I Just Have to Say

... 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?

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.

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:

"Finer Clay"

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.

Thoughts on Allegations of Selfishness

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:

Rights, Sociability, and Hate

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.

While We're Squabbling over BIG Issues...

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

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

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:

1. "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...]
   
2. "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!!!]
3. "[T]he G8 needed to sound a second wake-up call on the world economy." [No comment necessary.]
   
4. "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:

1. We love people.
2. We love the planet.
3. We should try to be responsible human beings.
4. NOW,

What "The Science" Says

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

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

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?

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

Let's Socialize!

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

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!

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...

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

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.

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*

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

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...

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

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?

"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

... 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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:

1. 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.
2. 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

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)

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

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

... 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

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!!!

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

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.

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

... 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!

UFSSR

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!!!

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

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

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!

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

(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

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.

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*

**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

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

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!!!

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...

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?

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

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

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.

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?

(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?