Culture

I find the reactions and hand wringing about the Florida church burning the Qur’an on 9/11 very fascinating.  Why is it that everyone around the world walks on eggshells whenever someone expresses an negative opinion or openly disparages Islam?

Where is the hypersensitivity when artists create controversial works that are disrespectful of Christianity, Catholicism, and Judaism?

You know why, but are too afraid to acknowledge the 800lb camel in the room.

Here we have a group of Americans who are completely within their Constitutional rights to express themselves - albeit something this stupid - all the while Islamic groups in the Middle East are reacting by demanding the death of Americans. Where is the outrage about that?  There isn't any because that is the expected behavior tolerated by the rest of the world.  I'm almost wondering if this is a publicity stunt to help teach the world a lesson by demonstrating the intolerance of Islamic extremists.

Burning a book is nothing compared to taking another person's life.  Burning a book or drawing someone's deity will NEVER cause the faithful any physical harm. If your faith is so threatened by symbolic expression, then you really need to thicken your skin.

Get a grip, grow a spine, and quit tolerating this behavior people!

I was listening to a talk show discussion about how the drug cartels in Mexico threaten local media who report unflattering articles, news reports, etc., in addition to their usual intimidation of the local population, kidnappings, etc.  Many callers who had lived in Mexico conveyed their horror stories and confirmed what was being discussed.

Ironically my wife and I were discussing an ARTICLE I read yesterday about how the country of Portugal decriminalized drugs and the subsequent drop in the number of addicts and HIV infections.  During our discussion I mentioned my dismay and incomprehension of the enormous DEMAND for these types of mood altering substances.  What motivates someone to constantly want to alter their state is beyond me, especially for recreational purposes.  Yes, I do drink a lot of wine and beer, BUT I don't drink to get drunk.  I drink because I like the taste and refreshment and actually dislike the affects of drinking alcohol.

Here's a thought:  why not reduce the dangers involved with the illegal drug industry by simply legalizing it?  Remember the crime syndicates that were involved with the illegal alcohol trade during Prohibition? When Prohibition ended, they moved onto drugs and other things because there was no more money to be made with alcohol.  You don't ever read stories on how Anheuser-Busch, Samuel Adams, or Coors are terrorizing the populace, do you?  Hmmm...

He's my very unoriginal idea:

• Legalize EVERYTHING.


• Tax the crap out of it.


• Consider the use of these drugs just like alcohol in that you can't drive or come to work "impaired".


• No more tax dollars going to treatment, counseling, etc.  They know this stuff is bad, dumbass!


• Adults should be free to do what they want with their body.


• Let these future Darwin award winners check themselves out of the gene pool.

If adults want to do this to themselves, let them do it and let them also suffer the consequences for doing it.  The nanny state's penchant for avoiding the latter is one thing that is perpetuating this problem.  The demand for it is another.

People suck...

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 or athority 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.

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

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...

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...

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.

Don't forget these sacred words sent forth from the Obama White House:

I am the Lord your God.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol (like me).
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (like disagreeing with me).
Remember the Sabbath (my birthday) and keep it holy.
Honor your father and mother (but not more than me).
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (or me).
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor (just take it since you're entitled to it).

I saw this image on Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood website.



Full article HERE.

So President Obama has signed an executive order creating an official office of urban affairs. Seems that rural communities have now been officially relegated as a permanent source of stagnation and decay. Our salvation will only come from the blighted and decaying urban communities because innovation can only possibly come from the enlightened, diverse, and cosmopolitan population centers. Nothing good ever comes from people who historically have a strong work ethic, who actively take care for their own communities without the help of the government, and who live much slower and simpler lives. Must be something in that $8 Starbucks coffee downtown that gives these sophisticated urbanites the intellectual edge. They seem to think so because they proclaim it so often.

SOURCE

It puts the "Chicago Way" into a whole new perspective. What's good for places like Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles is good for the rest of us saps. Elitist snobs? No way - if you're part of the enlightened 80% of course. The other 20% are only ignorant, racist white trash after all. Just ask them.

Take a look over the decades what liberal Democratic governance of the big cities has accomplished. What great solutions have they come up with to lower crime, poverty, strengthen families, or improve general quality of life?

[crickets...]

And this is better? Even MORE urban-based solutions foisted upon suburban and rural communities? Haven't we tried it their way long enough already?

