Krista's Cogitations

Consistency: Worth Its Weight in Airspace

2010-07-20T14:17:00.000-06:00

Actually, it's worth even more than that. ;)

Recent news indicates that the FAA has declined Idaho's request for use of additional horizontal airspace for military training.

The rejection of that request makes it highly likely that neither Mountain Home AFB nor Gowen field will win the F-35 training mission that the State has been practically counting on.

It is also highly likely that the denial of this request is at least *a little* related to Idaho's rather blunt rejection of another federal agenda: the Obama health insurance mandate.

While I'm far from surprised that the federal government appears to be dealing less-equitably with a State who's leading the charge in a campaign to directly challenge their unconstitutional federal mandate, I'm not shedding any tears over the likely loss of eligibility for the F-35 mission.

When I decided to support Idaho's challenge, the F-35 campaign was in full force. It occurred to me then that there could (and probably would) be repercussions for the federal challenge; and that they could (and probably would) be exercised via the federal treats we were courting.

I anticipated a federal slap in return for smacking a federal hand, yet I fully supported - and still support - Idaho's challenge to Obamacare and everything that "health" "care" mandate entails.

Why complain? If we honestly believe in the principles we're defending, we should be willing to accept the consequences, just or not.

My Thoughts on the Arizona Kerfuffle

2010-05-12T21:29:00.004-06:00

[Updated 13May2010/0825: manually numbered points for ease of reference.]

I've been almost completely absent from the blogosphere lately, and for good reason. I'm focusing on my family and my locality. I still engage in real-life discussions and occasional Facebook debates, but the time it takes to narrow my thoughts to a single topic and compose any manner of coherent, complete commentary, let alone engage in further discussion, is something I don't have in any measurable quantity right now. There are far too many topics, and far too little dedicated "thinking time."

That said, I have been thinking about the recent Arizona legislation in regard to handling illegal immigration, (how could one possibly escape it?); and at a friend's request, here - in no particular order of either occurrence or significance - are my current thoughts on it:

1. It's being made into a much bigger deal than it is.

2. It's hard to sort through the propaganda to find the truth.

3. I'm glad I withheld judgment until I'd read it.

4. I'd prefer more narrowly-tailored language than "any lawful contact."

5. It's ridiculous that so many States, organizations, and individuals are condemning Arizona for enforcing laws to which they are subject, as well. Where was this widespread outrage when the Federal law was passed? And if they're so opposed to it, mightn't it be wise to work on the Federal law instead of "boycotting" a State?

6. We're being propagandized to hate each other based on false classifications, instead of listening to each other or having rational discussions.

7. Re: concerns of racial profiling: isn't some profiling necessary? Hunting down a lawbreaker without any sort of description would be pretty difficult.

8. The race-mongering critics seem concerned that all AZ police will immediately adopt SS practices. I'm not. Now, revoking Miranda rights, on the other hand... I have a BIG concern about SS practices stemming from that.

9. Much more than race, I've heard from people who actually live or lived in the affected area that there is a noticeable cultural/behavioral distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones.

10. If it were some racist campaign, they'd be rounding up everyone who might possibly be Hispanic and interrogating them. If it looks like that could happen, I'll fight it by speaking out. In the meantime, I'm vigilant, not overly concerned. That kind of evil actually has happened in this country before, and it was - oddly enough - during another era of rapid government expansion.

Some notes on immigration in general:

A) I really don't have an inherent problem with people who cross the border illegally to seek a better life for themselves and/or their families.

B) I have a major problem with gangs and crime crossing the border illegally. Also legally.

C) I think we should have a strong, secure border.

D) Perhaps a more effective approach than targeting who-knows-how-many individuals would be to turn off the faucet of employment for them.

E) Employing illegals creates a permanent under-class and is IMMORAL in every way. Make no mistake: It is modern slavery in the USA. Illegals are easily exploited and have no legal protections or recourse. Because of this unprotected status, it is immoral to encourage illegal immigration, whether by employment, benefits, or other means.

F) Illegal immigration, through that cheaply-paid underclass, has skewed our economy.

G) I believe in the rule of law, intelligently applied.

H) IMO, hard-working, otherwise-honest illegals may rightly be granted a streamlined way to citizenship once the border is secure.

I) It should be much less prohibitive to become a citizen, legally. Cost- and time-wise, it's a nightmare. When that is people's only option, it doesn't surprise me that so many seek the "undocumented" route.

That's it for now... feel free to leave feedback. :) I've been weighing this for a long time.

I Just Have to Say

2009-12-08T18:24:00.000-07:00

... that IF I HEAR our President complaining ONE MORE TIME about something he "inherited," I'm sending the White House a list of things MY CHILD is inheriting, thanks to them.

Don't You Feel Responsible?

2009-11-09T13:12:00.000-07:00

Image credit: Focus.aps.org

The Hate Crimes bill recently passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed it into law. I've blogged on the ridiculous nature of "hate crime" legislation before, but now a larger connection is materializing in my mind, bringing with it a fresh sense of urgency.

As the FCC is looking to the Net Neutrality Act to enlarge its dominion and neutralize the perceived threat posed by speech that is just too free, it's worth considering how hate crime legislation will interact with that speech crackdown, particularly in the style of attack widely favored by the mass media.

When a lunatic grabs a gun and shoots security guards in a museum, or a lunatic threatens a Federal facility or an abortion clinic, the mass media rush to find a way to blame (conservative-ish) rhetoric and/or a (conservative-ish) pundit for inciting the violence.

That agenda is hardly hidden. As just one example, in a recent interview with Glenn Beck, Katie Couric asked him whether he wouldn't feel responsible if someone who happened to listen to his show or attend a Tea Party, did something stupid and violent.

The aim of that propagandist line of questioning is to blame those advocating oppositional ideas for violence - even when those same advocates are actively discouraging violence.

How far will we go in blaming ideas and groups for the behavior of individuals?

If ideas considered political are squelched because of individual renegade behavior, how much longer will it be before we see an even broader application of the same line of thought that the mass media is using today?

Take, for example, the case of someone who is murdered solely because of their same-gender sexual orientation (the spark of the Hate Crimes bill). The criminal who killed that individual is not just guilty of murder, but legally of a hate crime. Odds are that the attacker attended a Christian denomination at some point in his life. Christian denominations generally preach that homosexual behavior is a sin. Don't you Christian preachers feel responsible for that attack? Don't you see how your judgmental doctrine of "sin" encourages attacks on homosexuals?

Aside from basic causal logic, the unsound line of "don't you feel responsible?" questioning necessarily dismisses that individuals are responsible for their own behavior.

Accountability for our choices is the primary check on individual behavior; and as the foil to statist control, it must be fought by those advocating greater government control of our lives.

Is the nefarious nature of the "don't you feel responsible?" approach clear yet? Particularly as our government is arguing for even greater control of our speech, I am concerned that not just freedom of speech, but the freedom of conscience that leads to accountability will be disdainfully swept aside in a frenzied media search to blame someone - anyone - but an individual for that individual's actions.

Collectivizing responsibility that belongs with an individual will eventually imprison us all.

Commie, Neo-con, Whatever.

2009-09-19T02:00:00.001-06:00

Liberal. Conservative.

Right-wing gun nut.

Hippie.

Tea Partier (at best).

Republican. Democrat. Extremist.

"One of those people."

Are we in third grade?

I know that treating people like individuals is just SO... HAAAAARD... but it's what we need.

Maybe I'm just a contrarian. (Category alert!) But topping off broad, stereotypical, media accusations and derision at political meetings, was a recent conversation sprinkled generously with "you're not one of those people, are you?"

What I said: "Yeah, actually, I am."

What I thought:

"What sort of things do you think you know about me because I hold a position similar to someone else you think you know? Do you know why I feel that way? Do you know how long I've felt that way? Do you know the extent of how I feel about it? NO.

You don't know, because you haven't asked. You assumed you knew all sorts of unflattering things about me when you found out one aspect of one view I had.

The evening's (lengthy) discussion ended well, but the wound is still a little raw, and I'm frustrated at how prevalent the name-calling and lumping-together seems to be today.

As often as it happens, one would think it must make life SO much better, being able to lump people into broad, devalued categories. But does it?

John Taylor Gatto, in a speech included in Dumbing Us Down, speaks of the dehumanizing design and effect of what he designates, "networks." Networks operate largely in opposition to communities, where people know and care about individuals as whole human beings. They include and use people for one particular facet or two of themselves, without regard for - and frequently to the detriment of - their other abilities and qualities that make them, them.

Last night's conversation drove home to me that, rather than a community, our entire society has become one big network, retaining only isolated pockets of community feeling.

Media of every stripe apply labels to individuals and proceed to draw their own conclusions about who these ridiculous people are.

Politicians blame problems on whatever "the other label" is, for their own gain.

And most dangerous of all, neighbors are afraid to talk to each other because of what they've heard about "those people" - or because they are one of "those people."

Labels segment our communities and drive us apart; and I don't believe for a second that it's either accidental or coincidental.

Our isolation from each other opens the door to power-hungry individuals. But instead of watching, in denial and ignorance of our compounded strength, as they impose their grand visions of slavery on us, let's talk to each other. Let's quit assuming things about others because they're "one of those people." Let's care about and work with each other as whole human beings.

When we do that, we'll find our communities again, and we'll be able to fix what's really ailing us: our disconnection.

"Finer Clay"

2009-08-24T21:16:00.007-06:00

photo credit: drwhimsy

Perhaps the most fundamental nonsense in collectivist dogma is that while all people are equal, some people are "more equal" than others.

The idea that - rather than all mankind being born with the same basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - some mankind have a) more rights than others and are thereby fit to rule over others; or b) fewer rights than others and are thereby undeserving of respect for their natural rights, is, in a word, demonic.

I'll focus on the former for now, as we see it so frequently in practice.

Those unprincipled individuals in elected office tend to take upon themselves a "creator" role - and the longer they spend in office, the greater grows that tendency and view of their own benevolence toward us, who, no longer their employers, have somehow become their wards.

They seem to think, as Bastiat put it, that:

...Heaven has bestowed upon certain men - governors and legislators - the exact opposite inclinations [from mankind in general], not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good. ...

Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

What arrogance! What unseemly opinion do these legislators hold of us, the Great Unwashed? Perhaps that we're too dangerous? Ignorant? Deceitful? And how dare we question their plans, let alone their intentions?

Again, we see this elitist attitude in practice all the time - and coming out ever more openly.

Imbuing fallible human beings - whether in government, media, or academia - with enough power to make or break all of our lives is the true danger.

Here's another famous gem from Bastiat:

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

Do we?

Thoughts on Allegations of Selfishness

2009-07-30T15:00:00.000-06:00

Image credit: Microsoft

One of the most effective tactics for making someone feel guilty (presuming they have an active conscience) is to accuse them of being selfish.

This works particularly well as a progressive closing salvo against free markets and low taxes... at least, it tends to hurt my feelings and shut me up, because "I'm not selfish" isn't much of an argument.

So I've been thinking about that accusation and honestly evaluating my motives for advocating lower taxation and less government restriction and regulation, and my thoughts have solidified into these grounds:

A healthy respect for each individual's natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Property (the fruits of our pursuit of happiness).

