Lift That Torch, Ring That Bell

Tax Day

2009-04-15T03:14:00.004-06:00

First of all, I am happy to see a tradition that has been carried on by the Libertarian Party activists for thirty-three years has finally caught on. The "Tea Parties" that are being organized across the nation today, are proof that people are finally waking up to the fact that We The People have been under an Elitist yoke since the beginning of the twentieth century. It is time for us to take our government back. What follows here is my personal protest message:

Dear Mr President and Congress:

Yes, you can put me in a box, but I would rather you didn't. I do not fit into a box. I have my own wants and needs, and I do not believe what is good for me is good for everybody else, nor do I believe that what is right for everybody else is necessarily right for me.

Yes, you can make the people dependent on the government, but I would rather you didn't. A government can only do so much for its people before it becomes a tyranny.

Yes, you can "help" the poor, but I would rather you didn't. I make less than $10,000 a year, so I may be considered one of the "poor" you are trying to "help." So far, to help me, you have imposed an excise tax that has bullied me into giving up one of the few comforts I had left. I realize that smoking tobacco is not good for me, but it should be my decision to quit, not the government's. Hot dogs aren't good for me either, nor is sugar, margarine, or coffee, but it is my choice as to how much of that I consume, or stop consuming, not the government's.

Yes, I receive food stamps, and I am grateful for that, in my time of need, but I feel I have earned that after paying taxes for nearly forty years. However, the most effective way of helping the "poor" is through local charitable organizations, and you are trying to take that away by eliminating tax deductions for charitable gifts.
Since you try to justify government sponsored population reduction with the explanation "The fewer of them (the poor) there are, the less money it will cost us in the long run," I do not feel the government is looking out for my best interests.

Yes, you can limit available jobs by requiring outrageous wages, but I would rather you didn't. Your "economic recovery package" to the states requires that contractors to your infrastructure projects pay a minimum wage of union scale reduces the number of jobs you could have created by 1/3. Your stimulus package does not create more jobs, it creates fewer jobs.

Yes, you can impose a government "of the government, by the government, and of the government," but I would rather you didn't. A government that does not trust the people can not be trusted. A government that imposes it's idea of what is right for all is a government that tries to control every aspect of our individual lives. No government that governs for the sake of governing is a friend of the people.

Yes, you can give our money to dictators who will use it to build more prisons to silence its dissidents, but I would rather you didn't. That practice has been proven, time after time, to create enemies from the people who are being oppressed.

Yes, you can try to silence me, but I will not be silenced. You have spoken your piece, and I will speak mine. The First Amendment gives me that right.

Yes, you can, but so can We The People.

To All Who Serve, Have Served, And Will Serve

2008-11-11T18:11:00.003-07:00

Thank You And Happy Veteran's Day!

We have to accept it, sort of

2008-11-04T23:57:00.001-07:00

For all practical purposes Barack Obama has won the presidential election. I am now waiting for a great golden light of understanding and hope to wash over me from above.

Here it comes.

Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.

Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.

Dang, that light faded.

Okay, here it comes again.

Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."

And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.

I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.

He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.

I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."

I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.

The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.

I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.

If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.

We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.

The Greater of Two Evils: My Closing Argument

2008-11-04T03:59:00.004-07:00

First of all, my prayers and thoughts go out to Barack Obama, his sister, and their families in sympathy over the loss of their grandmother, Madeline Dunham, who succumbed to cancer earlier today. Be assured that my thoughts and prayers are sincere, for the loss of a family member who meant so much to her family--one to whom Sen. Obama refers as "a hidden hero--" is a terrible loss and very hard to take, especially at a time when one has to focus elsewhere.

I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.

Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.

The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived

"I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body"

When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.

Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:

Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?

Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?

During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?

Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"

Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?

The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.

All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.

The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.

Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.

Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.

And that is the truth.

Pavement for the proverbial road

2008-11-02T08:52:00.001-07:00

Senator Obama is full of good intentions. By raising taxes on those who make more than a certain amount of money--and that amount has yet to be determined, according to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, he hopes to "spread the wealth" to encourage more consumer spending and create more jobs. He also hopes to use that tax increase to fund the many social and work programs.

There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."

Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."

That seems very close to the Busch economic program.

It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.

Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.

Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I only want to ask....

2008-10-27T17:45:00.002-06:00

Karl Marx's idea for his Marxist Utopia was that the people own the producers. "The producers will produce what is needed, and the people who need will get what they need," he wrote.

Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.

I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.

Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:

"Are you serious?"

"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."

At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.

We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.

Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?

I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"

I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.

What about me?

2008-10-21T17:02:00.001-06:00

I earn less than $8.000 a year, love the music of the Grateful Dead, strongly believe prohibition is a waste of time, lives, and money, believe the IRS should be disbanded, and that Income Tax laws should be repealed. I fear Big Brother/Big Government, socialism, thieves, and con artists. I believe in, and have personally experienced the charity of the community and find that a much better alternative to Federal bureaucracy. I believe the strength of America comes from the individual, and I strongly believe that the Federal Government should be limited to its Constitutional restraints. I know that the economy can run itself much better than the government can. I detest Communists and Fascists. The thought of a Socialist Executive branch supported by a filibuster-proof Socialist Legislative branch literally has me scared to a near catatonic state.

I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.

What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.

Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?

In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.

The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.

The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.

The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.

Strength

2008-09-11T18:22:00.001-06:00

One of the great things about this country is that we are a nation of individuals, each a Nation unto ourself, that can come together as one greater Nation when circumstances call for it. That is our strength--the strength that was unanticipated by those who sought to bring us to our knees on September 11, 2001.

Those who planned and carried out the vicious attack on American soil thought they would weaken our resolve to survive as the great Nation of individuals we are. As we remember and mourn those who lost their lives on that day, we should also remember and celebrate the strength we showed as our way of life stopped only for a moment, and we came back stronger, by collectively showing that we could not be brought down even by such a tragic and catastrophic event.

Real Change

2008-09-04T18:01:00.001-06:00

It is not surprising, but it is appalling that it seems that many Americans want the government to make them change their behavior. They complain about the high price of gasoline, and its effect on the economy, but they will cruise around on Friday night until the government tells them they can't.

They don't seem to understand that the reason gas prices are high is because, in spite of the prices, they keep buying gasoline. The best way to lower the price of gasoline, and the cost of living, would be to stop buying it. To complain about the chokehold Big Oil has on the economy, and to continue to buy excessively from Big Oil seems hypocritical.

It is understandable if a vehicle is necessary in one's work, or is necessary transportation to get to work, the grocery store, or even a bit of entertainment, that one would need to buy gasoline. But beyond that, it doesn't seem necessary to wait in line at Starbuck's or McDonalds with the engine running for twenty minutes when it would be cheaper to park the car, turn off the engine, and go inside. It doesn't seem necessary to drive up and down the main drag for half an hour while deciding where to eat or what show to watch, when plans could be made ahead of time.

As a frequent pedestrian, we see this kind of behavior constantly. The kind of behavior that tells us the economy must not be so bad after all, because people seem willing to pay the price no matter how high it gets.

The government can't change at this point. The folks on Capitol Hill know that if they give with one hand they have to take with the other. For instance, they can't outlaw buy only investments in oil futures, because that would upset the union pension plans, and most of our congresspersons depend on union support to stay in office. They know they can't suddenly press ethynol on the economy, because corn is used for many more things than fuel, and if corn were to reach $100 a bushel it would have a much more devestating effect on the economy than $100 a barrel oil.

Change needs to come from the individual. It needs to come from taking responsibility for one's actions, rather than expecting the government to fix things. The best we can expect from Washington DC, no matter who the next president is, is the same dance, different song.

Another Candidate

2008-08-26T16:01:00.000-06:00

codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"
WIDTH="384" HEIGHT="304">

Posting for the heck of it

2008-03-20T04:26:00.003-06:00

I haven't abandoned this blog, but I just haven't been excited about anything enough to do justice to what I feel is needed to be said. It isn't that there isn't anything to write about, just that there seems to be too much to write about, and not enough passion about it to finish what has been started. So, just to let folks know that Rev Jim is still alive and well, here is an endorsement, of sorts:

Could this be the end?

2008-02-07T23:03:00.000-07:00

Is this the end of the Conservative branch of the Republican Party? Citing his love for his country and his party, Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy for the nomination for the Republican Party Presidential race. This comes on the heels of declarations by several conservative pundits--most notably Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, and James Dobson, that they would rather surrender the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamofascists than support front-runner John McCain. Laura Ingraham also stated that she cannot support McCain, but she stopped short of saying she would rather vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, as Coulter has said she would.
Now these pundits will be the first to declare that they are not telling people how to vote; that they are merely expressing what they stand for and it is up to their listeners to agree or disagree with them. But we know some of their listeners and we know that some would go along with their political commentary no matter what they say.
Mitt Romney's admission of fear that a conservative-moderate rift within the Republican Party would hand the presidential election to the Democratic candidate is well founded. For those of us who remember the way the economy was during the Carter years, a new Democratic administration that embraces fiscal ideas similar to Carter's spells disaster.
Romney's assertation that he would rather step down than see surrender to the Islamofascists in the Middle and Near East made a strong statement relevent to those of us who are concerned about where we would draw the line of defense, the disasterous effects of a precipitous withdrawal. McCain, as we all know, was advocating a surge and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq long before General Petreaeus came into the picture. We now know that McCain was correct in that the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq have shown a fair amount of success, and promise even more. I have long said that the quickest way out of Iraq is to let the military finish the job, so in this sense I am a McCain supporter, and I applaud Romney in making this a major factor in his decision to step down.
A question that should be asked of the conservative faction is where were they when the time came to vote for Romney in the primary elections and caucuses? The number of voters who have turned out for the Democratic Party nominating process is twice that of those who felt it important enough to vote in the Republican Party process. If it is so important to these conservatives to have a candidate who represents their values, why didn't they get out to support the candidate they felt best represented those ideas? Only those who failed to vote can answer that question, but it seems as though they had already accepted defeat.
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still actively campaigning in the race for the nomination, though neither of them is numerically viable at this point in the process. I agree with nearly everything Dr. Paul stands for, except that his ideas on foreign policy are a gross display of his naivete or outright ignorance of consensus reality. Even Hillary Clinton has suggested that she would leave a garrison in Iraq for technical support and military training, and Barack Obama has said that he would shift the majority of military force to Afghanistan and invade the "friendly" country of Pakistan if he felt it necessary. Although their ideas would cost more than any country could afford in the long run, they are still better than Dr Paul's theory that to shut America inside locked doors and ignore the rest of the world would immediately bring peace and prosperity. Still, his stand on Social Security, illegal immigration, supporting the Bush tax cuts, and ending government interference in the economy is worth consideration in building either the Republican or Libertarian party platform. Dr Paul's ideas on the economy would put much more in the pockets of Americans than any plan thought up by the majority of the other candidates from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
What I really like about Governor Huckabee is his support of the Fair Tax Initiative. The Fair Tax Initiative abolishes the IRS and ends the confiscation of wages and earnings. This is essentially a federal sales tax that is truely voluntary--you only pay taxes on what you buy. Even those in the underground economy created by prohibition would pay taxes as opposed to the current system where their earnings are not reported and thus they do not pay taxes. Not having to pay taxes on your earnings is truly fair, it puts more money in the pockets of the consumer and encourages economic growth. McCain has indicated that he might be interested in the initiative.
Both Huckabee and Paul believe in the ability of the free market to come up with energy alternatives to replace petrofuels, while McCain stands for government controls to artificially influence the market toward alternative energy. McCain is known for stubbornly sticking to what he believes, but hopefully this is one issue he feels he should concede to the conservatives.
In fact, if Huckabee and Paul stay in the running long enough, their ideas would be given enough attention that they could become part of the Republican Party platform after the national convention. Then the Republicans could have a platform that could appeal to the conservatives and a candidate who would appeal to the moderates and independents, whose votes are always important in the general elections.
Personally, if I feel, come November, that John McCain has a chance of winning the presidential election, I will likely vote for him. However, if it seems that the Republicans are willing to hand the office of the President to the Democratic Party, I will, with clear conscience, vote Libertarian.I am certain that many independent voters will feel the same way, at least those who are genuinely concerned about the economy and the long term effects of a large scale growth of government as promised by the Democratic candidates. The whole idea of the Demopublican nominating system is to present the most electable candidate. The Republican party should understand this and follow the lead of Romney, if they are, in fact, concerned about their principles. Otherwise, in four years, the electorate will be so fed up with Demopublican politics, neither Republican nor Democratic candidates will have a base on which to ensure electability.

Another half-hearted attempt to explain myself

2008-02-03T05:22:00.000-07:00

A commenter on this blog expressed curiosity of how I could reconcile being "Christ-oriented" with being a Phenominological Panthiest. It's actually easy for me to answer that. I believe in Christ as a philosophy, rather than as a religion, taking "religion" in the modern sense of organization and control. It is the teachings of Christ about the nature of the Spirit and mankind's relationship to God, that constitute my conviction, rather than the system of mandates and opinion set forth by "religion."
If you remove all the scriptures that make the foundation of Lucrecius of Antioch's church, and leave the scriptures that contain the teachings and the history of Jesus Christ (And why not? Lucrecius himself edited out many Gospels he felt weren't pertinent to his vision of the church), as Thomas Jefferson did for his own use, you have a concise record of Christ's answers to questions of the nature and relationship of God and Man, one that would cross reference well with the Tao tse Ching, and the teachings of the Buddha.
Jesus Christ teaches us that we simultaneously exist in three major realms, The Soul (The Father), the Holy Ghost (The Spirit), and the Son (The Material Body). He teaches us that what we do in one realm effects the other realms. He teaches us that we are capable of the same miracles that he performed, if we had Faith "but the size of a mustard seed."
And, He demonstrated "Salvation" by being crucified and returning to the material realm. It is with His Wisdom and Knowledge that we are made aware of our own immortality and of our true nature; that is, as Children of God, and as being in the Image of God.
In my personal reality, I believe that each individual exists in his or her own reality. If one believes in the tenets of modern religion or the edicts and dogma of a church, that is the real world in which that person exists. If a person believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that is the reality of that person's world. If a person believes that God and Science are one and the same, that is yet another reality.
I hope I have satisfied your curiousity.

The Oligarchy of the United States of America

2008-01-23T04:34:00.000-07:00

Our country has trapped itself in a rut. For too long it has accepted a two party system as politics as usual, and politics as usual has achieved little but to create problems in the name of politics.
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,

Issues come to front at Iowa Caucus

2008-01-04T05:33:00.000-07:00

One time underdog Mike Huckabee, and relative newcomer Barak Obama won their respective party's nomination for President in Iowa. What does this mean? Not much, and certainly not as much weight the news services put on it. The winning candidates may get more finance for their campaigns because of their victories, but in the overall view, Iowa doesn't represent the nation's views on the issues. In fact, the result of the caucus isn't even representative of how Iowa voters feel, as only 20% of Iowa voters participate in the caucuses.
Personally I don't care about the outcome in Iowa. I have little interest in any of the candidates running in either party. The best that can be said about them is that they are very good at talking around the issues. Surely they all have plans, but they refuse to explain how they can implement these plans as President, if, indeed, they find themselves in office.
According to the wonderful humor and satire site, The Onion the real issue is:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
If the video doesn't appear, please click here

That time of the year

2007-12-31T04:51:00.000-07:00

I'm never serious about making resolutions. I know I'm going to break them, so they are usually resolutions that won't hurt me if I do break them. By the same token, if I keep them, they won't help me much either.
That being said, here are some resolutions for Lift That Torch, Ring That Bell:

1. Lighten up. I have become so humorless on this blog that even when I'm trying to be funny, people take me seriously.
2. Post more photos. Photography pertains to freedom of expression, they make people happy, and there is a site in the Czech Republic that sells HP M415 cameras that has a link to my site, respecting the terms of my copyright limitations. I have recieved quite a few hits from that site, so I should do more of this:

Copyright (C)2007 by James Grady, Jr All original photos on this site were captured on a Hewlett-Packard HP M415 Digital Camera.

3. Plug other peoples' blogs more often. I don't always agree with these bloggers, but the blogosphere would be very boring if we all agreed. And, it would be very bland without them. Here are some blogs that I visit regularly: Rantings of a Sandmonkey
The Will To Exist
Coyote Blog
Whatever the current name of Jenn's Blog is.
Interdisciplinary World
There are more I like to visit. Some of them post even less often than I do but I have them all listed on my links list on the side bar.

4. Post more often.
5. But don't post irrelevent drivel just to post. Damn it's friggin' cold here!

Okay I already broke that one, but I needed an excuse to post that smiley.
I think I'll stop while I think I'm ahead.
Happy New Year Everyone!!!

No Comment

2007-12-21T03:52:00.000-07:00

Random rants about random Presidential candidates

2007-12-19T05:14:00.001-07:00

I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.

A Modern Christmas Classic

2007-12-18T06:07:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Poor Grrl Zone for digging this up! Most of us have heard this song on the radio, but I remember seeing this video when it first came out. I am still as touched by it now as I was then. It expresses, in a song, a Christmas message that transends generations.

Thanking the troops

2007-12-17T00:02:00.000-07:00

It is my opinion that we can not thank our military members enough, especially this time of the year, when many of them are separated from their families. It doesn't matter if you support the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, the troops deserve a thank you for putting their lives on the line for your right to support or oppose the war. They are doing this voluntarily--as there is no draft--and are doing it because they believe it is their call to duty. Military life is no picnic, war or no war--to serve means to give up many rights that so many of us take for granted.
This time of the year, many of us would like to thank our troops overseas by sending them a positive message appropriate to the Christmas and Channukah season. Due to the possibility of threatening or derogatory messages, the Post Office cannot deliver messages addressed "to any soldier," but there are many ways that have made it possible to express your thanks. Poor Grrl Zone has posted one way, putting up this link where one can sign in and have Seasonal greetings and thanks sent to our military troops. Exploration of many of the links on the sidebar of Lift That Torch, Ring That Bell (this blog) may also be useful in finding links to similar "Thank the Troops" sites.
Another interesting "Thank the Troops" initiative has been begun by The Gratitude Campaign, originating in Seattle, Washington, where ignorant politicians would not only have their constituents believe that all NASCAR fans are "toothless trailer trash," who are unwelcome in their city, but that everybody is against the Iraq mission and the troops should be treated as second class citizens at the best. Initiating a unique visual method of expressing gratitude, the originator of the movement explains how he came up with the idea:

For the past several years as I've been traveling around the country, I've been approaching soldiers in the airports and thanking them for serving for us. On several occasions I have noticed that it felt a little awkward for both of us. There are several reasons, some of which I am even just now learning as I produce this film and talk to more soldiers. But they have always appreciated being thanked, and I have always felt better having expressed my gratitude.

I started to think that it would be nice if civilians had a gesture or sign that they could use to say "thank you" quickly and easily without even having to approach. I did some research and found the sign that we are now using.

This is an idea that should catch on, and hopefully will become a major movement.
As a former military member myself, I can tell you how much gratitude is appreciated by those who are fighting for the cause of freedom. Aside from the devotion to duty, gratitude is the most important gift to receive from those for whom they are fighting.

The new neocons?

2007-12-16T05:49:00.000-07:00

Watching the Democratic Party Iowa debates, the one thing that surprised me was that every candidate agreed that, as far as trade policy goes, the "neocons" are correct. Every single one of the candidates seemed to agree that trade agreements should be tied to human rights issues, as they were during the Reagan Administration. This is how regime change can best be accomplished, as it was the way the old USSR regime fell. Natan Sharanski's book, The Case For Democracy, has been read by George W. Busch, Condileeza Rice, and about everybody on their staffs and is acknowledged to be the "handbook" for foreign economic policy.
Apparently the Democratic Party candidates have read it as well, for some of them quoted directly from the book. Or perhaps quoted somebody they heard quoting from the book. Somebody like, perhaps, Dick Cheney?
They tried to make this sound like a different tack than that being taken by the State Department, but those who have been paying attention to the news know that, for one thing, there are presently ongoing negotiations that are precisely about human rights issues, with China and Pakistan in particular.
Perhaps they hope that we don't pay attention, or, just as likely, they just haven't been paying attention.
Theoretically, they have the foreign economics policy right, but listening to there proposals for the domestic policy, they all want to make the American citizenry more dependent on the government for their jobs and food. You can't have things both ways and say you are for freedom. But, that's politicians for you.

