Thursday, December 23, 2010
How many have degrees in subjects that are of no use to anyone?
A degree in early childhood development MAY be of use to someone raising a child, depending upon whether or not the knowledge they gained from their studies is accurate and honest, as opposed to political radicalism couched in academic terms. But it will not prepare them for an intellectually challenging career in a field requiring mastery of difficult concepts. They are only marginally more employable than someone with only a high school diploma, as this study has found.
When someone goes off to college and pursues what might best be called a recreational degree, they are doing themselves a greater disservice than they would by simply not going to college at all.
They are wasting time pursuing education that will not benefit them. The opportunity cost is considerable.
They are wasting money, often a great deal of money, borrowed at interest that they will have a hard time repaying in the menial position their "education" will guarantee them.
They are reducing the likelihood that they will ever actually attain a degree that will be of use to them. Whereas someone who went into the workforce out of high school might return to school in their twenties and get a real degree, someone who has earned a worthless degree will likely spend the rest of their life trying to get a return on that unwise investment.
There was a news story a few months ago about a woman who could not understand how her degree in women's studies, obtained at a cost of $100,000 in student loans, resulted in her working at Starbucks with no hope for anything better. I honestly don't know what she thought was going to happen, but somewhere along the line she got the idea in her head that there would be a meaningful career in her future. If she were a fluke that would be one thing, but cases like hers are all too common. Academic departments are flat out lying to their students about the value of the education they are receiving, especially departments whose justifications for even existing are sketchy at best.
I have a friend who pursued at Ph.D in Political Science because he had been assured that there were jobs to be had. In truth a Poli-Sci professor in a tenure track position will be lucky to earn 50k a year. Full professors don't make much more than that. Because the field is dying, placements are hard to come by in the first place. Meanwhile the starting salary for most Business professors is about 120k a year, with full professors in many disciplines clearing over 200k. Business schools are flourishing. What did he do when he discovered all that? He switched to marketing and is now at UGA making over 140k a year as an assistant professor.
A college education isn't a college education. It has no value except to the degree to which it prepares someone for what comes after: life, and especially a career. There is no magic pixie dust that gets rubbed on someone just because they came to campus and took a series of general studies courses that ultimately resulted in a degree of some sort. There is no "experience" to be had from this that would make a person better somehow. The days when someone could just "go to college" and somehow wind up with a good job are long gone. No one is impressed by a bachelor's degree in sociology. That and a hair-cut will get you a job as a bank teller.
Meanwhile there are degree programs that are worth pursuing, and virtually everyone knows what they are. Business, engineering, hard sciences, medicine, law. Fields that, even if you don't find a job doing what you studied directly, require a mastery of difficult concepts and the ability to apply them. Something an art history degree simply doesn't provide.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
There are a good many people who are in favor of smaller government, lower taxes, and a society where busybodies from the state aren't sticking their nose in everyone's business. But when this is tied to a platform of outlawing abortion, you lose a whole lot of people who have nowhere to go but into the arms of the left. It doesn't have to be this way.
Abortion is an issue that most people feel very strongly about, one way or the other, and the only way to reach those whose beliefs are different is through communication. The desire to save the lives of the unborn is admirable, but attempting to hijack the state and use its monopoly on force to achieve that goal is not. People are not made more virtuous through tyranny. Abortion opponents should work on using the soap box to persuade, not the ballot box to coerce.
Abortion is also good for society. Let me explain why. The value of abortion comes from its long-term effect upon the quality of our gene pool.
Lets say you have two women. Woman A is a responsible and conscientious. She generally makes good choices in life, and learns from her mistakes so they are not repeated. She doesn't sleep around. If she does have sex, it is with someone she loves, and she always takes care to use effective contraceptives until such time as she chooses to start a family. If she does become pregnant unintentionally, she either finds a way to make motherhood part of the plan for her life, or at the very least works to ensure that her child is adopted by a loving family.
Woman B is irresponsible. She engages in self destructive and self-limiting behaviors. She does not understand how the choices she makes affects herself and others. She is incapable of learning from experience. She seeks to blame other people for her own mistakes, or at the very least throw the consequences of those mistakes onto others instead of shouldering them herself. If she becomes pregnant, she pushes the consequences of that choice onto her unborn child in the form of an abortion, or onto her family who then have to raise that child, or onto the taxpayers who now have to subsidize her dysfunction through the dole.