This respect leads me to the following conclusion:

I can support Person A as long as I wish. I may give them all of my property, or none, as I see fit. But I cannot take Person B's property for Person A. I cannot violate Person B's property rights in order to carry out my plans to help Person A.

Translating this to daily life: In my situation, I can afford to pay an additional mandatory fee on my power bill that pays for other people's bills. But I do not have the right to require that others do so, not only because I don't know whether they can afford it, but also because I have no right to their property. (Yes, that also means that - although the power company has done it - they were and are violating my property rights.)

The inverse is also true:

Person A may support me as long as they wish. They may give me all of their property, or none, as they see fit. But they cannot take Person B's property for me. No matter how brilliant Person A's scheme is, they may not allocate Person B's resources to it by force.

That I could - possibly, temporarily - benefit from this transaction does not make it right; I would no more advocate violating the rights of others, than I would my own.

It's time more people started to stand on principle instead of convenience. Going forward for myself, if standing on principle gets me accused of selfishness, I'll sleep just fine anyway.

Rights, Sociability, and Hate

2009-07-21T10:41:00.005-06:00

An article linked from Trying to Grok has opened up a whole (long) line of thinking for me. The statement that particularly caught my attention appeared in the author's original op-ed:

I want Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Marxists, Independents and anyone with a halfway decent idea that doesn't incorporate hate.

"That doesn't incorporate hate."

Here's part of my comment at TTG, as a springboard to further thought:

People can have hate, regardless of their political leanings.

But when it comes to ideology, which seems more "hateful":

a) Regardless of your feelings, you may not violate Person X's rights, nor may you join with others to do so in a collective fashion; or

b) Regardless of your feelings or actions, if you have a material or immaterial advantage over Person X, then Person X may individually or collectively violate your rights to eliminate that inequality ?

"Hate."

In this world, there are a number of things we can't force other people to do - eating, sleeping, and potty training among them.

We can't forcibly change someone's opinion, and we can't force others to feel love - or not to feel hate.

We have to figure those things out inside ourselves.

But as a species, that's been hard for us to accept. In our impatience to see a "change," governments throughout history have abused our power and theirs by hastening to "take action," with some actions considered more "civilized" than others. However, government, as an external force, can only address behavior, in a misguided effort to change what's *inside* of us.

Frederic Bastiat had this to say about liberty of thought and association, and forcing social interaction where it has not developed naturally:

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

We can't force social interaction - or social action - without violating our more fundamental rights.

I'd add that protecting particular classes of people serves to perpetuate the idea that there *are* particular classes of people.

The most recent example is all the "hate crime" legislation flying around the Senate: S.909, becoming one of five hate-crime-related amendments to the DOD authorization bill. With the latest amendment, military members would become a protected class, as well.

Are all occupations to be equally protected?

Is the nonsense of hate crime legislation evident yet?

We'll just have to wait for people to learn to be nice on their own, and settle for protecting each other equally before the law, in the meantime.

Effecting change will come as we try to be examples of love; and as we THINK, in order to counter the demonic, intellectually-deadening idea that "hate" is the exclusive domain of any particular party.

---Quote source: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat, translated by Dean Russell, of The Foundation for Economic Education, pub. 1977, p. 25. (Also found here.)

While We're Squabbling over BIG Issues...

2009-07-13T16:28:00.003-06:00

We're being disarmed.

Anything fishy about that?

I was listening to a local radio host today, and he just said the same things - using almost exactly the same words - as I did a few minutes ago.

Specifically, "With all of our other issues, govt focus on further disarming citizens ('switchblade' legislation) is AWFULLY fishy..."

I just thought that was interesting... and worth pointing out publicly. Your thoughts?

NEA on Education - MUST SEE VIDEO

2009-07-11T23:24:00.003-06:00

Astounding. You MUST see this.
(I'm even more amazed that it survived on tape!)

via this tweet from @cboyack - highly recommend following him; he really does find some of the coolest stuff!

What the US Should be Saying about the Environment

2009-07-09T14:41:00.008-06:00

Currently, our President is working with other leaders of nations around the world, discussing what we can commit ourselves to, to help the environment.

Here's some of what "we" are saying to the world, and what the world is saying to us:

"The United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities," Obama said. "Let me be clear, those days are over." [Calling us irresponsible and apologizing to the rest of the world for our citizens' exceptional horrible-ness. Maybe we should all have government-issued flails for when someone, somewhere, is upset with us. Oops, strike that - I'm afraid they'll get a new spending bill authorized...]
"We have agreed for the first time that average global temperatures must rise by no more than 2C." -Gordon Brown [Did you hear that, sun? No more than TWO DEGREES!!!]
"[T]he G8 needed to sound a second wake-up call on the world economy." [No comment necessary.]
"Neither the wealthy nor the countries in search of their own footing think the other side is doing enough. And only when the pollution emitters work together on a binding plan will a climate strategy work, experts say." [Sounds like a winning strategy to me - just don't do anything until we ALL agree! *wink*]

Here's what we SHOULD be saying, as a nation:

We love people.
We love the planet.
We should try to be responsible human beings.
NOW, keeping in mind that:
1. the science is NOT settled; the dissenting voices are simply being suppressed (h/t: Jennifer);
2. we all have different definitions of "fair" rules (and we don't trust some of you anyway); and
3. we are a sovereign nation, much like yourselves (before so many of you enslaved your citizens to that horrid European Union);
... here are our remaining points:
We're not apologizing for our existence.
We do not need your seal of approval, nor your permission to conduct US business on US soil.
We ARE NOT subject to any other organization; in fact, listen up, UN: we quit!
We'll do our own thing to be responsible, and allow you the same privilege.

In essence: "Don't tell us what to do, and we'll return the favor."

Now, let's get started on that not-telling other countries what to do... *cough*Honduras*cough*

What "The Science" Says

2009-07-06T11:40:00.005-06:00

Sarah over at Trying to Grok has a great post up about UN climate projections.

Specifically, how they're not ... er ... CORRECT.

As I've said before, good thing we're not actually basing policy on this, right? *wink* Maybe I should make that an acronym... GTWNABPOTR?

Anyway, please check it out here - and put another arrow in your quiver of what I'd call, "Reasons the UN Shouldn't Be Making Our Decisions."

Understanding Risk and Revolution

2009-06-24T08:59:00.002-06:00

image credit: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wcarr1/Lossing1/Chap35.html

It's a nice get-together with my in-laws on Father's Day.

The kids float in and out of adult conversations, wanting snuggles here and owie-mending there... when this particular adult conversation turns to Iran and the upheaval it is experiencing.

We discuss some of the complexities and conflicts most recently in the news, and I become particularly animated as I recount the rapid succession of tweets from a day prior, about the rooftop Allahu Akbar chants escalating into shouting that shook the city.

That catches my eight-year-old nephew's attention.

With fascination and callousness borne of near-complete lack of understanding, typical for his age, he asks, "Why don't the [Basij & co.] just shoot 'em?"

"Sometimes they do."

His face falls.

"These people," I continue, "are risking their lives to get up on their rooftops and shout because they believe so strongly in what they're doing."

It's quiet for a moment, and then the conversation moves appropriately in a different direction.

***
It was quite a sobering talk for me, too - having this risk illustrated so graphically.

In today's society, it is too easy to forget the real risk our own founders took in banding together and rebelling against the government they had. It wasn't clean and peachy: slander at least, hanging, burning, drawing-and-quartering...

And it makes me think.

What am *I* willing to stand up for?

What am *I* willing to risk?

I'm at least willing to put my own name out there.

It's Krista.

Good News from Kyrgyzstan

2009-06-23T09:15:00.005-06:00

Following up on this post: The US and Kyrgyzstan have finally agreed to a deal that will allow the US to continue using their Kyrgyz air base.

That's good news on the Afghanistan war front, since the base serves as a main supply line for those efforts. As long as we're there, we'd better darn well be able to get supplies to our troops.

Which Apartment?

2009-06-01T11:38:00.002-06:00

Saw this TwitPic & HAD to share - go check it out! :-)

Let's Socialize!

2009-05-12T14:06:00.004-06:00

Check out this post I found a hop, skip, and a jump away from a tweet - a fun thought on homeschooling!

[In other news, I've been lost in real-life obligations lately and haven't been able to think of anything new to add to socio-political discussion, LOL... if it's not patently obvious yet... my apologies!]

We Must Not Become France

2009-04-23T11:18:00.005-06:00

From Drudge today: French strikes are getting ugly.

Most tragic quote:

“The Government is losing control,” he said. “So now is the moment to push back the capitalist logic which has crept into the company.”

It's mob rule all over again...

Understanding the parallels between the French Revolution(s) - where demagogues used ill-educated, class-envy-inspired mobs (who were actually oppressed, but wanted vengeance rather than justice) to advance their evil agendas - and the current state of affairs in the USA, if that article doesn't scare the livin' daylights out of you, I don't know what will.

We can see where they ended up: barely functional and fighting amongst themselves for a century and a half now.

Those demagogues were using the same arguments we hear today - you could directly replace so much campaign rhetoric with the speeches from those looters. Those arguments are evil, and they're persuasive; and we need to stand against the perversion of legitimate law and government by standing for the proper role of law and government.

-Recommended reading:
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
The Proper Role of Government, by Ezra Taft Benson
Frederic Bastiat: A Man Alone, by George Charles Roche

Thank You, Pres. Obama!

2009-04-13T11:28:00.003-06:00

I was anxiously awaiting the headline indicating the captain's rescue from the sea pirates... and I was overjoyed to see it.

Glenn Beck pointed out this morning - and I agree - that finally, President Obama, here's something we can totally support you on - rescuing US citizens being held hostage.

Awesome.

Thank you, sincerely, Mr. President.

If your hesitation was due to uncertainty on popular support for instant action, please know that even Congressmen from New Jersey feel we have the right to defend our citizens abroad.

Thank you again, and let's keep working together on this one. (h/t: Drudge)

Must Be New Math...

2009-04-03T12:47:00.004-06:00

90 = 17 now, right?

Those are the stated percentage and the actual percentage, respectively, of US weapons found in Mexico.

When I was in school, 90 > 17... in fact, 90 was more than five times 17.

But does the truth actually matter to an anti-gun lobby? Nope. The Big Story is that we need to take guns away from law-abiding citizens because someone, somewhere, is selling them under the table to criminal elements in a failed state.

Must be the same new math that Tim Geithner uses on his taxes.

A GREAT Question

2009-03-31T23:02:00.010-06:00

I spend a lot of time pointing out what's wrong with what's going on.

I don't generally spend a lot of time explaining the background of my thoughts, or even necessarily the full context.

But a recent commenter, "It's Just Me," said this in part of her comment on my last post:

I would love to hear what you would recommend to fix this mess...

And you know, I think having to put my thoughts into words is a great idea. So here's my reply:

Like she said in her comment, there's quite a bit of blame to go around - including every person who keeps voting the corrupt ones back into office. Fire every single career Congressman and Senator - and why allow two terms? Make it one! Minimize the potential for damage, and maximize opportunity and participation.

Dismiss every single "aye" voter on the Bailout or the nationalization that's happened since. Also every cabinet member and nominee who thinks any law supersedes the Constitution or who can't figure out how to file their taxes. Also every single individual ANYWHERE in government who does not acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of our land. I mean, you swore an OATH, people!!!

