll roast your ass for eternity if you even think about it " thing) becomes the target of their perpetually indignant rage. So they trot out "the children" as their one-size-fits-all excuse to censor, ban and persecute.

But what I really love is how they're now trying to back up their superstition-driven arguments by dressing them up to look objective (kinda like putting a white coat on Creationism and calling it "Intelligent Design"). Citing a study by the Heritage Foundation, Hagelin lists all of the damage that exposure to erotica allegedly causes. Naturally, children are especially threatened by these things. The list is so good, I just have to comment on it:

• Developing tolerance toward sexually explicit material, thereby requiring more novel or bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.

Really? I ask y'all .... how many of you who started off enjoying plain old regular porn suddenly developed a taste for explicit pictures of two hookers, a moose, and a food processor?? Sounds like a retread of the old "Marijuana leads to heroin" argument.

• Overestimating the prevalence of less common sexual practices (e.g., group sex,
bestiality and sadomasochistic activity).

I swear this betrays what many of these folks secretly dream of. And notice how they lump group sex -- which can just be a normal extension of regular sex -- in with stuff that the overwhelming majority of erotic consumers avoid.

• Abandoning the goal of sexual exclusivity with a partner.

Ah ... now we're getting somewhere. Are they concerned about children per se, or about indoctrinating children with their own belief system?? What, outside of their religious dogma, establishes "sexual exclusivity with a partner" as the end-all and be-all??

• Perceiving promiscuity as a normal state of interaction.

Gee ... in many other species it is a "normal state of interaction". For a huge number of people on this planet it's a pretty normal state of interaction too. Perhaps the real point here is that promiscuity IS in fact the normal state of interaction, and certain religions have opted to ban it for reasons of economic and social control. Just maybe??

• Developing cynical attitudes about love.

I don't follow the reasoning here at all. Anyone who has fallen in love more than once or twice has probably become a bit cynical. Anyone who's fallen in love more than once or twice and not gotten any sex out of it should be especially cynical.

• Believing marriage is sexually confining.

Isn't it?? This isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially if you lived a bit before you got married), but for many who marry young and haven't lived much, marriage does become sexually confining (which might help explain the high divorce rates in the country).

• Believing that raising children and having a family is as an unattractive prospect.

Religion to the forefront again. Pre-ordained sex roles, perhaps?? For many of us, raising children and having a family IS an unattractive prospect. It has nothing to do with pornography. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having children is expensive, it limits your personal freedom, it entails life-long obligations that everyone is not equally willing/able to assume, and it absolutely changes your life. Now if you want to go ahead and pump out a few .... be my guest (at your own expense, please). But there are perfectly logical reasons not to reproduce .... assuming that logic is controlling your thinking.

• Developing a negative body image, especially for women.

Maybe these folks really haven't been watching much pornography. A negative body image for women?? As comedian Robert Schimmel pointed out, virtually any woman can do what women in erotic films can do. They may be a little larger or smaller or narrower or wider .... but they can do it. If anyone should develop a negative body image from pornography it's men. Did you ever see the units on those guys? Moreover, they continue to "function" for 15-30 minutes without any "accidental emissions". That not only gives us guys a negative body image, but it's also really, really depressing.

I can't help but think this is just another example of the American Taliban trying to chase us back into the 13th century. Talk about a group of people who need to get laid more ....

Here We Go Again....

2005-11-22T15:58:00.000-05:00

Once again freedom and sensitivity are clashing, and as has become all too frequent, freedom is losing the battle .....

Seems a student at a New Jersey community college felt motivated to put up a number of posters pointing out that communism had killed lots of people in the name of "progressive" social policy. These posters also make the claim that Ronald Reagan and his ilk had "freed" many more people.

How you feel about these kinds of claims is up to you. Personally, I would argue with the fact that Reagan had really "freed" people, since contributing to the demise of an oppressive government, while a noble undertaking, means little if it's replaced by another repressive government. I would, however, try to keep the argument civil.

This was not the case for adjunct English instructor John Daly of Warren County Community College. His revolutionary zeal and "progressive" values led him to send off an email to this student that sounds like an angry member of the Worker's World Party on a bad day.

Just so I won't be accused of favoring one version of the story over the other, read the report of your choice from either the right side or the left side. Daly's email is included in full on the YAF site, however.

Anyhow, now Daly's in danger of losing his job. The student went public with his email, and the college is now soiling itself worrying about bad publicity. Daly himself sums this up as follows: "As more and more professors are teaching part time, this is a direct attack on our academic freedom."

I think it's much more of an attack on common sense. Daly's obviously far too full of lefty hyperbole to appreciate this, but it is possible to politely and professionally disagree with a student (or anyone else for that matter). When a faculty member writes something like "I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on a college campus" to an undergraduate, this is a bit more aggressive than necessary. Moreover, it's implying that only certain viewpoints should be allowed on campus. Meanwhile, the offended student is not being helped out by the right-wingers because they're just nice people. They're going to milk this one for all it's worth. Yeesh.

How friggin' difficult is it to process this sentence??

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll note that there is no mention of sensitivities, "hate speech", taking offense, or any other emotional claptrap. I think NO LAW is pretty clear.

Was Daly smart about this? No. Was the student within her rights to express her opinion? Yes. But the real bad guys here are the lilly-livered college administrators who are missing a great opportunity to preserve liberty and let the First Amendment work. Instead of firing (or threatening to fire) Daly for expressing himself inelegantly, they should set up a public debate series where he and the YAF kids can take each other on. Let a college be a marketplace for ideas. Let the passion (and irrationality) of partisan politics be heard. Get a moderator to maintain some semblance of order, warn everyone that they're about to hear honestly held opinions, and let the fun begin.

But, alas, I doubt it'll happen. The right will feel vindicated, the left will feel prosecuted, and the Bill of Rights will take another direct shot in the nuts.

A Thought About Polls

2005-11-17T15:36:00.000-05:00

It seems you can't turn on the TV or read a newspaper without finding a news report critical of our current fearless leader. This, in and of itself, is nothing new. In many cases, it's well deserved. But what really struck me was the fact that many of these critiques are bolstered by some kind of poll / approval rating number.

As far as old GWB is concerned, I doubt he's really losing any sleep over this. He can't be re-elected, he's got a majority in the House and Senate, and as long as Howard Dean and the current Democratic leadership are in office, I don't think they're going to be taking control of the government any time soon.

But what really caught my attention was the underlying assertion: that somehow if the poll numbers dip, the person with the low poll number should do whatever the masses want to get those numbers up. I think it's attributable to that popular myth that this nation is supposed to be a democracy rather than a republic with democratically elected representation. Or maybe it's just that after 8 years of Bill Clinton, people now expect every President to govern by poll results.

The thing that really gets to me, however, is this implied faith in the judgement of the masses. Historically, the founders of this nation understood the danger of unchecked majority rule. I think John Adams (our 2nd President for those of you who attended government schools) said it well:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

I invite anyone who uses poll numbers (or any other form of popular expression of opinion) to prove the correctness of their position to consider the following:

• At least 90% of the people believe in "god"
• A large percentage of these people reject evolutionary theory, regardless (or in ignorance of) the overwhelming evidence for it
• Very few people can even name their elected representative, much less their senators, or members of the cabinet
• Huge numbers of Americans live in chronic consumer debt
• The new age / holistic / natural medicine movement rakes in billions each year, despite the fact that the majority of these alleged "remedies" either lack objective scientific testing or have been proven to be bogus
• Far too many people breed without planning for it (financially or otherwise), then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for their decisions
• It is not at all uncommon to find people who carp about wanting lower taxes, while simultaneously demanding more government programs
• Our inboxes are full of spam, which suggests that there are enough idiots responding to it to make it profitable
• People have come to depend upon technology (cars, computers, home entertainment systems, sex toys, etc.) yet they neither understand how it works nor do they particularly want to learn. But when it breaks, "somebody" needs to do "something".

In short, "the public" careens through life making stupid decision after stupid decision, embracing a strange combination of comfort, reassurance, hope and preceived security. If anything goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault, and the government should do something about it ... but their opinion should count??!!

Hence, I would point out that while poll numbers may tell you what (usually contradictory) opinions the sheeple have at any given point in time, suggesting that we should use them to govern, or using them to govern, is a really poor idea. Look how well it's served us so far.

Goodthink Doubleplusgood

2005-10-13T12:17:00.000-04:00

Granted 1984 is well behind us now, but in some ways Orwell was right on the mark .... especially when it comes to manipulating language. As some of you may recall, in Orwell's 1984 the government was engaged in a process of reducing the English language to a form that was adequate for communication, but prevented the discussion of deeper issues that may lead to disloyalty to Big Brother. The objective was to avoid "thoughtcrime" - the unpardonable sin of thinking outside of the lines.

In 2005 we have a similar process going on, only instead of calling it "thoughtcrime" the new buzzword is "discrimination". Seems a tavern in Mason, OH committed the unforgivable sin of putting a sign in the window which read: "For Service, Speak English". The Ohio Civil Rights Commission has ruled the sign "discriminatory". Apparently, the First Amendment, private property rights, and the rights of individuals to freely associate with individuals of their choosing are no longer valid. Even more infuriating is the nerve of these petty, race-hustling bureaucrats. According to the story, "... the tavern could be ordered to remove the sign, to pay for advertisements about nondiscrimination, and its staff could be ordered to undergo diversity training or cultural sensitivity training".