Criminal Intent

2007-12-08T07:04:00.000-07:00

In a Libertarian Utopia, there would be no national borders. People would be able to travel freely from country to country and have the same job and business opportunities in one country as they do in another.
But we do not live in a Libertarian Utopia, and there is no country in the world that has open borders. An open border has to be a two-way affair, where one can find needs and opportunities with equal ease on either side. An open border is not a one way portal.
It is not a matter of temporary security that there are immigration laws and criteria for crossing an international border, but one of preservation. In a free society, these laws and rules are neither xenophobic nor racist, but are to ensure that a person is not entering a country to escape prosecution for a crime, or to commit a crime. A person who crosses a border legally is either a tourist or a legitimate immigrant, while a person who sneaks across a border is an invader.
A person who is in a country illegally and who works or otherwise establishes commerce in that country is doing so illegally. Any money or material goods that person takes or earns is in an underground economy that is outside the law, whether that person pays taxes or not. Therefore, if such money that the person has procured illegally is used in a transaction, that transaction is also illegal.
Ideally each state should have the sovereign right to its own laws and regulations, but the fact is that a person who crossed an international border illegally is still a criminal in any state. If states such as North Carolina and Arkansas accept tuition fees from border incursionists, then the transaction is illegal.
What I am saying here is that it is wrong to favor those who came into the country illegally over those who did the paperwork and made the necessary arrangements to come into the country. A person who lives in Colorado, and is a legal resident, would have to pay out of state tuition to go to school in Arkansas, yet a person who is in the country as a result of a border incursion not only can pay the tuition with illicitly procured money, but can do so at the reduced rate given to residents of the state of Arkansas.
Granted there are unjust laws in this country, but ignoring a law does not negate it. Negation of an unjust law must be done within a court of law or by legislation. Making a law to create a loophole around a law is not negation, as it does not directly repeal the law for which the loophole was created. In effect, the state government of Arkansas, by accepting tuition money from a criminal at large, is guilty of harboring a criminal.
Immigration laws are not racist. They do not distinguish between the nationality or race of any persons who wish to enter the country. It is more racist to assume that immigration laws apply only to certain people. In this case, "political correctness" is criminal.

Remembering

2007-12-07T07:03:00.000-07:00

A fanatical tyrant had dreams of making his country the most powerful in the world. He saw the United States as an obstacle to achieving those dreams~the only nation that had a navy strong enough to prevent him from taking over the entire Pacific Ocean.
On December 7, 1940, the US Navy had the backbone of its Pacific Fleet tethered at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. That was the day Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States, and the Pacific fleet was virtually destroyed in the massive bombing raid. 2,388 Americans were killed in the raid, and 1,178 were wounded.
Today, we remember the event which launched us into the deadliest war in American history, and we honor those who were serving their country on that day and lost their lives. In addition, we remember those families who lost husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in that fatal raid.

It is also a day to honor those who today still put their lives on the line in service to their country.
Photo credits: Top Rottnest Island.com
Bottom: Letters to David Irving

Democracy works, for now.

2007-12-03T05:34:00.000-07:00

By a narrow margin, Venezuelan voters defeated President Hugo Chavez's referendum to make drastic changes to Venezuela's constitution. In addition to effectively making Chavez president for life, the referendum would have increased Chavez's control over the economy and local elections, according to Frank Bajak of the Associated Press:

The defeated reform package would have created new types of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map and suspended civil liberties during extended states of emergency.

The defeat of the referendum does mean that there are still people in Venezuela who believe in free market, property ownership, and freedom of the press, and who are not afraid to express their views at the ballot box.
It does not mean, however, that Chavez's agenda has been weakened. He is still El Jefe until 2012, during which time he will hold the power he needs to consolidate his authority as Dictator.
As Daniel Duquanel, of Pajamas Media writes:

The bad news is that Venezuela wakes up on Monday with its same problems and even less of an idea of what to do about them.

Now that the constitutional project of Chavez, which was the centerpiece of the “five motors of the revolution towards socialism,” he announced last December has tanked – nobody knows what he will do. In earlier statements he had implied that a NO victory might force him to start already looking for a successor. Indeed, the extreme personalization of the campaign in its last three weeks turned the vote into a plebiscite on Chavez and the loss considerably complicates considerably his stay in office.

Yet, Chavez still holds a few key cards in his hand.

He controls all the established powers of the country, including all but two statehouses, and even presides over a National Assembly which is 98% at his service, and still enjoys considerable personal support in the population.

Now Duquanel and other observers are being very careful about not being labled as "alarmist," while the mainstream media, and even members of the US State Department are optimistically acting as if democracy will hold its course in Venezuela.
But there are some causes for alarm about the future of democracy in that country. Chavez has made it clear that he would follow in the footsteps of Fidel Castro. If he is sincere about his ambitions, we should not be surprised to see some government sponsored violence in Venezuela before the next elections in October.
Shortly before Sunday's elections, this Associated Press article quoted Chavez as follows:

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad representatives of pro-Chavez local community councils. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

So, with these words alone, Chavez has incited his followers to violence against the opposition. He has already shut down what he considers "opposition" news services, and other pogroms can't be too far behind.
Dequanel writes:
The debt owed by the Venezuelan opposition to the dissident student movement is enormous. Perhaps it was crucial on Sunday night to avoid any large scale fraud as they went to vote late and stayed for the counting. The opposition has very little chance to control or even to use to some advantage this vibrant movement which is fast reshaping the political agenda of the country.

Now the opposition has been given a brief window of opportunity to come up with a real message. Let’s see what they will do with that.

This is the kind of stuff a dictator hates to see. If history were to repeat itself, if Chavez were to follow in the footsteps of Castro and other tyrants, these dissidents will be silenced in the following ways:
First, crimes of violence against these dissidents will be ignored by the government. Vigilante groups of Chavistas--Chavez supporters will be encouraged to commit violence against the dissidents.
Next, the government crackdowns against opposition demonstrations will increase in authority and violence, and there will be bloodshed acted upon the demonstraters by military crowd control squads.
And, as a result of that, opposition leaders will be arrested "for their own safety" and imprisoned indefinitely. Any backlash to such actions by the government will be met with even more political incarceration.
This is how tyrants of Chavez's ilk have reacted to opposition throughout history, and there is no reason to expect that Chavez wouldn't act in kind.
I am not hoping that this happens, I am pointing out that this should be expected. What I hope for is similar to the hope Dequanel expresses summing up his article:

This could go a long way to restore some degree of civility and political respect which is totally missing in Venezuela today. That is also where the dissenting student movement could come in: they have shown that the leaders of the future are already here and running. Unencumbered by past faults or current incompetence and cheap ideology, they might have a very bright future sooner than expected.

But I wouldn't count on that.

Thanksgiving is for everyone.

2007-11-22T01:29:00.000-07:00

It is sad to me that a small segment of the population feels excluded from the celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Even sadder is the fact that these people feel excluded because they want to. You tell them "Happy Thanksgiving," and they act offended and snap "I don't celebrate the death of the Indians."
The fact is that Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside for giving thanks for what we cherish, not about what happened two or three hundred years ago. Though it is important to remember our history--and I say "our history" because I am five generations removed from a Pequod American--what happened in the early days is irrelevent to what we are doing now.
Rather than lamenting what has happened in the past, we should be thankful for what we are and what we have today. The only thing that can oppress us in this country is our own negative feelings about society. Set aside politics and racial pride for just one day, and focus, instead, on the blessings you have today.

Political Correctness deemed bad for children

2007-11-21T02:48:00.000-07:00

So you think Dennis Kucinich is the right man for the White House? Or maybe Ron Paul is your choice? Do you honestly believe that Rosie O'Donnell is right about 9-11? Chances are you watched too much Sesame Street.
According to this article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, the show that was known for spreading the message of political correctness to youngsters has been deemed "suitable for adults only."
That is the warning printed on the packaging of the new DVD release of the first two seasons of the venerated PBS children's program. The PC police have pointed out several problems with the show that they did not notice as children. Oh my God, were they actually drinking whole milk? Why was Oscar the Grouch's obvious depression untreated? These are questions that would never cross the mind of the four year old watching the show, but it was right there on the television! Never mind that the characters were imaginary, or that they were portrayed by puppets, but a gay couple like Bert and Ernie living in a decrepit apartment sends the wrong message, according to the PC police. They should know, they grew up watching the show and look at them now.
So, whether it's an oxymoron or a self-fulfilling prophecy, the message to liberals now is don't let your children grow up to be like you.
Or, as Tyler Grey of Radar Online writes:

Why, Gen-X'er, did you become a flannel-wearing faux liberal, trusting (in theory) of the good will of your Socialistically like-minded fellow citizens but actually rendered cynical by a much grimmer reality you encountered in adult life?

Sesame Street. It totally f***ed you up.

Veteran's Day

2007-11-11T10:14:00.000-07:00

In Honor of those who have served their country, and in tribute to those who have given their lives in service to their country:

The Atrocity at Home

2007-11-06T02:00:00.000-07:00

You're driving down the highway, and, up ahead you see flashing red and blue lights. The traffic slows to a standstill, and you wait in line, wondering if there are prison escapees or other criminal fugitives in the area. When you finally get to the roadblock, a man with a badge and a gun approaches your window, and says "Show me your license and registration, please."
As you collect the required documents the "public safety" officer takes a visual look around inside your car, and you realize that it is you they are looking for.
What, you may wonder, is the reason for this detention and search? Where is the probable cause?
The government charges that the probable cause is that you are driving a car, and that you might, therefore, be driving while intoxicated, under the influence, or that you may be using or transporting illegal or illicit substances in the passenger compartment of your vehicle.
Of course, the government may find probable cause in everything you do. If you are walking down the street, you may be eluding arrest, because, if you have nothing to hide, why aren't you driving a car? If you are living by yourself, you could be a social deviant. If you are living and breathing, you might plotting to kill someone. There is plenty of probable cause, when the criteria are so vague.
In the states--all but eleven--that utilize these sobriety check points, the ratio of actual DWI offenders to innocent detainees is approximately less than one in 800, according to Barry Noreen of the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Noreen comments on the questionable constitutionality of sobriety check points:

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, and that remains the law of the land, even though the Fourth Amendment supposedly protects citizens from being detained without probable cause.

Is it conceivable the high court could be wrong? Remember, a unanimous court once upheld the internment camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it created the “separate-but-equal” justification for racial segregation.
Sure, the Supreme Court could be wrong again.

In 1990, the court defended checkpoints where the average delay for innocent citizens was 25 seconds. Today, the Colorado Springs Police Department’s Web site says three minutes is an acceptable guideline.

It’s hardly reassuring that the Bill of Rights will be suspended for just three minutes.

The return to the State harvested from the sobriety check points is too low to justify the cost in time and money. Law enforcement resources are being mishandled in manning these check points.
Wouldn't it be easier to catch DWI offenders by patrolling traffic and looking for such tell-tale signs as excessive weaving, erratic turns, speeding, excessively slow driving, or running stop lights or stop signs? Just because a person is in a car, doesn't mean that he or she is irresponsible for his or her actions, any more than living and breathing means that we could commit a crime.

A must read--unsolicited review

2007-11-02T01:49:00.000-06:00

I apologize to my readers for the lack of posts over the last few weeks. I have no excuse--there is plenty to write about, plenty of arguments to present, and lots of ideas to throw around.
I have come across an excellent blog titled "Interdisciplinary World" by Dr T. This is a blogger who I see as very like-minded to myself. His latest posts, on sexuality and politics and on fanaticism are very well written, and bring up some points that will give the reader some substantial food for thought.
Dr T. backs up every statement with well researched references, and his writing is articulate. Best of all, he posts every day, covering a myriad of subjects.
What sets him apart from other Libertarian bloggers can be seen in the statement of purpose in the header of his blog, which reads:

It is time we had an interdisciplinary world. It is time we created a society where all levels of thinking and society can work together – so the individual psychologies can live together in a more integrated society. Interdisciplinary thinking tries to promote environmentalism, capitalism, religion, heroic individualism, and families simultaneously. Beauty, truth, and ethics are united.

In every item he posts, Dr T applies this statement of purpose, tying every example to the community. He is, what we might call an "Objectivist," that is, an activist in the philosophy made popular by the late author Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a viable, important, and necessary alternative to socialism. He presents objectivism in a practical manner, in integrating it into the idea of an "interdisciplinary world."
This is a must read for anyone who reads and writes blogs, as well as anybody who is interested in ways to repair society. Whether you agree with him or not, Dr T will allow you to think about what you do believe.

Congress or Community?

2007-10-25T00:56:00.000-06:00

It is a basic tenet of Libertarian philosophy that the best government for the smallest community is the smallest community. In the wake of the tragic California wildfires, we are seeing the truth of this belief in the evacuation centers, such as QualCom Stadium. In dealing with the misery of losing property and belongings, and of being displaced, we see a wonderful example of the human spirit and the power of the community coming together.
When a crisis arises in a community, it is human nature that the members of that community pull together, to help each other out. This is what happened at QualCom, in San Diego. Clowns and pets entertained the children, and people went out or their way to give children crayons and paper or coloring books to keep them busy, and to help lift their spirits.
The atmosphere was described by one reporter as being like a "street festival." People were helping people keep their minds off of their predicament, and spreading friendship, sympathy, and empathy. The citizens of the community took personal responsibility to do their part in making sure everybody found as much comfort as possible under the circumstances.
It wasn't a government agency that donated food, clothing, water and other items of need. It was that "evil corporate slavemaster," Wal-Mart/Sam's Club. Not only did they deliver goods to all of the evacuation centers, but they also donated one million dollars to the Red Cross for relief operations.
Nor was it a government agency that thought about the needs of the pets. Petco, another "Capitalistic oppressor," sent truckloads of pet food, snacks and medicine to the evacuation centers, ensuring that the beloved companions of the displaced families were taken care of as well.
Not to say that FEMA and the State of California didn't step up. Even while Senator Barbara Boxer was complaining that the War in Iraq prevented sufficient aid from being given where it was needed, California National Guardmen were being reassigned to State duty from their posts on the US-Mexico border, to aid in the firefighting and evacuation effort. FEMA obviously learned lessons from its mistakes during the Katrina disaster and was very efficient in implementing and coordinating the emergency actions operations. The day after Boxer blamed the forest fires on the Bush Administration, as any good Democratic Party politician should do, she ate her words, saying that the manpower and equipment available to the State of California was "sufficient."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to do his part in helping the victims of the disaster by declaring that the wildfires, which have been fueled by the "Santa Ana" winds every year in the history of humankind, were caused by global warming, and that he would make sure that Congress would pass legislation dealing with the issue. This did give some comfort to those who refuse to admit that it may not have been a wise choice to build or buy a home in the fire prone area, for now they can blame their poor judgement on the natural cycle of the warming and cooling of the Earth. Even if we assume that industrialization is responsible for the acceleration of the natural cycles, Senator Reid is fifty years too late in promising legislation that, even if enacted this very minute, won't do much to help those who lost personal property and jobs in the fires. One might ask Senator Reid if it might have been a better idea to offer tax incentives to energy companies that research alternative fuels and energy, rather than taxing them out of the money needed to conduct such research.
When offered a choice, when needing help, between going to Congress or going to our neirghbors, the answer seems fairly obvious. The government has never given anybody the help they need in times of crises.

This doesn't surprise me

2007-10-21T00:11:00.000-06:00

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 60% Conservative, 40% Liberal

Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

This puts me, overall, close to what the media refers to as a "Centrist," a label with which I could live happily, as long as socio-economic politics can be viewed on a two dimensional chart.

Liberal<----------------------Centrist----------------------->Conservative

On such a chart, there is no room for "Libertarian" or its extreme opposite, "Statist." "Statist," a euphenism for "Authoritarian," could be the label applied to anyone who scores an overall rating of 100% as either a "Liberal" or a "Conservative", because such a rating either way implies that the quizee would place either the economy or personal choice completely in the hands of the government.
A more accurate political quiz could be found on the Advocates For Self Government page titled "The World's Smallest Political Quiz."
If the results obtained in the "How Liberal/Conservative Are You" quiz are similar to the ones displayed at the beginning of this post, they would be displayed in the "World's Smallest Political Quiz thusly:

This is called the "Nolan chart" devised by Dick Nolan, a co-founder of the Libertarian Party, as an illustration of what a Libertarian is compared to a Liberal or a Conservative.
I recommend taking both quizzes, you may be entertained, confused, dismayed, or surprised by the results, but, after all, it is educational.

Beware the Neotarian

2007-10-19T04:02:00.000-06:00

There seems to be a large number of American dissidents who blog under the category of "Libertarian," while sounding more like the "Radical Left." They focus not on Libertarian principles such as the repeal of the Federal Income Tax, getting out of and banning the UN, freedom of choice and personal responsibility, but rather on the single concept of initiation of force. That is, their own perception of initiation of force.
They support their views by ignoring historical fact, by twisting fact, and by manufacturing their own facts. For example, they will repeat endlessly that we are engaged in an "illegal," as in "undeclared," war even with this declaration of war sitting right in front of them. The measure, which became Public Law 105-338 when signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998, listed twelve reasons to depose Saddam Hussein, and included details on the overthrow of Saddam and the reconstruction plans for after the overthrow.
Yet this law is ignored by the Neotarians, who claim that President Bush manufactured Saddam as an enemy of the United States.
They also come very close to the conspiracy throrists, who, without any factual support, claim that "9-11 was an inside job"
But their agenda has little to do with Libertarian thought. They consider the works of such great Libertarian figures as Natan Sharansky, or Andrei Sakharov as being "neoconservative." They are merely finding another direction from which to protest the war.
There are many Libertarians who are against the war, mostly for the huge amount of government spending it takes to run the war, and there are others, such as Neal Boortz, (and myself, for that matter) who believe the war is necessary to ensure free enterprise and the freedom of our own country, by drawing the line before it gets to our own shores. At any rate, most Libertarians agree that the war in Iraq will most likely be a non-issue by election time next year. Most Libertarian bloggers are busy addressing such issues as freedom of choice, freedom of expression, true free market, and prohibition, issues which we feel we can actually do something about in a practical manner.
Neotarians, on the other hand, continue to make things up in support of their own brand of reality.

What many Libertarians are missing

2007-10-07T02:57:00.000-06:00

Personal responsibility is the core of all Libertarian principles. Without personal responsibility, freedom becomes nothing more than anarchy, and any Libertarian society would dissolve into feudalism.
All Libertarians have their own ideas of freedom, and these are as personal as religion. Any Libertarian will find some point on which to differ from another Libertarian. To quote the crowd in Monty Python's The Life of Brian, "We are all individuals!"
There are basically two types of Libertarians, the pragmatic and the idealists. The pragmatic Libertarian tends to insert Libertarian principles into the system in a way that is compatible with the situation at hand. The idealist, on the other hand, is focused on the ideology of Libertarianism, and sees the only way of achieving a Libertarian society as being to have every principle injected into society at once.
Personal responsibility is more prevailant among the pragmatists, who split the population of the LP about 50-50 with the idealist. The pragmatist believes that Libertarian society can best be established from the bottom up, while the idealist believes that if it happens at the top, the rest of society will follow.
Personal responsibility means to fulfill one's obligations. To not fulfill our obligation as a country would seriously harm our evolution to a true free market economy. Our credibility would be lost to potential trading partners, and we could never again be taken seriously. The Libertarian idealists would do well to consider this.