Which woman do YOU want to see passing her genes on to the next generation?
The left makes a great deal of noise about abortion in terms of a woman's right to choose. This is an interesting argument. It is dishonest in that it pretends a pregnancy is something that simply happens spontaneously. A pregnancy is not a cold. It isn't something you catch because someone standing in line behind you at Starbucks sneezed. Pregnancy is the result of a deliberate act that requires a deliberate choice: the choice to have sex. Abortion (as birth control) isn't about a woman's right to choose, but about a woman pushing the consequences for the choice she already made onto someone else, in this case her unborn child.
Freedom is power. With power comes responsibility. Women have the power to sleep with just about anyone they choose, any other consenting adult. Worthwhile women accept responsibility for the choices they make. Women who aren't so worthwhile attempt to avoid that responsibility. Which woman is going to make a good parent? Which woman is going to raise a child to be a productive and responsible member of society? Which woman is more likely to be a conservative or libertarian and produce a child who will be the same, both genetically and by virtue of upbringing?
In most cases something that allows people to shirk their responsibilities would be a bad thing, but in the case of abortion it helps keep losers from breeding, which makes it a net positive. Let conservative and libertarian women have kids. Let leftists and their victims among the underclass have none. Rinse and repeat until such time as the latter are rare and the former ubiquitous.
Monday, November 22, 2010
"Diversity" is not a call for tolerance and acceptance of other people and other cultures, but rather an effort to destroy our nation as a whole by sowing discord among the many cultures that our nation is comprised of, and especially by casting the majority culture as an imaginary oppressor of all the rest. Where Economic Marxism pretends that the productive and successful are the oppressors of the idle and the failed, Cultural Marxism seeks to convince members of minority cultures that they are somehow being victimized by the majority culture. Divide and conquer is the name if the game.
Most minority cultures within the US were transplanted here from other places where they are the majority. If we were truly an oppressive nation, then these cultures would not even exist here in the first place. The existence, and acceptance, of home grown minority cultures like the Amish further disproves the lie that we are oppressors. You have to be pretty heinous in your values before we take exception to you. The Mormons were driven to Utah not because they were different, but because they were polygamists. As soon as they dropped that nonsense they were, more or less, accepted. Other fringe groups that evolved during the 19th century, such as the Shakers, were left in peace where they emerged, and some retain their unique identities to this day.
The culture of America is the result of ideas, values and traditions that have been contributed by countless individuals representing a multitude of cultures. We are not the British. We are Americans. Our roots reach back to England to be sure, but also to other nations. Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, and too many other places to mention by name, not to mention all of the native tribes that were conquered whose contributions (genetic if not always cultural) are quite significant.
The US is fairly unique in that the children and grandchildren of emigrants are as fully American as anyone else. They speak english and are a full member of mainstream culture, even if they also share in the culture of their parents and more distant ancestors. In many countries minority transplant cultures persist in a state of mutually imposed exclusion for generations, even to the point of being unable to speak the common language, or speaking it only poorly. Here in America the best ideas and values from emigrant cultures are made a part of the larger culture. At the same time, a person's identity as part of an distinct sub-culture does not diminish nor conflict with their identity as an American. This is part of what makes our nation so great.
An Italian from Little Italy in NYC is an American. A farmer from the midwest is an American. They don't have a great deal in common, but what they do share is profound: the idea of America. The idea of a country founded on liberty and individual empowerment, where anyone is free to fulfill their potential and the government is a servant instead of a master. It is easy to overlook these shared ideas because they are so ubiquitous, but to do so would be a mistake. No where else on earth have so many people of so many different cultures been brought together and forged into a nation.
But the left would have you believe that none of this is true. This is just another of their lies. They work to destroy us from within by setting us against one another. They work to create animosity where a sense of community would otherwise flourish.
Don't be fooled by them.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Minorities in College---Good News, But...
If our institutions of higher education have a duty to equalize Black and Latino achievement with that of whites...
No, they do not. Institutions of higher education have the duty to provide quality education to all students without regard for their racial or ethnic background. This is especially true of public universities which are bound by the 14th amendment.
There is no reason why individuals from a particular racial or ethnic group MUST be less successful than individuals from other groups. Do American's of German ancestry outperform Americans whose ancestors came from Britain? Certainly not that I've ever seen or heard. The reason is that, by and large, the values and culture of these two groups are the same.