And what, exactly, is "diversity training" or "cultural sensitivity training"?? Simple. We used to call it "brainwashing". It's what the commies used to do in Russia or China during the 50's and 60's. It's supposed to be bad. When the reds did it we were appalled at the very notion that a human being could be stripped of their identity and beliefs, and then filled up with a new identity and set of beliefs that they previously would have found abhorrent. But times have changed. Nowadays, the Thought Police are out in force. There are, quite simply, ways of thinking that are for all practical purposes illegal. If you don't subscribe to the politically correct definitions of "diversity" and "sensitivity" you are wrong --- you do not just have a different opinion --- and the armed might of the state will be brought down on you to make you mend your ways.

The antidote to offensive speech is more speech. If a business does something you find offensive, don't patronize that business. Organize a boycott. Protest. Open a competing business and drive the offender under. As long as your actions are non-violent, you are well within your Constitutional rights. But using the power of the state to silence someone or force them into a re-education program is tyranny, regardless of the allegedly noble purpose behind it.

Torquemada's Twin??

2005-10-13T11:08:00.000-04:00

Well, well, well ... dear old Shrub has decided that of all the possible candidates for O'Connor's Supreme Court seat, the absolutely best candidate for the job is Harriet Miers. Considering the want ad I placed for a justice before the Roberts nomination, it'll surprise no one to learn that I'm rather underwhelmed by his choice. I'd rather see someone like Janice Rogers Brown get the job, despite the fact that the socialists would probably stonewall that nomination until at least 2020. However, after I read the following quote from James Dobson, president of the christo-fascist group Focus on the Family, I realized just how dangerous old Harriet could possibly be:

"What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn't reveal? Well, it's what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life..."

If two words should ever disqualify someone from sitting on the bench, they should be "evangelical Christian". Why? Because the very essence of being an evangelical Christian is a wholesale rejection of rationality and objectivity in favor of faith. Evangelical Christians, my friends, are the folks who put a white lab coat on creationism and call it "Intelligent Design". Evangelical Christians are the folks who reject the mountains of evidence we have for evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation. Evangelical Christians live to censor and control what you can see and read. Evangelical Christians don't give a damn what happens to a child once it exits the womb, but they'll blow up your clinic to "save" a fetus. These are not reasonable people with a different point of view. These are the American Taliban -- religious zealots whose world view never grew much beyond the Dark Ages -- and they're after the whole ball of wax. They don't want equal time -- they want all the time. They are relentless, they are single-minded, and they are very, very dangerous to liberty. They don't want to share power -- they want to use it to force everyone to live according to the laws of their faith.

And that's what old Shrub asking us to do: accept this woman based upon faith in his judgement and not much else. In other words, we're supposed to believe that one deluded religious fanatic is going to put another deluded religious fanatic on the bench of the highest court in the land, but somehow she'll magically look beyond her brain-numbing religious convictions and impartially judge cases based solely upon the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Sure ... and Iraq will blossom into a model democracy within the next 2 years .....

Academic Bill of Rights??!!

2005-09-27T16:10:00.000-04:00

Every now and again you run across something on the net and just can't resist opening a can of worms. Today seems like a good day for worm-can opening, however, so here goes .....

On a friend's blog I ran across a rather negative review of the so-called Academic Bill of Rights, which is actually taking the form of legislation in a number of states. In a nutshell, this is an attempt by disgruntled conservatives (and especially religionists) to strong-arm universities into what they call "balance" -- i.e. giving the conservative/religionist viewpoint equal time and equal exposure. Since, according to the sponsors, the lefties absolutely control US academic institutions, this legislation is needed to restore an open and free exchange of ideas at American colleges and universities.

If you ever needed yet more proof that the right and left in this country are two sides of the same coin, here it is. For decades the lefties used the law to force their agenda upon the citizenry, and now the righties are ripping the same page out of the playbook. If the politically correct "language police" were a violation of notions like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", then what the hell are "balance police" going to be like?? Regardless of the intentions of the sponsors and supporters of this idea, it sounds to me like just another excuse to turn loose lots of lawyers.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a little more honesty on the part of the lefties. If they can claim with a straight face that academia is NOT a sanctuary for their ideology and a haven for their supporters, they're either a.) woefully ignorant of reality or b.) deliberately lying through their teeth.

As someone who's been in and around American universities since 1981, I can attest to the following generalities about academia, regardless of where my sympathies lie on individual issues:

* If you're conservative, you don't have a different opinion, you're morally deficient or just plain stupid.
* If you're religious, you're often dismissed out of hand as hopeless/brainless. (This may indeed be true - but there are better ways of dealing with the issue -- like rational confrontation).
* The overwhelming majority of my colleagues are well left of center, and many of them are old hippies (or young hippie wannabes).
* Political correctness is the unquestioned standard by which everything is judged (yet another example of lawyers run amok).
* Being a white male makes you inherently bad, and always suspect.
* "Progressive" and "enlightened" are practically synonyms - and both mean "socialist"
* The individual is always secondary to the collective, and capitalism is seen - at best - as a necessary evil that must be severely limited. Curiously, no one feels this way about government.
* It is very rare to find a conservative, libertarian, or individualistic speaker booked for speaking engagements.
* Most disturbingly --- and very reminiscent of conservatives in other areas --- it's all about the power to push an agenda with as little opposition as possible, and steamroll whatever opposition exists.

Where the conservatives go terribly wrong is to assume that this is some kind of orchestrated conspiracy. I think there's a much simpler explanation. If you're conservative (and/or religious), 4 years of college will probably leave you with a bad taste in your mouth - for the reasons listed above. Plus, by virtue of your political outlook, you're probably more concerned about earning a good living and getting ahead than you are about wrestling with ideas and philosophy. This almost automatically cedes academia to people concerned about ideas and philosophy, who are more interested in how they live than how much they earn (although there's plenty of griping about pay, but that's another issue). Hence, socialists, greens, libertarians, and other dreamers naturally congregate in academic settings. That's one of the main reasons so much of what goes on at universities is so alien to anyone with a real job in the real world. The inmates are indeed running the asylum.

And they do often get rather pushy and intolerant of opposition. When the radicals of the 60's and 70's moved into academia, they may have gotten rid of the policies of their arch-conservative predecessors, but they saw the power of the old system, and maintained it to use it for their own purposes.

Ultimately, a university is supposed to be an open marketplace of ideas. That means that no point of view, however repugnant should ever be silenced or repressed. Confronted? Yes. Dissected? Absolutely. Refuted? Go for it. Censored? No.

And therein lies the real problem. The politically correct, hypersensitive lefties who believe they have some magical, mystical dispensation from ever being offended (see 24 August entry) have created this problem by declaring so many issues taboo that they've finally managed to motivate the conservatives/religionists and their political hacks. Moreover, by being dogmatic in an almost Orwellian sense about what people are allowed to think and say, they've lost sight of what constitutes a "marketplace of ideas" and instead substituted a "marketplace of acceptable ideas".

The real tragedy of all this is that government, which cannot do something relatively simple like build a levy that doesn't crumble, certainly can't insure "balance" in university discourse. The only way for that to happen is for administrators, faculty and students to remember that freedom of speech applies equally to all citizens, not only those who practice "goodthink". Like so many other aspects of life, it's about individual responsibility and a respect for liberty.

But that's so hard to remember when you're fighting for the chance to force others to think and act "properly".

New Orleans, Poverty, Michael Moore & George Bush

2005-09-06T14:00:00.000-04:00

Since everyone else has been opining about the situation in New Orleans, I figure it's only fair if I jump into the fire as well. After about of week of news and commentary, I've once again concluded that the human love of drama has once again far outstripped the human capacity for reason.

For instance, a friend of mine sent me a copy of a letter from Comrade Michael Moore to our fearless leader - a.k.a. Shrub. I find this fascinating, insofar as I think Moore and Bush are two sides of the same rotten coin: statism. Both are enthusiastic tax-and-spenders at heart, convinced that your money and property should be sacrificed to their own notions of what's right for America. I doubt either of them have bothered to read the constitution very closely, and quite honestly I suspect neither of them would be very fond of large parts of it (albeit different parts). The main difference between them is HOW they wish to use your money and the guns of government to run your life for you.

Nonetheless, even a blind pig can find an acorn occasionally, and I think Moore has a couple of good points. Were we not pouring billions of dollars and thousands of American lives into Iraq and Afghanistan, there would no doubt be more money, fuel and people to direct toward the massive domestic crisis in New Orleans. Also, Shrub was rather slow to react to things -- although to be fair so was virtually everyone else involved. Call it a hunch, but I suspect that "leaders" at all levels of government genuinely had no idea of just how bad things could get. In fact, it really goes against the grain of the American mentality to plan for every contingency. We're a nation that reacts to things rather than proactively trying to avoid them (i.e. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, that baby that somehow wound up in our girlfriend with our DNA, etc.) Hence, everyone from New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin right up to old Shrub probably would do things differently (and hopefully better) if they had another shot at it.