Another Top Secret leak changes nothing

2007-09-28T06:01:00.000-06:00

The publication of yet another top secret document in the Madrid, Spain daily newspaper, El Pais, Wednesday, resolves several questions, and negates several allegations held against President Bush by liberal politicians and media. The conversation took place between then Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, President Bush, and Condoleeza Rice, on February 22, 2003, at Crawford, Texas.
Certainly, this transcript will be cherry picked, and certain elements taken out of context by isolationists and liberals, who will claim that this president plotted war. But a thorough reading of the document will show that President Bush would have much rather found a way to dispose of Saddam that excluded unilateral action or even war.

Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.

We know that this statement will be ignored by those who have created for themselves a reality in which the President is a war monger who would attack a country before considering diplomatic means. It just doesn't make sense in their world. To acknowledge this statement would be to admit error, which they feel would weaken their position.
It is widely known that, later in March, Saddam was given a last chance to step down by accepting exile in China, which he refused, because, according to former Iraqi General Georges Sada, he didn't want to give up his money and oil. However, in February, Saddam Hussein was in negotiations with Egypt for an exile deal:

Bush: The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.

...and all the information on WMDs? Wait a minute. The haters believe that there were no WMDs or research on such. This will be ignored in their assessment as easily as the banishment from Iraq of the UN weapons inspecters in November 2002. At that time, the inspection team had been given by Saddam a list of facilities they could enter to inspect. When they tried to enter one such facility, they were barred, being told that it had been removed from the list. There was something there that Saddam Hussein did not want the UN weapons inspecters to see, and the inspecters left Iraq shortly afterward, not knowing what it was.
President Bush revealed his views on the situation in this passage:

Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.

There is no denying the fact that Bush wanted to put an end to Saddam's one way or the other. He had many more reasons to do so than just the information on WMDs.

Bush: We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies...
... I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.

When combined with other information we had at the time, this document gives us a better insight as to how we got to Iraq. The question now is how do we get out? Will we be successful in establishing a stable country, or will we be forced by the media and the haters to leave a nation that could easily be as much, if not more, of a threat to international trade and economy as Hussein's Iraq.
The transcript cited here can be found in its entirety at Pajamas Media, along with comments by Jose Guardia.

Would they have laughed?

2007-09-26T06:20:00.000-06:00

Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, Iran's president found common ground with the students at Columbia University as he spoke about Science coming from God. Of course, he did, because we know Albert Einstein believed the same, as does Stephen Hawking, as do many Christians who are not on the Creationist fringe. Because we believe science is part of God, doesn't make us Islamic.
Once he did find common ground, he managed to avoid the questions he had been charged to answer by using rhetorical questions and talking about what amounted to political responsibility.
When he was asked if he called for the destruction of Israel, he refused to answer "Yes" or "No"
When he avoided the question of the murder of homosexuals in Iran, he denied that Iran had homosexuals. The students of Columbia laughed, finding mass murder hilarious. Would they have laughed if, say, President Bush had made that kind of statement about the United States?
While Mahmoud was speaking about the respect of women in Iran, and of the humanity of Iran's rulers, would they have swallowed that line of malarky if they had seen this video?
Warning: the video you see when clicking the above hypertext is extremely violent, and should not be viewed by children It depicts the stoning of two women in Iran, and I do not recommend it being viewed by anyone who may be emotionally effected by violence. I could only watch about seven minutes of it, and the images still haunt me. Click at your own risk.

I gotta get me one of these!

2007-09-24T01:17:00.000-06:00

From the "Oddee" blog.

Return of the Cold War?

2007-09-19T01:56:00.000-06:00

Vladmir Putin's Russia has been flexing her military muscles, lately, by violating the air space of Finland, with bomber flyovers.
This may seem like a threat likened to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it is merely a reflection of what is happening inside the political mechanisms of that country.
With the ongoing emergence of the new Democratic Russia, the goings-ons inside the Kremlin have not changed much from the Soviet days. You have the same kinds of power struggles among the various departments of the government, and the added struggles among the various political parties. As Peter Rutland writes in Business Week, the Russian President does not want to be seen as a "lame duck," in his waning months as President. He wants to show the world, and, especially, the Russian people that his United Russia party has allowed Russia to return to its status as a world power. It is all for the sake of the Russian elections coming up next year.
Russia is dependent on trade with other nations. The Soviet Union fell, because America and other nations in the West, refused to conduct trade in technological goods with that country. Already far behind the rest of the world in technological development, the Soviet economy could not compete in world trade, so the economy bottomed out and the Soviet government disintegrated. Even with Russia's oil wealth, today, trade is still very important in keeping the economy healthy. Russian economists and Putin's cabinet surely understand that.
The bottom line is that the show of force is more for the benefit of the United Russia party than for the rest of the world. Russia can not burn bridges with the rest world, and slow the advancement of an economy that was only recently devastated by corruption and bad policy. According to the Russian constitution, Putin is limited to three terms, after which he must step down. He is obviously intending to remain in power, either by proxy or by constitutional loopholes, so it is important to him to maintain the image of Russian power.
So, there does not seem to be a desire to return to the Cold War. It is only Russian politics in action.

A Tribute to "NASCAR Debbie" (revised and republished)

2007-09-18T02:19:00.000-06:00

I only found out about this Sunday morning--an old friend of mine, and of everyone else who knew her, passed away August 14, suddenly and unexpectedly.
NASCAR Debbie was a petite woman--four foot nine and weighing not more than 90 lbs, but she had a heart as big as the world. Her personality was absolutely magnetic, and she always returned friendship with friendship. In her obituary, she was described as "eccentric," in a positive way, and she certainly was off center--unique as no other person could be. She seemed to see life as performance art, and she was an excellent performance artist.
With an IQ ranging in the top 1 percentile, she loved to mingle with us "slow" folks, and being in her company felt perfectly natural. She was funny, not with the usual jokes or one liners, but with a running commentary on life in general, and NASCAR Debbie could always make us laugh.
NASCAR Debbie was always kind, sweet, and generous. She literally lit up the room when she walked in, adorning the bar with appropriate decorations for every race and every Broncos game. A New York Jets fan, herself, she would hand out tissues to the Broncos fans after Denver lost a game. On the warm and fuzzy side, she would freely give hugs to those friends that needed one.
NASCAR Debbie was special to every one of her friends and family. "To know her is to love her" was a phrase that could be applied to her more than anyone else we knew.
NASCAR Debbie lived and breathed NASCAR. Her home was filled, wall to wall, shelf by shelf with Tony Stewart collectables and NASCAR paraphenelia. With the enthusiasm and excitement she exuded, she made watching the races on TV at the local watering hole a total experience--with her in the crowd, it was almost like being there.
It was NASCAR Debbie who kept me from drifting away from the sport after Dale Earnhardt's death in 2001. She got me interested in Smoke, more than I already was, and was instrumental in making me the fan I am today.
We had a falling out after 9/11/2001. It was my fault, because I suffer from PTSD, the events of that day produced issues that made me unbearable for her to be around. But, I will always cherish the times that Debbie and I had as friends, and she will always be a bright, shining light in my life. I never stopped loving her as a friend, and I never will.

New: I am asking for your help. I have a very limited income, carry no plastic, and have no PayPal account. The on-line guest book memorializing our dear, sweet friend is due to expire this Friday, September 22, unless it is sponsered for a year. If you could find it in your heart to help, please visit this link. It is not at all expensive, I just have no way to do it.

Update: The guestbook has been sponsored anonymously by a very kind and gracious NASCAR fan. God bless the sponsor and thank you everyone for your sympathy and understanding.

Who never saw this coming?

2007-09-18T00:10:00.000-06:00

From Reuters:

Venezuela's Congress on Tuesday gave
preliminary approval to President Hugo Chavez's proposed
constitutional reform, which would lift term limits to help the
leftist leader cement his self-styled socialist revolution

.
Sandmonkey's comment:
And since he is a leftist leader and his revolution socialist in nature, he gets a free pass. If it was anyone else, people would call it what it really is: A dictatorship in the making. But it gets better.
(Continue Reuters)

Chavez last week presented reforms to end central bank
autonomy, increase state expropriation powers and give the
president direct control over monetary reserves in a move
critics called a "coup" to keep Chavez in power indefinitely.

The legislature, 100 percent controlled by Chavez allies,
will hold two more votes to fully ratify the changes, which
must be finally approved through a popular referendum that
legislators say they hope will take place in early December.

"We are reforming the constitution to solidify … the
socialist nation, the socialist state, the socialist
democracy," said Carlos Escarra, a legislator and
constitutional lawyer who helped draft the reforms.

He has already secured a firm grip on key state
institutions including the court system, the state oil company
and most state and local governments.

Now El Presidente is planning on taking over the private schools so that he may indoctrinate all school children to his brand of socialism. This means that there will be no teaching of any economic or political philosophy other than that of which Chavez approves:

Venezuelan officials defend the program at the Latin American Medical School — one in a handful of state-run colleges and universities that emphasize socialist ideology — as the new direction of Venezuelan higher education.

"We must train socially minded people to help the community, and that's why the revolution's socialist program is being implemented," said Zulay Campos, a member of a Bolivarian State Academic Commission that evaluates compliance with academic guidelines.

"If they attack us because we're indoctrinating, well yes, we're doing it, because those capitalist ideas that our young people have — and that have done so much damage to our people — must be eliminated," Campos said.

I believe somebody predicted this would happen.

My last post on Iraq--for now.

2007-09-14T03:24:00.000-06:00

I seem to have become obsessed with what is happening in Iraq right now--while nearly every other blogger I read regularly is avoiding the subject. I genuinely do want to address other things that are important to me as a Libertarian, and as a citizen of this planet we call Earth. Everybody who reads my blog knows where I stand on the issue, while those who haven't read it yet will quickly and easily find out. Those who would agree with me already agree, while those who disagree with me will never see my point.
I have said just about all that I feel needs to be said on the subject.
One last thing--General Petreaus is not a political figure, no matter what certain Congress persons and Senators may think. He is just a guy who does his job, and does it well. When he delivered his report to Congress, he did not sugarcoat anything, he did not try to justify the American presence in Iraq, he only described what resources he had, what he has accomplished with those resources, what he needs, and what he can accomplish in the future. He is not running for office, he is not trying to get anybody elected or re-elected. He made it clear that he does not like to lose the lives of those with whom he has been entrusted. His job is to pick up pieces and make something out of them
The inserts, or blockquotes, in this post are taken from an article in The Daily Star--an English language e-newsletter from Lebanon--written by syndicated columnist David Ignatius, and titled "Petraeus' Iraq legacy is the real issue." It is a good read, and should be perused with an open mind.

When Petraeus was training the Iraqi Army, he liked to talk about "pop-ups" - the militia units that appear unexpectedly with charismatic commanders and more fighting zeal than the regular military. Unlike more rigid commanders, he was willing to go with the flow - to conform his strategy to these pop-up realities on the ground, rather than try to make things fit his own big picture. That's one of his strengths. He's basically winging it in Iraq - exploring what works and then going with it.

This is a good assessment of the man's character. He is there to get a job done, and is flexible enough to do that job under ever-changing circumstances. As the next paragraph of the article explains, he is not one who has decided to "stay the course" that was left to him:

This bottom-up style of Petraeus and his group represents a decisive break with the cocksure, top-down ethos of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon - and with a military leadership that bought into Rumsfeld's idea that technology had transformed the nature of warfare itself. Nonsense, said the colonels who advised Petraeus, many of whom, like him, are on their third tours in Iraq. They have learned the hard way to be skeptical of big ideas.

To those who think General Patreaus' methods are the same that have already been tried in Iraq, and have failed, think again--the General and his staff seem to have rejected any idea to continue the strategies that have already been tried. I need say no more. Mr. Ignatius sums it up very well in the last three paragraphs of his article:

Petraeus and his team understand, too, that this war is about people - and helping them one by one to break the cycle of intimidation. When I asked Colonel H.R. McMaster, a key Petraeus adviser, to name a turning point in Anbar, he cited the day last February when Al-Qaeda deposited at a hospital in Ramadi an ice chest containing the severed heads of the children of several sheikhs who had been cooperating with the United States. Rather than submitting to this barbarous act, the enraged sheikhs deepened their alliance with the US military.

We need to be honest about what's happening now in Iraq: Local solutions are better than no solutions; tribal power is better than terrorist intimidation; pop-ups can be better than the pre-planned models. But Petraeus' ad-hoc, ground-up security framework is not the same thing as stabilizing the country. In the time remaining, he has to pull things together as best he can - connect local successes to provincial and national institutions; extend the Sunni rebellion against extremists into the Shiite regions; break the control that Shiite militias now exert over the Interior Ministry and the police.

We do know how this is going to end: with US troops returning home. The question is what they will leave behind. It's likely to be a ragged, patchwork quilt, and there isn't much time left to stitch it together.

Careful what we wish for?

2007-09-14T00:28:00.000-06:00

There is a definite plus to Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination; he is getting part of the Libertarian message out to a large segment of the voting public--substantially more than he did as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate in 1988. He is making his point on the Libertarian principles of non-initiation of force, the unconstitutionality of the Federal Income Tax, and the need to repeal the IRS, the need for smaller government, and the importance of free market capitalism in keeping our economy healthy. Every Libertarian, and most conservatives, agree that the United Nations is a useless, and needless entity that we, as a sovereign nation could do without. Dr. Paul has been very articulate on this subject.
I am certain that, given the opportunity, Ron Paul would make a statement declaring that all Federal lands and mineral rights should be sold to private ownership, where the decision on whether or not to drill for oil, cut timber, grow crops of the owner's choice, raise livestock, etc, is up to the owner of the property.
It would be good for us, the Libertarians, if Dr. Paul would address some other issues. We would be happy to hear him explain that the government has no right to legislate individual moral decisions, such as the personal choice of abortion, or to choose or not choose to consume or participate in marijuana, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, or other "vices" that should be a matter of personal responsibility. Of course, we know that in the Texas State Legislature, and in Congress, that Dr. Paul has voted for laws that would prosecute physicians who perform abortions, and his silence on the issue of prohibition is absolutely deafening.
Dr. Paul has also failed to address the participation of the AMA in the act of persuading legislators to limit individual rights, and the support that organization has expressed for "universal" health care. Being the politician he is, and owing his chosen vocation to the AMA, we can't expect that he would say much to criticise that organization.

Where are the solutions? It's easy to argue that open borders would eventually even out the world economy, provided that there is still a way to prevent the smuggling of weapons that could be used against the citizens of a country. An open border can not be a one way portal--in order for a border to be genuinely open, it has to go both ways. We should, for instance, just as easily be able to get a job with competitive wages in Mexico as it is for someone in Mexico to come here and get a desirable job. Ron Paul, or any other candidate for that matter, would do well to venture a proposal on how to create borders that are truly open.
The debate over how we got to Iraq has been discussed ad naseum. That discussion does not address the question of how do we fix it. Every scenario projected for the region in the event of a precipitous withdrawal of US military forces includes the genocide of Iraqi Sunnis and a large scale war between Farsi and Arab. Nuclear holocaust is another situation that could happen, if Israel sees a need to protect itself by green glassing the entire region. Ron Paul's solution is to "let it happen," but there are no other candidates who have any solution at all.
The problem here is, there can be no economy in any nation without energy, and, for at least the next twenty years, Mid East oil is a very important energy source. The Wahadi Fundamentalist Caliphate of Mesopotamia, envisioned by Bin Ladin and others, would not allow the trade of oil to any other nation, including Islamic nations, that does not subscribe to Wahadi Fundamentalism. The Mesopotamian Caliphate would detrimentally effect the economy of every nation in the world.
Any large scale war in the region would undoubtedly result in the closure of the Straits of Hormuz. This is an important sea lane necessary for trade not only for oil, but for technological and other goods important to the world economy. China has already declared that it would be military involved in the prevention of closure of that important trade route. Again, in this scenario all that can happen is an escalation of hostilities.
The bottom line here is that no other nation in the world would trust the United States as a trading partner if this country were responsible, by negligence, for either a large scale genocide, or a larger scale war over trade routes and energy.
Libertarian philosophy is a good thing if it can be applied in a practical manner. In order to be practical, it needs to be applied universally. This can happen, but not with an isolationist attitude. The entire world is not going to become Libertarian simultaneously, so Ron Paul, and his supporters, should keep this in mind.
The big minus is the answer to the question "what if Ron Paul won the Republican nomination?" The electorate tends to vote for what it knows, rather than for the unknown. A victory for Dr. Paul in the nomination race, would mean a victory for the Democratic Party in the presidential race. The American public is not ready to accept the entire Libertarian agenda, and would rather have double digit unemployment figures and socialized medicine than the prosperity Libertarianism promises. In the long run, the economic ruin that would be caused by a Democratic administration, coupled with a Democratic Congress, would create enough backlash to make Libertarianism the next logical step, but that same backlash could also translate to more of "they can't win, so don't bother voting for them." As Libertarians, concerning Ron Paul as a Republican candidate, we need to be careful what we wish for.

What Purpose Does it Serve?

2007-09-13T04:56:00.000-06:00

Even before General Petraeus delivered his report to Congress, he was being criticised for what he might say. MoveOn, a left wing extremist organization bought a discounted ($100K below the quoted rate) full page ad in the NY Times, which read as follows:

General Petreaus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.

Now, Jeffery Feldman, of the Huffington Post, claims that "Betray us," does not necessarily imply that the General is a "traitor," and that "cooking the books" does not necessarily imply that he is a "liar."
So, there you have it--MoveOn shelled out $65 grand to say nothing, which is something they should say more often.
Likewise, we can expect Democratic Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to declare that, when she said, "I have to suspend my disbelief, (when listening to the report)," she was not calling the report a lie, nor was she calling the General a "liar."
Such statements do serve a purpose: Now, we know for certain that, when politicians talk about the war as if it were a political issue, they say nothing.

For My Country on 9/11

2007-09-11T05:36:00.000-06:00

9/11 Tribute: Kevin P. Connors (Re-published)

2007-09-11T02:20:00.000-06:00

Kevin P. Connors, of Greenwich, Connecticut once bought a boat in which he planned to sail solo around the world. The boat sank off the coast of South America, and he survived that He survived because he was a winner who would not accept defeat. He loved challenges, and when the challenge of selecting a good investment for his clients at Euro Brokers wasn't enough, he went mountain climbing.
On September 11, 2001, Mr. Connors, a vice president at Euro Brokers in the World Trade Center, didn't even get a chance to face a challenge, when people whom he had never met decided he must die.
It is an honor to pay tribute to this shipwreck survivor, and, on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, to honor him and the rest of the fallen. Kevin P. Connors, who was 55 years old, was a winner and a hero to his four brothers and his sister, and to those who knew and worked with him. May we all find peace in his memory.