Character is destiny, and the character of a nation or a community is defined through its values and its culture. When these are good, then the individuals of this community are able to more fully realize their potential. But when these are bad, the members of the community are held back by them, and lead limited and stunted lives.
This is what must change, and no one in higher education is in a position to make this happen. The parents and teachers and cultural leaders, and most of all the students, from these blighted communities are the only ones who can improve things for themselves. They are the only ones who can redefine what it means to be a member of that community to include achievement and success.
The only thing a university can do, is work to provide the same opportunities to all. Equality of outcome is neither possible nor equitable. It leads to tribal warfare and tyranny. Equality of opportunity is the only promise of equality that can be actually be kept.
Monday, November 8, 2010
The left sees all problems through the lens of imaginary disability and incapacitation. No one is responsible for their own choices. All consequences are foisted upon us by someone or something else. This is one of the fundamental reasons why they get so many things wrong. From erroneous premises flow erroneous conclusions, which then lead to destructive policies.
Obesity isn't something that is done to a person, but something that they choose. It is a continuous choice that person makes about what they are going to be. Every moment of every day they choose to be obese. This choice is actualized through the actions that they take which create and perpetuate that obesity. They eat too much. They eat the wrong sorts of foods. They fail to educate themselves about what kinds of foods they should be eating and in what quantities. They lead a sedentary lifestyle instead of seeking out opportunities for physical activity and exertion. They fail to educate themselves about the kinds of activities that would produce positive health and fitness benefits. In short, they fail to take responsibility for their physical selves.
Now in fairness this does not apply to all obese people. There are some people whose own genetics and metabolism make maintaining a healthy weight very difficult despite good faith efforts that would give any other person the physique of a personal trainer. There is no fault to be found with such a person. But these people are also the exception. Most obese people aren't victims of their DNA. I'm not particularly thin myself, but I don't blame some other person for this and I don't blame "society." The responsibility is mine alone, and responsibility, unlike its cousin blame, is an empowering attribute. That which you are responsible for is that which you can change.
Yet here comes some leftist who, in true leftist form, attempts to find yet another area of a person's life where they should not be expected to take responsibility, where the state needs to take control. That is sick, evil, and wrong.
Teaching someone that the color of their skin or the derivation of their surname disempowers them from taking charge of their own life, their own happiness, their own well being, and their own future, is probably the most egregious form of bigotry I know of.
At least the Klan hoodlums are honest enough to admit that they hate you. The left pretends that they are your friend and then proceeds to demonstrate that friendship by attempting to infantalize you, to make you weak and dependent upon them. With friends like that, who needs mass murderers?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
I honestly do believe that this is a good thing. All my life I've believed that selective speech restrictions on the young are a form of bullying by adults, made all the more insulting by the arbitrary nature of the prohibited words. Why should young people be prohibited from using terms that older people use on a regular basis? Just because they are "not old enough?" While there are things that younger people should be held back from doing, such as driving a car, speaking their mind freely is not one of them, and that includes the freedom to choose the words they wish to use. If there is to be a restriction on speech, it should be uniform for everyone and more importantly based upon real necessity, not a Pavlovian aversion to certain words instilled during childhood. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as saying "shit." No one should have the right to do the former, and no one should be prohibited from doing the latter.
In France the word "tabernac" is profane. What does this word refer to in English? A tabernacle. Yes, as in church. In fact much profanity in French is derived from religious terms that would be completely inoffensive to any English speaker. The prohibited terms are arbitrary.
In the English speaking world, words that refer to parts of the body, bodily functions, or things excreted by the body are considered profane. Meanwhile other terms that have the exact same definitions are curiously not viewed as being rude. Once again, the prohibited terms are arbitrary.
When children are punished for using certain words that adults use freely without rebuke, it teaches them that their rights as human beings are subject to being capriciously abridged by people in positions of power. It teaches them that power alone determines what decisions are made in society. In other words it undermines democracy and teaches an unhealthy respect for tyranny.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
I used to live down the street from this place, which was called Foot Anakin's back in the 80's when I was there.
I think this case is a good example of how our criminal justice system has gone off the rails. Nowadays just about anything you do can be construed as a felony, and prosecutors are quick to charge people with anything they can think of in relation to an incident. Multiple gratuitous charges stemming from a single event are a violation of double jeopardy in my opinion. Combine this with mandatory minimum sentencing rules and you wind up with a system that is a much greater threat to society than the REAL criminals it is nominally supposed to be protecting us from. A burglar will steal your TV or maybe your car, the criminal justice system will steal your life.