On the other hand, Moore really reminds me a lot of the Republicrats who used to flood the internet with emails about how Bill Clinton was a rapist, murderer, trilateralist, and christ knows what else. It's just so abundantly clear that Moore and his ilk are driven first and foremost by an intense, blinding, unreasoning, personalized hatred of George Bush that it's hard to take them seriously. I've always thought that if Bush could really do everything his detractors claim he can, Michael Moore would probably be pushing up daisies right now instead of writing letters.

Aside from that, however, Moore trots out an old leftie argument from the early 60's (and probably before) that really annoys me -- regardless of how good it makes everyone who believes in it feel:

"No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black!"

Yes friends, once again it's the good old, tried and true double assumption that 1.) it's the government's obligation to meet people's needs and 2.) if people are poor it's someone else's fault. Ever since LBJ kicked off his "Great Society" programs, lefties happily regurgitated this one, regardless of changing political and economic circumstances.

I think it's time to face up to some decidedly un-touchy-feely realities regarding poverty. First of all, poverty is not a disease. As economist Walter Williams points out, avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. Poverty is the result of a long series of bad decisions, usually coupled with a refusal to learn to make good decisions. For years it's seemed apparent to me that the government doesn't make people poor, people make themselves poor.

However, after watching the chaos in New Orleans for a week and listening to the people wandering out of their flooded government-funded projects, I think I've changed my mind. The government does in fact make people poor. The more I think about, the more it seems that pandering leftist politicians (and corpulent, wealthy, anti-capitalist filmmakers) have created an irresponsible, dependent, and woefully undereducated underclass that wallows in government-subsidized poverty for generations.

This perennially poor underclass seems to share some common traits:

1. Rejection of education: Federal and state governments provide free, public education up to and including 4 years of college in many cases, yet the culture of poverty rejects this avenue for advancement. No matter how much we dumb down our educational system and subsidize anyone who wants to partake of it, there are still people who simply refuse to avail themselves of it.
2. Illegitimacy/irresponsibility: Knocking out babies no one can afford, an inability to comprehend (much less create and follow) a budget, perpetual debt to the local check cashing store, drug and alcohol abuse, etc., etc., etc. These are all bad decisions with demonstrably negative consequences, yet seriously challenging them is "culturally insensitive" or some such nonsense.
3. A highly developed entitlement mentality: I'm ceaselessly amazed at home these people seriously assert that they are "entitled" to be taken care of and provided for with no effort on their part. But, politicians have been nurturing this kind of thinking since FDR, so it's not all that surprising, I suppose.
4. A belief that poverty is somehow noble: For a week now I've heard about how these poor people didn't have transportation to leave New Orleans before the storm. According to the media and political types, their poverty absolves them of any responsibility for their plight. I wonder how many of them were at least 16 years of age. Any fairly healthy 16 year old with an IQ over 80 can manage to afford a car with a little bit of self-discipline and work. It's not like these people were magically deposited in New Orleans the day before the hurricane --- most of them have been there for years. The problem is that they never planned for such a catastrophe, they never saved a damned dime in their lives, and they never took responsibility for their existence because they never had to.

Now please note that I have consistently said "poor" here --- not "black" --- so let's not play the old race card. Moore's insinuation that somehow the race of the majority of the victims is the real reason behind the slow response is a really cheap shot that ignores all of the above -- not to mention the outpouring of help (financial and otherwise) that has been directed toward the region by those evil white people Moore and his ilk are constantly running down.

The real lessons of hurricane Katrina are, I think, common sense lessons that need to be articulated loudly and often.

1. Life is inherently dangerous, and decisions have consequences. The universe is a dangerous place, and the earth is no different. Hurricanes have formed and devastated land for millions of years, and will continue to do so. Ultimately, no force on earth -- not even the government -- can protect you from them -- especially if you make bad decisions.
2. Throwing money at poverty and lionizing the poor does not make poverty go away. Poverty is cured by work, thrift, responsibility and education. If we're going to spend money to help the poor, let's at least encourage them to stop being poor rather than enabling them to stay that way for generations.
3. Large metropolitan areas below sea level need to plan for such natural disasters far more thoroughly than New Orleans did. Whining about the lack of federal funds is also no excuse. If the city government and the state of Louisiana knew that such a disaster was possible, they should have put their own money into it. Charity, after all, begins at home.
4. The media are a bunch of whores who will kill for human drama yet ignore relevant facts in the name of ratings. While this is hardly a revolutionary observation, this endless quest for drama helps fuel the irrational thinking so many Americans embrace. For every story we've seen about the poor slobs who are knocking themselves out to save people from rooftops (while dodging the occasional sniper bullet) or running triage centers, we've seen at least six "human interest" stories designed to stimulate the emotions while ignoring the fact that is a really huge disaster that cannot be put right over night.

My real regret is that the poor folks in New Orleans who are suffering the most really don't grasp to what degree they've been enslaved and exploited by local, state and federal government officials, as well as the Michael Moores of the world. If they did, they'd be taking up arms against these parasitic poverty pimps and working hard to set their lives right. The day that happens, I'll be right there with them.

I'm Offended!

2005-08-24T22:51:00.000-04:00

Y'know what? I'm offended. I'm offended by people who think that there's some magical right not to be offended. In fact, I'm going to offend these wusses a bit more .... so come along for the ride ....

First of all, it was silly enough when the NCAA decided that any school using an Indian-themed mascot deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed to use that mascot. I mean, look at the schools they're going after. What in the world is so "hostile" or "abusive" about names like Braves, Chippewas, Seminoles, Utes, Indians or Fighting Illini?? If you named your team the "Drunken Nates", the "Casino Runners" or the "Welfare Warriors" ..... THEN I could see the point. Fortunately, Florida State has won a small victory over political correctness, and hopefully the trend will continue.

But what really got me going was when I looked at the AP headlines tonight and found this little gem of a story. This is what over 40 years of bleeding-heart, responsibility-eschewing political pandering has accomplished. We're now so damned sensitive that a doctor can't even tell a fat patient that they're fat. Wow ... I think that's so totally mind-blowing that we really need to reflect upon it. You're a doctor. Some big old thunder-thighed porcine behemoth comes waddling into your office for a physical. Somehow you manage to perform your professional duties without swearing on a stack of bibles to remain celibate for the rest of your life. Then, in a supreme act of kindness, you inform her that she needs to lose weight or face a significantly shorter life. But because her precious, lard-coated feelings are hurt, you wind up being told by the state board that you should attend a medical education course and acknowledge that you made a mistake.

The next time you hear someone talking about "diversity" or "sensitivity", think about this case -- because this is where that kind of muddled thinking takes you. By ceasing to view people as individuals and rather sort and classify them by their race, orientation, gender or size, we've managed to elevate victimhood to a virtue and reduce competence and responsibility to just another evil legacy of "white/male dominated" American society. My favorite euphemism for holding people responsible for their actions is "blaming the victim". Well, I'm here to blame the so-called victim.

Unless someone ties you to a chair and force-feeds you a high-calorie diet three times a day while making sure you get no exercise, you are responsible for your weight. Sure, genetics can play a role, and some people are just luckier than others in this regard. Maybe there are even a few medical conditions that legitmately make it difficult to lose weight and keep trim. But that doesn't let the vast majority of America's fatasses off the hook. Fat doesn't "victimize" you -- you make yourself fat by a long series of bad decisions. My own gravitational constant confirms that with years of hard work, you can have a beer gut of your very own!

And as far as being offended is concerned, where in the Constitution do you find anything about a "right" not to be offended??? I can show you where it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" (take that you whiny politically correct wimps!), but I find nothing that protects your tender little feelings.

Politically correct types offend me. They're weak ... weak-minded and weak-spirited. If you're too weak to withstand being offended or having your feelings hurt, you've managed to remain a child well beyond the chronological period where that sort of weakness is acceptable. I've learned a few rules about life over the years, and they don't bode well for the weak:

1. Life isn't fair.
2. You're not special.
3. No one can live your life for you.
4. Failure is always a possiblity.
5. What other people think about you less important than what you think about yourself.

For instance, if some calls me a beer-bellied, tobacco-spittin', insensitive, antisocial, elitist Kraut intellectual redneck, I give'm the old middle finger and get on with my day. They're entitled to their opinion, and I don't really give an airborne copulation what others think anyway (with the exception of a few close friends). Hell, all I have to do is look at what the masses go for in entertainment, television and politics and it's abundantly clear to me that if they don't like me, I must be doing something right. Have a little self-confidence for christ's sake!

Seriously though, political correctness is a negative by-product of affluence. Only when a nation reaches a level of wealth where people can afford to sit around getting in touch with their feelings instead of busting their asses to survive can this kind of nonsense be taken seriously. And if we aren't willing to actively oppose it whenever and wherever it raises its head, things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better, because while we all waste our lives getting in touch with our feelings, a modern version of the Goths is going to come and sack our modern version of Rome ... regardless of how we feel about it.

Butting In

2005-08-24T01:27:00.000-04:00

After watching all the time, space and windage expended on Cindy Sheehan's flappin'-in-the-breeze crusade down in Crawford, I'm once again reminded of how coherent ideology is ultimately better policy than reactive, short-sighted pandering to the crisis of the moment. I find myself watching all of this and trying to pull the intertwined issues apart. As far as I can tell, it involves attitudes toward the military, attitudes toward the use of US military power, and most importantly whether or not political globalism is such a hot idea.