Not My Kind

2007-09-11T00:46:00.000-06:00

Republican candidate for the Presidential nomination, Congressman Ron Paul, presents himself as a libertarian, and is favored by roughly 50% of the Libertarian Party members. He is, however, not my kind of Libertarian.
My kind of Libertarian is pragmatic, rather than a blind follower of the Faith in Libertarian principles. The pragmatic Libertarian is no less a believer in Libertarian principles than is the Ivory Tower Libertarian, but the pragmatic is inclined to apply those principles within the tolerance of the situation in question.
Dr. Paul fails to acknowledge the facts. He tries to shove the Libertarian principles down our throats, without consideration of the situation. He defends his views by citing the crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorists when talking about his opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is, in fact, a politician, not a statesman, as can be seen in his Wikipedia entry. In fact, he was the only professional politician ever to run for office as a Libertarian. It should be remembered that, when he ran for President in 1988, he received the lowest national vote count in the history of the Libertarian Party. It should also be remembered that, after the 1988 elections, he was heavily criticised by Libertarians for improperly representing the Libertarian principles.
Where would Dr. Paul draw the line of defense against those who do us harm? Would he actually wait until there is another invasion of our sovereignty, in which thousands of innocent citizens are killed? It is true that, if Saddam had been left alone, we would not be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but, where would we be fighting them? Our enemy, which is waging a continuing war against us, is not a foreign country. Our enemy is a population of men who follow an extremely radical religious philosophy, in which the only way to reach Paradise is to murder those who do not follow their particular brand of religion. They have no borders. If we were to wait for them to come to us, the toll in human lives would be catastrophic. Dr. Paul's isolationist philosophy would ensure that such a toll would be taken. The pragmatic Libertarian is not an isolationist.
Dr. Paul does not represent all of the Libertarian principles. He is an ardent prohibitionist. On the issue of abortion, he would like to return to the days of back alley butchers.
Libertarian philosophy can not be imposed from the top down--it must work its way up from the individual and the smallest possible community.
Neal Boortz, who literally wrote the book on the Fair Tax Initiative, is my kind of Libertarian. He understands that preserving the future of our way of life is not the "temporary" security of which Ben Franklin spoke. Walter E. Williams, who often writes about the need of the individual to take personal responsibility in order to earn and preserve our natural rights, is my kind of Libertarian.
Gary Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico in 1994 and served in that office for the full two terms allowed by that state's constitution. As Governor, he was an outstanding example of how the pragmatic Libertarian operates within the practical situation. He successfully repealed New Mexico's prohibition of package liquors on Sunday, which resulted in a dramatic drop in DWI/DUI incidents in that state. After he granted permission for a Native American clan in New Mexico to open a casino on its reservation/property, the Federal government sought an injunction against the opening of that casino. Governor Johnson successfully stood against the Feds, in the name of states' rights and property rights, and the injunction was dropped. He allowed homosexual partnerships to be legally recognized in New Mexico. While not able to repeal New Mexico's income tax, he reduced spending while creating tax incentives for commercial ventures in New Mexico, dramatically improving that state's economy--a policy that was continued by Governor Bill Richardson. Amid severe criticism from both Democratic and Republican politicians, Governor Johnson brought the question of marijuana prohibition to the forefront. Johnson did all this with very little experience in politics. He is not, by any means, a professional politician. Gary Johnson, of course, is my kind of Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party has been trying to shake the image of the "Ivory Tower Libertarian Crackpot" for many years. Dr. Paul has, in the Republican Party Presidential nomination debates, presented himself as just that. Libertarians would do well to ignore his bid for the Presidency.

Glamour Girl

2007-09-10T04:10:00.001-06:00

Because I felt the need to post a picture on this blog. I present Clansi, a cat who knows how to pose.

This also gives me the opportunity to recommend Riotcats, a photo blog with a clever and humorous twist for cat lovers.
While I'm on the subject of humor, I will remind the readers, that if you don't like what you read on my blog, I recommend you use The Pornolizer, with the warning that it is for mature audiences only. Try it, you'll like it.

An alternative translation

2007-09-10T00:05:00.000-06:00

Before

The following is a summary of the highlights of Osama Bin Ladin's latest video-taped speech, as translated, poorly, by our own Sheik Aywan Yobudi:
After

One morning I woke up and discovered I had grey hair. As the world's most feared terrorist leader, I begain feeling as if I no longer had control over the jihad. I felt like I was getting too old, and for three years I lacked the confidence to make new videos.
Then, I discovered Just For Men. I used it, and after only five minutes, the gray was gone. My confidence returned, and I could score chicks again. In fact I am so confident that I have decided to announce my candidacy for the office of the President of the United States.
"What," you ask, "can Osama do for me as President?"
I will tell you what I can do for you as President:
Your Congress has not done as they have promised and removed the American armed forces from Iraq. As President, I will make sure that Congress keeps their promise, and then I will have their feet and hands removed before I have them stoned and their heads removed...
Your economy is failing, with a class separation between the rich and the poor. As President, I will make sure there is no class separation among the dhimmis. I will take all the money and give it to the Wahadi Sect of Islam, and to the jihad, and I will keep the rest...
Taxes are making you poor, but, remember, as dhimmis you can not own property or a business, and you may keep only enough money to keep yourself fed, so you will not have to worry about taxes if I am President...
In America, you have crime caused by the partaking of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and scantily clad women. As your President, I will invoke Sharia Law, and there will be no partaking of alcohol, tobacco, or drugs, and there will be no scantily clad women except for those I wish for myself...
In America you have no choices--you have to be all that you can be. As your President, I can offer you many choices...
You can convert to the Wahadi Sect of Islam and live and die in the Glory of Allah...
You can convert to Islam as a heretic and die by Sharia Law, which means you will have your hands and feet removed, then you will be stoned, then you will be hanged, then you will be stoned again, then you will have your head removed, and then you will be stoned one more time...
You can be as you are and live in the dirt and in servitude as dhimmis...
Or you can remain as you are and refuse dhimmi status and be infidels, which means you will be stoned and then you...oh, you know what it means.
So, as your President I will be the only one who can help America find its way...
Thank-you, good night, and Death to America.
Oh, and remember--it's Osama not Obama.

The Dilemma

2007-09-07T01:13:00.000-06:00

The Democratic Party has spent so much time politicising the Iraq War, they find themselves in a bit of a quandary. General Petreaeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, is due to report to Congress, next week, on the progress of the reinforcement strategy in the conflict. It is expected that there will be good news and bad news.
The good news will most likely be that the "surge" is working; Anbar Province, an Al Qaeda stronghold less than six months ago, is nearly cleansed of the insurgents, the Iraqi military is stepping up and is more able to carry out operations on their own, and violence in Baghdad has declined over the last six months.
This good news is bad news for the Democratic Majority in Congress, and they are already planning ways to spin it, as pointed out by Libertarian radio personality Neal Boortz.
Boortz reports that, if there is good news, the Democrats will spin it as being "Bush's report," and therefore compromised. They will embrace and emphasize the bad news--that the Iraqi Government isn't meeting its benchmarks--using it as an excuse to surrender. There are other Democratic members of Congress who will say success means we can pull out of Iraq, now.
The sad part is that many of these politicians understand the need for success in Iraq, but they have dug themselves into a hole filled with denial and ignorance. If they don't understand the need for success, they haven't been listening to Al Qaeda leaders who have said that Iraq is the main battleground for Al Qaeda. They do not understand that victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq is important, not just to Iraq and America, but to the entire region.
Michael Ledeen, the author of The Iranian Timebomb, points out in his book, and explains in his blog, that the dangerous and deadly Iranian Supreme Council can be overthrown from within Iran, much like what happened in the Soviet Union, unless we fail in Iraq. Failure in Iraq will be touted as a victory by the Iranian mullahs, and regime change there will be much harder. If a regime change without war can be effected in Iran, it will prevent a future war over Iran's nuclear weapons, and, possibly, nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran.
Success in Iraq is important, because it will show the people of Iran that they can trust the Americans for help, rather than seeing us as cowards and quitters, as the mullahs characterize us.
But the Democratic politicians won't acknowledge this. Nor will they acknowledge that, if the US leaves Iraq prematurely, that there will be millions of Iraqis killed, that there will likely be a much more widespread war in the region involving Iran and Saudi Arabia five to ten years down the road, and that the entire world would be cut off from the oil resources of the region.
The Democrats know that history will hold them responsible for the disaster, which is part of the dilemma they face. They cannot answer such questions as "how will we react to the Iraqi genocide," or "how will Western civilization survive without Middle Eastern Oil," or, even, "how do we prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb?"
Like it or not, the future of the world depends on what happens in Iraq. Everything is tied to that conflict. It is time that Congress should stop politicising the war and get on with the issues they really need to work on. Otherwise they can only dig their way in deeper.

Future Pundit?

2007-08-31T03:12:00.000-06:00

With over 9 million hits, I know just about everybody has seen this, but here it is again:

Please click here, if you can't view the video.

A couple of days ago, there was a pundit on one of the news channels, either FNC or CNN--I apologize for not remembering his name--who was discussing Michael Vick's guilty plea. He tried desparately to tie Vick's problems to the policies of the Bush Administration, saying, "Bad apples are falling from the trees, and that wouldn't be happening if our freedoms weren't so restricted by the (Iraq) war and the Patriot Act."
Huh?
I'm sure if the gentleman had had more air time, he would have attempted to blame Bush for Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears as well.
Yet this type of illogic seems to be very common nowadays, with people jumping to conclusions that no rational mind could reach.
The Democratic Party is probably planning, at this moment, to run Miss Teen South Carolina for Congress in 2010. If she doesn't get elected, she will be in high demand as a political "expert." It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Why Do We Have Laws?

2007-08-23T14:55:00.000-06:00

One of the worst arguments against ending prohibition I have ever heard came a few weeks ago, during a discussion of the subject between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera. O'Reilly, an ardent prohibitionist, blurted out, "If we legalize murder, then we could shoot more people."
Now, before we jump to the conclusion that O'Reilly is a homicidal psychopath who would murder people if there weren't a law, it must be understood that he is actually a paranoid sociopath who bellieves there should be a law governing every aspect of our lives, from what we watch on television or listen to on the radio to the top salary corporate officers should be paid. O'Reilly seems to be one who believes that
we are basically evil, and will do harm to others or ourselves unless everything we do is strictly regulated. He truly believes that laws prevent crime.
He is, of course, wrong, as are so many others. From the very beginnings of civilization, when it was discovered that it is better to ally with others rather than killing or stealing from them whenever encountered, it has been deeply ingrained in our very Being that it is wrong to kill, rape, or steal from others, or otherwise trespass on the person or property of others. We know, in our very Spirit, or, if one is an Atheist, in our deepest subconscious, that these are crimes against Nature, and that repercussions are inevitable.
There are, however, a small percentage of those in society who are missing the basic moral reasoning most of us possess. These individuals do not have the ability to consider the consequences of their actions. In the earliest times, they were taken out of society by retributive actions by the family or clan leadership of the wronged. Thus were the laws of Nature enforced--to every action, a reaction; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. With the advancement of civilization came the rule of law.
There are two kinds of laws--just and unjust. Just laws are those that establish a code for dealing with criminal acts against Nature. Unjust laws are those that create new crimes and are therefore, in themselves, crimes against nature.
Laws, traditionally, were never intended to create or prevent crime--we know that, law or no law, crimes are committed. Rather, laws were created in order to set a code by which retribution could be realized without leaving it in the hands of those who may kill the wrong person or wrongfully accuse others. Laws could be said to keep the peace by setting an order of punishment or retribution, thus preventing large scale family feuds or clan wars. In modern civilization, laws for crimes against Nature are necessary to remove the social and/or Spiritual devients and depraved who commit crimes from society.
As civilization grew, so did government. Laws became a tool for adding more wealth to governmental coffers, or for controlling the thoughts and actions of the general populace. At various times, in various societies, it has been a crime to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Property of those individuals or societies were confiscated by the governments which outlawed their religions, and the practitioners were often tortured before they were killed. Such laws are, in themselves crimes against Nature in that they attempt to suppress the natural tendency of our kind to find Spiritual growth and strength. Nature Itself has enacted retribution against those governments which had such laws--most of those governments have fallen, and those that continue to suppress the Natural inclination toward the Spiritual, will inevitably fall. Law or no law, these religions have perservered and serve the Spiritual needs of the majority of the Earth's human population, while the governments that have enacted laws against Nature serve nothing.
Toward the end of the Nineteenth Century A.D., governments began to realize the value of demonizing so-called vices and creating "victimless" crimes against them. Under such laws, government coffers could be vastly increased by confiscating property, exacting fines, and by receiving pay-offs and campaign contributions from the crime lords whom the laws enabled.
The demonization of alcoholic beverages culminated in 1929, when an ammendment to the Constitution of the United States was passed and it became illegal to purchase, sell, possess, manufacture, or transport such products within the United States. Subsequently, individuals who were missing the Natural awareness of right or wrong rose in power as they sold the "illegal" products to the masses, and murdered those who would compete with them or prevent them from plying their trade. Politicians happily accepted bribes, kickbacks, and contributions from these individuals, and the Federal government gladly confiscated property and exacted fines from those who chose not to pay such bribes. The law did not prevent people from imbibing alcoholic beverages, it only created more crime. By 1934, the crime and corruption rates had become so high, and the civil disobedience of the general alcohol consuming public had become so widespread, that the government had no choice but to repeal the prohibition ammendment.
To backtrack somewhat, the earliest known by-product of agricultural cultivation is beer. As civilizations grew, the water supplies became poisoned, with bacteria, viruses, and harmful parasites, so distilled and fermented beverages became a necessary alternative to water. Wine frequently appears in the oldest of scriptures and writings of nearly every culture. Even where water was palatable, the value of alcoholic beverages in the social context was well known. The main reason alcohol prohibition did not work is because alcoholic beverage, in most cultures, have become a part of human nature.
Vices which traditionally do not involve murder, theft or rape, such as the use of psychotropic drugs for recreation and meditation purposes, are also part of Nature, having been used from the earliest times of civilization by shamans and others to increase the depth of thought. It is human nature to seek ways of looking at things in different ways, or to induce Spiritual awareness or awakening. Marijuana has long been a medium for doing so. In addition, marijuana has been used for various medicinal purposes, and to this day is an accepted therapy for eating disorders and glaucoma, as well as its use in pain distraction therapy.
It must be noted here that the use of either alcohol or marijuana should be in moderation and with prudence. Self-responsibility is the key phrase here, and over use of any substance is unnacceptable. Operating a vehicle or machinery while under the influence is unnacceptable, as is attempting to work in potentially dangerous or hazardous situations.
After alcohol prohibition was repealed, there was a loss of income for those who had profited from the underground economy prohibition had created. The demonization of marijuana had begun long before, with claims that it caused people to steal, that it incited young people to have sex, thus being a contributor to unwanted teen pregnancy, that it made "black men desire white women," all scientifically unfounded. The financial aspects of alcohol prohibition had served well--families such as the Kennedys who profitied from the prohibition are still financially and politically powerful today--so it was easy to create a new prohibition. Marijuana use was not as widespread as alcohol use, so there would not be as much backlash by the general public. The Controlled Substance Act of 1936 began a prohibition which is still in effect today.
As in the case of alcohol prohibition, the marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy rooted in violence and anti-social behavior. Likewise, the government gains wealth through confiscation of personal property and fines. It is estimated that nearly eighty million Americans use marijuana, which only increases the strength of the underground economy as long as prohibition is in effect. Law enforcement officers are constantly placed in life threatening situations, as was the case in the gang wars of the early 1930's. The kickbacks, however, are different in that they are indirect. There is no proof that our politicians are being corrupted by the drug lords directly, so we can not imply that there is such corruption. However, there is still much money to be made legitimately under prohibition--manufacturers who produce law enforcement technology have much at stake in prohibition, and they can influence votes and campaign donations. No matter what else happens in the world, politicians can always take a stand by decrying the horrors of drugs being sold to and used by children. They disregard the fact that if there were no prohibition, the distribution of marijuana could be better controlled and less likely to fall into the hands of children. To all appearances, the financial gain realized by continuing prohibition is worth more than dealing with the victimization created by prohibition.
But Nature always corrects Itself. After more than seventy years of prohibition, more people use marijuana now than ever. Voters in nearly every state that have had legalization of medical marijuana on a ballot have passed such laws, even in the face of severe opposition from the Federal government. It is not a matter of if, but of when the marijuana prohibition is repealed. Common sense and Natural law will eventually prevail.

Please use some facts

2007-04-28T12:32:00.000-06:00

I love to argue, and will do so on any point for which I can find facts that back up my argument. I believe that everyone has the right to his or her opinion, and I encourage expression of opinion on this site, whether I agree with it or not. The thing is, if you are only using conjecture and hearsay to back your comments--"facts" that would never stand up in court, for example--there is nothing for me to argue about. Just a thought I had to clear...

More fallout from Pelosi's "Mission of Diplomacy"

2007-04-18T13:13:00.000-06:00

Yes, I know that this subject is now weeks old, but we still see comments on the subject that tell us that many people are missing the point. It doesn't matter if the congressperson is Republican or Democratic, when he or she takes it into his or her hands to try to create new foreign relations, that person is undermining the duties and policies of the State Department, and crossing the boundaries of Constitutional separation of powers.
For those who think no harm is done, please read this article from the Reform Party of Syria. Nancy's posturing to try to prove a point harmed more than just US diplomatic relations.
For those who are unfamiliar with the RPS, this is the statement from the "About" page on their site:

Reform Party of Syria (RPS) is a US-based Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11.

The party is governed by secular, peace committed American-Syrians, Euro-Syrians, and native Syrians who are determined to see that a "New Syria" is reborn that embraces real democratic and economic reforms.

RPS believes that political despotism, economic deprivation, and social stagnation in the Middle East have contributed significantly to the increase in domestic and international terrorism and to an Arab public policy that dilutes the goodwill the US harbors for democratic values in the Middle East.

RPS embraces accountability and transparency, human rights and freedom of expression, full diploamtic rlations with democratic Lebanon, and peaceful co-existence with ALL of our neighbors.

RPS leadership is consistent with the rich social mosaic of Syria, which includes Kurds, Alawites, Christians, Druze in addition to women who will play an important part in the future of Syria.

The RPS mission statement may be found here

Laws didn't prevent mass murder

2007-04-17T11:56:00.000-06:00

The atrocity at Virginia Tech, yesterday, left thirty-three people dead, and at least twenty-three wounded. It is now known as "The worst mass-murder in the history of the United States. This is a time to wish peace and healing on the victims and their families. We would like to be able to avoid entering the debate as to why or how it happened, but the self-described "experts" are already pointing the finger of blame at everything from video games to the lack of gun control and a "violent society," and we feel compelled to state our feelings in the case.
We live in a world where there are people who have nothing in their state of being to tell them that it is wrong to take an innocent life. Such people have existed since the earliest time of history, going all the way back to the story of Cain and Abel. The fact of life is that there will always be someone who is out to kill people. There is no reason or rationale, and no cause. There will always be horror and tragedy such as that which happened at Virginia Tech. Although our natural state is to abhor acts which take the lives of others, there are those who do not fit in to our natural state.
Jack Thompson, a self-proclaimed "expert" on school shootings is an attorney--not a psychologist or sociologist--who claims that video games are behind all school shootings. The absurdity of such claims is evident in the fact that tens of millions of people have played video games such as "Doom," or "Grand Theft Auto," yet the percentage of these people who actually become killers is so small that Thomas may as well say that beer drinking is behind all school shootings.
Of course, all the gun control folks are claiming that our "gun" society is responsible for the actions of the killer, who has been identified as Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean National in the US on a student visa. Such people should be reminded that, though Virginia has a liberal weapons carrying policy, firearms are not permitted on school grounds or college and university campuses in that state. No law could have prevented the tragedy, unless there was one under which potential victims could have defended themselves. There was no way for the victims to defend themselves, in this case, while Seung Hui reloaded his weapons, which were not permitted on campus, and fired them over a hundred times. Think about it.

"And So It Goes"

2007-04-14T11:39:00.000-06:00

Photo Credit: Avalon Books
There is not one person of my generation who has graduated from high school in America and hasn't read a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. His books, including Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse 5, and Breakfast of Champions, were often recommended, if not required reading, for high school level literature courses. He exposed us to a level of satire and humor that went beyond Mad Magazine or Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, as well as political ideology that we may not have been aware of at the time.
Writing in the genre of Science/Speculative Fiction, his plots, story lines, and dialogue often reflected his personal beliefs in Socialism and Atheism. But, in spite of the fears of censorship advocates and book burners of the time, reading his books did not create a generation of anti-capitalists. Rather, his books opened up a dialogue in our minds where we were invited to defend our beliefs--Vonnegut, through his writing, did not try to force his beliefs upon the reader, he merely presented his ideology for scrutiny. Whether we agreed with his ideology or not, he made us think, and created constructive discourse among ourselves and our fellow students. In his way, he proved that freedom of speech/expression does not cause the End of Civilization As We Know It.
Political and social ideology aside, Vonnegut wrote good books--books that entertained us and made us laugh. He has often been called the Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) of our time, which is, in our minds, a justifiable comparison. He allowed us to laugh at ourselves, often while identifying with his main characters who were almost always helpless victims of circumstance, with no control over their own lives. As darkly cynical as some of his humor was, a glimmer of hope was always present in his writing.
Kurt Vonnegut passed away Wednesday, April 11, reportedly due to head injuries suffered in a fall. He will always be remembered as an important and influential contributer to modern literature, perhaps the best of our time. "And so it goes..."