I have ideas for appropriate "corrective action," starting with expulsion and a swift kick in the rear, or wherever; but since that last part would constitute assault, I'll have to content myself with expulsion from anything related to government and being stripped of voting privileges.

My idea for fixing the mess is to LET. IT. FAIL.

Let the banks fail.

Let the businesses fail.

In other words, let it reset. Get us back to a REAL market instead of a paper one.

Let the bureaucracy fail. Get us back to a REAL understanding of the Constitution, because its founding principles and balances will save us.

Let people fall into each other's arms - REAL arms - instead of discouraging private charitable donations in order to force the helpless into the illusory, seductive, suffocating embrace of "government charity."

Let the market system - which has been squeezed into the ever-tighter corset of federal manipulation since the 1910s - breathe. That's the ONLY way that it will truly correct, and the BEST way that we can keep at least some of our personal and local resources intact for recovery.

Let people keep what they produce instead of confiscating it toward greater bureaucratic waste. Let them put it to use in their lives to help themselves and their neighbors get through this.

Stop spending money we don't have.

Stop devaluing our currency (not that the damage is reversible).

Stop subjugating future generations to foreign fuel and financiers.

Those are a few ideas off the top of my head for how to start to fix things. I don't think most people want to hear those ideas, though, which is why they voted for people who promised to "help" them instead.

Together, though, we CAN get through this failing mess. I can help those around me, and others can help those around them.

But it's going to be a heck of a lot harder if our increasingly ravenous government keeps reinforcing a culture of dependency by confiscating more of our resources and putting a lien on our future.

Not Exactly, President.

2009-03-30T11:46:00.004-06:00

Here's a snippet from Obama's speech about taking over GM (h/t: Drudge):

Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.

No, WE TAXPAYERS have NOT put up our hard-earned money.

You, working with a corrupt Congress, IGNORED OUR CALLS AND LETTERS OF PROTEST and put it up FOR US. And for our children. And for their children.

Against our wishes.

Quit making this sound like consensual nationalization, Mr. President. It isn't.

Beware of Mob Rule updated again

2009-03-25T19:20:00.005-06:00

There's a very long story behind the thought, but it boils down to this:

Since we can't afford to spend all our time defending our lives and our property from ne'er-do-wells, we have a government set up to protect our essential rights.

There's a fine line between too much federal power and too little; to see that, just look at the US Constitution - it wasn't the first draft of government after the American colonists had thrown off monarchy. They instinctively swung (and erred) on the side of too little government - one that was not sufficiently strong to protect their freedom and other rights.

Our Constitution navigates that fine line by providing for a government strong enough to protect rights while not strong enough - properly executed - to usurp and abuse them. That's why it's so important, so revolutionary, and so worthy of our respect and protection.

So...

As we are doing what we can to preserve that delicate balancing act and keep our government from growing too powerful, we MUST be wary of the opposite temptation: mob rule.

It's happening in the UK.

It's happening in the US. Here, here, and here.

[Update 26Mar2009/11:56 - It's also happening in France! Boss-napping, h/t: Glenn Beck.]
[Update 30Mar2009/15:37 - Here's an interview about the wonders of past mob-ruled systems.]

We need to be careful how far we let our anger take us. Protest if you feel it is appropriate; demonstrate if you feel it is necessary; but be very, very careful of groupthink.

Anger and frustration do not justify threats, and in the meantime, they will only empower what we're struggling to fight.

Eloquence at Work - and Not Just Because He's English

2009-03-25T11:56:00.005-06:00

Just replace any references to Gordon Brown with "Pres. Obama and the Executive branch," "Members of Congress, the Legislative branch," or "Corporate Dependents, the Leeches;" and you'll have what a lot of us would love to say: (h/t: Connor Boyack)

It's a beautiful thing.

Erm, About Those CFLs...

2009-03-18T17:44:00.001-06:00

You remember - the toxic ones?

Well, it turns out that - on top of everything else - they're bad for your skin. (Their new selling point: "Not just killing your mood anymore!")

Here's a snippet:

Particularly for people with skin conditions such as lupus, eczema and psoriasis, it causes a lot of problem with burning.

I just have to say, no disrespect intended to people with skin conditions, but this is SO illustrative of big-government "solutions." (And yes, before the "it was GE, not the government!!!" cries start, GE is perhaps the most pervasive, behind-the-scenes-successful special corporate-machinery interest group in the country; who *makes* the light bulbs we all have to buy? And as a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, they're far from apolitical.)

At any rate, I have sensitive skin. Hubby's skin is even more sensitive. And Kiddo's skin is uber-pale and uber-sensitive; he also has mild eczema, the poor little guy.

So... in the interest of saving everyone money in our upcoming utilitarian universal healthcare model (not to be confused with any Unitarian Universalist churches), I'm refusing to use CFLs.

Sure, I was already refusing, but now I have a legitimate health concern. And a ready-made excuse as soon as waivers are available.

I'll even fill it out in triplicate.

Presidential Pretention

2009-03-17T11:05:00.004-06:00

According to this Military.com article, Obama is "considering deploying National Guard troops to the border."

Huh.

He "doesn't want to 'militarize' the border," BUT...

Well, what would you call it when you have military forces on the border? What's wrong with "militarizing" it?

I'm all for militarizing the border to keep cartel violence out, (though preferably by arming citizens), but it seems to me that the President is missing a step in the chain of command.

He doesn't order Guard troops anywhere.

He asks the governor of a state if he (or she) would be willing to allow the feds to temporarily mobilize some of that state's Guard forces.

As a Guard family, (and there's a big reason I like being state-level), I find this mingling of federal and state powers rather troubling - especially given the Arizona's governor's angling to make sure her state's Guard is mobilized under federal authority.

Am I just way off-base here? Does this happen all the time? Or am I right to be bothered by it?

Well-taken?

2009-03-17T00:37:00.010-06:00

"Well taken."

That's the term that, I believe, describes whether a legislator agrees with a statement. (I'd say, "acknowledges the validity of a statement," but, Heaven help us, that would incriminate a majority of Senators!)

At any rate, this term has been used recently in the Senate over the assertion that what they did in granting Washington, DC its own House representation was unconstitutional. Here's the run-down:

2/25/2009:: Point of order that the measure violates the Constitution raised in Senate.

...

2/25/2009:: By a decision of the Senate the point of order that the measure violates the Constitution was not well taken by Yea-Nay Vote. 36 - 62. Record Vote Number: 67.

In other words, they didn't want to hear it.

What this tells me is that 36 Senators can read, and 62 can't.

There's also a remote possibility that the suggestion actually stung what's left of 62 itty-bitty consciences. (Sen. Hatch, you're a bought man.)

The phrase they use is "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," yadda, yadda, let's give DC a voting seat in the House.

The problem with that phrase is that the "law" they're "notwithstanding"-ing is the United States Constitution.

And when the text of the Constitution is "not well taken," the People just get taken.

---
Now for some late-night editorializing: if we had to choose anywhere in the country to have a vote in Congress, that currently doesn't, would DC really be our choice? I mean, I think American Samoa would be a much better choice, provided we could get the chiefs to consent to mingle with Congress; and as long as we're disregarding Constitutional requirements, why not allow US nationals to serve as Representatives? So discriminatory! Plus, it sounds a bit elitist to me to say that DC can vote in the House, but it's not going to be voting in the Senate... why not, Senators???

Our Immoral Obligation

2009-03-16T12:14:00.005-06:00

... immoral both inherently and in its effect on future generations.

I'm talking about the devaluation of our currency.

There's a great video from Glenn Beck about it - here.

This currency devaluation and its consequences are why it's our moral obligation to do what we can to stop what the oligarchs subverting our constitutional government (the Fed, Congress, the White House) are doing.

An immoral act does not become moral simply by acting through a government instead of individually.

In fact, I'd venture to state that the act has greater odds of becoming immoral that way.

Thought for the Day

2009-03-12T00:07:00.002-06:00

As we watch things happen so rapidly right now - whatever our feelings on those things - we should write down what we're thinking & feeling.

Someday somebody might care. :-)

As He Signs, a Warning

2009-03-11T11:47:00.004-06:00

Pres. Obama will sign that Omnibus spending bill.

Here's a very interesting set of sentences from that article:

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.

"More far-reaching change?"

That's a pretty clear statement. I wonder how many will be able to hear it for its promise; if we've been paying attention, we should have a pretty good idea of what he's planning a more far-reaching "departure" from.

Bastiat Quote: Ignorance Leads to Greater Taxation

2009-03-10T01:05:00.005-06:00

Particularly pertinent, given the votes before Congress right now:

"In a country where no law may be voted and no tax may be levied save with the consent of those whom the law is to govern and upon whom the tax is to fall, the public can be robbed only if it is first deceived.

Our ignorance is the raw material of every extortion that is practiced upon us, and we may be certain beforehand that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder.

My friends, when you detect a sophism in a petition, get a good grip on your wallet, for you may be sure that this is what the petitioners are aiming at." (quoted in Frederic Bastiat: A Man Alone)

... Discuss, if you feel so inclined. :-)

Also, what are your thoughts on having a regular quote "feature" here?

Good, Plain Talk

2009-03-03T11:07:00.004-07:00

This video touches a lot of subjects; the part I find essential is the socialism part.

The more eyes we open to the evils of socialism, the better off we will be.

Where talking heads have stereotyped anyone with a conservative viewpoint (and Rush Limbaugh, specifically) as being "Hitler," they're becoming Hitler. This guy loses me around 6:45, but pointing out political, societal hypocrisy and misdirection as directly as he does is very gutsy. (huuuuuge h/t: Alfonzo Rachel at Big Hollywood)

Scary Point #3 from Obama's Address: Energy Fraud

2009-02-25T12:10:00.006-07:00

Using China as a model of energy independence.

After he brought out China as a great example of energy independence, I started thinking he was certifiably insane. To wit:

Exhibit 1: China dumps toxic waste right into rivers without pretense and has no compunction about factories putting out any sort of emissions, leaded toys, and poison food. Well, I guess if he's talking about deregulation, I'm for it... but I'd still prefer to see at least a modicum of responsibility.

Exhibit 2: China is generally DIRT POOR. Not hardly a model of prosperity.

Exhibit 3: China is "energy independent?" Maybe because most of them barely have running water and electricity. I prefer refrigeration, air conditioning in the summer, and heat in the winter, thankyouverymuch. And I'd prefer NOT to control our consumption through infanticide.

Exhibit 4: Talking about improving the energy infrastructure and then "making our homes energy-efficient" - how? With poison light bulbs that don't last any longer than traditional, non-toxic ones and provide less quality light?

Hmm... let's move on to the last exhibit, since none of these sound like a "model" so far.

Exhibit 5: OK, maybe this is what he's talking about: Cap & Trade. It's a total scam that enriches the already-wealthy power brokers within the establishment. (*cough*AlGore*cough*GE*cough*) But as far as enriching party men and power players just like Communist China, I think he's hit that nail right on the head.

Scary Point #2 from Obama's Address: People as a Commodity of the State

2009-02-25T10:47:00.006-07:00

Problematic Part 1: How many times Obama said things like "I will not allow," "we will not allow," and "not an option."

Problematic Part 2: The Federal government taking responsibility for citizens' welfare and education "from birth..."

