Christopher J. Welcher

As if my timing couldn't be any better...

The recent Library of Congress decision to allow for the jailbreaking of iPhones and the ability to install applications deemed inappropriate or not up to Apple's standards is a perfect example of what I was just talking about in my last blog.  Everyone is so happy that they can now hack their iPhones "legally" and install porn apps that they're missing the bigger picture (yet again).

Apple (it could be any company) has designed a consumer product that no one is FORCED to buy, and has made a legal and exclusive contract with a carrier (another company) which was mutually agreed upon by these two private parties.  Now some government bureaucrat has decided that it wasn't "fair" that people weren't allowed to bypass the device maker's design intent and use control of its own product.  Silly rabbit...  At least they allowed Apple to keep the ability to void the warranty if it is jailbroken (for now, I'm sure).

What these people are missing is if the donkey camel doesn't already have its nose inside the tent, it is in now.  The precedent has been established.  What's to stop another well meaning or well lobbied bureaucrat to decide to bypass contractual law and alter the use of a private company's property (intellectual or material)?  What has happened here is that the owner of the intellectual property (Apple) has lost its control of its own intellectual property to the state.  Plain and simple.  If the state has any control of your product, they can force you to do anything they want.  

I'd like to have Bungie port Halo to the PS3, but I know it's wrong for me to force to judge to nullify exclusivity contracts solely because its inconvenient for me.  I have options - buy an X-Box or plead my case with Bungie/Microsoft.  Same with the iPhone.  If you don't like the carrier or closed ecosystem, DON'T BUY ONE!  You have a choice to buy a product as it is intended from the manufacturer, not the right to force the manufacturer to make it as you want it.

Silly rabbit...

SOURCE

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

I don’t know if it’s a matter of denial or the suspension of disbelief, but I think that the majority of the American populace is under the arrogant delusion that the United States is somehow immune from the coming financial and social maelstrom resulting from years of socio-political engineering, as if:

This time it will be different, although it has never worked in the past (history be damned), or
We’re too educated/enlightened/better for all of the predictable poverty/suffering/death/tyranny to happen HERE.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes: "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

So many people are quick to restrict the freedoms of others they disagree with that they are blinded to the bigger picture and the ever constricting web forming around them. They cheer when smoking bans are implemented, but wail when the same institution bans foie gras. They cheer when they take away the profits earned by a “greedy” corporation/individual, but scoff when the same institution mandates that they must buy medical insurance or face a fine, or jail, or both. In their fervor to enforce their will upon another group of people they naively hand their jailers the keys to their own cells.

It can’t happen here, they say.

Another quote comes to mind, from German anti-fascist Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

All one has to do is take a look around and just open your mind and your eyes to current events and recent history to see that many of those past horrific episodes of the evil that humanity has endured against itself are still happening all around us. Slavery, religious and political persecution, dictatorships, and ethnic cleansing are alive and well, just generally outside our borders (at present). People think that our nation’s wealth and sophistication will protect us, that if only those other countries, civilizations, or people were like us then they could have resisted and prevented the atrocities left in the path for the control over humanity.

It doesn’t happen overnight, but sometimes it can. All it takes is a stroke of a pen, a stroke on a keyboard, or even another non-fatal “cut” to drain more of your blood, facilitating the loss of your wealth (stock market), property (eminent domain), or freedom (smoking bans), just to name a few.

It can’t happen here, they say.

Yes it can, and it will.

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Bad, naughty blogger!

I've (obviously) been neglecting my blogging responsibilities as of late. I must admit with great shame that I was seduced by the sultry siren song of Facebook. I think that I've experimented long enough posting my oblique and cynical missives to my distant acquaintances and will instead scribe my incoherent ramblings in this less frequented oasis of cyberspace.

In a nutshell, Nate graduated from 8th grade, I went back to Iowa for my 25th high school reunion, I'm still working on my house, and my band still hasn't found a singer!

More to come (promise).

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

For the past 200+ years America has been the world's beacon of freedom, prosperity, and a second chance for a new life free from tyranny. It was (and still is to an extent) a place where your ingenuity, hard work, and determination would be rewarded if you were willing to sacrifice the blood, sweat, and tears required to meet your dreams.

Sadly, I think this beacon's illumination is rapidly dimming under the growing shadows of control by the state. Soon it will join the great cultures of Europe in an era of socialist darkness, where freedom of the individual is valued less than the desires and mandates of the state.

For those of us who yearn for a society of limited governance as originally defined by the US Constitution, where on the globe can we turn to find a new "America" where freedom is valued most of all?

I'm looking...

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Have you had enough "hope and change" yet?

And that paper that Congress just wiped their a$$ with was the US Constitution...

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Now let’s talk about that necessary evil to all societies – government. Yes, even in Utopia there must be some sort of governing body to protect the masses from the undesirable influences from all of the other Utopian constructs out there - unless of course you’re forcing me to live in your Nirvana, then thanks but no thanks. I’ll take my chances without your caring benevolence.