Whose job is it to tell us to be offended?

2007-04-13T12:01:00.000-06:00

The questions generated by the Don Imus controversy have gone far beyond what he said, and how and why he got fired. The entire controversy has grown in such a way it affects everybody, whether we are members of the Rutgers women's basketball team or not.
Granted, Imus' bad joke was uncalled for, and never should have been said, much less repeated everywhere in the media. There were likely less than 300,000 people--less than one-one hundredth of the US population--listening when he said it, and it would be safe to say, given Imus' history of racism and sexism, that none of the listeners were members of the championship basketball team. The entire matter should have been irrelevant to most of us. The entire set of circumstances was escalated, by people who have chosen to make themselves the nation's thought police, into a situation that is life threatening to freedom of speech.
It would be entirely rational if the reason for firing Don Imus from both his radio broadcast and television simulcast was loss of revenue from lack of sponsorship. In that case, the question of First Amendment rights would be irrelevant. However, the reasons given by the Viacom/CBS broadcasting consortium that Imus was canned due to complaints by employees, and the pundits and newscasters across the media have speculated that it was because of the involvement of Sen. Barak Obama and/or the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It could be reasonably argued that the involvement of these three did have something to do with several large companies withdrawing their sponsorship of Imus' radio and television programs.
One question that comes to mind is, do we really need somebody to tell us when we should be offended? Certainly, we all possess the rationale to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Most of us believe in the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King--that there will come a day when the color of one's skin does not matter. But the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have too much to gain from perceived racism. There are sheep who accept without question anything that is said by these two men. Without being told they are oppressed, the sheep wouldn't feel oppressed. Jackson and Sharpton do not want to see Dr. King's dream come to fruition, for, if it did, they would be out of a job.
What precedent does the firing of Imus set? Where do we draw the line? It should be up to the individual to treat others with respect, not up to the Federal government and the FCC to tell us what we can say, see, or hear. Can anybody who feels offended by anything just say so, and thereby limit the choices we make for entertainment? It certainly seems that way, and, figuratively speaking, book burning has made a comeback. From the looks of things, song lyrics are next, soon to be followed by such entertaining television programming as The Daily Show, South Park, Red Eye, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, and The Cobert Report, all of which are satire, which is the most often misunderstood form of humor. We don't have to agree with the issues made by such programming, and we can often laugh at ourselves watching these programs. We really don't have to watch or listen--because we have the rationale to make such choices. In any case, we must realize that humor and satire are not news or opinion, in order to realize the significance, or lack of such, to the nature of society and culture as a whole.
As South Park creators and writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone often point out, in their program, we can only be offended if we choose to feel offended . We can either laugh at a joke, or feel that it is wrong, but in no way should we let it be an excuse to limit freedom of speech.

Sacrificial Lamb?

2007-04-12T11:18:00.000-06:00

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Why Pike's Peak is my favorite photo subject

2007-04-11T11:19:00.000-06:00

Iraq is not a political issue

2007-04-06T11:20:00.000-06:00

Common sense would say that the best way to bring the troops home would be to complete the mission as quickly and efficiently as possible. It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but the "surge" operation prescribed by General Petreaus is, by all accounts, working toward that end. Iraqi troops are being trained in US military units, the Iraqi government is allowing and encouraging former Sunni insurgents to become involved in the peacekeeping process, and the insurgent groups are breaking up.
Both the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report and Gen Petreaus have suggested that military force alone will not resolve Iraq's problems--diplomatic means have to be a part of the process. The Iraqi government has responded to diplomatic pressure by the United States, budgeting ten billion dollars toward reconstruction, working toward peace initiatives between the Sunni and She'ya factions, mingling Iraqi troops with the coilition forces for training, becoming involved in regional talks with neighboring countries, and working out fair distribution of oil wealth. Iraq is on its way to becoming an independent, democratic nation, while its new government is gaining strength, and working to make a society that is fair to all its different factions.
There is still much work to do. Iraq does not yet have a strong enough military force to stand on its own. The presence of Baathist and foriegn militant forces is still felt in a violent fashion daily. If the coilition was to withdraw from Iraq before the democratic government is solidly established and in control of the country, all indications of the result forcast a much more widespread and deadly war. The Saudis have vowed to support Sunni militants in Iraq, if the coillition leaves, while Iran has supported and will support She'ya factions. This would amount to conflict over Iraq between the two Arab nations, which would most likely escalate into a world war. It is about oil, not Oil, and until modern society can do without oil from the Middle East conflict over the precious commodity will ensue. Most experts believe that energy independence will take twenty to forty years to achieve--until then, oil is a necessary evil.
So why do some politicians in the United States want to stop US involvement in Iraq? It is simply that they are politicians. Their agenda does not include a peaceful world and the future does not concern them unless it involves keeping their jobs. They do not want to see success in Iraq, because it would indicate to the voters that the policy they opposed was the correct policy. They will twist public opinion factors to justify their actions--such as interpreting the call for a change in direction in Iraq as meaning that we should withdraw right now. Every American wants to be able to call our troops home from Iraq, but not if it leaves a battleground which will be exploited in a way which will cause devistation to our economy. It is more likely that the ideology of these politicians will increase the violence in the Middle East, rather than decrease it. When politics become involved in a military operation, and in the movement of troops, defeat is often snatched from the jaws of victory.

Tears in my eyes

2007-03-30T11:55:00.000-06:00

This recent video from Baghdad brought tears to my eyes, out of gratitude for seeing our troops trying to make good with the population, and out of sympathy for these children who live among so much violence. It feels good to see them have a happy moment.
I have to bring up a unattributed quote here, because I can't remember who said it:
"If the Iraqis loved their children more than they hate each other, they would stop the violence."

Slavery does not help the poor

2007-03-20T11:50:00.000-06:00

A socialist economy, such as that which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is imposing on his country--and is attempting to impose on the rest of South and Central America--does not represent "freedom for the masses." Such an economy, if we are to use Cuba as a model, creates a form of slavery that, historically speaking, has never done anything to help the plight of the poor.
In nationalizing the economy, Chavez is giving himself the authority to determine the lot of every individual in Venezuela. Food, housing, medicine, education, income, and property are all controlled by Chavez. If Chavez, as he has said himself, is modeling his country after Castro's Cuba, he needs the absolute control of Venezuela and its populace to be in his hands. The people of Venezuela must become dependant on Chavez for their needs.
Certainly, Chavez has helped his country in some ways--building schools, hospitals and housing with government money. But what impetus is there to ensure that the education and medical aid meet the needs of the people? Technology will suffer. The schools will only teach what is pertinent to Chavez's idea of Socialism. The students will be indoctrinated to the will of the State. Travel restrictions will be placed on those in the medical profession, as they are in Cuba, so that the medical professionals don't leave the country. This also means that these doctors and medical scientists will be unable to keep up on new medical advances and techniques, and the health of the country will stagnate and decline.
Using his money to build houses for the poor is a way of showing the people that they need to look to El Jefe for their needs, for there is no other way they would get a house. Because Chavez has all the money, he decides who gets housing and how they get the housing. As the Benifacter of the People, he has the power to ruin those who oppose him. while demanding loyalty from those he benifits. When there are no jobs, there is the citizens' militia. We have seen video of this militia parading down the street, cradling imaginary guns. Of course, Chavez won't arm the militia, the members of which get paid nine dollars a week. An armed militia could be instrumental in the overthrow of a government, something no dictator would want while he's in the process of consolidating power.
The Venezualen economy has already declined 38% over the past two years. In a Socialist economy, there is no incentive for investment, as there is no profit to be found. There are no new jobs created in this way, and every person in Venezuela who has a job has little hope of finding a better job. Worse yet, there is no way to help the economy grow. Within the next five to fifteen years, new technology, instability in the Middle East, and environmental conservation will diminish the need for oil, which is the main source of revenue for Venezuela. So Hugo Chavez will have to go elsewhere for revenue, outside of Venezuelan territory. He has already begun the process, using his oil revenue to support Socialist and sympathetic candidates in other countries, bribing the governments of other countries to help spread his influence, and hiring demonstrators for pay to protest against those governments he feels are against him.
He has gone so far as to direct his oil company, Citgo, to implement a program to give a large heating oil discount to those in selected American cities who can't afford the regular rates. Chavez knows enough about capitalism to know the value of good public relations. He knows that by making Citgo appear altruistic, he can circumvent a large scale boycott. Notice that the U.S. has not slapped sanctions or tariffs against Venezuelan oil, or Citgo, nor has Venezuela closed its five refineries in the United States or shut off its oil supply to the U.S. Chavez wants the revenue from our country, and our country wants the oil from Chavez.
The latter is important in the need for a dictator to create an external enemy (Natan Sharansky, The Case For Democracy). An external enemy, real or imagined infuses nationalism into the general population. The tyrant becomes the sole protector, and the more evil the protector can make the enemy seem to the people, the more job security the dictator has. It should be noted that in the war of words between the U.S. and Venezuela, the only shots fired have been from Venezuela. All the name-calling has come from Chavez. It won't matter who the next President of the United States is, he will continue his anti-U.S. rhetoric no matter if that President's Rodham-Clinton, Obama, Giulianni, or McCain. He has to, because he needs an enemy to help him solidify his position.
Why, then should we even be concerned about the direction Chavez is taking? There is little short term concern, but in the long run, the fear society Chavez is building will create insurrection, in Venezuela, and in other South American countries. Chavez and his allies will blame the instability on the U.S.A., while other countries will ask whoever the next U.S. President is for aid in quelling the rebellion, which, most likely, will be given in one form or another, military or not. This in turn will be used by Chavez to further incite terrorists and revolutionaries against the U.S. It is inevitable, and centuries of human experience and historical fact will support this prediction.

Relative Reality and You

2007-03-16T11:20:00.000-06:00

Perception is reality, and reality is relative. If there are 300,000,000 people in the United States of America, then there are 300,000,000 different versions of reality. These myriad realities find a common ground and create one or more consensus realities. For example, a ten dollar bill is only a piece of paper unless there is a consensus reality that agrees the paper represents a value of ten dollars.
Consensus reality is developed from the merging of individual or group relative realities and the perception of truth within those realities. We develop our basic individual perception through personal experience and education. As we grow in experience, we become aware of the realities of others in the form of opinions and beliefs, which often result in events that occur in consensus reality. For example, consensus reality tells us that the events of September 11, 2001 actually happened. It was the result of a relative reality that is percieved by some that anybody who does not follow the Law of the Koran is an infidel who does not deserve to live on this planet. That relative reality was not generally part of consensus reality until the events of 9/11.
Events can be taken as fact only if they occur in consensus reality. Otherwise, the event or news item is seen only as a matter of individual belief or perception. If we, as individuals, were to stop our experience at our personal individual reality, we would stop our education and personal growth. There would be no further purpose for us to continue on this plane of existance. Recognition of consensus reality is necessary for personal growth.
In these days, when many people base their perception of reality on the opinions of others, in the aspect of editorial comment or political rhetoric, it is harder to create a consensus reality. As an example, many people believe the current warming of the earth is a natural cycle, while just as many perceive it to be the result of human activity. Those in the set that believes human activity is the cause will not accept any part of the reality of that set which believes it is a natural cycle, indeed, they try to silence and undermine those who disagree with them. Conversely, the reality of the set that believes global warming is a natural cycle, does not accept the perception of those who wish to forgo personal responsibility by blaming global warming on "big oil," or "big capitalism." A consensus reality can not occur in this matter, and will not be reached until something manifasts itself as a fact that is universal truth. Universal truth is something that invades the realities of all and is undeniable and unavoidable.
There was a time when high school and college education wasn't about indoctrination into one form or the other of non-consensus reality. High school teachers and college professors would present different views and theories of a subject, and task the student to come up with a view of his or her own, wheras now, many teachers and professors present only their own personal reality, cherry-picking historical facts and theories that agree with their own perception and imposing them on their students. This is detrimental to creating a consensus reality of many factors that affect us, and it inhibits creativity in problem solving and new ideas.
In many cases, consensus reality can be seen merely as common sense. In the politically polarized atmosphere of our world today, common sense is a rare thing. Politicians may believe in a consensus reality, but they do not want those of us who may vote for them to know that. Like the aforementioned teachers and college professors, they cherry pick consensus reality facts that most closely resemble that reality which they want to present to the public.
Thus several different non-consesus realities prevail, and nothing is accomplished that will ensure a better future, such as independence from foreign oil, or a long term solution for national security. Without any appearence of common sense, they present their beliefs to a public whose perceptions they want to mold to their own way of thinking. The only purpose a politician sees in life is to get re-elected, and in order to do so, the politician must set him or herself apart from other politician. Long term solutions do not have a place in the reality of the so-called "public servant" on Capitol Hill.
Thus it is important to listen to different views of what is important to us, that we experience the realities of not just that with which we agree, but with that we don't usually see or hear. In order to have a consensus reality, in order to show some common sense, we must listen to many points of view. More improtantly, we must act on what we learn, if only it means taking personal responsibility in the stewardship of our planet and of our future. Otherwise, Nature may impose on us a consensus reality we can not live with at the level of luxury we live in now. That will be a reality in which there will be no more internet, or any other form of communication for that matter, no more freedom of expression or religion, no more principle of ownership. Do we really want to experience that reality?

With Great Respect to the late Gilda Radner

2007-03-13T12:06:00.000-06:00

Introducing my guest blogger, Emily Litella

What's all this fuss about Al Kali in Iraq? Isn't the Al Kali Shrine the guys wearing fez's who drive those little cars around in circles in the parades? Certainly they do good for folds with the Shrine Circus and the money they raise for charity, but what are they doing in Iraq, anyway? Perhaps they thought that a circus would help them lift their spirits, but I don't see where a circus would do enough to solve the problems in the Middle East,
anyway. Some people are traumatized by clowns, and the people of Iraq are traumatized enough anyway without having clowns around to traumatize them more.
I don't understand why we need to send troops to get rid of Al Kali in Iraq. It's not like they have weapons or anything. They just have squirt guns and those guns with the little flags that pop out and say "bang!" All we have to do is tell them to leave and they'll probably go somewhere else anyway. If the people in Iraq don't want Al Kali there, all they have to do is...
Eh? Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Never mind!

Prohibition is to blame for child abuse

2007-03-09T11:33:00.000-07:00

The video from Texas that came to light last week, showing seventeen- and fifteen-year old kids giving marijuana to a toddler is undeniably shocking and horrific, even to those of us who believe that the drug is relatively harmless. Undoubtedly, it is a tremendous blow to the anti-prohibition movement, as the prohibitionists are using the incident as propaganda further illustrating "the evils" of marijuana. Don't expect anybody in the media or politics to point out that the teenagers were in possession of marijuana precisely because it is illegal.
If marijuana were legal, it would be available only to people who have reached an age at which they have learned to be more responsible, say twenty-one, the same age at which it is legal to buy alcohol products. It is widely known that it is easier for an under-aged person to buy marijuana now than it is for that person to get alcohol. There are some people who would buy marijuana for an under-aged child, but there are those who buy alcohol or cigarettes for children. Such people are missing the sense of responsibility that most of us have--just because we can buy alcohol or cigarettes for ourselves doesn't mean we will abuse children by making these products available to them. It is the same innate responsibility that would prevent us from doing harm to others in any case. We don't steal from others, assault others, or falsely accuse others, because we know it is wrong to do so. Our psychological make up and our self-concept will not allow us to do such things.
Those who have made the choice to smoke marijuana have made that choice, just as those who choose not to smoke marijuana will not smoke marijuana just because it is legal--the same type of choice made with alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine.
Prohibition has done nothing but contribute to delinquency and crime. Law enforcement resources are misused to enforce victimless crimes, and criminals are often released early from prison to make room for those who have broken prohibition laws. So great is the underground economy created by prohibition that genuinely bad people--those with no morals, sense of responsibility, or value for human life--are heavily involved in the trafficking of marijuana, just as they were involved in alcohol trafficking during the prohibition against alcohol. They protect their territory with guns and violence, and hundreds of people--law enforcement officers, criminals, and innocent bystanders--are killed every year in the "war on drugs." Badly needed resources are stretched thin on our borders, as well-funded cartels use every means available to them to move their product. The best way to put these people out of business would be to end the prohibition.
Marijuana prohibition has been in effect for nearly eighty years, and it has made no difference in the use of marijuana. In fact, more people smoke marijuana now than when it was legal. There is no exit strategy in the war on drugs, and we spend way too much in money and human resources in trying to enforce laws against human nature. It isn't only "Secular Progressives" and Libertarians who are standing against prohibition. William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder and editor-at-large of the conservative magazine National Review has been speaking out against prohibition for nearly thirty years. There is also an organization called "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)," founded by retired DEA super-cop Barry Cooper, that makes compelling arguments from the law enforcement officer's point of view for an end to the war on drugs.
As long as marijuana is illegal, we will see more atrocities involving children who have obtained the drug illegally. Legalization and regulation would reduce such incidences.

The following is the official L.E.A.P video on YouTube. It is very informative, and worth the thirteen+ minutes it takes to view.

Please click here if you are unable to see the video.

Whose Ally Is Egypt, Anyway?

2007-02-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

To those Americans who think your freedom of speech is being suppressed, you should be glad you aren’t living in Egypt. Read what is happening to an Egyptian blogger who was convicted of insulting religion and insulting the government of Egypt here.
He received four years in prison, which is a death sentence for him because he “insulted Islam” which, to the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who will be his fellow inmates, is punishable by death. They will invoke Sheria law and take it upon themselves to administer the death penalty.
In America we may write and publish anything we want. Those who insult the President, and their fellow Americans who voted for the President, are free to do so without fear of arrest. You may insult other people’s religion, no matter what religion it is you are insulting, you may insult people for believing in that religion, and you may insult people for not believing in that religion. It is all protected under the First Amendment. It is even legal to criticize people for exercising their First Amendment rights, and to shout them down in public so no one, not even those who paid to hear them speak, can hear what they have to say.
Basically, we Americans are allowed to make up our own rules about what constitutes freedom of speech.
The Egyptian Government has ostensibly imposed sanctions on free speech in the name of stability. As in any tyranny, the government fears that critical voices will weaken the government by causing unrest. It is perfectly legal, in Egypt to refer to non-Muslims as “Infidels,” because that is not, according to Egyptian law, as that is not considered to be anti-Egypt or anti-religion. Certainly, freedom of speech would allow such opinions to be aired, but, when that freedom is used to incite violence, that is trespassing on the rights of others, and is no longer covered under free speech. Even in the U.S., where we enjoy First Ammendment protections, it is illegal to incite violence.
Because the government has declared the radical Muslim political party, the Muslim Brotherhood illegal, the United States sees Egypt as an ally against Islamist terrorists. However, the ban is not against the MB as a terrorist organization, it is as a political party. Egypt is actually appeasing the radicals in this way, allowing them to speak against Christians and Jews, and to foment their brand of Islam in their mosques and schools to incite violence against non-Muslims and Muslim secularists. The so-called “cartoon demonstrations” last year were legal, because they were not against the Egyptian government or Islam, but Christian rights and secular free speech demonstrators are immediately taken to jail and beaten. In further appeasement of the Islamofascist movement, Egypt defied the UN sanctions against the Hamas led Palestinian government by attempting to transfer funds to that government. They also apparently released Abu Ayoud al-Masri from prison to facilitate his taking the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq after the death of al-Zaquarwi.
Al Jawraa is a television broadcast company based in Syria that telecasts anti-American, anti-Shiite, anti-Israeli, anti-Iraqi government, and pro Al Qaeda propaganda programming. The Egyptian government provides an up-link for Al Jawraa to the government owned Nilesat telecommunications satellite, facilitating world wide broadcast.
Egypt is seen as an ally against terrorism, and receives at least 2.3 billion dollars a year in foreign aid from the United States. You read that correctly--we taxpayers are supporting an oppressive government, which, in turn supports terrorists. The State Department has applied some pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to relax sanctions against Egypt’s citizens, and has even aided in obtaining the release of some political prisoners. This pressure is usually very light, however, and it seems that the more we give Mubarak, the more he uses it to support Islamofascism. The foreign aid provided by U.S. taxpayers could be used as leverage to ensure that Egypt get in line on human rights and stop supporting terrorism, but, so far, such aid has not been tied to human rights or anti-terrorism. It is time we, as American citizens, pressure our own government to better scrutinize what it is doing with foreign aid money to Egypt.