Problematic Part 3: "Put our people back to work" and "ways to keep our people healthy"

The phrase "our people" isn't inherently scary, but when it's used in a context of ownership and supervised or "allowed" activity, it is.

I am a person.

I am not a pet, to be "kept healthy."

I am not a commodity, to be "put to work" as another self-important mortal decides.

And MY CHILD is a person.

MY CHILD is neither the PET nor the PROPERTY of the Federal government.

The only interest they should have in my child "from birth" is that he is protected from those who seek to harm him. And that responsibility is first MINE. The only role the government has is as I grant them.

The President didn't exactly come right out and say it, but his perspective claiming direct governmental responsibility for managing its citizens' life paths recurred throughout his speech; and it was all too evident in his choice of words and his dictation of what he will and will not "allow" or allow to be "an option."

That perspective, particularly in a position of power, is a direct threat to my family and my freedom.

We are NOT pets.

Neither are we a commodity to be employed at the government's will or by its good grace.

The government has no authority to direct my life, or anyone else's, in the interest of "our common prosperity."

Scary Point #1 from Obama's Address: Education

2009-02-25T10:30:00.005-07:00

"Encouraged" post-secondary education and "dropping out of high school is no longer an option."

This worries me on several fronts. First, "encouraged" from a socialist means "required." That's mandatory education - not just mandated by the States, but mandated at the Federal level.

That's bad, just on principle.

Additionally, that "no longer an option" point constitutes such an egregious violation of:

The idea that we are free to pursue our happiness, however counterproductive or irrational our thoughts may be, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights.
Parental rights. How far will this "not an option" extend? Will I - or any parent - retain the right to "drop my child out" of public education by educating them at home? Sure, Obama paid lip service to parental rights later, but he didn't reconcile that with his grand vision of mandatory education duration and content.

Just a few thoughts... I'm trying to break this down into a series so that I (and the discussion) can focus on specific topics.

Moveon.org: Tool of Oppression

2009-02-24T14:05:00.013-07:00

Wow. Walt Minnick, "the other Representative" from Idaho (meaning: the Representative from not my district, but Idaho's other Congressional district; although I put it in quotes because he's also the only one of four Federal representatives who ran on a Democratic ticket, and I know some people get really bugged by that, LOL...), voted against Obama's fascist Stimulus bill.

Yes, he disagreed with the Democratic Party "leadership" on a bill. (He didn't even disagree with the basic - I believe, flawed - principle behind it, but rather its untargeted implementation.)

How DARE he, right?!?!

Walt Minnick is doing a great job upholding responsible principles in an oppressive, establishment-oriented environment. For two big votes now. That's hard. And it's even harder for someone who happens to have a "(D)" by his name because of the political machine in Washington.

But he doesn't toe The Party Line! Therefore, the hard left has targeted him. I'm not sure how far the machinery ties extend, (although I have a hypothesis), but moveon.org has gone after this good, decent, responsible man simply for not falling in line with the other party zombies.

Exhibit 1: This ad, which has been all over Facebook for DAYS now:

Exhibit 2: This Google sponsored ad in my Gmail account.

It might be hard to read, and I tried to make it a little bigger so you'd be able to read it, but it says the same thing: "Minnick voted no on jobs." But this time, it tells who sponsored it: moveon.org.

Oh, outrage! (I'd say "oh, joy," but I try to avoid sarcasm.) A dishonest, irrational organization is targeting "not-my" representative because he's voted his constituency and his conscience.

Fortunately, everyone I've talked to is thrilled with him. But we need to gear up to support him against the establishment machinery, because he's on moveon.org's radar now.

He's not a Party Man.

He's not a communist.

He's not a group "conservative," either.

He's independently-minded.

He's exactly the type of representative we need in our Capitol.

And moveon.org is the enforcer of thoughtcrime, of party-man socialist conformance - 'free thought be banned.'

(No, I'm not a prude: I would say "damned" in this highly-appropriate instance, but I figured my play on it fits even better.)

Another Good Read (fixed links)

2009-02-23T13:46:00.005-07:00

Club for Growth's Andrew Roth has a fun article up about the new Fox series Lie to Me. I like it, too, and one of the things I appreciate about it is that while it deals with current events, issues, politics, etc., it seems pretty even-handed...

Anyway, here's a snippet:

Do politicians unconsciously nuance their speechs so that they don't outwardly lie, but merely bend the truth to appease their own senses of guilt? If so, can that be detected?

More here...

This is Interesting

2009-02-19T12:30:00.005-07:00

A Trading Floor revolt?

It's about 5 minutes long, but it certainly is interesting to see someone in business openly voice concern about what "our" government is doing... almost as interesting as seeing the reactions of the anchors!

Oh - forgot: h/t Drudge

Update: Finally, an embeddable YouTube video (h/t: Code Monkey):

Feeling a Little Overwhelmed at the Moment

2009-02-18T13:21:00.005-07:00

... but here are a few quick links (first two h/t Drudge):

Future freedom of speech?

Oh, geez - socialism is contagious. Almost like the Plague*, I'd say - spread by parasites and rodents. (OK, that's going to tick someone off, and I'm too busy and tired to care about revising it right now...)

And gall, foreclosing on an Extreme Makeover house...

But on the bright side, I [heart] Bobby Jindal.

*Update: who knew we're actually losing track of plague mice??? LOL! I'm dyin' here...

Friday the 13th

2009-02-13T22:33:00.002-07:00

Nope, no need to flee Freddy.

Congress is the group we need to be worried about.

They just passed a massive "spending" bill, sight-unseen.

Our children's children are going to be paying for this, and we don't even know what "this" IS.

But the lobbyists do.

Broken open-viewing promises, broken promises of honesty and ethical dealings... not that I'm surprised at the politics-as-usual scheming, but I'm still very, very angry about it.

"Wresting the economy out of recession?" No.

Wresting control of the government from the people.

Look! It's a Spine!!!

2009-02-12T14:33:00.005-07:00

Senator Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as Pres. Obama's nominee for Secretary of Commerce. (My first thought was, "what? More tax problems?" But that wasn't it.)

To quote:

...on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. ... We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Wow. I have to wonder how much of a shock these latest actions were to him, (since it's not like Obama was playing a conservative during the election), but I do appreciate his willingness to resign rather than play the key role in creating and implementing policies that will further undercut the foundation of commerce in this country.

This is getting interesting...

[Update: Source at Yahoo! News.]

Commie Cowards

2009-02-10T23:47:00.009-07:00

The Senate has passed their version of the "stimulus" bill.

Open Letter to Senators and Representatives:

I hold each one of you elitist cowards who voted, "aye," individually accountable to me for the loss of my family's freedoms.

I hold each one of you "aye" votes accountable to me for sabotaging my country's prosperity.

And I hold each of you "ayes" accountable to me for your utter contempt and disregard for the Constitutional restraint of government delivered us by our Founders, replacing it with a fascist corporate oligarchy.

I just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
A US Citizen

We Are NOT All Socialists.

2009-02-10T11:24:00.015-07:00

Excuse me, Newsweek, but I have to disagree.

I try very hard to remain somewhat level-headed on this blog, but now is not a time for calm.

"We" are NOT all socialists.

In fact, I not only take that as a slur - I take it as a personal threat.

"We" NOTHING!!!

I am not, never have been, and NEVER WILL BE a SOCIALIST. I have too much respect and appreciation for the true government our founders set up!

NEVER will I surrender the innate gifts - freedom and accountability - that our founders were guided by GOD to protect with a new form of government.

A form of government that has been co-opted and corrupted by its enemies.

The people pushing this agenda aren't even socialists anymore - they're full-out communists. Government seeks to tell us everything we can and can't do: what we can and can't say, what medical care we may receive, how warm or cool we can keep our houses, how much we can drive, how much money we're allowed to make... all to make sure that THEY ALONE have the power! While they spew their lies and fly their jets to self-congratulatory banquets! Bunch of evil, EVIL hypocrites!!! Using orchestrated class warfare to finally separate us into a class of mediocres and their RULERS.

(Can you hear the bile? It's flowing, OH it's flowing now...)

This is the perversion of everything that America can represent! And it's possible because so many in this country have been falsely educated. The LIES we've been taught have reached maturity, and I'm truly afraid for society to reap the consequences.

NO, we are NOT all socialists.

But we're all going to suffer like them, likely by a razor-thin margin of passage.

I was never a fan of collective punishment in elementary school, and I'm REALLY not a fan of it now. I would betray my ancestors' courage and my child's trust by surrendering to this media-created tide. I will fight it in EVERY WAY I can.

How DARE you, CONGRESS?!?!

How DARE YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA?!?!

HOW DARE YOU, FELLOW CITIZENS?!?!?!?!

You would STEAL my CHILD'S FREEDOM and economic future for your own comfort and political aggrandizement?!?!

You COWARDS!

You use my tax dollars? You function the way you're supposed to.

You expect my support? You learn to READ THE CONSTITUTION.

You want my cooperation? You DON'T talk down to me like the threat you pose is some antiquated conspiracy theory, and I'm just too STOOOPID to understand reality.

But you want "socialism?" You take your evil, simultaneously namby-pamby and oppressive ideas somewhere else, and stay away from me.

Because I've read history, and I know what happens when a government gets as much power as you're trying to take.

And I will NOT remain silent while you destroy my son's future.

And a Law Against Using Them While Driving in Ten Years and a Month

2009-02-09T10:51:00.006-07:00

... or a study linking them to cancer...

... or a government license for them...

"Them" being TV contacts. In ten years. (h/t: Drudge)

A good number of highly meritorious arguments can be made against most of the possible "features" listed in the article; but my biggest sticking point comes at the mention of directly manipulating people's feelings in connection with the events "on-screen."

Does ANYONE think that's a good idea?!?!

I'm trying hard not to condemn useless technological "advances," because I know a lot of useful ones end up being discovered along the way; but STILL - this is a tough one!

Sing it, Glenn!

2009-02-05T11:24:00.004-07:00

UFSSR

2009-02-05T10:10:00.000-07:00

I'm calling it the "Union of Former Soviet Socialist Republics."

I'm not even kidding.

Several formerly-Soviet countries are joining ranks with - where else but Russia - for purposes of "defense." Ordinarily, alliances shouldn't be problematic, but when the leader of that alliance is openly antagonistic to the US, they present cause for concern.

Now, to be fair, Kyrgyzstan is offering to save us the trouble of maintaining our base there. We only use it to get troops into Afghanistan, after all.

W00T!!!

2009-02-05T00:24:00.004-07:00

Power to the people, people.

Looks like we've been overburdening the phone lines at the Capitol.

Now, I'm not about being angry on the phone - quite the opposite, in fact - but this sort of "telephone offensive" is EXACTLY what we need to have going on.

Keep calling!!! :-)

And on a different note, I wonder whether the infrastructure in the "stimulus" bill provides for an upgrade to the Capitol's phone bank...

Bailouts Past and Present

2009-02-03T21:24:00.003-07:00

Here's a funny article by BBC News regarding whether government bailouts have worked.

And I do mean "funny" - it reads like a stand-up routine. [Any emphases here are mine.]

It lists the US airline industry as a "successful example" of a bailout:

The government received shares in the airlines in return for guaranteeing loans to them and also charged fees for participating in the scheme.