I find myself in a strange position regarding the military. Having grown up in a family of WWI and WWII survivors, I was raised in an environment where putting on uniforms and taking up arms was about the most noble thing a person could do. Much to the chagrin of my family, however, I was literate at an early age, and hence developed an interest in national/world affairs. Since Vietnam was not only going on back in those days, but was on the evening news every night, it didn't long before I had trouble seeing war with the same rose-colored glasses as my family. As I got older, the thing that especially bothered me about the military was the draft. With the possible exception of jury duty, I can think of no greater violation of individual liberty than the draft. That really turned me into a career civilian -- and when the draft was abolished and we switched over to an all volunteer military I became smugly convinced that only a microcephalic fool would ever volunteer to join up, put on a soldier suit, and possibly get wasted in the name of flag and country.

To be honest, I still don't quite get what drives one to join the military, but on the other hand as I've gotten older I have to respect the fact that these people are indeed volunteers. Moreover, as I've learned after about two decades at various universities, not everyone is university material, so I suppose if you're willing to put up with the BS, the military can be a way up the ladder. Most importantly, since these people are legal adults and actually choose to be soldiers/sailors/marines -- they're not "children" ... no matter what their grieving parents may claim.

Of course, how the government chooses to use these volunteers is another issue. Curiously, every government -- be it demopublican or republicratic -- always seems to come up with a justification to send these volunteers into harm's way. After the initial rallying around the flag, tweedledumb inevitably finds fault with the way tweedledumber is running the show, and the same old arguments break out. The hawks fight the appeasers, the pacifists go on hunger strikes, the hard left demands the immediate withdrawal of our forces, and the hard right starts talking about chucking atomic bombs around and taking out anyone perceived to be "unfriendly to US interests". If we're really lucky, Jimmy Carter makes a clandestine visit to his favorite dictator of the moment, and ABCNBCCBSCNN gushes enthusiastically about his legacy as a "peacemaker". FOX then brings on a retired 5-star general to explain why we should clandestinely wire Carter with explosives and detonate him during the state dinner.

I would argue, however, that this same old scenario misses a very important point: is political globalism in our best interest? For the past hundred years or so the US has abandoned its former non-interventionist approach to foreign policy in favor of meddling anywhere and everywhere in the name of "promoting freedom", "making peace", "making the world safe for democracy", or as President Shrub recently termed it: "bringing freedom to the world". But all of this nationalistic hyperbole aside, what has it really gotten us? We tipped the balance of power in WWI, which went a long way toward insuring that we'd have to do it all over again in WWII. That in turn wound up getting us involved in the Cold War, which got us involved in Korea and Vietnam. I shudder to think how much we spent on all of these endeavors in both money and manpower, and with each "success" we only wound up committed to spending more to continue what we started. Greneda, Panama, Gulf War One and Gulf War Two have only tipped the balance further in the direction of high cost / low return.

And what has it gotten us? Are we safer and more secure? Are our liberties safer from government intrusion? Are we perchance ready to acknowledge that political correctness is rotting our brains, or that spending our way to prosperity is wrecking our economy, or that leaving our border with Mexico open is destabilizing any number of states? Has anyone even bothered to think about how many stolen taxpayer dollars it takes to prop up Israel (which is not the 51st state, contrary to popular rumor), blow up a few Islamikazis in Iraq/Afghanistan, or hand out condoms in some remote corner of Africa? People will get worked up over paying an extra dollar to pull money out of an ATM, yet the money we spend to be hated around the world never seems to be a burning issue.

It should be. Protesting the war in Iraq is focusing on a mere symptom of a much larger disease. The disease is the US government's interventionist mentality. To trade with all nations and allow our citizens to freely deal with all nations is fine -- but the US government should return to an official policy of strict non-intervention. As long as we accept the premise that it's the right/duty of the US government to butt in around the world, some group of us can always rationalize the reasons behind the intervention. Curiously, back in the days when the preservation of our liberty and national sovereignty were hot issues, this was abundantly clear. For instance, none other than George Washington noted in his Farewell Address that: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."

To put it even more basically, it is difficult (if not downright impossible) to effectively intervene in your best friend's marriage - no matter how well you know both parties and how close you really are. If it doesn't work at home, what in the name of your favorite deity makes you think you can intervene in a foreign country with a foreign culture 10,000 miles around the world? It just doesn't make sense to me, and I would argue that there's abundant evidence that it doesn't work very well either.

Hell, while Cindy Sheehan was out making the world safe from George Bush, her husband filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences". Yet another example of how the specific, localized aspects of life are difficult enough to deal with. The more generalized, broader issues are the real bear.

What's In A Name?

2005-08-06T14:58:00.000-04:00

In an effort to move beyond just being abusive and to facilitate a bit of discussion, I'd like to pose a question.

This morning, I read an article by a faithful individual bemoaning the fact that the "intellectuals" of the coasts view middle America as being "stupid" for being devoutly religious. This isn't a new charge by any means (it probably goes back to the Scopes trial), and one hears it a lot from the creationist/"intelligent design" crowd and certain dark corners of the republicratic party. I suppose to some extend I can even appreciate the sentiment -- at least insofar as no one likes to be called "stupid". [This is probably why, no matter how stupid someone actually is, they always begin defending themselves by saying "I'm not stupid".] Nonetheless, I'm at something of a loss as to how to correctly classify these people from a rationalistic/naturalistic perspective. In fact, that's my question:

How does one delicately categorize an individual who freely chooses to reject reason and science in favor of a mythologically-based belief system?

{Note: I know that the first objection I'll get is that religion is not mythology -- and as soon as someone produces objective evidence that their "god" is real I'll be happy to grant them that distinction. Until then, the assertion that religion and mythology are synonymous will stand: My Blog, My Rules ....}

But getting back to the point: how would we rate the competence / sanity / intelligence of individuals who made everyday decisions like this?:

List One:
* I was raised to believe that bleeding someone is the way to cure the flu ... so it is!
* Our traditions dictate that we slash our children's cheeks with knives to scar them.
* I had a vision that told me the President had a plan for me.
* The Great Pumpkin exists because Linus told me so.
* It says in this advertisement that I can loose 100 pounds in 3 days without exercise or diet - and it's completely safe!

No doubt we'd at least shake our heads at these kinds of pronouncements. Yet, if we make them religious instead of secular, suddenly we're supposed to pretend that it's a perfectly logical point of view:

List Two:
* I was raised to believe that the bible is the inspired word of "god" ... so it is!
* Our traditions dictate that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman.
* I had a vision that told me the lord had a plan for me.
* "God" exists because my parents told me so (and/or it says so in the bible).
* It says in the bible that the earth was created in 7 days and is only 10,000 years old - so it is!

Hopefully my point isn't too hard to follow here. The kind of reasoning in List One is, by definition, illogical. If it's applied to your daily life it will have very negative consequences, and if you admit to it, a friend or family member will probably say something like: "Wow! That was really stupid!"

But I digress ... what are we supposed to call people who take the contents of List Two seriously? We all know at least one person who thinks this way, and it requires some serious rationalization to claim that these are intellectually defensible positions -- especially in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence for naturalism.

Do people have a right to believe what they will? Absolutely. In fact, as long as they leave the rest of us in peace, I'm happy to return the favor. I even understand and sympathize with their irritation when the government wants to tell them how to live or how to raise their children. But my sympathy ends when they want me to act like their beliefs are reasonable, because by any objective standard they simply aren't.

Furthermore, there is a key difference between science and religion. Science is a method. I know this is hard for many people to process, but science is not about believing in a certain set of positions, it's about using the best naturalistic method we've been able to come up with so far to attempt to ascertain in rational terms what's going on in the world around us. Conclusions are reached based upon a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes it takes years or decades to get something right, and often the errors are useful to the learning process. A theory may be well-supported even though particular aspects of it are still in dispute. Science can live with uncertainty. This is fundamentally different from a belief system, where individuals simply accept the entire contents of "holy" book at face value and spend the rest of their lives trying to hammer a square peg (reality) into a round hole (religion).

Moreover, in every other aspect of our lives we know that faith isn't necessarily a good thing. Why do you think we have lists of things you should never believe like:

* The check's in the mail.
* I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
* Don't worry, I won't #### in your mouth.

We have these lists because we realize that anyone with enough faith to believe such things is at best incredibly naive. So maybe that's the solution. We won't call the faithful "stupid", because that's a.) overly negative and b.) descriptive of an inability to comprehend. We'll just call them "naive", because maybe with some education and experience with the world of rationality they'll be able to comprehend that religion is in fact just mythology.

And if they can't, then we'll call them stupid .......

Wow .... I've Become Middle-Of-The-Road??!!

2005-08-04T00:14:00.000-04:00

My good buddy Dave, who hosts a far more diverse blog than this one, posted a comment to last night's rant that really got me thinking (thanks Dave!). He noted that "...these Republicans are not your father's Republicans..." -- and damned if he isn't right (just for the record my father is 85, so we'll have to go back a bit to find "his" politicians). In fact, one can't help but notice that if our political system is evolving (or devolving, as the case may be), it is most definitely toward the extremes and away from the middle. As a long-suffering Libertarian, this really confuses me, because in many ways I think that my political philosophy - long dismissed by the mainstream as being either "too ideological" or "too radical" - is actually fast becoming middle-of-the-road by default.