Sunrise

2007-02-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

"...last time I felt like this/I was in the wilderness and the canyon was on fire/I stood on a mountain in the night and watched it burn.."--Emmylou Harris Boulder To Birmingham

Censorship advocates go too far

2007-02-09T12:08:00.000-07:00

This has been going around for a few days, and every time I read or hear about it, it arouses my ire. There is a subculture in government, and among those who influence the government, that believes that the general populace cannot control its lust. So you have people, perverts really, who have nothing better to do than spend their time finding reason to restrict what we can watch or hear on television or radio. In other words, in the name of censorship, they dig deep to find "offensive material," and find such material that no "normal" person would notice. They then complain about it to the authorities, the sponsors, the public, and the broadcasters, in hopes of creating more restrictions of what is available to the public in the form of arts and entertainment.
AP Photo
Prince presented an outstanding performance for the Super Bowl half time show, fitting more music into eight minutes than any other musician has in that venue. The aforementioned perverts made a big deal of the silhouette projected during the show, claiming that it displayed a phallic symbol. In my view, all I saw was the shadow of a guy playing guitar, but so what if it was meant to be sexual symbolism? Rock 'n' Roll is all about sexual symbolism. Does that mean that it should be banned from television?
We are human beings who claim to be the highest intelligence on Earth, and that intelligence is enough to allow us to choose what we see and hear. If we don't like it, we don't have to watch or listen to it. We can always change the channel. For instance, I choose not to watch porno movies. Does that mean I think nobody should watch porno? Of course not--it is a matter of personal choice, not public debate. We don't need anybody telling us what we should and what we should not watch, and there is no reasonable argument for censorship.
To those who think otherwise, I say censor your own damn self, and we’ll censor our own damn selves when necessary.

A Thought on the Boston Panic

2007-02-03T12:20:00.000-07:00

Could Tuesday's panic in Boston have been avoided? That is a question that must be asked. A promotional campaign for the Cartoon Channel's adult program Aquateen Hungerforce, which covered ten cities in the United States, ran afoul in Boston when local law enforcement allegedly mistook the mini-billboards for "suspicious packages." The mini-billboards, which were actually LED displays depicting different characters, or "Moonites," from the series, were placed on bridges and near roadways. As a result of the panic, several roadways and a major waterway were closed while the Boston Police, the ATF, and the FBI dealt with the "potential threat." Two men were arrested and charged with perpetrating a hoax and obstruction.
The timeline of the panic began when a package was found in the administrative offices of the University Hospital, at Boston University. The package, which had nothing to do with the promotional campaign, was obviously a fake bomb, containing batteries wrapped in tape. When news of this came out, people driving on the roads apparently started calling in reports of suspicious packages on bridges and overpasses. The Boston Police responded rapidly and efficiently, discovering ten of these "fake bombs," investigating them and disposing of them.
Boston is sensitive to terrorist threats, because it was from Boston's Logan Airport that the airliners used in the 9/11 attacks in 2001 were high jacked. Vigilance is important these days, and the vigilance of the Boston Police and the citizens of that city is to be commended. However, several questions arise, such as why didn't the police recognize the mini-billboards for what they were, why didn't the city know about the promotion, and how did the promotional campaign get associated with the University Hospital bomb threat?
Nine other cities were targeted for the advertising campaign, and those cities seemed to be aware of it. If anybody in those cities had reported suspicious packages, they were likely reassured that it was just a promotional campaign. Only Boston took it as a bomb hoax.
If it was a legitimate advertising campaign, the city should have known about it. Most cities require permission to post bills on “public” (government) properties. If the advertising company did not get permission or pay applicable fees, then the company is at fault.
It is easy, however, to suspect that the City of Boston did know about it, and once the panic got out of control, and once somebody realized what the “devices” where, the City was reluctant to embarrass itself, and went ahead with the hoax charges. This will not likely stand up in court, as hoax was not the intent, but the perception of the city and police officials. If Boston can prove in civil court that the advertising company did not have permission to post the devices, there is an easy $750,000 plus punitive damages for the city in civil court. All in all, vigilance aside, the outcome of the situation is an embarrassment Boston will not admit to.

Click here if you can't see the video.

PETA could do better

2007-01-31T11:41:00.000-07:00

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is under scrutiny after two employees were caught dumping animal carcasses in a supermarket dumpster in South Carolina. This caught many people by surprise, including many donors.
To be fair, PETA's explanation was that these animals were being treated inhumanly at a local animal shelter, and that there had been reports that this animal shelter was using cruel methods to euthanize unadoptable and unadopted animals, and that PETA had stepped in to administer humane euthanization to the unwanted pets. They explained that they do not have enough resources to prevent having to euthanize many animals, and that there are far too many abandoned animals nationwide for PETA to take care of or protect.
One could conceivably argue that this situation is the result of the virtual abandonment of the organization's animal rescue mission, and the allocation of funds to support radical activities and the anti-carnivore movement. PETA has, in recent years, become a social/political activist organization rather than an animal rescue operation. However, many long-time and large scale donors to PETA support the organization with the understanding that it is an animal rescue operation.
The real problem is that the scale on which PETA is trying to operate its animal rescue operations is much too large. PETA is a global organization, with few supported local community operations. One need only to look at the federal government’s social welfare programs to see how inefficient this type of organization can be. Many non-profit organizations, such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army, realized long ago that it is far more efficient to operate local community organizations, rather than trying to take care of everything on a national level.

In Colorado Springs, for instance, we have an excellent animal rescue organization called Dream Power, which avoids by every possible means the need to euthanize animals. Usually, the only time an animal is euthanized by Dream Power is when it has become too ill to treat. Dream Power gets most of its funding from local donors, and is supported by several local vetenary clinics that donate time and services for spaying and neutering, medications, and vaccinations. PETA would do better to allocate some of their funding to local organizations such as Dream Power, rather than trying to keep up with the cost of the attorneys they need to hire as a result of some of their radical activities.
While on the subject of animal rescue, my favorite singer, Emmylou Harris, has a very worthy organization called Bonaparte's Retreat which coordinates animal adoption efforts nationwide. This is Emmylou's personal project, and should be checked out.

How to talk to Iran

2007-01-24T11:23:00.000-07:00

Photo copyright Associated Press
"I don't see why the most powerful nation in the world can't talk to the leaders of Iran (and) put some pressure on (them)...When I was in Europe, I talked to (Yugoslavian President) Slavodan Milosovich and told him that if he didn't get in line he would be bombed"

Thus spake General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO, former Democratic Party Presidential candidate, and political pundit. He was criticizing the State of The Union Address and the current administration's refusal to talk to the leadership of Iran to find a solution to the dual wars in Iraq. Of course, we know that NATO went to war with Yugoslavia, and Milosovich's country was bombed incessantly after Clark's talks with the wayword President. Clark's talks didn't amount to much.
It sounds to me as if Clark, who has expressed fear that the United States may engage in armed conflict Iran, is advocating war. This wasn't the only comment in which General Clark seemed to be contradictary. "We don't have to talk to (Iranian President Ahmadinejad), there are other elements in Iran we can talk to."
But none of these "other elements" are in a position to make or influence national and international policy in Iran. Certainly, as did the Iraq Study Group, individual "moderate" ayatollahs on the Supreme Islamic Council, can be spoken to, but not in the element of official policy. The Supreme Islamic Council, as the ruling body of Iran, cannot, by their perception of their religion, speak to representatives of the United States in any official capacity, because such representatives are "dhimmis" and not of the correct standing to speak to in such capacity.
Nor can the dissident or shadow government of Iran be a viable party in such talks. Those who are not in prison or in exile may be allowed to speak to representatives of the United States, but they dare not go contrary to the government's policy for fear of imprisonment or death. Besides, what purpose would that serve?
There is a glimmer of hope for future relations with Iran in that there has been some talk about impeaching, or at least reigning in President Ahmadinejad. This may mean a more moderate stance on the part of Iran, and, if it does, then it could be possible to have meaningful talks with that government. However, the Supreme Islamic Council will most likely not change its stripes, and the US will still be "The Great Satan," and untouchable in the minds of the ayatollahs.
That does not mean that Iraq can't establish relations or agreements with Iran. It should be up to that government to establish relationships with its neighbors. The Iraqi government first needs to be secure, though, before it can do so, otherwise it has no leverage.
We don't have to fear war with Iran. It is very possible that within forty minutes of the moment that Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapon, it will be green-glassed by Israel. Israel is the target of threats by Iran, and Israel, with a reported two-hundred warhead nuclear arsenal, will not hesitate to strike preemptorily to prevent its own annihilation. Hopefully, the ayatollahs realize that, and, eventually, will give in to the rest of the world and accept the light water nuclear technology which has been offered them.

The Job Nazis Strike Again

2007-01-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

The people who are against Wal-Mart are not for the working class. They are elitists who don't care if you have or need a job. All you have to do is ask any organizer of an anti-Wal-Mart movement in any municipality, and he or she would tell you that "it is better not to have a job at all than to work at Wal-Mart." Part of what they are saying is on behalf of the labor unions, but much of what they are saying is that if you don't have a six-figure income, you're not welcome in, for example, Chalene, Washington.
"Chalene is a beautiful city...you don't want to mess it up by putting a Wal-Mart there," a spokesman for stopwalmart.org recently said on Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto.
Note that this spokesperson isn't from Chalene--the people of Chalene want the Wal-Mart. The building has been built, the shelves have been stocked, and the employees, two-hundred of them, have been hired. The argument that Wal-Mart takes away other jobs is moot in Chalene, because the apple industry there is failing, and not as many people are being hired to work for the apple growers. The people who were hired by Wal-Mart needed those jobs.
But the Stop Wal-Mart people, whether they represent the unions, the International Communist Party, Target, Kreske, or their own agenda, succeeded in halting the opening of the store through a court order, claiming that the building permit was never legally issued. They don't want those people to have jobs. They use catch phrases such as "globalization," "worker abuse," and "unfair wages," in their argument against Wal-Mart.
But the people who work for Wal-Mart don't feel abused, or poorly paid. They want the job, and they work at the job. In order to be oppressed, you have to feel oppressed. The average wage for the Wal-Mart employee is eleven dollars an hour, about the same as the starting wage for a union retailer such as Safeway or City Market, which, after union dues comes out to about nine dollars an hour--the same as the starting wage for the Wal-Mart employee. Union workers somehow don't feel oppressed either.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell automobiles, which come from the type of manufacturing jobs the anti-Wal-Mart people claim Wal-Mart is putting out of business, or sending oversees. Workers in the United States do not get the twenty five dollars an hour making toys, clothing, or electronic equipment. However, the workers who are "victims of globalization" in other countries find themselves making far above the average wages in their respective countries in jobs which manufacture merchandise for Wal-Mart. Even without Wal-Mart, manufacturing plant employees in the United States would still average about ten dollars an hour. Nobody is taking away their jobs.
If it wasn't Wal-Mart, it would be Target, Circuit City, or Best Buy. The anti-Wal-Mart folks don't care who they attack, as long as it is Capitalist. They are largely people who don't really care about the worker, rather they are people seeking power, who feel as though they are doing something important for themselves, to get their name in the news, and to receive large sums of money from competitors, unions, and politicians.
These people could be compared to the dictators of the world--Qadafi, Saddam, Mubarak, Chavez, Jong Il,and the like. If you don't do things their way you don't get to do it at all. The dictator wants the people to meet the approval of the dictator, as opposed to a free society in which the government has to meet the approval of the people. Likewise, according to the unions, if you don't contribute part of your pay to the six and seven figure incomes of the national level union leaders and representatives, you don't deserve to work.

How to shift the blame from yourself.

2007-01-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

The Hollywood Elitists have nothing on some Austrailian celebrities.Please click here and read this item by Aussie blogger "Crapping on whatever I feel like."
It doesn't surprise me that spousal assault is justifiable to some people because the war is worse. It is just a pattern of behavior that seems to be universal among elitists, not only in the US, but universally. These people continue to show on a daily basis how out of touch with reality they really are.

Distracted

2007-01-18T11:51:00.000-07:00

I was going to post something about Barry Cooper and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. That is in the works, but not today. I was loading some music onto my
mp3 player, and ripping some cds I borrowed from the library, and while listening to the music, I found myself watching, in utter fascination, the video images generated by the Windows Media Player in "Battery: Randomization" mode. I had never seen this before, so I just couldn't break away long enough to write anything important. You see, this is a brand new computer, courtesy of my Mom and Dad as a Christmas gift, and it is one sweet machine, so this is the first time I've used Windows XP at home.
It's almost like watching a lava lamp. I know...I should get a life.

Who Wins Or Loses?

2007-01-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

The war in Iraq should not be a political issue in the United States. It is not a matter of President Bush being right or wrong, nor is it an issue of those who oppose the war being right or wrong. It is only the result of our actions in Iraq that is the issue, and if the politicians who oppose the mission continue to involve themselves in the war, it is they who would lose.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.

Dangerous Coins

2007-01-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

The United States Department of Defense has issued a warning that Defense contracters in Canada have had coins that contain tiny radio transmitters placed among their pocket change. This is not just normal government paranoia, the DOD says the risk is genuine.
Even with the cold war long over, espionage technology continues to be a strong and lucrative field of research. It is unclear, from the information released, which country or entity is using this technology.

Call it what you will...

2007-01-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

So Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of The House, and the first woman in the history of the United States to hold that position, hosts this party in which the entertainment includes former members of The Grateful Dead. I really wish I could have been there.
You see, even though I'm not a big fan of Pelosi, or any professional politician for that matter, I am a big fan of the Grateful Dead. Many of my happiest memories are from Grateful Dead Concerts. I've been to fourteen Dead concerts, plus several Dead spin-offs, such as Rat Dog and Phil Lesh and Friends, and also many Dead protégé concerts, like String Cheese Incident and Widespread Panic. I'm addicted to non-generic, eclectic, jam-based music. If a "Deadhead" is a fan who has heard more Grateful Dead music than what has been played on the radio, and one who has been to more than two or three Dead concerts, then I am one.
There is the stereotypical concept of the Deadhead held by the general public--the drugged out, spaced out old hippie type, who has no sense of reality--which is way off base. There really is no such thing as a Deadhead stereotype. Speaker Pelosi might not have a general sense of consensus reality, but that doesn't make her a Deadhead.
The genuine, hard core Deadheads were the twenty-to-thirty-thousand strong population of a traveling city which followed the Dead from concert to concert, city to city, country to country. They included. The Deadheads had their own law enforcement, doctors, lawyers, and venders of food and necessities. The population included artists, musicians, authors, journalists and actors--those who could work while on the road and make a living. There were also con-artists and drug dealers, gave strength to the Media's misrepresentation of the Deadhead stereotype. Mostly, the Deadheads were people to whom music was a form of prayer, and the Dead were the prayer leaders.
To this day, nobody plays music like the Dead did. They could cover any song that has ever been played by anyone, and make it their own. They never played the same song the same way twice, and one could get lost in their intricate, complex, avant-garde jams. Drugs were available at the concerts, but they were not necessary to the enjoyment of the music or the concert.
Perhaps the most famous Deadhead of all is Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Sometimes a Great Notion. His experiment in mass LSD tripping is well documented by Wolfe, Stone, and others. He financed the Grateful Dead when they were first beginning their public career, giving them equipment, and getting them their first big gigs.
Still, though he and his Merry Pranksters lent much to the stereotyping of the consumate Deadhead, he is an extraordinary exception, not the rule.
The Grateful Dead was probably the most apolitical band ever. They never endorsed any political party or candidate. Most Deadheads are apolitical with a few exceptions, such as political essayist and Libertarian activist JP Barlow. Barlow co-wrote many of the Grateful Dead's better known songs, including one of my personal favorites Estimated Prophet. Though a pundit and commentator, Barlow should not be considered a professional politician--he just writes about it, he doesn't do it.
Political or not, the typical Deadhead would be a Libertarian of one kind or another. While holding the general beliefs of "share and share alike" and "live and let live," the typical Deadhead respects the individual and individual rights. Capitalism is part of the Deadhead culture, as is the idea of the community, rather than the government, being the main source of public welfare. As a matter of survival, the typical Deadhead is pragmatic, over everything else. Deadheads are at the least Minimal Statists, and at the most, anarchists. The typical Deadhead is honest, and will tell it as he or she sees it, but is open-minded--traits that would be counter-productive to the career of a typical politician. If anyone could think outside the politics-as-usual box, it would be a Deadhead.
So Speaker Pelosi may be a great fan of the Grateful Dead and their music. If she says she is a Deadhead, I believe that she thinks of herself as a Deadhead, and I respect her for that. However, if her political rivals think that is a piece of ammunition to use against her, they are wrong. The politician may be a Deadhead, but the Deadhead can't be a politician. Pelosi is in denial of the fact that Ayman al Zawahirwi, the spokesman for Al Qaeda, often publishes statements and sentiments regarding and supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization she doesn't even acknowledge the existence of. She ignores statements by Usama Bin Laden that Iraq is the battleground for World War Three, and by al Masri that Al Qaeda will follow US forces wherever they go. She is hypocritical in that she speaks of transparency and honesty in Congress while pushing for committee leadership for some of the most corrupt unindicted politicians on the Hill. She speaks of bipartisanship while believing that anything the Republican faction does is wrong. This may be due to a change of the psyche from the acid she may have taken at a Dead concert, but that doesn't mean that being a Deadhead is why she thinks the way she does. She thinks the way she does because she is a politician, so, no matter what, please don't denigrate or insult the Deadheads by blaming Pelosi on the Grateful Dead.

No Dignity

2007-01-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

Saddam had requested that he face death by a firing squad, which would have been more fitting for a deposed head of state, in his view, than a hanging. However, that would have been too much of a reward for the dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and committed horrendous atrocities against the people of Kuwait. He did not deserve to die with dignity.
On a lighter note, Freaking News a website for creative photoshop has this funny "endorsement" picture, submitted to the site by "Keb:"

Remembering My Commander-In-Chief

2006-12-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

I remember President Gerald Ford as the first Commander-in-Chief under whom I served while active in the Air Force. He came into office by a series of circumstances which included scandels forcing the resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon, and which did not include election to the office of President. The administration he took over, and the Nation over which he came into leadership was in recovery from the long and hard war in Viet Nam, Watergate, and other political acandels. The tasks he faced as CIC were quite daunting--he had to restore America's faith in the military and the government, while trying to restore the world's faith in American foreign policy.
Although he wasn't elected as President, he was respected, having been elected to Congress sixteen times by his constituents in the state of Michigan. He treated the people with respect, and respect was returned to him, for the most part.
President Ford's administration did have some failures. He attempted to block the genocide of millions of Viet Namese and Cambodians by the hand of North Viet Nam and its agents, but his proposal to aid the miltia in South Viet Nam was refused funding by Congress, and 8 million Viet Namese and Cambodians died as North Viet Nam's military swept unopposed into the south and concluded the reunification of that country. He did, however, begin the long process of normalization with the new country, one that is still being continued today.
Another failure was his attempt to socialize the American economy with his "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) policy, which included a voluntary wage/price freeze. Still, there was some long-term success for that policy in that we learned that socialism, even when voluntarily imposed, does not work in the American economy.
His pardoning of President Nixon for his Watergate related crimes was never popular, but he successfully defended his position that, without the pardon, America could not put behind the scandals of the Nixon Administration and move forward. His defense of his position was not enough to get him elected, and became the major reason many voters turned to Jimmy Carter.
President Ford's successes were far greater than his failures. The all-volunteer military came into being under his administration, and despite predictions that such a military would never work, he began building it into the force it is today--well trained, efficient, and intelligent. He brought respect back to the members of the military while improving military life with pay raises, benefits, and upgraded living conditions. Never again, would military personnel be greeted in America with the hatred they received upon return from Southeast Asia. They were, after all, only doing the job they were required to do--no war is the fault of those who have to fight it.
Finally, President Ford brought back respect for the government and the office of the President, showing kindness and concern for the American people. He was a man of integrity who would do his best whether he was elected to the job or not. He showed us that the President, no matter who he or she is, deserves the respect of the people. He had a tough job, but he did it the best he could, and his legacy continues to this day.