Let's get that Chicago Tea Party organized...

Look out for it, but there is no fawning bias of course...

So having more than 2 children is selfishly destroying the planet? This is reality straight out of the pages of Liberal Fascism, but I keep forgetting I'M the evil hatemonger here...

SOURCE

Change! Change! Change!

[whatever]

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Yes, President-select Obama is now officially President Obama. Can we now get over it? Not surprisingly, my gas tank didn't magically fill itself up this morning after the inauguration, nor did my mortgage magically pay itself either. Yes, this is a historic event, but can we move on now?

It's been such an interesting experience observing the media coverage of this and the hypocrisy of the media's inaugural coverage of former President Bush. Not even close and not that surprising.



I ate lunch today in a place where they had TVs tuned to ESPN. It was so strange that every 10 minutes or so they mentioned President Obama and then tried very hard to tie it to some sporting event or athlete, most of the time really streeeeeeeetching some minor coincidence. I doubt that ESPN would have done this for John McCain.

I've read/heard many times from people from my political bent that we should give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and time and support to fix things. I don't recall the same remarks coming from those in the media and the left (is there a difference?) for former President Bush. Surprised?

Funny that the stock market reacted poorly because President Obama didn't solve the country's problems by his end of his inaugural speech.

No offense but I don't give a crap about President Obama's 50% Kenyan heritage and it's relevance to my taxes, security, and overregulation of my business. It's just as irrelevant to me as his gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, dominant hand, eye color, brand of cell phone, favorite band, and so on...

Just do the damn job, keep my country safe, and leave me and my business free to prosper or fail on our own.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a huge sports fan. I enjoy playing sports, I just don't engross myself in sports in such an unhealthy extent that I get emotionally rattled if my "team" doesn't win or I get upset when I disagree with the decisions made by the coaching staff. When I do watch or follow sports, I generally limit myself to professional teams because frankly I'm not that interested in college teams. I believe there is a fallacy about college sports that prevents me from enjoying them, something I think everyone knows about but are unwilling to acknowledge, or if they do acknowledge it they don't consider it a problem like I do.

I was at a local eatery the other day with my lovely wife and perpetually hungry 12 year old nephew. We were seated in the bar area which had a few flat screen TVs playing various college football and college basketball games. All fine and dandy. I happened to have a basketball game comfortably within my visual periphery when a thought struck me. I know I'm being prejudicial (not racist, so don't even go there) when I say this - even though I don't know these young men, they don't seem at all like people who would be attending college to become educated in a particular field of study and then after graduation go off into the world and hopefully be able to engage in a livelihood around that education. Sorry, but I don't equate football and basketball with medicine, engineering, art, business, history, chemistry, physics, and other academic pursuits. In my mind, THAT is what a university should be for.

For me, this is where I have the problem. I don't think sports are worth the vast resources that colleges pour into them. Consider the low percentage of players in college sports who actually make it to the pros. Compare that to the students graduating with engineering, business, or medical degrees who have a career in their respective fields. Sports generates big money and prestige for the school, not educated people. For me this is the fallacy. This is the big lie. Do the universities value educating these student athletes or just the profits from the exploitation their talents? With big college sports it's all about business. Why does a school with a notable sports program pay a coach so much more than a professor?

I'm not suggesting that these men and women with dreams of being professional athletes have no where to go. Not at all. Let's just drop the pretense that these people are college students first and athletes second. What good comes from keeping a talented athlete off the field or court because he/she fails to get a passing grade in remedial chemistry or Greek philosophy if the true purpose for that person going to college is to play professional sports? High school is different. Students are required by law to go to school and the school has a legal and moral responsibility to graduate young people with a certain measure of knowledge, not athletic ability. High school is mandatory, college is not.

What is wrong with establishing institutions that specialize in the training and preparation of athletes and others for careers surrounding professional sports? I would think that this type of educational institution would generate better quality athletes, trainers, managers, and coaches to be recruited by the professional franchises. I'm not saying that collegiate sports should be eliminated altogether because they are great things to have available for students to exercise, compete, and have fun while studying to be an engineer, doctor, teacher, or business person - not a professional athlete.

I consider professional sports no different from any other area of the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. There are institutions all over the country that specialize in art, music, acting and the careers surrounding and supporting the professional artisans. Why not sports?