Who were my father's republicrats?? Well, there was Calvin Cooledge (still my choice for best president of the 20th century -- 2 terms, did virtually nothing). More recently, they were defined by guys like Barry Goldwater (and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan). Sadly, compared to today's christo-fascist warmongering variety, these republicrats seemed pretty moderate and level-headed. For the most part they liked free markets and distrusted government, they believed individuals should be held responsible for their actions, and they occasionally had some reverence for the Constitution. True, they used the cold war as an excuse to posture and saber-rattle and spend lots of stolen taxpayer loot driving the old USSR into bankruptcy, but at some level they seemed to understand that using overt military force halfway around the world had its limitations.

But - to be fair - who were my father's demopublicans? The names that spring to my mind are people like FDR, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. While these guys were indeed intent on growing the welfare state in a manner that I would argue blatantly ignored the founders' vision for our republic, they were also very different from the demopublicans of today. For one thing, they believed that the US was (and should remain) a sovereign nation. These guys were proud to be Americans. They didn't automatically blame the US for every wrong in the world, nor did they place the UN over the US and international law over constitutional law. They were also more friendly to free markets than their political descendants. They may have wanted to give a lot away, but they understood that you can only bleed a patient so far before they die (note that Kennedy also instituted a series of tax cuts, and - surprise, surprise - they worked). I suspect that they'd be appalled if they could actually see how their attempts to give people a hand and create equality in society has morphed into our current politically correct, reverse discriminating, dependency creating, excuse generating nanny state.

Nowadays, all I see are extremes, with the christo-fascists of the right locked in perpetual war with the socialist one-worlders on the left. It's just getting weird. Republicrats are growing the welfare state in new and inventive ways, while demopublicans have suddenly gotten concerned about state's rights and the Constitution. It's Rick Santorum versus Howard Dean; the Christian Coalition versus Moveon.org.

In the current political climate, I think a political philosophy advocating individual responsibility, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy IS a "mainstream" philosophy. I just can't believe that there isn't a consensus to be found out there among people who can see that domestically we've become far too hypersensitive and socialist, and that internationally we're pouring huge amounts of money (not to mention far too many lives) down a bottomless pit without ever seriously answering the question "What's in it for us?" Even if we disagree on the particulars, there's got to be enough common ground to do something.

The economist Thomas Sowell once noted that "Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin." That's the problem in a nutshell. Civil discourse has been replaced by the ghost of late Weimar Germany, where the Nazis and Communists beat each other's brains out and the middle sat around with a thumb in a personal place.

Since this right/left, good/evil situation has become the status quo (and most people, regrettably, seem only be able to comprehend politics in such terms), I guess I've become middle-of-the-road. Want to reduce how much the government steals from us? Let's talk. Want to reduce government intrusion into your personal life? We can find a compromise. Want to practice your religion to its illogical extreme? Fine .... just do it on your own time and property, and don't try to force-feed it to your neighbors. Instead of pretending we love each other, let's take a reasoned step backward and just accept that different values can't occupy the same space -- ergo we should start respecting each others' spaces instead of charging into each others' business. I know I'm not going to get everything I want, but could we at least talk about ideas and solutions rather than just sticking our tongues out and calling it a political system?

Sounds pretty mainstream to me.

A Thought About Mandates...

2005-08-01T23:30:00.000-04:00

So Shrub has gone and used a recess appointment to install John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. I can't say I'm too sad .... I may not want to work for the guy, but anyone who's inherently hostile to the UN can't be all bad in my book. But after listening to the lefties whining about this today -- and for that matter listening to the arguments raised every time the republicrats act like the majority party -- I just can't help but put forward the following intolerant thought:

If you win the White House, the Senate and the House, you have a mandate to govern until you lose any and all of the above in the next election.

Hey demopublicans! News flash! Y'all lost! Granted, the republicrats often seem to forget this, and I suppose that's why this whiney behavior continues. But for the few of us who pay attention to such things, arguing that the majority party shouldn't act the part is really insulting to one's intelligence. Disagreeing with them is perfectly OK -- but stop blubbering like 5-year-olds that it's somehow "unfair" that you're not driving the bus.

Starting back with FDR -- when there was a demopublican majority -- bills were passed, judges were appointed, constitutional principles were gutted, money was stolen and redistributed, states' rights were annihilated, and liberty was generally trodden upon without ever "consulting" the republicrats. Moreover, they had every right to do this (however much anyone may have disagreed with the particulars).

Now the shoe's on the other foot, and the republicrats are indeed trying to do all of the above - albeit with a bit less self-confidence. Grow up and deal with it. Even better -- win some elections and then you can drive the bus again. After all, no party is destined to perpetually reign, no matter how superior they think they are.

One More Thing...

2005-07-21T00:27:00.000-04:00

If y'all haven't guessed by now, I'm one of those odd individuals who prefers the challenge of liberty to the security of being taken care of. To me, liberty is not just a buzzword; it's a philosophical principle.

Since I'm sure that some of you will read my post on John Roberts and conclude that I'm a cold-hearted swine, I'd like to take this opportunity to underscore that I am all in favor of charity, civility and caring for your fellow humans -- just not at the price of surrending my liberty.

A fine explanation of the Philosophy of Liberty is available thanks to the good folks at the International Society For Individual Liberty website. Be forewarned, however, that the animation is set to music -- so turn your speakers down a bit before clicking on the link.

John Roberts

2005-07-20T23:21:00.000-04:00

Well, the waiting game is over, and Shrub has nominated John Roberts to take over O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. While I wouldn't call Roberts an exact match to the want ad I posted below, at least he doesn't appear to be a religious loony intent on proving that Republicratic Christo-Fascists can legislate from the bench just like Demopublican Socialists. Of course, this evaluation is sure to evolve over the next several years.

Speaking of Demopublican Socialists, Chuck Schumer (a.k.a. the gun-grabbing, race-pandering, whiney, collectivist, oath-of-office violating Senator from New York) has come up with a list of questions for Roberts to answer. To be fair, it's not a bad collections of questions. I suspect Roberts will dance around it, but in the true spirit of the blogosphere, I'd like to suggest the following answers to Red Charlie's list:

Q: What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
A: None. Next question.

Q: Under the Establishment Clause, what, if any, is the appropriate role of religion in Government?
A: None. Next question.

Q: Must the Government avoid involvement with religion as a whole, or is the prohibition just on Government involvement with a specific religion?
A: Government must remain neutral on any and all religions questions. The text of the First Amendment is pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- i.e. individuals have religions, government is secular.

Q: Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely?
A: When it's clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution as defined in the founding documents. (Since Red Charlie probably can't distinguish the Federalist Papers from rolling papers, this answer would probably really confuse him)

Q: Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court invalidate a law duly passed by the Congress?
A: See above answer.

Q: Is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and if so, under what circumstances does it apply?
A: Yes. See Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and Amendment X "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" Property rights begin with self-ownership.

Q: What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the environment?
A: See above -- especially the part about the federal government having "enumerated" powers, whereas the people have the rest. The key to environmental protection is simple: private ownership and holding people legally responsible for the messes they make.

Q: What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the rights of the disabled?
A: None. Rights apply to everyone equally at the expense of no one. Everything else is a privilege.

Q: What is the proper relationship between Congress and the states in enacting laws to protect the rights of patients?
A: None. Health care is a service, not a right.

Q: What is the proper Constitutional role of Government in enacting laws to regulate education?
A: None. I challenge anyone to show me any governmental mandate to provide education in the Constitution. Look it up.

Q: How do you define judicial activism?
A: "Interpreting" the Constitution to mean something that clearly was not the philosophical intent of the authors.

Q: Where is the line between civil rights questions that are political and questions that are appropriate for a court to decide?
A: Individuals have rights, groups do not. If an individual's legitimate Constitutional rights have been violated, it's a court issue. Everything else is a political issue. (Note to Red Charlie: equality of outcome is not a "right", and redistributing the wealth by force is still theft, no matter how many euphemistic terms you coin for it)

Now I'm sure someone out there will argue that the Constitution is a "living document" that is to be interpreted in the spirit of the times. I disagree. If it's a "living" document, it's really a dead one -- because if we don't follow it in letter and spirit, then none of it is beyond changing when the mob gets a wild hair. If it's outdated, then let's come up with a new one. But if we're going to continue playing the game that it's the law of land, let's follow it as such.

Capitalism Rocks

2005-07-06T12:07:00.000-04:00

This article is so good that I won't even waste your time editorializing about it. Just read it.

Help Wanted

2005-07-01T14:33:00.000-04:00

So Sandra Day O'Connor has opted to hang up her robes and go back to doing whatever it was she did before taking a seat on the Supreme Court. I suppose that's a good thing. At least she had the sense to realize that hanging around on the Court until you die in your seat probably doesn't make for a good Justice. Considering all the hullaballoo over Bush's court appointments so far, I trust that finding a replacement should be a rip-snortin' good time for anyone who finds humor in watching Demopublicans and Republicrats snipe at each other. If familiarity breeds contempt, this go-round of Tweedledumb vs. Tweedledumber should really be enjoyable.