Season's Greetings

2006-12-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. For my Christmas message, please click here

The Big Storm

2006-12-22T12:39:00.000-07:00

I haven't been able to post anything the last few days, because, as you may have heard, Colorado was experiencing "The Storm of the Decade," and the library was closed. There were blizzard conditions to the North, West, South, and East, but somehow, it missed my little nook. This video is in four parts, please view each one for the full effect. Part 1 proves that even my ugly mug can't break the camera.

Getting in the Christmas Spirit

2006-12-18T12:14:00.000-07:00

Old Colorado City, my neighborhood and the shopping district on the west side of Colorado Springs, is all dressed up for Christmas. Here are two of the better snapshots I've taken, just to get the feel:

Bill of Rights 215th Anniversary

2006-12-18T11:42:00.000-07:00

This is three days late, because the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights was last Friday. Just for a refresher
Here is the Bill of Rights, and a chart including four major factions in American Politics, and which articles each faction recognize or acknowledge:
Click on the chart to view full size.

The Bill of Rights
1.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 pres; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in the time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and personal effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district; whereas the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who are you calling a Warmonger?

2006-12-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

Should a person be considered a "warmonger," if he or she is only thinking of the future? Does not being "anti-war" mean being "pro-war?" I submit that, when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East, nobody who is not a Islamist militant or Baathist insurgant is "pro-war." Every proposal, every suggestion put forth by everyone, from the ISG, to the military leaders in Iraq, to the President himself, is a plan to put an end to the violence in the region.
Certainly, many of these proposals are flawed. We know that we need to use diplomacy along with military force in order to meet the goals set forth by the President and the ISG--diplomacy is needed to ensure stability in the region, and the military is needed to protect stability in the region.
But, how far should diplomacy go? How far can it go? The President has been talking one-on-one with Sunni and Shiite leaders in Iraq, and, for the last five weeks, the Marines in Ramadi, a hotbed for insurgancy, have been working with both the Sunni dominated police force, and the Shiite dominated Iraqi military to bring stability to that city. They have imbedded advisers in those two organizations to train and plan with the Iraqi forces. They have contracted with the local citizenry, to hire Iraqis to build and repair homes and facilities. Although Ramadi cannot be considered safe, the Marines are gaining the trust and support of the general populace, and solidifying the resolve of the Iraqi civilians in that city to oppose the insurgancy. Though these methods were among the ISG proposals, they were in effect prior to the release of the ISG report. The activities of both the President, and the Marines in Ramadi will, I feel, prove to be very productive in the long run.
James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) has admitted that Iran is not likely to be of any help in bringing peace to the region, but suggests that the US enter unilateral talks with that nation, if only to show the world where Iran stands. The fact is that the US has already set the conditions under which negotiations with Iran could be held, and Iran has rejected those conditions. Unconditional unilateral talks with the leadership of Iran would be extremely unwise. By the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of Iran's Supreme Islamic Council, we know that such talks would be seen by Iran as surrender terms, and a victory for Iran. To officially recognize the government of Iran would be to sign a death sentence for the seventy-five percent of the Iranian population that is anti-government, because it would be a step toward abandonment of the cause for freedom, and would legitimize that governments methods against its own people. Iran does not want to see a stable, democratic and independent Iraq, a goal which has been stated by both the President and the ISG. Iran wants to control Iraq, and a stable, independent government in Iraq would be countrary to Iran's goals.
The United States has nothing to offer to or take away from Iran in unilateral talks. We cannot trade nuclear weapons for freedom in Iraq, because that freedom would not be a lasting freedom. Iran's only points would be that the US and its allies leave the region, that Israel be dissolved, and that Iran be allowed to control Iraq. We already know that the latter condition would result in a much more widespread war between several countries in the region. Saudi Arabia has already warned that if the US were to precipitously leave the region that it would have to back the Sunnis in Iraq to fight against the Iraqi Shiites and Iran. Unilateral talks with Iran over Iraq is definately a non-starter.
Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard has suggested that James Baker be appointed as a special envoy to Syria, so that he could attempt his plan to "flip Syria." Barnes, like any pragmatist, does not believe that Syria would suddenly stop supporting insurgants in Iraq, and stop trying to control Lebanon, all in exchange for Israel returning control of the Golan Heights to Syria. Common sense says that that would never happen, but if Baker could pull that off, he would be God.
It is up to the Iraqi government to establish diplomatic relations with its neighbors, not the United States. If there are to be talks between the US and Iran and Syria, they should be in the context of multilateral talks including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia, China, and the EU, as well as the United States. All these countries have a vested interest in the future of Iraq, and this is the only way negotiations concerning the region should be conducted.
Another way to peace in Iraq would be to encourage industry in that country. As President Bush has suggested, support should be given to establish a strong agricultural economy in Iraq, as well as an agreement to fairly distrubute oil wealth. Jobs need to be created, and would largely take power over people away from the insurgant organizations and militias and give it back to the population. Iraqis wanting jobs would leave the insurgancy to get jobs. This is a very important condition in bringing peace to that country.
A little more than half of Iraq exists under peaceful conditions. Free market industries and retailers should be encouraged to establish business in these regions, drawing more people away from the militias for the sake of productive jobs.
The US military presence is still needed in Iraq, until the Iraqi security force can stand on its own. The Ramadi model by the Marines should be successful, and it should be implemented throughout the country. This is all toward bringing peace, and to preventing a much larger war in the future. It will take time, but it will work. My opinion is not "pro-war," or "anti-war"--it is pro peace. So please stop calling me and those who agree with my point of view "Warmongers."

Kofi Annan's UN Legacy

2006-12-14T12:01:00.000-07:00

The outgoing Secretary General's legacy can be summed up in just a few words:
Darfur
Iran
Oil for Food
The Congo
Basically, he just proved how inneffective and corrupt the UN can be.

From Whence I Blog

2006-12-13T11:42:00.000-07:00

I use the public computer from the Old Colorado City library branch in Colorado Springs. This building was erected in 1905, under a grant from the Andrew Carnegie foundation, and is an official historical landmark.
I like to use the "sepia" feature on my camera when photographing older buildings, but I've included a full color shot from another angle.

Colorado Springs Sunset

2006-12-07T11:59:00.000-07:00

I am fascinated by the colors we get at sunset in Colorado. Even though I have lived here most of my life, I never get tired of it.
These pictures were taken on an HP M415 Photosmart Camera, and are Copyright 2006 by J Grady

Just So You Know

2006-12-05T11:49:00.000-07:00

The polls on the sidebar of both this blog and my other blog are not paid advertisments, nor are they meant to trap anybody into spam or unwanted advertisments. Please feel free to participate.

Responsibility?

2006-12-04T11:26:00.000-07:00

To the Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
You once again denied the Senate a chance for a yea or nay vote on the confirmation of John Bolton, even after he seems to have passed an audition of sorts. Are the Honorable Senators hoping that there will be someone nominated for the US Ambassador to the United Nations position who will be more effective and efficient? Or are you happy with a UN that won't take action unless there is something in it for the officials, such as the Iraq "Oil for Food" program? Perhaps, you only want to distance yourselves from what you perceive as a symbol of "the Rumsfield Era?"
After all, you are politicians, and a politician's job is to do what it takes to get elected at the next poll. To hell with national security, or solving international problems that affect the entire world. To hell with the starving and dying people in Darfur, if the plan for their redemption comes from the Bush Administration. Bush isn't popular, so you want to get as far away as possible from any association with the Executive Branch.
If you cannot find a person to fill the post who would be as effective as Bolton has been, will you be accountable for your actions? How heavily will the guilt of doing nothing to prevent the genocide of millions of people weigh on you? Do you have somebody in mind that can get UN action through the UN Security Council, concerning North Korea or Iran? Or are you prepared to accept the guilt of the annihilation of millions of Israelis, Lebanese, and Iraqi Sunni Muslims? When only people with six-figure incomes, like yours, can afford to operate a private vehicle, will you take responsibility for the energy shortage caused by the shutting down of traffic from the Persian Gulf?
Of course, John Bolton isn't single-handedly responsible for preventing all of that, but he has been successful in bringing about action by the UN in steps towards preventing such things from happening. That doesn't seem to matter now, but how will you feel when you don't get re-elected because your record shows that you are associated with the "Reid/Pelosi" era?

I Can't Respect Them, Because....

2006-11-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

It's really rather funny, but the laugh is on us. It must be true that politicians think we're stupid, and they are making it pretty clear. The Congressional candidates who stood for surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get elected. Ned Lamont, the Democratic Senatorial candidate from Connecticutt, ran on the platform that the US should withdraw its troops immediately. He was defeated by Senator Joseph Leiberman, who believes that the US should not leave until the Iraqi government is capable of providing security for its own country.
Patricia Mckinney, the Georgia Congresswoman who ran not only on the platform of surrender, but on impeachment of the President, didn't even make it past the primaries. Congressman Murtha, who has made his pro-surrender stance clear, ran for House Majority Leader, and was voted down by his Congressional peers in favor of Congressman Hoyer, who is against immediate withdrawal.
Now Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House elect, along with New York Congressman Charles Rangel, seem to be in denial that Abu Ayyou al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has recently claimed to have 16,000 armed troops in that country. They keep speaking of insurgents, without mentioning that there is a sworn enemy of the non-Muslim world with an active fighting force in Iraq. Pelosi, Rangel and others must be hoping that either we didn't hear or that we forgot about al-Masri's statements. They think we're stupid.
Nobody is saying "stay the course," in the sense that we keep doing what we have been doing. We all know that a change in tactics is necessary in Iraq in order for us to be able to withdraw from that country without surrendering to al Qaeda. Most Americans, over seventy percent in some national polls, know what a disaster it would be to leave an unstable Iraq behind. We know that another country in which al Qaeda could gain strength and develop weapons would lead to an even more dangerous war upon our own shores. We know that a failed government in Iraq would leave that country as a deadly battlefield for other countries in the Middle East. We know that anything we do that looks like surrender to the enemy will only strengthen the propaganda value and the incentive of that enemy. The leadership-elect of the new Congressional majority sees the last election as a mandate to withdraw immediately from Iraq--they are either ignoring the information that most of us know, or they think we're stupid.
General Abezaid, the commander of US forces in Iraq has called for more troops, but not to try to fight the insurgents and terrorist forces in that country, but to step up the training of the Iraqi forces. This is a good idea, if we provide the Iraqi security forces with more equipment and better weapons as well, and would hasten our departure from Iraq, without surrender. But there doesn't seem to be any dialogue along these lines among those who will constitute the new leadership in Congress. Their elitist attitude leads them to believe that they know more about military operations than the officers who are conducting the operations do. They think we're stupid.

Yes, This is Still My Blog

2006-11-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

And, just to prove it, I will post this cartoon by the Colorado Springs' political cartoonist, Chuck Asay:

Copyright 2006 Chuck Asay and The Colorado Springs Gazette

Speaking Out: An Interview with an American Muslim

2006-11-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons for this blog is to exercise freedom of speech, not just for the author of the blog and his views, but for others who do not have a voice in the media. All too often, the media covers the leaders of radical movements, and the leaders of State, which often leads to misunderstanding among the rest of us. The following interview is with a young woman named Tikyra "Tiki" Angelique, who is the daughter of an American military family and is a devout Muslim. She speaks with the ferver and convictoin of the Converted, and the earnestness of a fresh college education. Her political views do not reflect those of the author of this blog. In the interview, Tiki expresses her distrust of the current Administration and its policies, while at the same time clears up some questions we had about Islam and religious tolerance. This interview is presented in the interest of freedom of speech, and therefore is unedited, except to recover text from a formatting incompatibility. Remember--"Open debate makes our country great!"

Do non-Muslim people generally respect you for your religion?

Well, my experience has been that there are different kinds of Americans. There are those who are political
and either sympathize with Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims and understand our political views that differ
with what most of the media puts out, and there are Americans who go along with most of what the media
puts out against Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims.
I think most Americans are good hearted people who are being mislead and misused by an International war
criminal named Bush. I think the media has let down most Muslims and Jewish groups who disagree with America's and Israel's foreign policies; I believe the true job of a reporter is to impartially report both
sides of any issue and let people decide for themselves.
I see something new happening lately because of the military conflict in Iraq, more and more Americans
are asking why do they (different groups or countries in the world) hate us? And others are approaching me and other Muslims who wear religious clothing and ask us, what is your religion about?

What difficulties, if any, do you face being a Muslim woman in America?

That's funny because recently I got a job at McDonalds. I told them why we wear the scarf and even though
their corporate policy says they don't discriminate based on religion, they would not let me wear it. I did
what a lot of Muslim women facing this situation have done, I wore a baseball cap and put my hair up
under it instead. Most employers don't understand that the scarf is not a fashion statement saying that I am
a Muslim woma--it is part of our religion. I am hiding my beauty including my hair, that I will only show at home with my family and my future husband ( I am not married ).They also don't understand that our loose clothing is also about modesty, not revealing the shape of
your body, so it does not allow others to be sexually attracted to you based on your body or hair. The loose
clothing is also a dress code for Muslim men. They also have problems with employers who don't allow
having a long shirt outside the pants so the hip area is not easily revealed.

What do you see as the biggest misunderstanding of Islam in America?

People think blowing ourselves up is part of our religion, it isn't, LOL. I cherish being alive, thank you.
There is (a religious teaching) which says "If you know of an injustice, change it by your hand, if
you are prevented from doing that, speak out against it, if you can't do that, write against it, if you are not
allowed to do any of those things, you MUST, pray against it."
In other words GOD never told any of us to just do nothing about injustice, that is part of what JIHAD is, fighting against injustice. JIHAD can also be the inside your own self for things like your struggle with an addiction or sinful behavior, your JIHAD to make yourself not do it.

Do you come from an Islamic family, or did you convert to Islam?

I converted to Islam. It was easy for me to become Muslim because my family is Christian in name only. I respect the teachings of Jesus but technically they are not Christian because they do not believe He is
the Son of GOD, they love and revere him as a human prophet (peace be upon him), they do not believe he died for forgiveness of anyone's sins, they believe you can only be forgiven by asking GOD directly to
forgive you for your sins, and they do not believe He rose from the dead and became alive again. When they celebrate Christmas and Easter it is for celebrating a holiday, but, Christmas is important to my family
Jesus was a wonderful prophet (peace be upon him) whose wonderful message has taught all beings how to treat all people with peace and respect.

Many of us believe that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are different ways of worshiping the same God. We see religion as a personal attribute, meaning that the right way for a person to worship God is the way each person chooses. Can you see it that way?

We say there is no GOD except the ONE true GOD. To us, GOD, who we call Allah, is the same GOD
in all 3 religions. HE is the GOD worshiped by Abraham (the Jews), Jesus (the Christians) and
Mohammad (the Muslims), peace be upon all the prophets. We share the same history and prophets with a few exceptions, the Jews (with the exception of Jews for Jesus) do not accept Jesus as a prophet, peace be upon him, the Christians do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, peace be upon him, and we accept all the
prophets and believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the last prophet and messenger of GOD.

Muslims call Jews and Christians "the people of the book," which is written in the Quran.There are people
who know about GOD but who have consciously decided to live sinful lives. If a person does not know GOD but is a good person who lives a good life, he or she can go to heaven.

Many Islamic scholars and Imams have written that violence and murder of innocents is not a part of Islam. Do you agree?

I think that is one of the hardest questions to answer in any religion, when is killing a person self defense or of one's home or country murder, and when is it justified defense. Military chaplains run into this
dilemma when talking to conscientious objectors, but also when considering possible crimes
against humanity committed by soldiers.

Is there a clash between the cultured and the uncultured in Islam?
In the previous question, Tiki and I discussed the question of the fine line between religious duty and
Civil duty. There are some who feel as though their religion requires them to kill, and my understanding is that the "unclultured," those who use religion as an excuse to kill are misrepresenting their religion. This is a follow-up question addressing the extension of some religious ideas to government and law.

We talk about this all the time at the Mosque and at college. There are things that Islamic governments do that they say are dictated by Islam, but those laws violate Islam, they are doing things based on culture
of Islam. For example, when the Taliban closed all the schools for girls that was a violation of
Islamic law, because the Quran specifically states that women have a RIGHT to education. What the Taliban did was to act on it's own feeling about how to treat women based on the new culture they wanted to impose on Afghan women. I have even talked to men who were angry about what the Taliban did because what a lot of people don't realize is that many Muslim women including myself, have college degrees and honestly don't want us to help with the family's finances by working. Actually deciding to help pay the bills is a problem for me as a Muslim woman the Quran says I can keep my money for myself and not pay any bills, but most of us love our families and do contribute.

Can Islam thrive in a free society?

There are 12 million of us Muslims living in America and the number of new converts is increasing.
The irony of the soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is that, day after day they are living among
Muslims in middle east countries, they will bring back knowledge about Arab culture and Muslim religion.
Most of them will see us as human beings who just want to live our lives like you do.

Can a free, democratic society exist in the Islamic world?

To be honest, Israel is not a Democracy, it is a blatant open Apartheid, compare it to the "Democracy" of South Africa before Nelson Mandela became President. Why doesn't anyone ask questions about Zionist
terrorism against mostly unarmed Palestinian and Arab civilians in Palestine and the "occupied zone."
Why doesn't anyone question the violation of the rights of the people of Iraq when Bush
through a dictator put on them, named Bremmer (probably spelling his name wrong)?? What about the press Bush and his regime closed in Iraq because they wrote articles against Bush and his puppet
imposed on the Iraqi people? Is that the freedom of the press democracy is about?? What about
American soldiers who shot at Iraqi protestors is that the right to peaceful assembly Democracy
Does Abu Graib ring a bell??? How about when America tortured and killed prisoners there, their families visitation, denied the prisoners lawyers„ what kind of Democracy are you bringing to ignorant Arabs and Muslims??

Do you, personally, get involved in the political process in America?

It's really funny you asked, because I protested against Israel for 1 year in Lexington Massachusetts.
While Bush has been so busy destroying the Constitution and violating the most basic rights Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims who are American citizens have, that all he has to do is call me an enemy combatant and the power hungry idiots who support him would imprison me in Guantanamo Bay, without evidence, witnesses or charges, just like they did to Jose Padilla. He is an American citizen who was imprisoned there for 3 years. When the government finally admitted there was no evidence that he made or had anything to do with "dirty" bombs. He should have been released from Guantanamo prison, but he is still being held as the government creates new charges to keep him imprisoned to indefinitely await a military trial for a civilian. Talk about destroying the most inherent spirit of the law under which the nation
was founded, the right of anyone accused of a crime to have due process, and a "speedy" trial, to
avoid making the imprisonment while waiting for a trial, a punishment based solely on being accused not as a result of a guilty verdict. In other words if an innocent man is accused of a crime and the jury finds that he was "not guilty," then the time of imprisonment, his loss of freedom, damage to his and finances is in itself a punishment.

The following video is in response to a follow-up question by the author, as the question of Isreal came up during the interview, and we felt that this answer was thoughtful, thought-provoking, and interesting, as well as controversial.

Click here if you can't see the video.