My thoughts on the role of federal government are not original. In fact they closely mirror those espoused by the Founding Fathers, with an especially strong emphasis on LIMITED. In my opinion, federal government really only has a few primary responsibilities to uphold:

• Protect our borders (military)
• Foreign diplomatic relations
• Judicial branch of government validates every law passed by Congress against the limited powers granted by the Constitution BEFORE it is enacted. If a law exceeds any of those powers, it is denied.

Everything else that our federal government currently does outside of the items listed above, is the responsibility of the individual states. See, L-I-M-I-T-E-D. The federal government has no business funding/regulating/controlling education, the arts, energy, food production, transportation, commerce, the environment, law enforcement, retirement, health care, etc.

CORE BELIEFS (Federal)
• The federal government has NO authority over the states. Any state authority can overrule any federal authority.
• The federal government can not own any property. Any property it occupies must be leased from the host state.
• All representatives (House and Senate) are limited to a single term of 4 years, with ½ of the representatives up for replacement every 2 years. With no reelection to worry about, they can focus on their job at hand. Because the role of federal government is so limited, being a representative could easily be a part-time job. Congress could be in session for a few months throughout the year.
• All laws enacted by Congress apply to everyone equally, no exceptions.
• Congress must pass a balanced budget and cannot go into debt. All surplus monies collected throughout the year must be returned to the taxpayers.
• The federal government can not infringe on any of the personal freedoms outlined in my previous post.

CORE BELIEFS (State)
• States have the authority and responsibility to govern itself as it desires as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the people granted by the Constitution. No other state or ruling entity has the right to infringe upon this activity.
• States are responsible for its own entire infrastructure and are free to work with other states as it sees fit to combine resources.
• Every state has the freedom to engage in commerce or trade with another in mutually and freely agreed upon terms. No other state or ruling entity has the right to infringe upon this activity.
• The state government can not infringe on any of the personal freedoms outlined in my previous post.

Would this work? Who knows, but it’s my illusion so it must. Additions/corrections I’m sure will follow.

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

I came across this article the other day comparing two recent movies (Precious and The Blind Side) about dealing with the problem of neglected and abused children in America. I haven't seen either of these movies, BUT I did find some interesting items of note from the article:

"Bluntly stated, Precious presents the liberal solution — let the government do it — and The Blind Side presents the conservative solution — do it yourself."

"And in fact, in Precious, the system does work in exactly the way it was designed. The system was created by liberals to make themselves feel good, not to bring any actual benefit or relief to victimized children like Precious. She and her countless counterparts are doomed by dangerously mistaken liberals who think:

"I will vote to create taxpayer-funded bureaucracies that will fix this problem by taking up a forced collection from all my fellow Americans, and I will never have to get my hands dirty or do something disgusting like open my home to her, or actually do anything to help her myself. I will let the government take care of her, and since I vote for Democrats who create these bureaucracies, I have helped her, and I am better than those selfish Republicans."

"And if you think that assessment of liberals is too harsh, just remember: these are the same people that define their goodness by their Prius and their mulchers, and the way they meticulously sort their trash into different colored bins. When you think you can save the planet just by carrying your reusable bag to Trader Joe’s, there’s really no need to do anything really difficult or icky like becoming a Big Brother or a foster parent or adopting a child."

Personally I have no leg to stand on since I've done very little to help the betterment of my fellow human. Still, it's comforting to know that I'm not the only person who thinks this way.

ARTICLE

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Google is a cult
Google is not afraid of offending any religious faith EXCEPT Islam
Google is a hypocrite for avoiding taxes while promoting progressive socialist ideology
Google is censoring data so it be used in freedom-limited countries
Google is not to be trusted with ANY of our private information
Google is caught manipulating its search results (again)
Google is ...

SOURCE

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Even though I disparage all socialist Utopian fantasies, that doesn't mean I haven't formulated a Utopian construct of my own. Like all other perceptions of Nirvana, mine is only theoretical and its actual manifestation is impossible because not every human on this planet will agree with me or voluntarily adhere to my doctrine.

(Hint, hint, to all you socialists and progressives out there)

At the onset I'm sure this manifesto will have a distinctive Randian Objectivist bent but so what. This may take some mental contortion to convey since I am basically scribing this off the cuff, likely in an evolving multi-installment screed. My illusion isn't some surreal garden of eden of perpetual contentment filled with rainbows and unicorns. It is something more realistically down to earth, albeit equally as delusional.

Let's start with the basics, the foundation, and see where it goes from there. So imagine if you will...