However, aside from the inner disputes between the two wings of the Big-Government Party, there is this issue of finding a qualified replacement for Justice O'Connor. If I got to write the want ad, it would be this:

Wanted: Supreme Court Justice

Requirements: Familiarity with both the literal text of the US Constitution, as well as the intent of the founders as laid out in the Federalist Papers. Willingness to apply Constitutional litmus test to all cases, regardless of popular sentiment or personal idiosyncrasies. Understanding that the powers enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are limited and finite is a definite plus. Commitment to Federalism, property rights, individual liberty/responsibility and separation of church and state also encouraged.

I don't think someone who actually met these criteria would stand a snowball's chance before the Senate, but it would be fun to listen to ...

Go Speedy!

2005-06-30T11:48:00.000-04:00

I'm just plain sick of hypersensitivity, and unfortunately this country is full of it. Please don't interpret this as an endorsement of intolerance, racism, or anything like that. But there's a huge difference between aggressing against someone (i.e. taking action to hurt someone) and having a sense of humor. That being said, today's "Get Over Yourself" award goes to the Mexican postal system, which has been the recipient of sharp criticism from America's sensitivity brigades over a new stamp series they've released.

Seems the stamp includes a caricature of a black individual, and apparently all cartoons have to pass the race warlord sensitivity test or they just can't be tolerated (even in other countries). But hats off to the Mexicans, who had the sense to point out that they understand that Speedy Gonzalez is just a cartoon, and they're confident that Americans can make that leap when it comes to Mexican stamps. Slam dunk! Good job Mexico!

Next thing you know we'll hear how Bill Cosby's Fat Albert cartoon was "insensitive" because it made light of obesity. Oh, wait a minute .... Bill Cosby has already shown that he's "insensitive" to the black community. He's dared assert that individual responsibility is an essential ingredient for success. How foolish of me ......

Take Me Back

2005-06-24T01:53:00.000-04:00

One of the nice things about several of my friends is that they send me stuff that I usually wouldn't find on my own. Today I got a really novel list of things that differ between America in 1905 and 2005. While much of it focuses upon how (relatively) underdeveloped America was in 1905 (i.e. technology, infrastructure, etc.), there were a few things that were just too good to pass up commenting upon:

"Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into their country for any reason."

Oh for shame! Imagine anyone wanting to keep their country affluent and reasonably crime-free. Imagine anyone wanting to preserve a common culture and not throw the doors open to any vagrant who just happens to wander in. Imagine not wanting your provided social services to become overburdened. Aren't you really glad we don't think that way today .... especially along our southern border?

"Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores."

Wow ... and you mean life went on without the Imperial Federal Government wasting billions of dollars fighting a War on Drugs (a.k.a. The War on the Bill of Rights)? Impossible.

"Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least one full-time servant or domestic help."

Cool. That means people who had limited job skills could still support themselves even without flipping burgers. Moreover, it means 18% of US households could afford domestic help.

"There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day."

Now that's hitting below the belt! No Hallmark Holidays to guilt people into spending money for schlock and kitsch? Astounding!

"With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union."

What a pleasant thought. A state of California without the fruits, nuts, and massive government that they just can't stop themselves from exporting at every opportunity. How did the nation survive?

Of course, no list is complete, and so I'd like to add 5 things that were right about 1905 but may seem shocking and alien today:

1. There was no income tax. That's right -- none. Every dollar you earned was yours by right.
2. The federal government was, especially by today's standards, tiny. It also followed the Constitution much more closely than it does today, although Teddy Roosevelt was starting to ignore it when it suited his purposes.
3. Federalism still existed. States were different, laws were different, and if you didn't like the way one state ran its affairs you were free to move on to another one that suited your tastes.
4. People were held accountable for their actions. If you were too stupid to be safe, it was your problem. If you invested unwisely, none of your neighbors were forced to subsidize your poor judgement.
5. Private property meant "private property". It was yours by right, not because the government graciously allowed you to use it as long as they didn't decide to take it. [BTW -- a pox those 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled today that municipalities can use eminent domain to seize private property so that private developers can build better tax-producing projects. Our founders are no doubt spinning in their graves.]

To be honest, though, 1905 was too close to the beginning of the end of liberty in America (a.k.a. the FDR years) to be really appealing. Given the opportunity, I'd rather go back to 1805. That would have really been the time to address the bad things about America (i.e. slavery, racism, excessive reliance on religion) while keeping the good.

If anyone develops a time travel system, please let me know. I'm not too busy these days .....

Devilish Faith

2005-06-19T20:59:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent me this story today about a Romanian nun who was crucified by a priest and other nuns, and I just had to share it. This was supposed to drive out a "devil" that was "possessing" her. More evidence that deep religious conviction and schizophrenia are probably one in the same. Unfortunately, someone had to die in this case.

Perhaps one day humanity will grasp that "spirituality" is at best irrational, and at worst deadly.

High on Spirits

2005-06-16T10:43:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to fascinate me how people can rationalize virtually anything that happens to fit their needs. No doubt this is some kind of evolutionarily useful development. After all, the ability to ignore what appears to be hopeless and press on can have certain uses. No doubt many successful inventors, researchers and investors can look back at a time in their lives when they pushed ahead with something that seemed utterly hopeless, and yet they managed to find a way around the bottleneck and ultimately succeed. In retrospect, we can even see what exactly it was that they figured out and marvel at their vision and determination. Of course, this process of learning through experience requires a certain respect for empirical evidence if it's going to yield objective results.

Two recent stories in the news have led me to think about this: the autopsy results for Terri Shiavo, and some of the comments made by the mother of the girl who has disappeared on the island of Aruba.

Shiavo's autopsy report rather clearly shows that her brain was about half the size it should have been, that she was blind, and that her brain damage certainly was sufficient to result in a permanent vegetative state. Case closed, right? Nope. Her parents, no doubt fueled by their belief system, are still insisting that their daughter could "interact" with them. Does it ever cross their minds that their perceptions could be flawed? Could their lack of understanding of profound brain damage have led them to misinterpret things? Of course not. Theology and rationalization trump scientific fact.

Then there's Beth Holloway Twitty of Alabamastan, mother of Natalee Holloway. While I would love to see it turn out that Natalee is healthy and happy somewhere else (perhaps she chartered a boat one evening to escape from her overly religious mother and is now enjoying a new life elsewhere) -- I have my serious doubts. She's probably dead, perhaps murdered by some combination of the three kids now in jail. Hopefully, they'll be identified and punished.

But what I find so interesting is how Beth falls back on the ill-tempered and vindictive "god" of the Old Testament --- and the fact that no one in the media is even a little tempted to point out how irrational this is. Two comments that I've really liked are:

"I have no choice but to stay strong. I was somehow chosen for this [situation] and I've got to see it to the end."

Then, just a few minutes ago on the news, I heard her being quoted as having said that until "god" told her otherwise, she was going to assume that her daughter was alive.

Earth to Beth!: If your "god" would orchestrate this kind of hellish experience, perhaps you ought to seriously think about whether or not this "god" is as good as his press releases claim. What could possibly be more sadistic than taking a child from a mother, letting the mother suffer for weeks, and then ultimately informing the mother that the child is dead? If any living being did this, we'd consider this criminal behavior. Yet the faithful can somehow twist their minds to believe that their loving "god" has a good reason for doing this. In fact, they can point to other stories of "god" in a mood (i.e. the stories of Job and Abraham/Isaac in the OT) to "prove" that events like this are to "test" their faith or some other such flapdoodle.

I have no doubt that the faithful (perhaps even someone reading this -- assuming anyone does) could come up with a splendid rationalizations for any of the above-described behavior. Maybe it's a psychological defense mechanism that makes it easier to get through life. However, if we're going to continue to not only allow but also publically glorify this kind of irrational thinking, I think we should - if only out of fairness - end the war on drugs (a.k.a. the war on the Bill of Rights). After all, if one can legally warp reality with religion, how is that substantively different from getting high?

Let's Reverse Shoes

2005-05-31T23:05:00.000-04:00

No doubt by now many of y'all have heard of the great conservative wailing about the recent writing of one Timothy Shortell, a sociologist from Brooklyn College who made some unflattering remarks about religion and is now at the eye of a hurricane of public outrage. Seems his referring to the overly religious as "moral retards" got a lot of people's shorts in a knot.

To be fair, there were no doubt more elegant ways to express the same idea, but I don't really think that's the point. The First Amendment doesn't say "freedom of speech as long as you don't hurt someone's feelings" or "freedom of speech as long as the majority approves of it" -- it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Now granted the Constitution has taken quite a beating from Demopublicans and Republicrats alike over the past 100 years, but I think this text is pretty clear and easy to understand.

Moreover, imagine if Shortell had said that atheists and agnostics were "moral retards". Do you think that would have even gotten a peep out of the press in this country? Remember the first President Bush? Here's a conversation between him and a reporter when he was running for President in '87:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

So there you have it folks. A major party candidate for president (and later President) can say that he doesn't know if atheists should be considered citizens or patriots ... and nobody gives a damn. But let a college professor call believers "moral retards" and the spit hits the spam.

If GHW Bush should be free to express his opinions without repercussions, so too should Timothy Shortell.

Put Your Shirt On

2005-05-26T14:11:00.000-04:00

"Don't set out to raze all shrines — you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed . . . " (Ellsworth Toohey)

When I first read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, I initially failed to grasp that this quote from the novel's arch-villain concisely explained why what passes for "music" these days often sucks so badly.