Afterward--my thoughts:

It is interesting to note that Tiki's political views are very much in line with the opinion of many who are politically on the far left of the spectrum, yet Tiki could be considered a "conservative" Muslim, who believes, among other things, that it should be a punishable offense for a woman to smoke while with child. It is easy to see how policy missteps--particularly those made during the interim administration of Paul Bremmer--can become an indictment against the entire policy.
It should also be noted that, although Tikyra does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, she strongly believes in religious freedom, and recognizes and respects the religion of others.
In response to the political point of view expressed in this interview, all I can say is that our beliefs--that is the belief of each individual--is exactly that; an individual belief, and that belief is indelable, based upon each person's life experience and education. The result of the practice of many university level teachers to indoctrinate rather than educate is evident here, but I know that I can disagree and argue until I'm blue in the face, but it will not change Tiki's beliefs any more than she can change my beliefs. This is Tiki's opportunity to state her case, and I am grateful to her for granting this interview and allowing me permission to publish it on this blog. Comments and questions in the "comments" section here are solicited and encouraged, and Tikyra can be contacted here, via email.

Remembering Things for which to give Thanks

2006-11-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving--My health, for what it is, my friends and my family above all.
This post is written by my sister, in review of a Veteran's Day Parade which took place in Russleville, Arkansas. The theme of the parade this year was to honor the Viet Nam Veterans, of which my father is one. I think what she wrote here could remind many of us what we should be thankful for.

Wow, where to start. Obviously, thanks to EVERYONE involved in the parade and ceremony from Jim Bob Humphrey to the participants to the wonderful people lining the streets. To have people who don’t even know us thank my husband and my dad for serving their country always brings me to tears. This year, with the special salute to the Viet Nam Vets, the experience was more than I can explain but I’d like to try.

The war in Viet Nam is not just old history, it still has a very deep affect on the lives of so many people. Every one of the veterans who crossed that stage has so much they could tell us about their service. Even though there was only time for a smidgen of information, we didn’t even get that from a large number of them. My dad crossed the stage last night. What he didn’t say was that he flew Jolly Greens on his first tour in Viet Nam and worked directly with the South Vietnamese and Cambodian Air Forces on his second tour. The Jolly Green is the HH-3E search and rescue helicopter. To say that was a dangerous job is an understatement. But that’s only part of the story.

Thankfully, not every military person returning from Viet Nam was spit on but that doesn’t mean there was no stress. The entire military family was affected very deeply by the attitudes of the vocal minority and the silence or indifference of the rest of the civilian community. While Dads were away for training and the actual tours in Viet Nam, Moms were left at home with the kids and no extended family to help. Unlike now, there was very little support from the community and family members were not spared from the ignorance and hatred.

I was a senior in high school when Dad came home from his first tour and we moved to Colorado Springs. It was 1969. All seniors were required to take American Government and the war was a huge topic in class. Very quickly the class became divided with the military kids on one side of the room and the civilian kids on the other. No matter what the assignment, the military kids were given failing grades while the kids who took an anti-war stance were given straight A’s. We were harshly discriminated against just because we had parents who served in the military. Of course, the instructor was eventually reprimanded and the practice stopped but the damage was already done. I can’t imagine a teacher getting away with that kind of behavior now!

In Viet Nam, as in every war before and after, our troops did more than just their jobs. They got to know the people and did what they could to help on a personal level. There isn’t room here to describe everything our troops have done and are still doing for the people in whose countries they serve. They feed, clothe, and educate children and adults. They give hope and friendship; they make a difference. On Dad’s second tour, he had to deal with the fact that the US was pulling out, a death sentence to millions of men, women, and children. When he was leaving, a Cambodian officer thanked him for giving them a chance to fight for their country. They knew that when the U.S. left, they would be killed. Viet Nam wasn’t just political, it became personal.

Twenty five years after the US left Viet Nam, we were reminded again that it is still personal. When my son was preparing to start college, Dad attended the family orientation with us. A Vietnamese man was there with his daughter who would also be a freshman. He and Dad started talking and when he found out Dad had served in Viet Nam he thanked him for being there to help.

I was lucky, my dad came home. However, just a few years ago our paths crossed with another daughter who wasn’t so lucky . Her dad didn’t come home and she and her family didn’t know for sure what happened to him. She was trying to find out if anyone knew if he had died immediately or if he had been captured. As it happened, my dad was on the same mission. He was able to tell her that her father had died instantly and was not captured. After nearly 40 years, her family finally had answers. Don’t say they had "closure," there’s no such thing for anyone who has lost a loved one too soon, but at least they know he didn’t suffer.

I grew up with my father in the Air Force. He served in Korea and Viet Nam. The year he retired I married a career Air Force pilot. He served in Desert Storm. One of my sons served four years in the Navy Reserves and another is currently on active duty in the Navy. Being a military daughter, wife, and now mother isn’t easy but it helps when others appreciate what the men in my life have done and continue to do. It helps to live in a place where most people are supportive of the military and their families. The special recognition for Viet Nam vets was deeply moving. It helped more people than Mr. Humphrey had hoped to honor, I think it will help all of us heal. Hopefully, more of the personal stories can be told. Hopefully, and even more importantly, everyone will continue to support our troops AND their families. Again, thank you to everyone who took part in the parade and ceremony.

HH-3E Jolly Green Giant

The HH-3E helicopter is a modified version of the CH-3 transport helicopter. Fifty CH-3Es were converted to HH-3Es. These 50 CH-3Es were modified for combat rescue missions with armor, defensive armament, self-sealing fuel tanks, a rescue hoist, and in-flight refueling capability. It was developed for aircrew rescue missions deep into North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Many downed aircrews were rescued by Jolly Green Giants and their crews.

The HH-3E, which arrived in Vietnam in 1967, gave the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service (ARRS). a significant capability. Operating out of Udorn, Thailand, and Da Nang, South Vietnam, this helicopter could reach any point in North Vietnam and return to its home base. The HH-3E was also specifically modified for rescue operations, to include communications equipment that was compatible with all other Allied aircraft operating in Southeast Asia. Today, the HH-3E continues its proud heritage with ARRS, and is an integral part of the Military Airlift Command’s search and rescue mission.

The first non-stop trans-Atlantic flight by a helicopter was made by two Jolly Green Giants between May 30 and June 1, 1967, when they flew from New York City to the Paris Air Show. During that 4,270-mile flight, which took 30 hours and 46 minutes, each aircraft was aerially refueled nine times. The Jolly Green Giant flew 251 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm.

The HH-3E, the Jolly Green Giant, is a twin-engine, heavy-lift helicopter. It is used for search and recovery of personnel and aerospace hardware in support of global air and space operations. It is also used for combat and special operations. With the ability to operate from land or water, the Jolly Green Giant boasts combat rescue-related equipment including titanium armor plating, jettisonable external fuel tanks, internal self-sealing bladder-type fuel tanks under the cabin floor, a retractable in-flight refueling probe, two 7.62mm machine guns, a forest penetrator and a high speed rescue hoist with 240 feet of cable. The long-range helicopter has a hydraulically operated rear ramp for straight-in loading and a jettisonable sliding door on the starboard side at the front of the cabin. It has a gas turbine auxiliary power supply for independent field operations and built-in equipment for the removal and replacement of all major components in remote areas. The Jolly Green Giant has an automatic flight-control system, instrumentation for all-weather operation, and Doppler navigation equipment. Twin turboshaft engines are mounted side-by-side on top of the cabin, immediately forward of the main transmission. The aircraft also has a retractable tricycle-type landing gear.

The Defense Department's range support for Shuttle flights in the 1980s was extensive, and it applied to civilian as well as military missions. Military rescue forces were stationed at Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) sites in Africa and Spain. Shuttle contingency forces at Patrick AFB placed three military HH-3E helicopters (complete with aircrews, medical personnel and pararescue specialists) on alert at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) at KSC for every Shuttle mission. Forces from the Air Force Reserve, the National Guard, U.S. European Command, US Air Forces Europe, the Coast Guard and the Navy were positioned to support an astronaut bailout during the launch phase of each Shuttle mission.
Photo Credit: Global Security.org

Looking Ahead

2006-11-18T12:04:00.000-07:00

"Don't insult drunken sailors. They spend their own money, not yours and mine."--Steve Forbes, in response to the statement that Republicans have spent funds like drunken sailors.
I would like to see Steve Forbes run as the Libertarian candidate for President in 2008. It is time for him to do so, as people should be completely disenfranchised from the Demopublicans by then. I can't see the new majority in Congress as being any more competent than the old majority.
It doesn't seem to me as though the new Congressional majority faction is all that interested in "integrity, civility, and bi-partisanship." The new leadership designate has already indicated that indicated that it will not confirm John Bolton as Ambassedor to the United Nations. There is no reason for this except as a show to flex muscles, in retaliation against the former majority faction.
Success should not be a partisan issue. If the new majority is interested in leadership, it should be interested in what has been successful. Bolton has accomplished what no other official in his position has done before--get a viable UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. He also got the Security Council to agree on sanctions of North Korea, which also persuaded China to put pressure on that country to abandon its nuclear arms program. We obviously need someone like Bolton in that position to get the UN to take action in the Darfur region of Sudan, to get aid to the refugees and prevent human rights atrocities up to and including genocide.
But it doesn't seem to be in the interest of the Democratic faction to meet with success, especially if it was initiated by the Republican faction. They will make the same mistakes that the Republicans did--to do nothing that could be construed as agreement with the opposition. The only successes we can anticipate from the new Congress would be a minimum wage hike, with safeguards for small businesses, and a guest worker program dealing with undocumented immigrants. Otherwise, politics-as-usual will continue to ignore reality, and Congress will be just as ineffective as it was under Republican leadership. The only practical new direction "we, the People," can take is to reject the Demopublicans completely.

One Moment Please

2006-11-16T12:33:00.000-07:00

I'm really trying to make this page the way I want it. Blogflux has dissapeared, and since I'm changing my template, I've lost some of my toys. I only have about an hour a day to go online, so please stand by while I go through the tedious process of finding what I need.
Now for the mandantory cat photo.

Guess What I got for my Birthday!

2006-11-14T12:46:00.000-07:00

Well, one way to keep me from ranting is to give me a digital camera. A big surprise when I opened the package yesterday. Naturally I wanted to try everything at once. This is my first submission to You Tube, and it isn't good, but I think I'll get better with practice. Can't get worse:

What is Oversight?

2006-11-13T12:11:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi, along with several Democratic Party strategists and Congresspersons elect, believe that it is the job of the Legislative branch to conduct oversight of the Executve branch. Let's perform a quick check:

The eighteen specific and enumerated limited powers of Congress granted by the Constitution:

1. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States , but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
2. "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Congress may borrow money by issuing bonds or by other means."
3. " To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
4. "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Law on the subject of Bnruptcies throughout the United States."
5. "To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures."
6."To provide for the punishmentof counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States."
7. "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.
8. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
9. "To Constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."
10. "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies commited on the High Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
11."To declare War, grant Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
12. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years."
13. "To provide and maintain a Navy."
14. "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
15. "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
16. "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may e employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the disclipine prescribed byCongress."
17. "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
18. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Nope, don't see it.
There are three branches of the Federal Government, each with its own powers, rights and responsibilities. There is what is known as the "Separation of Powers," which prevents oversight of one branch over the other. Oversight is not part of the constitutional checks and balances.
The checks and balances are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. The Executive and the Judicial Branches can't write or enact legislation--that is the duty of the Legislative branch. Neither the Legislative, nor the Judicial Branch is enpowered to execute the laws. The Congress carries "into Execution" laws--that is it passes or refects the laws but does not have the means to enforce them. Nor may the Legislative or Judicial Branches dictate the movement of military troops. Congress has the duty to call the military into action, by enacting law to do so, but the actual deployment and movement of such troops is determined by the Executive Branch, with the President as Commander-in-Chief. Finally, It is the duty of the Judicial Branch, not of the other two branches of Federal government, to determine the constitutionality of an enacted and executed law. This, perhaps, is the most powerful of the separate powers, as it determines the limits to which the other two branches may act.
Oversight, as percieved by those in Congress, is a myth and a misconception. To interfere with the duties of the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch as proposed by the new Congressional leadership designate, through subpoenae and investigation, is to overstep the boundaries set by Separation of Powers. Congress may obtain what information it needs to perform its legislative duties, but it may not control or participate in the execution or enforcement of those laws it passes.

Veterans Day--Remember

2006-11-11T11:57:00.000-07:00

God Bless our troops and our Veterans of military service who have served our country for two-hundred and thirty years. The Duty and Sacrifice of over forty-million men and women who have served our country throughout our history should never be forgotten.
Please take the time to visit one or more of the following sites, honoring our service members who have put their lives on the line to defend our freedom.
Operation Home Front
The Great American Cookie Swap-- Say "thank-you" to our troops by sending them fresh, home-made cookies, just by logging on..
Say Thank-you--Send a post card of thanks to our troops, for free.

Realists will Negotiate

2006-11-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

Even before they have a chance to take their position of power the "Realists" in Washington--Dick Durbin, James Baker, Joe Biden, and Robert Gates--Al Qaeda in Iraq has issued a challenge. In a 22 minute audiotape released today, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Aboud Abu al-Masri, claimed that he had 12,000 armed fighters in Iraq, and that Al Qaeda wouldn't stop until they have "blown up the dirty black White House."
The Realists have a track record of negotiating with such people as al-Masri, and there is no doubt that they are now scrambling to find negotiating points with an organization whose status they have already changed from "enemy combatants" to "insurgents."
We can imagine they will negotiate a small portion of Iraq for al Qaeda, so they can develop technology and resources that will allow them to blow up the White House without causing too much collateral damage.
The sarcasm is intended, we have no respect for the Realists, whose positions in the past have sacrificed long term security for immediate and temporary solutions--a track record that has resulted in increasing threats to our national security in the long run. It was Realist philosophy that prevented the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 1991, which created resentment and hatred toward America and its allies among many in the Iraqi populace. That resentment would not have existed if the regime change had taken place at that time. Al Qaeda could be seen as a direct result of Realist policy, because tolerance of tyranny has given rise to such organizations, by creating hatred by the oppressed toward the country they see as facilitating that oppression.
We can only hope that the Realists don't negotiate away our future.

Reason to be Scared

2006-11-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

What do Fidel Castro, Yassir Arafat, Nelson Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Hosni Mubarak all have in common?
Yes, they are all tyrants who have oppressed the people of their respective countries. Yes, they have all imprisoned and/or murdered any who opposed their regimes. Yes, they have all incited anger against the United States. And, yes, they were all either emplaced or empowered by "realist" US foreign policy.
Politically speaking, the term "Realist" does not refer to one whose philosophy is based on reality. It often refers to one who cannot learn from past mistakes. "Realist" is often the term used for those who look for immediate results that aren't necessarily beneficial for the long-term security of the United States. Realists are most likely to believe in the myth of benevolent dictatorship, and that it is better to have a stable dictatorship than an unfriendly democracy. There is, in reality, no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship.
Realists initially saw Fidel Castro as a preferable alternative to the Batista regime of Cuba, and Castro was given military training in the United States and some technical and logistic support in his revolution to overthrow the blatantly criminal Batista. Arafat was seen by Realists as a partner for peace, even as he was imprisoning Palestinian dissidents, embezzling money meant for the aid of the Palestinian people, and enlisting suicide bombers to attack targets in Israel. The election to power of the militant terrorist group Hamas was a direct result of the backlash against Arafat and the US support of that criminal. American Realists overtly replaced the overthrown Chilean Socialist dictator Salvador Allende with the Nazi dictator Nelson Pinochet, who was a mass murderer and oppressive tyrant. This ultimately created backlash gave rise to such sworn enemies of the United States as Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. Manuel Noriega ruled Panama with an iron fist, terrorizing the population with midnight goon squad raids and imprisonment of those who opposed him, and using the Panama Canal as a blackmail issue against the rest of the world. Realists considered Noriega preferable to the threat of a Communist being elected into power, then overthrew his government, using the "war on drugs" as justification in doing so. This was yet another step in increasing anti-American sentiments in Central and South America. American Realists supported Saddam all the way up to his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, as a common enemy against the Islamist regime in Iran, and the previous government of Iraq, which was closely allied to the Soviet Union. Mubarak is still seen by Realists as a "moderate" ally of the US in the Middle and Near East, even as he suppresses freedom of speech among anti-Jihadis, refuses to hold a free election, relegates non-Muslims and secularists to Dhimmi status, and incites hatred toward Israel and the United States. In short, Realists ignore reality.
It is necessary to find a better way to win the war in Iraq, and some changes are preferable to what is happening now. However, political Realism is the practice of doing exactly what Ben Franklin was warning against, when he said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary security deserve neither."
James Baker, who is heading a bi-partisan study group that will present recommendations on the conduct of the war in Iraq is a Realist. Robert Gates, who will likely be confirmed as Secretary of Defense, is a member of the Baker group, and a Realist.
John Bolton, who has performed better than could be expected as US Ambassador to the United Nations, is not likely to be confirmed, in favor of placing an as yet unnamed Realist in that position. Condoleezza Rice, who believes--correctly, in my opinion--along with President Bush, that the spread of worldwide Democracy is in the best interest of the future of our national security, finds her job in jeopardy. Realists are now poised to dictate a foreign policy that has repeatedly failed in the past. That policy still creates a negative view of America by the rest of the world--it enhances the perception that we are arrogant and meddling.
Now I'm scared.

The "New Direction"

2006-11-08T12:06:00.000-07:00

It is with some relief that we report that neither the abandon Iraq faction nor the impeach Bush faction showed up for the elections Tuesday. The Libertarian candidates who, to my dismay, were the only ones representing these factions didn't even get enough votes to get honorable mention, which means, hopefully, the Libertarian Party will return to its principles, and develop its strengths. If this is the case, by 2008 voters who are disenfranchised by Demopublican politics-as-usual will lend unprecedented strength to the largest "third party" in the nation.
Meanwhile, we should not be surprised that the "Republican" faction has lost control of Congress. As has happened with any majority in Congress, they lost sight of their principles and became supportive of Big Government spending and special interests, producing a very negative reaction among the electorate. It is only the law of Karma coming into effect. Even those "Republicans" who have dutifully served their constituents and avoided the shortcomings of the party in general, were caught up in the backlash and lost their seats. Such is the way of politics.
We will not see a unified majority in the House of Representative--many of the members-elect are moderate to conservative in their political beliefs, and some are even former "Republicans" who tested the wind and switched to the "Democrat Party," which goes to show that politicians will do anything to get the easy money. Still, respected political analysts, such as Hal Bruno, point out that the "blue dog" conservative freshmen will not make that much of a difference in policy as "back benchers," at least not for the first two years.
Still, among the senior "Democratic" there is still no clear direction in several issues. The consensus view among them on Iraq, for instance, seems to indicate only that a new view of the situation must come into play. Among the myriad views, this "consensus" ranges from surrender to sending more troops. Among the in-between views are redeployment of troops to Afghanistan, involvement of neighboring states, such as Saudi Arabia, in finding a solution to the crisis, and manipulating the sovereign government of Iraq. We could see, therefore, such results as a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with Iraq as the battlefield, or a reinstatement of the military draft in the United States. The Democrats have not, so far, advocated leaving behind a failed or rogue state in Iraq, much to their credit. In fact, most of the Democrats have stated a desire to win in Iraq. This will undoubtedly disappoint many of the radical left who thought they were going to get something different.
Other results of the Democratic control of Congress will most likely be higher gasoline prices, as politicians attack "Big Oil," windfall profits for medical research companies, as Congress allocates taxpayers' money in the name of stem cell research, and loss of jobs and middle class family owned businesses as Congress raises the minimum wage. We sill also see a lot of unnecessary hearings, as Democrats attempt to rediscover that no one in the administration has done anything that is illegal. Oh, and Rumsfield will resign.
Still, we should not fall into a doom and gloom attitude, because it is still politics as usual, and we have survived that so far.
If we are to believe Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, the new direction will be one of "integrity, civility, and bi-partisanship." We'll believe that when we see it, if we can actually figure out what it really means.

We're All Going to Die!

2006-11-08T11:47:00.000-07:00

Well, perhaps some day. This kind of illustrates the general reaction to yesterday's electons.