Hmm. "Scheme," indeed! All but a few airlines are still running in the red, if I'm not mistaken... although I see that taxpayers made some interest off the loan. Again, hmm. Should we really feel good about siphoning money out of the private sector?

It only gets better from there!

The UK nationalized Rolls Royce in 1971; a professor comments, "The idea was that the government could later withdraw, but it never did as planned."

Are you laughing out loud yet? Because here's what that segment concludes with: "There is strong evidence that nationalisation leads to lower efficiency," says Professor Pandit.

Then there are statements like this regarding the S&L crisis in the US, by Professor Vaughan Williams: "To get back 80% on what were bankrupt assets could be called a success."

Okay, end of comedy.

Lest you get the impression that bailouts are a 20th century invention, the article ends with what happened during the formative years of our country, in 1792: "With the value of bonds collapsing, the first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton told banks [, which were collapsing after one banker's corrupt scheme had gone awry,] to accept bonds as collateral for loans, which were then underwritten by the government."

Hamilton was a cad and a scheming, power-mongering High Federalist.

He played on honest people's lack of suspicion.

And it's still happening today. Please watch these Secretaries who are being installed. Keep open communication with your representatives and let them know how you feel. It's only through speaking more effectively than lobbyists' money and acting more effectively by voting honest people into office that we will regain control of our government.

Great Read on Israel and Iran

2009-02-03T08:50:00.002-07:00

And more. From Michael Yon:

Hamas, supported by Iran, is clear about their goals: they want to wipe out Israel completely, utterly, with finality. But it’s not just Israel that Hamas wants to kill; they want to kill all Jews everywhere. Complete genocide.

And when Iran has the capacity to launch rockets over to Europe or the United States, one can count on it happening. If they can manage to hatch nuclear weapons, we could see Israeli cities annihilated, leaving Israelis with little choice other than to respond with nuclear weapons, which could leave millions dead. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iraq will want them, as will other nations who are threatened by Iran. (emph. added)

It's a quick, informative read, from someone who's earned respect throughout many, varied, circles for his courage and objective reporting.

More Fun with Stem Cells!

2009-01-29T20:35:00.004-07:00

They appear to be repairing some effects of Multiple Sclerosis. Sweet!

And don't let anyone trick you into killing embryos for this treatment, either:

The immune systems were then replenished with so-called haemopoeitic stem cells -- extracted from the patient's bone marrow -- capable of giving rise to any form of mature blood cell.

We have yet to see much of any sort of promise from the products of embryo destruction, on the other hand... which I think makes a lot of karmic sense.

Class Warfare, Schmass Schmarfare

2009-01-28T18:18:00.005-07:00

(Gee, I hope that's not a bad word...)

Looks like Pres. Obama's not above trying to get big businesses to sway their representatives.

He met with a bunch of CEOs today. Why?

Obama is trying to drum up support for the recovery package - which combines economic stimulus and tax cuts.

"I'm confident we're going to get this passed," (ed. note: they did) Obama said just before the meeting began. "These are people who make things, who hire people; they are on the front lines."

Way to get the money and lobbying out of politics, Prez... but I do appreciate the lip service to business's legitimate functions.

(I'm glad it didn't work for Idaho, at least... and wow - I mean, WOW. How embarrassing - complaining about Evil Corporations during your class warfare campaign and then begging them for help?)

Representative Responses

2009-01-28T11:11:00.006-07:00

In Idaho, our two senators voted opposite ways on the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as Emperor Secretary of the Treasury.

Sen. Risch voted against it. I called to thank him, and his cheery office person sounded like I'd made her day. I was pleasantly surprised by his vote, to tell the truth, because my faith in his principled conservatism has been shaken a few times by issues at the state level. On balance, he was decent, though; and his voting record on a few controversial national votes so far gives me confidence!

Sen. Crapo, on the other hand, voted for it. This was perhaps the most difficult political call I've made. I called to verify what I'd seen on the roll call vote and then (politely and, I hope, gently) express my disappointment with his vote of what I viewed as an irresponsible and injudicious choice for a position with such power over the future of our economy and country, although I appreciate his representation in general. This is where it got interesting.

His phone person took my message and, doing his best to try to smooth things over, assured me that Sen. Crapo had really taken his time with the vote. In fact, Tim Geithner himself had come to visit with Sen. Crapo, (I BET he did...); and while the aide wasn't privy to that meeting, Sen. Crapo's concerns had been addressed. (Forgive me a slightly cynical snicker here...)

Unable to decide whether that made me feel better or worse, I thanked the aide on the senator's behalf for having done his due diligence and declined a letter in response.

I never get much out of those letters, anyway, regardless of the issue or the source (so far); it's always, "this was a tough call... there were good arguments on both sides..." yadda, yadda, yadda. And it always goes onto two pages. And I hate to use the postage. And it frequently comes to a misspelling of my name (sometimes two or more identical letters - one to each spelling, LOL.)

At any rate, I'm trying to be better about holding our representatives accountable, and their responses were intriguing (to me), so I figured I'd share my experiences.

(Additionally, I called to thank and encourage Rep. Simpson for his intended opposition to what I called the "Stimulus-Bailout MESS before the House right now." It's intended to grow government and nationalize whatever they can without people realizing why that's bad...)

No Comment Necessary, Either.

2009-01-26T15:59:00.005-07:00

New radio ad:

"Special new government loan program! Get your government loan! No credit needed! No income necessary! Odds are, this program won't last long... so apply now!"

(Birth) Control-ing the Economy? Updated

2009-01-26T09:48:00.006-07:00

**Update 27Jan2009/10.00: Looks like that provision might be dropped. To quote: "House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income..."

Note the choice of words for the phrases - making it sound as if low-income families are being thrown carelessly overboard like so much ballast, by being denied additional *federal* funding specifically for birth control. *sigh* (Yep, I wonder where that "skewed news" perception amid much of the public is coming from...)
---

Nancy Pelosi says birth control is cheaper, so it's okay to include that in the upcoming stimulus package.

Cheaper than what, exactly, Madame Speaker? Well, cheaper than a lot of things - big-screen TVs, for example - but what she's specifically referring to, is helping states with their health care. It's cheaper than funding abortions, in other words. Or, heaven forbid, funding births.

I was under the impression - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that birth control is already widely available and vastly affordable. Every insurance/prescription plan I've come across pays for it, since like the Speaker said, it's cheaper than most alternatives.** Barring insurance, it's available on Medicaid (or at least it's listed under RxIdaho.org, and I figure if IDAHO covers it, pretty much everywhere does).

That sounds pretty comprehensive to me, already.

And yes, it is cheap. I doubt that it makes up that big a portion of any state's healthcare budget, (hmm... research idea); and it still depends on people actually using it.

So, of all the things to call for, to receive a federal subsidy, that's a pretty odd one.

Since it seems like such an odd thing by itself, I have to wonder what the deeper objective is for this particular inclusion...

**Cheaper alternatives include a) simply not having sex, and b) educating yourself beyond the 28-day pattern "taught" in schools.

Now THAT's Gutsy

2009-01-23T10:57:00.004-07:00

NY Governor Paterson has nominated a relatively conservative House Democrat, Kirsten Gillibrand, to fill Sec. Clinton's former Senate seat. (h/t: Drudge)

*low giggling...*

Woooooooow.

This woman sounds like someone you'd find in ... well, not NYC or LA. At least not easily. And she's got enough of a spine to have voted against the Bailout.

AGAINST the Bailout!!!

I'm not sure *why* she voted that way, but whatever her reasons, opposing that legislation in the face of panicked calls of, "CRISIS! DO SOMETHING!" shows a real spine supporting an independent mind. The NRA has also endorsed her, which backs up that assertion, because we know how popular gun rights are in those areas, even though upstate NY presents a very different ball game from NYC.

And my sympathies along with my thanks to Gov. Paterson, who's being attacked rather uncivilly ...

Also, it makes me wonder.

Deserved or not, the extreme anti-Bush sentiment (whereby he could have saved a puppy and been accused of irresponsibly increasing the stray pet population to ultimately spread bubonic plague) has been, I believe, a major obstacle. I think the party leadership's playing of that sentiment polarized people (and shut their ears) who might otherwise have listened to others' ideas to achieve a workable solution - or at least a group hug. So...

Perhaps Obama's presidency has alleviated that hear-/see-/speak-no-Bush-ism a bit already, to the extent that more representatives (and governors) feel inclined to agree or disagree respectfully with each other, instead of trying to toe some party line in order to avoid being seen as sympathetic to Bush.

If so, that's a silver lining in the gathered clouds that have been hovering over us for years, because as we are willing to be honest with each other, our Constitutional republic's chance of survival improves dramatically.

Welcome, President Obama

2009-01-20T10:53:00.005-07:00

Quite an emotional inauguration! I caught the last half hour or so and saw the swearings-in.

(And might I add, heaven help us after the "digital transition" - the consistency of the signals we receive leaves quite a bit to be desired... analog gets fuzzy; digital gets full-out unwatchable.)

Truly a historic occasion. Our morning prayer was quite tender, and it was very moving to read people's faces on TV and see a little part of what this morning meant to them.

Perhaps I'll parse his speech later, but speeches are one thing, and speculating about what he means by which phrases won't mean nearly as much as watching what he does.

May God bless him with discernment, strength, and courage... and the rest of us likewise.

Commuted!!!

2009-01-19T11:30:00.005-07:00

President Bush commuted the sentences of unjustly-imprisoned Border Agents Ramos and Compean.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. You did the right thing.

(I've been on pins & needles for the last few days, and until I saw the news on Drudge this morning, I was pretty dejected about the fate of these two men...)

*happy dance*

I don't think I've ever posted the details of this issue, but it was a political case between the US and Mexico, wherein prosecutorial wrongdoing, high-level official conspiracy, and a drug cartel's lying mule's angry mommy combined to severely punish the two border agents who apprehended that mule, for administrative wrongdoing.

(You want to talk "disproportionate response?" This case is it...)

At any rate, it was a horrible, dirty case against the two, and the citizen movement to pardon them fell on deaf ears. The best we could hope for was a commutation, and here it is!

Happy, happy day!!!

[Update: I just called the White House comment line (202-456-1111) to thank Pres. Bush, and all I got was, "we are unable to take your call at this time; please try again later." Think the "thank-you"s busted the phone bank? I like that possibility better than, "we just shut it down for a while since he's leaving." :-)]

Just Keep Spending, Just Keep Spending...

2009-01-16T10:37:00.000-07:00

The Senate voted not to withhold the remaining TARP funds yesterday.

At least that's what I *think* the vote meant.

It's a very negative double-negative if ever there were one... especially since Emperor Paulson has been changing his mind about where the first half of the $700B is actually going. But let's nevermind that; if we keep spending, we're sure to hit a good investment sometime, right? Just like digging? Unless we hit, you know, MAGMA instead...

But the likelihood of bursting into flame is only part of our problem. The deeper issue is that it's more of the same fascist, socialist determination from the individuals that we, as a society, have granted (temporary) authority over us... far be it from us to call them on it.

(That's sarcasm - please let your representatives know how you feel and what you'd like them to do in the future!)

No More Goodwill?

2009-01-14T09:55:00.004-07:00

Here's an interesting article over at Yahoo! - Obama souvenirs are selling pretty well.