Granted, Ayn Rand isn't everyone's cup of tea. Many have objected to her championing of individuality and capitalism, while others have pointed out (rightly so IMHO) that her moralizing often appeared to contradict her philosophy of freedom and individualism. But, just because an author may be objectionable in one way or another, one shouldn't throw away the baby with the bathwater. After all, Karl Marx didn't understand economics at all, and he was totally wrong about workers being important, but he did identify the true nature of religion really well.

So too did Rand really peg the way music has been destroyed in the past several decades. This struck me when I was perusing one of America's great satirical publications, The Onion, and I saw a shirtless picture of Usher with the subtitle: "Usher To Put Shirt Back On When Usher Ready To Put Shirt Back On". Mind you, I don't have any personal axe to grind with Usher. Hell, I wouldn't know him if I met him on the street. I gave up on pop music in about 1975 and I've never looked back. But, thanks to my better half (otherwise known as "she who must be obeyed"), I am occasionally exposed to modern stylings, and I'm consistently underwhelmed in the process.

I think this is just another by-product of the trend toward lowered expectations that has permeated education, politics and life in general for the past 20 or 30 years. Once the notion of equality before the law morphed into equality of outcome, the die was cast. To put it another way, reverence for achievement has been replaced by envy, as well as an ever-increasing demand that unequal earnings of every kind be equally distributed (which explains all of this American Idol nonsense).

How does this apply to music? Simple. To be a good musician -- to really master an instrument and play it with technical precision and creative passion -- is really difficult. It doesn't matter how much you "love music" or how well you feel you play .... the proof is in the performance. Either your chops are solid or they're not. Either you've got soul or you don't.

Yet this very notion of mastering an instrument seems to deeply offend many. Over the years I've heard lots of wannabes (i.e. people who are unwilling to put in the time and effort to master an instrument, but can beat on it sufficiently to pass as a player) actually express their dislike for highly skilled musicians. The terminology varies. I've heard really fine music derided as being "busy", "boring", and "egotistical". I've heard homilies about the virtues of "primitivism", "straightforwardness", and "rawness". People who can't tell a diminished 13th from a power chord stand in judgement of their betters and assume a tone of moral superiority precisely because they can't play nearly as well -- and they're resentful as all hell about it. They're actively razing the shrine of excellence and enshrining mediocrity.

Don't believe me? How many of today's stars write their own material? How many can really play an instrument well (if they play at all)? How many just stand there with a microphone and lip-sync (or grunt in illiterate English) to pre-recorded tracks while dancing around simulating sex? These people aren't creative musicians, they're flavor-of-the-year cookie-cutter clones who can be (and are) easily replaced after promoters and record companies milk them for everything they're worth. Yet millions of people obediently love and support them -- and will love and support the next one that comes along.

Some might argue that this has gone on forever, and to a certain extent they're right. However, the big difference is that in the past, no matter tacitly it was acknowledged by some, there was an underlying understanding that there was a qualitative difference between crap and art. Achievement (and the hard work that goes along with it) were seen as virtues, and the rewards that one reaped were seen as justifiable compensation for the effort it took to get there. No longer.

Today, the mediocre is everywhere, and people feel good about it. No longer are individuals judged by their shortcomings, or held responsible for their actions, or evaluated based upon any kind of objective standard. It's all about how one feels about oneself and nurturing one's self-esteem regardless of ability. It's turned education into touchy-feely, politically correct indoctrination; it's turned politics into substanceless, hysterical sloganeering; it's turned music into cRap.

Exhibit B

2005-05-26T11:46:00.000-04:00

Lest anyone think that I'm unfairly critical of Christianity, let me use this entry to dispel your concerns. In fact, if I didn't live in a country that was overrun with Christians, I doubt I'd pay all that much attention to the religion. It's kinda like the bank robber in the 1930's who was asked why he robbed banks. His answer? "That's where the money is."

However, from time to time other religions become annoying and worthy of rational attention, and today's lucky winner is none other than that religion of peace and enlightenment --- Islam. I mean, the American Taliban of the Christian right are certainly frightening enough, but at least they don't totally control every aspect of government (especially large numbers of people with guns and few restrictions on how they use them). In the Islamic world, superstitious maniacs not only run the whole shootin' match and have guns, but they've also got almost unlimited funds due to the fact that they just happen to be lucky enough to be sitting on huge reserves of fermented dinosaur juice (for those of you who went to government schools, I'm referring to oil).

Plus, these folks can be offended at the drop of a hat. You thought the Reverend Lovejoys of the world were bad when they carp and moan about titties on TV? Well, it could be worse. At least they don't organize a mob, burn down the TV station, and behead the inhabitants. In Sodomy Arabia, home of the Wahabi sect of Islam, that would probably be considered a mild response. In fact, Islamic intolerance of any viewpoint other than their own is even beginning to get some coverage in the press -- no doubt to the dismay of the multiculturalists and assorted other lefty whiners who seem to believe that the only country in the world that can ever do anything wrong is the USA. But, as someone once noted, facts are stubborn things, and a critical analysis of Islam can only lead one to the conclusion that a large number of its adherents are indeed firmly stuck in the 12th century.

This reality, however, is often misinterpreted by many of our citizens as "proof" that our superstition is better than their superstition. From talk radio bigshots to local wannabes, you can't escape this bizarre conclusion that there's some kind of inherent superiority in christianity that makes it oh-so-different from those primitives in the Middle East and elsewhere who get so frightfully worked up when their holy book is allegedly used for less-than-holy purposes. Yet, were it not for a remarkable twist of history, we'd be doing the same thing.

So the next time anyone goes down this road, please take the time to remind them that the only thing that really differentiates our superstition from their superstition is a period of history generally referred to as the Enlightenment, i.e. an 18th century movement in Europe that rejected, among other things, the divine right of kings, as well as the whole notion of divinity and state as a single entity. It was this period that led to things like naturalistic science (sorry Kansas, but without naturalism it just ain't science), critical inquiry, evidence-based research, and above all the notion that humans are, just like any other life form on the planet, a product of the ebb and flow of evolution -- i.e. not a special creation of some divine watchmaker. Were it not for the aftereffects of this movement, we'd still be stuck in the 12th century too.

But doesn't Christianity have a better track record than Islam with regard to human rights and other such things? Recently, yes -- but let us not forget that the kinder, gentler form of Christianity we see in the world today is a very recent development. In fact, without the Enlightenment and subsequent schools of thought, modern Christianity would still very much resemble the bloodthirsty European variety that launched the crusades and presided over what historians refer to as the Dark Ages (and for those of you who were educated in government schools, "Dark" doesn't refer to a pronounced lack of electricity).

In other words, it has been movement away from strict and unquestioning belief that has tamed Christianity, and it is the retention of strict and unquestioning belief that makes Islam so damned volatile. Ideally the day will come when we take this movement away from superstition to its logical conclusion and recognize that in the beginning man created god in his own image and not the other way around. But in the meantime, this is why the American Taliban scare me so much. Just replace the crescent with a cross, and you've got the same kind of irrational fanaticism.

Exhibit A

2005-05-17T13:37:00.000-04:00

People think I'm exaggerating when I point out that we're locked in a cultural war with America's Taliban. I often try to emphasize that this is not about "equal time" or "respecting divergent views" -- this is about a motivated, superstitious group of people trying to turn this country into a christian version of Iran.

Well, here's a bit more proof -- from the wonderful world of NCAA college football. If you're a sports fan, you've probably noticed that the American Taliban have targeted athletes for evangelical activity. Athletes not only make big money (which they can in turn donate in large quantities to missionary work and fatcat, con-artist preachers), but they're also not the sharpest tools in the shed, so they're easily manipulated. Turns out the head football coach at the US Air Force Academy is coming under fire for having a sign in his locker room that says (among other 'motivational' nonsense) "I am a Christian first and last ... I am a member of Team Jesus Christ." The government (which runs the Academy) apparently views this as establishing religion, which is at least technically prohibited by the First Amendment. So who comes riding to the rescue? None other than good old Bobby Bowden (and if he keeps this up I may seriously reconsider my support of FSU football). Seems Bobby could give a flip about the Constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, he's of the opinion that it's really jihad time. Speaking to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, old Bobby leaves us with these gems of wisdom:

"The coach has a responsibility to these boys to try to influence their spiritual life, their physical life and their academic life. ... We know we're going to get challenged on it, but that's what we believe in. I ain't gonna back down."

And

"The problem with us Christians is we won't speak out."

Excuse me? You can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting a christian who's speaking out. What you almost never hear is a skeptical voice trying to inject a bit of rationality into the mix. For instance, everyone in the media pretty much acts like the existence of god is a given. Do you ever hear anyone seriously challenge this most basic religionist assumption??

"Christians won't speak out" my ass. What christians won't do is shut the hell up.

"Assault" On Faith

2005-05-15T02:03:00.000-04:00

High on my list of people who need a hard slap upside the head are these self-righteous whiners who feel that any attempt to resist their crusade to return us back to the 13th century is an "assault on faith". I suppose it would bother me less if they were more honest about it. Why not just say: "Look, our goal is to create a conservative, christian theocracy in America that reflects our interpretation of our holy book -- and if that means doing away with what's left of the Constitution then that's OK too." But then again, to be honest about one's motives frequently requires being honest with oneself, and I suspect that we'll never hear this admission precisely because these people are so heavily invested in bullshitting themselves that introspection pretty much hasn't got a chance.