CORE BELIEFS (Personal)
• Everyone has the inherent freedom to live their lives as they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom to do the same. No other person or ruling entity has the right to infringe on this freedom for ANY reason. This includes all interactions between private parties by mutual agreement.
• Everyone has the right to property: physical, material, and intellectual. No other person or ruling entity has claim to it for ANY reason, unless as mutually agreed collateral. What people do with their property is not subject to another person or ruling entity's discretion.
• No person has any forced obligation to the welfare of his fellow man or ruling entity, whom nothing is inherently owed nor entitled. Charity to another is strictly voluntary.
• Everyone has the freedom to engage in commerce or trade with another in mutually and freely agreed upon terms. No other person or ruling entity has the right to infringe upon this activity. All use and value of property or services is determined by mutual agreement between private parties.

Let's stop there for now. After reading this, you probably imagine a chaotic world full of selfish individuals, and you'd be partially correct. I don't envision the chaos, but do see the selfishness, although probably not in the extreme you might think. Nothing written above would prevent a person from helping his fellow man IF he or she freely chooses to do so. What I posit is that no person has the right to force another through the forced confiscation of private property, be it physical, material, or intellectual. This is best demonstrated by using tax dollars for charitable purposes.

To summarize so far, no one had the right to dictate to another how to live. The most horrendous transgressions to human freedom have been made under the guise of "good intentions" or for the "greater good", but it still boils down to forcing someone else to live under your rules and perceptions of society, civility, and freedom.

More to come...

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

Way too many rainy/sunny CA Christmas holidays. I needed a snow fix and I got it. Spent Christmas with Alicia's parents on our property in Montana. It stayed at a constant 22 degrees and that was OK. I finally got to shoot my LEGALLY acquired and registered firearms - good. Now I must hit the local range. I also got to help cut up a deer. At least my father -in-law gutted it first! Also tasted venison for the first time - yummo!

Lots of "change" to come in 2010...

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

And you wonder why I try to avoid Google as much as I can...

ARTICLE

Hell, I'll say it loud and proud: Happy Veterans Day!

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

I always thought liberals were afraid to promote/defend their desires through a position of strength, but after ten months living under the current Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress I stand corrected.

LIBERAL = THUG
Best demonstrated by the current Administration's use of the "Chicago Way" method to intimidate, browbeat, and demonize their opponents into compliance. New York/New Jersey Mafia-style extortion and scare tactics also come to mind. This seems to be the management style of choice for the fine liberal bastions of all of our large population centers in this country. Honor (among thieves) and "creative" business methods are probably the only redeeming values if that claim can be made. Conservatives hate the thug persona because they despise the immoral, hypocritical, disrespectful, narcissistic, lawless, lowlife who is nothing but a cancer to humanity.

CONSERVATIVE = COWBOY
The classic conservative example is the stern faced, silent, strong, loner, take no BS type personified by the characters made famous by John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and many others. Men who only used force when it was absolutely necessary, who were honest, had integrity, and who could be counted on to do the right thing when asked. Liberals hate the cowboy persona because they despise the person who doesn't always require someone else's help or permission to resolve his/her problems.

I don't know about you, but I notice a "slight" difference between the two. One exudes honesty and the other exudes dishonesty. I'd rather have a Dirty Harry than a Tony Soprano any day of the week...

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

- Adrian Rogers, 1931

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

What - Van Jones resigned? Who is Van Jones?

SOURCE

Thank you, Glenn Beck and Fox News for doing the job for the rest of the mainstream media. It's no wonder why so many people keep getting their news from alternate "non-mainstream elite" media. We can't trust them to do their due diligence.

And for those of you who think it was just for his being a 9/11 Truther and referring to Republicans as sphincters, put down your newspaper and do some research into his STORM organization, ACORN, and his other past (and recent) associations. I can see why the President didn't want to vet his Czars as if they were cabinet level positions. Judge a man by the company he keeps...

If I were a consistent consumer of the NY Times, the nightly news, and other elite media outlets I wouldn't have known there was even a brewing controversy with one of the President's "Czars". Today's CNN.com only lists it as a single line item link in both their main and Politics pages while banner articles about health care and Ted Kennedy abound. (yawn) Hardly news worth noting....

SOURCE

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher

I've been noticing that the melting pot that is the USA is beginning to boil a little. Now I think that is healthy and may be a precursor to a pendulum shift, but it is still difficult to witness. I read a lot of articles, see a lot of news videos, and read many blogs. One of the things that interests me are reader comments. Something that I have noticed in the past few years is the degradation of civility of discourse between people who disagree with each other. I also think that it has become worse. In amongst the immature posters are a few cooler heads (on all sides) that are articulate, respectful, but still passionate without the name-calling, foul language, and personal attacks. Unfortunately it seems nowadays that it is more the exception rather than the rule.

Reasonable people can agree to disagree, but that only works if both parties are reasonable...

How about giving each other the benefit of the doubt, a little respect, and letting them have their say (I need to work on this one myself). When you give respect you eventually get it back.

Posted by Christopher J. Welcher