Handmade souvenirs, no less!

Wonder if they've been individually tested and certified lead- and phthalate-free... since that's what I'd have to do after February 10th if I ever wanted to sell, say, the little beaded baby socks I sometimes make as gifts right now. (h/t: Sarah @ Trying to Grok)

Yep, Congress answered the, "somebody DO something!" cry after China sent the umpteenth batch of lead toys... and wouldn't you know it, while it's not stopping China, the Law of Unintended Consequences is still in effect! Especially for hare-brained, half-baked, rushed-through-to-SAAAAAAVE-THE-CHIIIIILDREN!!! legislation.

In a way, it's too bad that ignorance doesn't really solve problems... but since it doesn't, that article has a really good summary (although I'd apply the word, "disruptive" instead of "lethal" to phthalates).

In a nutshell, this law means that unless you can certify through testing that Product X has no lead and no phthalates, (and probably nothing else that could possibly ever be construed to be harmful, tasteless, or stinky when injected in high doses into lab rats), you can't sell it. Even if it's 100% organic cotton, like those Donna Karan Obama t-shirts mentioned in the Yahoo! article.

We still have a (teensy) chance to stop or change this law before it takes effect; please email the Consumer Product Safety Commission or see the article to to make your voice heard in rational defense of thrift stores, secondhand shops, home businesses, eBay, craigslist, and anywhere else everyday people can do business.

(BTW, this is something I've "donated my Facebook status" for ;-)

Inaugural Facebook Dilemma

2009-01-13T09:54:00.004-07:00

Not that there's nothing going on in the world, but my daily life deserves a say once in a while, too, I suppose.

In the last few days, several of my friends have RSVP'd via Facebook to watch the Presidential Inauguration via Facebook and CNN.

And I'm conflicted.

I have never watched a Presidential Inauguration. It's not some principled objection; it's just the way it's happened... life is busy, my watching doesn't change anything, I'm anticipating the coverage being similar to the election coverage, and seriously - 8 a.m.? *wince*

BUT...

What will they think if I don't RSVP? Will I look like some sort of sore loser? Or worse?

I can't lie and commit to watching it; a "maybe" will look grudging; and a "no" will look ornery and bad. (And no, I don't want to "donate my status" to some five-hour stretch of pomp.)

Even ignoring the event looks bad - possibly all of the above, wrapped into one.

*sigh*

Or am I over-thinking it?

Well, at least I RSVP'd for the American Idol premiere tonight...

Order Yourself

2009-01-08T10:36:00.023-07:00

In the news again: France, the UK, and Germany want a new global economic order. I believe they're also volunteering to head it up. ;-)

Part I

Angela Merkel says they "would be making an error if we were content to look solely at financial markets."

Harumph.

She deplored huge debts that governments are accumulating to spend their way out of the present crisis. But she said she recognized, for the moment, that "there is no other possibility."

Double harumph.

So she'd prefer to compound the error? Enslave us further to unwise government policy and its effects? Subject us to broader global power, since previous attempts at that have worked well enough to lead us to our current state of worry-free prosperity... really?

And would this global, not-just-limited-to-financial-markets, monster be on top of, or instead of, our individual, (corrupt), quirky governments? At least my individual, corrupt, quirky government pays lip service to my rights to liberty and self-defense.

How's this for a possibility, Chancellor Merkel: LET. IT. FAIL.

Stop trying to fix it by doing more of what created it.

Then - after the (boulder-sized) dust settles - we can deal with climbing out of the hole in reality, rather than having you grab additional global power by speculating at your idea's unlikely success.

Speculating is unstable; in fact, it's the basis for Sarkozy's Non Sequitur of the Day:

He called financial capitalism based on speculation "an immoral system" that has "perverted the logic of capitalism."
[I'll go with "speculation is bad," and "speculation is not real capitalism."]
"It's a system where wealth goes to the wealthy, where work is devalued, where production is devalued, where entrepreneurial spirit is devalued," he said.
[Yeeeess...]
But no more: "In capitalism of the 21st century, there is room for the state," he said.
[Huh? Government speculation is somehow *more* responsible than individual speculation? And let's not call it, "socialism" - it's really "New Capitalism..."]

Whatever happens, I'm standing up to retain my liberty and the potential to help myself and others around me, rather than surrender it and be forced to rely on a power-hungry committee's rationing.

Part II

I must mention this absolute gem from Tony Blair (are all former leaders now automatically on some sort of advisory board for current leaders?): "The greatest entrepreneur I had the chance to meet was passionate about what he had created, not what he had accumulated," - speaking of course, of why it's okay to create a new financial order based on "values other than the maximum short-term profit."

Heh. In other words, "hope you're enjoying working, because we won't allow you to profit!"

No profits would be fine, except that those profits allow us to pay our rent, pay our medical bills, and buy our groceries.

Order your profit-free, power-mongering, global selves around as you please, Messrs. and Madame, but do NOT expand your influence on my family.

Okay, Tell Me These Are Unrelated.

2009-01-07T12:50:00.001-07:00

FBI hiring spree

Obama wants a civilian national security force

Federal military training for civil defense (btw, the last word in the second linked article there should be "dissidents," not "decedents." I'm just sayin'.)

I'm going to have to start using cash more often, aren't I?

(Feel free to contribute your own "coming nanny state" links...)

How do you say, "déjà vu" in Russian?

2009-01-07T11:23:00.006-07:00

(Honestly, it'd be cool to know how to say...)

Remember that invasion of Georgia by Russia a little while ago? And how it was - in large part - about Russia's control of gas to Europe? I mean, after nationalizing the gas industry, international competition was the next logical step, I suppose... especially added to other, more swagger-y, motivations.

At any rate, they've started to strong-arm Europe - again - by cutting off gas supplies. (h/t: Drudge, who's finally taken that indecent upside-down skier pic off his site, LOL... must've been a slow news day yesterday.)

It's not the first time they've done it.

And it's not a coincidence that this is happening while our oil & gas prices are low. Low oil prices (ha - and Marx thought *religion* was the opiate of the masses?) are good for us, since we use so much imported oil; but they're very, very bad for Russia, who exports it. Put that struggling, oil-dependent economy, (even worldwide economic dollar issues aside), together with a populace that largely worships a KGB dictator, and we're looking at a very desperate, cornered bear.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Bear Market," doesn't it?

Something "Republican" That I Can Support

2008-12-30T13:49:00.006-07:00

Looks like the party is finally willing to call something as it is:

Bush and other leaders have embraced socialism.

Yep.

Better late than never, I suppose, but the damage has already been done.

The interesting part here, for me at least, will be to see whether this really opens up the debate on socialism in the US.

Together with our great-great-great-great-grandchildren, we are already set to pay a dear price for our ignorance and publicly-indoctrinated class warfare; but if we can educate ourselves now, we'll be that much better able to pick ourselves up and put ourselves back together.

And that'd be great news.

Doing My Part

2008-12-23T22:00:00.001-07:00

Just doing my part to help as many people understand media anti-gun hype, as I can!

h/t: The Arsenal

Just Not for Us, Thanks...

2008-12-19T10:29:00.003-07:00

Ford has said they think the President did the right thing by getting around Congress (and the PEOPLE) and making loans available for the automakers.

But they don't need it, thanks.

It reminds me of a line from Lisa Kudrow's character on Friends when rejecting a party invitation - "Oh, I wish I could, but I don't want to."

Hmm... I wonder... how "right" could Ford possibly think the loans were, if they're turning them down?

Free Speech in Russia

2008-12-17T17:26:00.001-07:00

After violently suppressing freedom of the press, Putin is looking to silence ALL freedom of speech in Russia.

Any criticism of Russia's government would be treason, according to a bill he's sponsoring in the Russian Parliament.

Why?

Alexeyeva said the government was pushing the law quickly to head off possible protests resulting from the global financial crisis, which has hit Russia hard.
"The people ruling the government are afraid of the reaction of its citizens to their inability to cope with the crisis," she said.

This is a very, VERY bad thing. Fear on not only the citizens' part, but also the government's, is a powerfully dangerous ingredient to add to an easily-combustible situation.

Let's make sure that we stand up lest the same thing happen here; and pray for our brothers and sisters in Russia.

"Nine out of Ten Dentists Recommend..."

2008-12-17T10:18:00.006-07:00

Or, "How could a consensus POSSIBLY be wrong?"

The Global "Climate Change" religion relies on one-sided hysteria - and it makes it to press that way! Gee, good thing we're thinking through things and getting both sides of the story, right? Oh, wait... well, at least we're not actually micro-managing economic, social, and energy policy based on it... oh - what's that you say? - hmm.

And in a completely unrelated article:

Scientists initially believed the greatest solar breach occured when the Earth's and sun's magnetic fields are pointed in opposite directions. But data from Themis found the opposite to be true. Twenty times more solar wind passed into the Earth's protective shield when the magnetic fields were aligned, Oieroset said.

Solar flares and holes in Earth's magnetic field work differently than scientists thought they would, too. Huh!

Well, at least NOW we know everything, right?

SOLVED.

2008-12-16T13:15:00.005-07:00

The Adam Walsh murder - finally.

Also, more locally, (and last week), the murder of an elderly couple from 2003.

With poor little Caylee Anthony's body (likely) found, too... I might be just seeing what I want to see here, but does it seem to you like more cases shake out leading up to the Christmas season?

In the Midst of Our Transition to Fascism...

2008-12-16T12:02:00.003-07:00

As our Fearless Leaders are doing their darnedest to nationalize things right and left by pretending to bail them out with increasingly worthless greenish-gray paper, Jeff at Mormanity found a way to be very, VERY funny.

Definitely worth a read.

Or three. *grin*

Might Want to Keep an Eye on This...

2008-12-15T11:50:00.007-07:00

After palling around (officially, AGAIN) with just about every Central & South American country that isn't in love with the USA, Russia is actually sending ships to Cuban waters.

Notice the price of oil right now? (Chalk another one up for "Glenn Beck's Early News" since I started pointing them out...) They're collapsing, scared, and ready to fall back into the familiar swaddling of a dictatorial straitjacket... think I'm kidding?

The naval manoeuvres close to US waters are seen as a riposte to Washington's own moves in Russia's Soviet-era sphere of influence, including in the Black Sea.

Hmm. Their policy people are still living in the Soviet era. A happy, liberal, peaceful, prosperous golden age for them, right? Well, lest we forget the stunning Soviet quality of workmanship, (*ahem* - have you seen K-19: The Widowmaker?), they've been dealing with this lately:

...inadvertent fatal poisoning last month of 20 people aboard a Russian nuclear-powered submarine that was undergoing tests off the Pacific coast.

So... what that tells me, is that it might not even matter whether their subs could still launch a missile; all they'd have to do is explode at us.

I'm so grateful that I'm not in the Russian Navy right now...

Interesting Post at Mudville...