For instance, the "assault on faith" line is just the latest in a series claims that all center around the mindset that christianity is somehow persecuted in the US. (For those of you who just spit whatever you were drinking on your monitor in disbelief that anyone could ever claim such a thing, go get a paper towel and clean up .... then read on.) I wish I had a dollar for every lobotomized Jesusoid who's told me this in some form. And what's worse is that they absolutely believe it with every fiber of their being. Any time their religious sensitivities aren't respected -- and it can be anything from not saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes to not letting them ban evolution from public schools -- it's always the "oh we're so persecuted" line. Since martyrdom appeals to these folks at some rather organic level, I say that it's time for us to stop farting around trying to be nice and really commence an assault on faith that's worthy of the name.

Why should we assault faith? For the same reason we assault other forms of human stupidity (spending more than you earn, having children you can't feed, tattooing your scrotum, etc.): because that which is not logical and rational is, by definition, illogical and irrational. While individuals should of course be free to peacefully pursue irrational pursuits, no one should be obliged to help them pretend that they're not doing something stupid -- and this is where the assault on faith could really shine. After all, if you think about religion logically, the claims are at best naively childish. The big magic man in the sky (and he's a man -- make no mistake about that all you tree-hugging pagans) will take care of you for all eternity in return for your total obedience and devotion. In other words, god is a stereotypical Jewish mother (with a penis, of course). Moreover, the holy book of the big magic man in the sky (which is a carefully edited anthology - not a book - but no one really likes to talk about that anymore) has everything we need to know in it -- including, as Ned Flanders observed, all the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. And yet, despite this, we're supposed to all pretend that faith is a good thing?? Are these people high?? They're going through life with a medieval view of life, death and the universe, and then they expect us to pretend that it's somehow good and noble to do so?

So here are my guidelines for the assault on faith. Much like my hero George Carlin, I believe that this is a protracted battle of words, so we need to carefully choose our language to demonstrate our unwillingness to help the American Taliban pretend that they're anything else but old-school, hard-core fanatics. First of all, never use the terms "faith", "religion" or "belief" when describing these mindsets. It makes them sound too respectable. Call it what it is: "superstition". If throwing salt over your shoulder or not walking under a ladder is superstition, so too is lighting candles, handling snakes, and beseeching a non-existent thing to intervene in your life. Secondly, stop calling alleged deities by their given names. It makes them sound like real people. I suggest "the magic man in the sky", "your imaginary friend", or "the voices in your head". It's really important to point out that if you see people and hear voices, you have NOT had a religious experience. You might, however, benefit by taking medication for schizophrenia. A few additional snappy answers will also aid in this campaign. The next time some tells you they know something in their heart (i.e. "I know in my heart that god is with me"), point out to them that their heart is a muscle that pumps blood and not a place where cognition takes place. Nothing shows just how out-of-touch with reality the faithful are than their retention of this piece of anatomical ignorance. The next time someone justifies some nonsensical action with the hackneyed cliche "but it's biblical", remind them that so too is stoning people to death for adultery and sending your wife away for having her period. (I think - technically speaking - polyester is also a sin. If it isn't, it should be.) Finally, the next time someone says that they're going to "put their trust in god", take the opportunity to point out all of the poor souls who've lived horrible lives and/or died horrible deaths over the years despite taking this step (innocent victims killed in wars, victims of disease, etc.). Given the magic man in the sky's track record over recorded human history, I'd say trusting in a deity is about as logical as trusting a used car salesman.

Ultimately, this is going to be an uphill battle. We might as well do it, though, since we're gonna continue to hear about how faith is being assaulted any time we refuse to cave in to the demands of the religionists. Moreover, many once sacred American notions have been changed by this kind of verbal judo, so it's worth a shot. If you don't believe me, just think about how "handout" has become "earned income tax credit", or how "brainwashing" has become "sensitivity training."

Spendthrifts....

2005-05-10T02:16:00.000-04:00

Y'know, I caught a lot of flack during the last exercise in futility that passed for an election in this country. Frequently my insistence that it didn't matter who won irked people (and I still stand by that assessment). As far as I could see, government was going to get larger (and correspondingly liberty was going to shrink) whether we got Shrub or Swiftee in the White House.

One particularly interesting response I got was to a mock campaign button I forged. I took a standard Bush button, and then cleverly superimposed the words: "Making Socialism Acceptable For Republicans" over it. Granted it wasn't an original thought --- but I was in a mood and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Needless to say, many a Bushie was taken aback. How could I possibly equate their man with the spread of socialism??

Well, if you care about these issues, may I direct your attention to
this story from my good friends at the Cato Institute.

Looks like I had that little old slogan right after all .....

You go Bill Cosby!

2005-05-02T22:40:00.000-04:00

Happened to catch a news talk show tonight where Bill Cosby's recent attempts to bring a little dose of reality to some of our less affluent brethern came under fire. Seems the author of a recent book takes exception to old Bill's critique of hip-hop culture and the mores and morals of the inner city. Much of it was the usual anticapitalist, race warlord rhetoric (which I'm sure I'll deconstruct one of these days just for giggles), but the line that really struck me was the author's assertion that Cosby was wrong to say that giving your children "strange" names would hold them back in life. In fact, this author made the comment that he was more worried about "Condolezza" and "Clarence" than he was the names people gave their children.

Let's think about this for a moment. Does anyone honestly think that we're ever gonna have a Secretary of State named "sha-THEED" (but spelled s-h-i-t-h-e-a-d)? I know of at least one poor child who carries this name. Can't you just see that headline on the New York Times: "President Appoints Shithead Johnson Secretary of State"? Or how about a Supreme Court Justice named Lemonjello (pronounced le-MON-jell-o)? I can hear Bernie Shaw now: "Supreme Court Justice Lemonjello Smith today ruled that making fun of a person's name is NOT protected by the First Amendment". Sheesh.

Earth to morons: tying an albatross around your child's neck is NOT doing them a favor, and it probably won't make them proud of their heritage. Just ask any kid whose parents were stoned out of their minds during the 60's and named their kid Flower, Gangbang, Wildfire, or Bong-Hit.

Go Bill Go!

One More Thought

2005-04-28T22:44:00.000-04:00

I must confess (shamefully) that I do, from time to time, get a giggle out of the Limbaugh show. Of course, I neither take him seriously nor believe that he takes himself seriously - plus as long as the topics revolve around economics or the constitutional limits on federal authority I even find myself in agreement from time to time. Today, on the other hand, the guest host was REALLY getting on my nerves.

News flash: No matter how many times you attempt to equate secularism with being a leftie, the two are not synonomous. I realize for purposes of public entertainment this black/white, good/evil scheme must be perpetuated (and the good folks over on Air America do the exact same thing in reverse) -- but come on people ..... think outside of the flippin' box for a moment.

If one rejects the notion of having a nanny state (i.e. surrogate parent with guns) to control every aspect of life in the name of safety and security, it is indeed philosophically consistent to reject the notion of an extraterrestrial dictator laying down the law for everyone. An advocate of liberty should by nature oppose ANY autocratic authority. Conservatives who talk about freedom out of one side of their mouths then grovel in prayer beseeching their "almighty" ruler to bless them -- these are folks who can't make up their minds. Either pursue freedom or revel in your subservience - just pick one!

Then, of course, there's the small detail that there's not one tiny smidgen of proof that any of these imaginary rulers in the sky actually exist .... but that's another entry for another day.

(Coming soon -- How can you advocate a scientific, evidence-based approach to economics and law, then toss this respect for science and objectivity out the window when it comes to your "god"?)

Just For The Record....

2005-04-28T22:36:00.000-04:00

Fortunately, I'm still in great health. However, should I somehow wind up bedridden, comatose, vegatitive, or dying of some horrible disease, let this be my public declaration of my feelings and intentions:

1. Tell Randall Terry to stay the hell away from me.
2. Tell the President, the Governor, the courts, my senators and representatives, various "pro-life" organizations, representatives of all religions, and any other self-appointed guardians of public morality that I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that death is an inevitability. Moreover, if I can't have the quality of life I desire (i.e. a normal, healthy, intellectually stimulating existence), I really don't want to hang around.
3. If my only option is starvation/dehydration, so be it. Quite honestly, if my brain is cooked and I'm a vegetable anyway, I doubt I'll care. However, I think this is the wimp's way out. I want to be shown the same dignity I showed my beloved old dog when he got old: put me to sleep. Just fill the needle with something quick and lethal, and put me to sleep. Then cremate my remains, put them in a gold urn with a black bow tie around the top, set me on a bar somewhere, and invite my friends to have a last drink with me.

Finally, if anyone says anything about "erring on the side of life", you have my permission to slap them hard. All they're really saying is "I will force my religious convictions upon others and happily use government guns to do so." Those who criticize science and reason as being unable to provide sufficient evidence to convince them of various things (evolution, the right to die, etc.) should remember one thing: no religion on the planet has the slightest bit of objective, verifiable, replicable evidence that their beliefs are real. I'll happily leave them alone to live by their beliefs -- and all I ask of them is that they return the favor.