2008-12-12T23:25:00.001-07:00

From the Mudville Gazette, a great John Adams quote; here's a bit from the end that seems especially pertinent:

And the new Governments we are assuming in every part will require a purification from our vices, and an augmentation of our virtues, or they will be no blessings. The people will have unbounded power, and the people are extremely addicted to corruption and venality, as well as the great. But I must submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe. (emphasis mine)

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Go Around 'Em Updated

2008-12-12T10:36:00.009-07:00

Here's a story problem for the day:

An automaker - after decades of inefficient operations and government oppression - can no longer keep up with its obligations. Rather than allow them to declare bankruptcy, which works for the airlines every couple of years, government leaders - with the approval of Union bosses - want to give them tax dollars. (Note: Because of the way the government pays for things, those are really future tax dollars.) ...The people object, despite the best efforts of the Legislative branch of government to do it while attaching "strings," so the Executive branch decides to just git 'er done and prepares to give them the money, anyway.

Flat-out-stupid economic policy aside, I'm looking for one good reason why this isn't fascist. Anyone?

(To put this in context, the "Bailout" - which is finally being examined more critically by Congress - was also forced on financial institutions... this isn't the first time government has said, 'we're your new bosses, and we dare you to object.')

***UPDATE #1***
So now the Senators are "un-American" for voting against it, according to Michigan's governor. Hmm. Really? Does that mean it's more "American" to run an industry into the ground? Or is it the regulation that's "American?" Or perhaps the "I'll sit on my duff and produce nothing but continue to be paid during 'retirement'" Union obligations are "American?" Hmm. Maybe he just means "punishing the entire country additionally for three companies' bad business policy under suffocating regulation" is "American," instead.

***UPDATE #2***
And ooh! Here's a good sign: the Fed won't disclose the recipients of the funds from the "first" Bailout. Hmm. Simultaneously, there are massive fraud discoveries. Hmm. I mean, honestly - who would've seen this stuff coming? ;-)

RUN Like the WIND!!!

2008-12-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

Obama has announced parts of his New New Deal.

Hmm. I wonder how many part-time jobs he's planning on taking up to fund it, because we sure don't have extra dollars sitting around, and I don't think government programs run very well without taking more money from those of us paying taxes.

And I'd object to creating further dependence on the Magical Entity Known As "Government," anyway. Maybe I should turn that into an acronym: MEKAG. And let's call it, "ME," for short.

"We, the People" and all that, you know.

How about "We" quit increasing spending from "ME" for bureaucratic, populist, socialist programs designed primarily to enslave us?

Because government spending only increases every time we look at it.

Yep, What They Said.

2008-12-11T11:13:00.005-07:00

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty published a full-page ad in the New York Times, decrying the recent anti-Mormon violence and intimidation after Proposition 8 passed in California (and similar measures passed elsewhere).

This probably means that the Times is pretty hard up for advertising revenue, but I appreciate their allowing its publication, all the same. *wink*

It's a beautiful thing when people of faith can unite to stand up for others' rights to speak and act according to their consciences; and if it continues, this cooperation has the potential to really help solve the root of a lot of our problems as a society by reorienting our priorities and encouraging civility and respect.

Here's to continuing "civil defense" of our rights!

As a Taxpayer...

2008-12-10T00:32:00.006-07:00

... it appears that I will soon be part-owner of the Big 3 auto companies. (Well, technically "even more part-owner," since I'm sure our IRA already includes some of their stock...)

With that in mind, I humbly submit the following requests:

Use of a company jet one weekend per quarter;
Promotional vehicle privileges, with vehicles rotated monthly;
A cap boasting the GM logo (since I'm not so big on Ford, and honestly, who'd be seen wearing a Chrysler cap?); and
Voting rights on any future bailout applications.

Does that work for you?

Power to the People, Baby!!!

2008-12-08T16:55:00.003-07:00

Shoppers stopped and detained an armed shoplifter today in Idaho.

It makes me all giddy!!! I just LOVE it when people feel like they can do something positive.

Great Sports!

2008-12-05T23:23:00.004-07:00

After beating Ball State tonight, Buffalo took the MAC championship and will be heading to the Toronto International Bowl.

Who else will be going?

Buffalo athletic director Warde Manuel said members of Buffalo's 1958 team will join the current program on the trip because they turned down a chance to play in the Tangerine Bowl because their black players wouldn't have been able to participate.
"The 1958 team deserves a bowl experience," Manuel said.

How cool is that? What a heartwarming story out of this year's football competition. Double props to Buffalo tonight!

One More Check

2008-12-05T17:35:00.008-07:00

... in a checkered past, if you can even call it "checkered." It's more just "bad."

Planned Parenthood is in hot water again! It's a disheartening story - coaching a "pregnant minor" to lie about reporting her dilemma so that she can get around the laws in place - but it's very consistent with their past behavior.

The chapter president says, "[t]he apparent actions of the employee would be in violation of our strict policies and procedures..."

Mm-hmm.

Maybe that's why it's happened so often.

Somehow, I doubt that an organization founded by a racist and a eugenicist has - in practice - such strict procedures that they would wouldn't take donations earmarked for minority abortions. Or falsify medical records. Or overcharge the state for their "services."

So what can we do? Protect innocent life. Promote a culture that values life. Fight abortion and eugenics. Life is truly a gift, and the more we exemplify that, the more we'll be able to help others see it that way.

No More Whining. Oh, and Reactions, Too.

2008-12-04T14:03:00.006-07:00

I've had a couple thoughts simmering lately, and they merge rather well. (h/t: Chantilita & Jenn)

Politics - and political blogging - self-selects for those with a tendency toward fault-finding.

And while it's important to discuss the issues we face, it's easy to let the tone slide from "serious" into "depressing."

So... I'm still going to cover the issues, but I'll try to keep more of the moping out of it, LOL - and to that end, I'm adding a "Reaction" box you can check if you think I'm sounding whiny.

On that note, yep, there are "Reaction" boxes now so you can check your assessment of each post if you'd like... if you have suggestions for more "Reactions," please leave a comment! Thanks!

Hey! A Parenting Idea!

2008-12-04T13:13:00.002-07:00

Exercise helps kids, too.

Even overweight kids!

Huh!

This Is Probably Good

2008-12-03T10:08:00.002-07:00

Saxby Chambliss, a conservative and a Republican, won re-election in Georgia's run-off on Tuesday.

I'm stopping short of expecting miracles, but I think it's great that a conservative won. If you still understand the principles that the country was founded on, count me a fan!

And I think it's wonderful that there is not a Democratic supermajority in the Senate; whatever your political views, having the two admittedly partisan branches of the government (along with a sometimes-partisan third) working at odds rather than in concert is better if you're a fan of any sort of balanced approach. I'm not sure whether I am or not, LOL, but "balance" sounds good, right?

Personally, I'd prefer that we resurrected our Founders, but I suppose that will have to wait...

Another Warrior Finally at Peace

2008-12-01T18:26:00.003-07:00

CPT Rob Yllescas passed on today.

He leaves a wife and two daughters that I am certain he will continue to watch over.

Please keep his family in your prayers.

Excuse Me, Mr. Officer... or "How exactly do you object to an M-16?"

2008-12-01T10:02:00.006-07:00

The Pentagon is planning to deploy 20,000 DOMESTIC MILITARY POLICE.

What could possibly go wrong?

(For the record, Hubby is a member of the National Guard; they're for defense, not for policing, and while I trust him and his associates, I sure don't trust a heavy-handed government with even more local power.)

(And chalk another one up for what I call "Glenn Beck's Early News!")

[h/t: Drudge]

What an Opportunity, Indeed.

2008-12-01T09:57:00.002-07:00

Communists in Russia are excited that people will feel threatened enough by world events to re-install their totalitarian rulers. I mean, they're really back with Putin and Medvedev, anyway, (and engineered conflicts with, say... Georgia?), but 'ooh! People might take someone who still carries the actual party name if they get desperate enough!' To quote:

Gennady Zyuganov told the party's annual congress the Communists should make maximum use of the growing public discontent caused by the economic downturn to try to restore their political strength.

Gee, who else has recently said that he should never let a crisis go to waste? (Hint: "a cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache.")

[h/t: Drudge]

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Take 'Em to Court!

2008-12-01T09:54:00.003-07:00

Looks like having real evidence out there about alleged "man-made global climate change" (e.g.: CO2 emissions rise after temperatures, not before - does following the temperature rise sound like causation to you?) is starting to have an effect: more people worldwide are skeptical of the high priests of the global warming religion.

And even if they believe they're personally causing it, they're unwilling to do much, if anything, about it. Ha... what a triumph of laziness, even over gullibility! (Although let me be clear: I believe we should be responsible about the use of our resources; we're supposed to be good, industrious stewards of the earth.)

So... rather than present actual evidence for our role in climate change, (since there's such a paucity of it, regardless of what Al Gore might have gotten back slaps and toasts for...), what do they do? Threaten us through the court system.

[h/t: Drudge]

...In a Shopping Basket

2008-11-29T09:35:00.007-07:00

Meaning, how society is going all to ruin.

Honestly, after previous years, we weren't surprised to hear that someone was trampled at a store during Black Friday sales, but the severity and aftermath were shocking.

I mean, when you can't even get people to stop shopping for a death, WOW. And the people rushing into the store were trampling the other employees trying to help the man who'd been trampled. WOW.

Or how about when people are so feeling the holiday spirit that they erupt into a fistfight and then shoot each other in a Toys 'R' Us? WOW.

Hubby and I have been talking about the Wal-mart trampling incident since yesterday, and we sure hope the people involved are identified and prosecuted, because no matter how tearfully said, "but I had to get that TV!" probably won't make a very good defense in court... and it would only increase the human cost if everyone involved gets away with it simply due to being a mob.

Sending prayers to the victim's family and to the police working on identifying the guilty parties on the tape...

(Irony of the day: As I'm wrapping up this post, the Taco Bell "Not It" commercial is playing - the one where two friends are watching a third friend get chased around by a bull, both claiming "not it" to go help him...)

Prayers to India

2008-11-26T14:43:00.004-07:00

Sending thoughts and prayers to India and the victims and their families there after the horrific attacks... (beware the copious graphic coverage).

And more prayers for the hostages still being held...

Time to Get Our Houses in Order

2008-11-24T15:34:00.005-07:00

Not "again."

STILL.

$700 billion has all of a sudden ballooned in size to $7.4 TRILLION. (h/t: Drudge)

Things are going to get a heck of a lot worse, a heck of a lot faster.

All I can say is to get your house solvent, because our country is not... and it will never be as long as our runaway government keeps promising more of our FUTURE INCOME.

Also, CALL your representatives, senators, and the President. Tell them to stop the madness. Do your part to fight this grand theft while you're still allowed to do so.

Tagged!

2008-11-24T11:16:00.003-07:00

I've been tagged! (And it sure took me a while to get this out there... started it last Friday!)

It's Just Me at Regular Voices tagged me as having a Fabulous Blog. *blushing* Thanks! I feel very flattered and more than a little overwhelmed! Regular Voices is a great blog that normal people can actually relate to, and from the conversations we've had so far, It's Just Me is not only honest, but open-minded and fair. Makes blogging a real treat, and I get a sense of how other people who are thinking, are thinking.

You have to pass it on to 5 other fabulous blogs in a post.
So here, in no particular order (except as they occur to me... and only 5? I could go on for ages! As busy as these bloggers are, I'm not going to insist that they pass it on, though - no pressure! :-)):
- Trying to Grok - Sarah is just all-around great to read. From politics to knitting to military life, she's got it covered, and her resources rock, too!
- A Homeschooling Momma - Such a great resource for educational activities! Ann is thoroughly dedicated to teaching her sweet little girls, and she comes across the neatest sites!
- Jen's Poetry Picks and Politics - Great issues and sources, and I love the poetry posts! What a way to nurture both sides of our brains!
- Young Survivor - Jenn has not just survived, but thrived since her breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. She's worked incredibly hard and competed in the Gold's Gym fitness challenge two years in a row now, on top of taking care of her family and doing her job; she was even selected to be on a national panel this year. Such an inspiration!
- Peaceable Walk - Wonderful site. It's a refuge, and a place for relief, uplifting thoughts, and reminders of what's really important.
You have to list 5 of your fabulous addictions in the post.
- Umm... blogging. Definitely blogging.
- Following the news/issues;
- Chocolate (although with recent illness, that's taken a backseat, and, if the universe were "fair," it would stay there!)
- Information - reading everything I can, which is tough as a mommy;
- Political discussion... although I'm generally non-confrontational in "real life" in the interest of putting people before politics. Spouting off into the ether about politics and principles - well, that and a lot of prayer - is how I keep my head from completely exploding.
You must copy and paste the rules and the instructions below in the post.
Instructions: On your post of receiving this award, make sure you include the person that gave you the award and link it back to them. When you post your five winners, make sure you link them as well. To add the award to your post, simply right-click, save image, then "add image" it in your post as a picture so your winners can save it as well. To add it to your sidebar, add the "picture" gadget. Also, don't forget to let your winners know they won an award from you by emailing them or leaving a comment on their blog.

Too Real?

2008-11-21T13:00:00.005-07:00

Oh, here's one big reason Gov. Palin was so noxious to the traditional media:

She knows how real life works, and she's okay with it.

Not the whited sepulchre of modern politics, (perhaps... although she might know more than the condescending jerks give her credit for); but REAL LIFE. The vital side.

She wasn't bothered by the turkey slaughtering behind her in her recent press conference because it's REAL LIFE.

Eew, the MSNBC commentator sneers.

Yes, Mr. Commentator, much of real life is "eew-y."

What's more, this incident is highly illustrative of the what "the media" doesn't understand about what a lot of people call "Real America:" We in the latter might not want to be in on the slaughtering, but we DO (largely) understand and appreciate where our turkey comes from, and we don't sneer at those who deal with the vital parts of life. They're real, and we're real. The talking heads' powder, teeth, and hair, on the other hand...

Hummmm...

2008-11-18T20:20:00.002-07:00

A lawyer is challenging the music industry's anti-piracy lawsuits, proposing alternate solutions and charging that:

...the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group - the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA - carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law.

and that:

...the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court.

Agreed.

I'm not certain about the implications, though. RIAA really does seem to have morphed into a vindictive, petulant organization, but those who knowingly downloaded illegally DID break the law. But fining college students hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars? (And so on with the "buts" - back and forth, back and forth...)

In a way, I think it's kind of like seat belt violations: it's a common violation; most of the time nothing happens; and the potential costs to others are huge. And actually, seat belt violations are more important, in a life-and-death way.

On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with not buckling yourself up; whereas there's definitely something inherently bad about wrongly possessing someone else's property. That's where my problem lies. I don't think I have any legal objection to people doing whatever they please with their own property, for their own use.

While the fines and lawsuits are simply ridiculous, there has to be a penalty for wrongful property possession - especially doing so knowingly.

Maybe the problem isn't with the legal system, per se... maybe it's with judges and juries who issue such outlandish fines.

And with the whiny, maliciously-behaving RIAA.

And with the whiny downloaders who - while seeming apathetic rather than malicious - obviously don't have a real principle to cling to.

A Good Reason to Care Whether We're Becoming Russia

2008-11-18T07:09:00.000-07:00

The latest in an evil series.

The article lists previous incidents, as well, but the latest is that yet another journalist has been attacked for investigating corruption in Russia. Just local government, so there was no Polonium involved... "just" thugs.

Wonder What the Stop Fee Would Be...

2008-11-17T07:15:00.005-07:00

[Update 17Nov2008/18:12 - thanks to commenter Jason for pointing out that there is Congressional oversight; I've updated the pertinent section of the post and must say I feel marginally better... ;-) ]

Looks like there's a movement to act on the little "buyer's remorse" in Congress over Hank Paulson's recent coronation: Sen. Inhofe (who, I must add, DID NOT vote for the Bailout that granted Sec. Paulson unlimited taxpayer funds with no strings attached and no oversight) has called for cutting off the funds.

To quote just some of the gems in the article:

Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front.

"He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said.
...
Inhofe recalled earlier comments opposing Paulson's plan because the administration's point man did not have answers for a number of questions. He also recalled questioning the rush to get the bailout passed.

"I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said.
...
"Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,'' he wrote.

"However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.''

*happy dance*

I'm considering moving to Oklahoma just so I can vote for him.

I Like Anderson Cooper

2008-11-14T11:00:00.006-07:00

He's real, he's thoughtful, he's funny, and he's FAIR. I remember him from Channel One days, LOL, and it's great that he's been doing so well. He calls things as he sees them, (which doesn't always coincide with how I see them, and that's okay), and he's earned my respect. Lots of it.

A couple interesting things from last night's episode of The Tonight Show (pertinent segment is "Chapter 3," right after the second ad break, and around the 20-minute mark and continues through the next segment... if I can get a better link from Hulu, I'll post that instead.):

He said Sarah Palin was very capable. Jay, of course, had to crap all over that assessment, but Anderson's initial statement is actually what jives with statements from people who have met her, not via Katie Couric, but in person.
His comments on the bailout totally caught Paulson's flipping and flopping (and continually changing demands and plans), to the point that suggested we could question whether they actually know what they're doing.

He is one of the friendliest, most politically un-readable people I've ever seen on TV. I have no idea how he votes, but he listens, and he appraises people fairly, at least in my estimation. And that independent, fair nature makes me a fan.

Manners

2008-11-12T11:20:00.003-07:00

As in, what we've largely forgotten in today's society.

Just basic decency and respect for others.

A gay "rights"*** group interrupted a church service, yelling and throwing fliers at people (which, I might note, is technically assault), as well as protesting outside the church.

This kind of intimidation is absolutely unacceptable. What are the consequences of the "protest?" Let's see:

churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.

The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.

Moral of the story: It's okay to act like a violent, spoiled child, as long as you're acting that way toward the politically-unpopular people who disagree with you - those oh-so-threatening religious fundamentalists who, I hope the "protesters" noticed, didn't attack them and yell hateful things back...

***in quotes because they already have specially protected rights - it's not a matter of rights anymore, but rather a matter of shutting down those who disagree, which is neither right nor respectful of others' rights.

Perestroika? Hmm...

2008-11-10T11:18:00.012-07:00

Drudge has linked to an article about Gorbachev's recommendation for President-elect Obama: PERESTROIKA.

Hmm.

(Showing age...) I was fairly young when Gorbachev came to power, but I remember hearing perestroika and glasnost and some other seldom-used member of that triad... and I remember that they were "good things."

Anyway, that word caught my attention, and I looked it up.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

the Russian term (now used in English) for the economic reforms introduced in June 1987^[1] by the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Its literal meaning is "restructuring", referring to the restructuring of the Soviet economy.

And here's another - from Gorbachev himself in 1987 - read the whole thing if you're up for night terrors:

...overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism

...utmost respect for the individual

...the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods

...a resolute shift to scientific methods

...the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy

...ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care.

...elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics

ACK!!! Run like the wind, people!!!

*ahem... regaining composure* Let's take some of these one at a time:

"Breaking down the braking mechanism?" You mean, like what's left of our divinely-inspired Constitution's checks and balances? In favor of "accelerat[ing]... social and economic progress?" Bad idea, especially since it depends on who's allowed to define, "progress."
Combining science and technology with a planned economy? It's not too far from those words to "eugenics."
Satisfying "people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care" - like FDR's Second Bill of Rights?
Eliminating "the distortions of socialist ethics" - (I'm assuming he's not referring to the distortions that ARE socialist ethics...) - that sure sounds like shutting down criticism and silencing disagreement, to me.

We must fight these things!!!

Granted, from reading up on it at Wikipedia, it seemed to be a move in the right direction, the way it was sold: freeing up the economy - to a point. Freeing up political discourse - to a point.

But everything was still ultimately under state control - it seems like the populist Gorbachev and his glasnost were able to make the people (and world media) happier about it, though.

Let's be careful what we let ourselves be made happy about, because "utmost respect for the individual" is incongruous with the rest of those definitions.

One Great Bird

2008-11-10T10:59:00.003-07:00

A parrot helped save a two-year-old's life by squawking like crazy when the sitter was... indisposed. (h/t: Drudge)

I think every parent can relate to this sort of thing - although in our house, it's historically a mess that explodes all over the kitchen in less than two minutes in lieu of a life-threatening situation...

And while I've been dead-set against having a live bird in the house, (after the mess left by a family pet when I was growing up), it might not be the end of the world, LOL...

Although... since the babysitter was the one who actually did the Heimlich, maybe we'll just settle for a great babysitter.

Instant Comments

2008-11-09T16:07:00.004-07:00

Just a quick note - after having quite a backlog of comments (for the scale of this blog's usual comment traffic) awaiting moderation; and me being unavailable for an extended time (again, for the scale of how quickly I try to publish comments), I've removed moderation for posts within the last 30 days. Older posts' comments will still go through moderation, but I'm going to see how it goes.

So... you'll be able to have more real-time discussions, and hopefully we won't get too much spam, LOL!

The Weight of the Presidency

2008-11-08T21:26:00.005-07:00

Everyone knows that the Presidency is not an easy job. You get the blame for pretty much anything anyone wants to throw at you, and most of your accomplishments won't even be known for a few decades. In fact, a recent article at the Onion - ever a source of keen satire - was titled, Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job.

That was the funny spin on the job (among other things... lingering racial tension, our propensity for demonizing people after we vote for them, etc.).

Then I saw the video I'd missed of Obama's press conference.

The biggest emotion I felt when I watched it (aside from the normal critique of his plans and a "that was unnecessary..." about his Nancy Reagan slam) was compassion. Empathy. Even pity.

He looked like he'd aged a decade overnight - did you see those bags under his eyes? And he seemed rather tired and distracted - so off his usual cool, collected presence that he couldn't remember what he was saying much after looking away from his prompter. I felt like I saw the thought, "Oh, crap... what have I gotten myself into" crease his forehead a couple times.

Why is this? My guess: he's getting more Presidential intelligence. He's starting to find out how big the problems really are - especially the ones we don't hear about.

In other words, I think the real weight of the Presidency is beginning to settle on him, and I pray that he really will be granted the strength and the wisdom to keep us free.

Sexual Harassment... oh, you mean the training

2008-11-06T16:44:00.001-07:00

Ever felt like you're being sexually harassed just sitting in sexual harassment "training?"

Well, this professor does (among other things), and he's refusing to attend.

He's even willing to lose his job and go to jail over it, if necessary. And I LOVE his statement:

"I have consistently refused to take such training on the grounds that the adoption of the requirement was a naked political act by the state that offended my sensibilities, violated my rights as a tenured professor, impugned my character and cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career," McPherson told the Orange County Register.

Sing it, brother!!! (And I must say, he made a brilliant pun...)