But there is a way out for these guys, and that is the most pernicious part of this whole mess. If they plead out to a lesser charge, the prosecutors get to claim a win, and they get a slap on the wrist. Why is this a problem? Because it destroys the principles of due process and trial by jury. Once upon a time when a person was charged with a crime, the prosecution had to prove their case in court before a jury of that person's peers. Not anymore. Today most people are so terrified of spending the rest of their lives in prison something that should rightly be called a misdemeanor that they simply plead guilty to anything the prosecution offers that will save them from that terrible fate. The prosecutors get to claim a "win," that they are "tough on crime," and their conviction stats are improved. Citizens who do not cave, and who do demand their day in court, are punished for it if they lose. If these guys actually fight these bogus charges, you can rest assured that the prosecutors will press to make these charges stick, and the sentences that will imposed really will be 45 years in prison (or worse) if these guys lose.
This is not justice, this is tyranny.
A free society is not one in which prosecutors deprive the judge and jury of their rightful place under due process. When prosecutors abuse their position to declare someone convicted of a crime by fiat, they are no longer public servants but criminals themselves.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
This is what I've been saying for over a year now.
I was married once. I'm now divorced. The state was not involved when I got married, and it wasn't involved when I got divorced. This was not by design, but it is how things turned out. Some people will tell me that I wasn't "really" married at all because I didn't get permission from the government. But why should my (now ex) wife and I, as adults, need to ask the state for permission in the first place? How is it the business of government to decide who is married and who is not? Why is the state even informed of the change in status?
This brings me to the very point that this article makes so well. Why is the state involved in defining marriage? Worse yet, why does it assume the role of permission-giver, without whose assent a marriage is not "real"? Does that make any sort of sense in a free society?
Let the role of the state be limited to the enforcement of valid contracts between consenting adults, and let the adults in question define their relationship in whatever terms they choose.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
It is one thing when leftists spread lies about us being racists. Leftists telling hateful lies is something that happens every day. It is quite another to see someone buying into those lies and repeating them.
It honestly made me sad and I felt sorry for this woman. If she believes the lies about the Tea Party movement, then what other destructive lies has she bought into? How is her life being damaged by those lies, her potential destroyed? What possibilities are there for her that will never be realized because she has come to believe that America itself is her enemy?
If there are other people who don't like this, then the answer is to pony up more money for that same piece of land than the muslims are willing to spend to secure it. If the muslims won't sell....too bad. Crying to the government to "protect" us from the free use of private property is both stupid and wrong.
I'd heard a great deal of fussing about this business for a long time, and I'd always assumed that some government entity was involved in the building of this mosque. Now I find out that this is the work of private citizens using private property. The fair-weather conservatives who would deny them that right should be ashamed of themselves. Rights aren't just for people we like. They are for everyone.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
We Voted On It
John JJ Richman was making breakfast when he heard the crowd outside. They seemed just shy of hostile. He opened his door to see about 65 townspeople, out of a town of 100. Two spokesmen were standing on the porch.
John: Good morning. Why are you all here?
Rob: There are things that need changing, and you are the one to help us.
John: (Distracted by the milling crowd) Rob: The town could use improvement. Renovating the school, hiring more police, fixing up the football field, and a summer splash fountain for the children. For the little children! (Rob was shaking a bit.) John: Well, if you put it like that, I can contribute $1000. (He scans the crowd) Make that $2000. Rob: Not enough. We want you to pay for it all, along with the other 4 rich guys in town. You are earning $250,000 and paying $80,000 in tax. We think $105,000 in tax is only fair, (his eyes flash) or maybe a bit more. That leaves you with $145,000, which is more than fair. You live in the town and will benefit from the improvements. John: That's a big bite. Why should just 5 out of the 100 fund the whole town? As a single man, that $80,000 in 2008 payroll and income taxes is 32% of my earnings, isn't that enough? Maybe the whole town should contribute. Rob: We contribute what we can. We have less money than you. Some of us work for you, and you don't pay enough. We should all be more equal. You have the money and we need it. John: I already personally pay 20% of the town's expenses. The 5 rich guys in town together pay 60%. The 25 well off families pay 86%. Isn't that enough? Rob: We are not into philosophy. We want money. You have money. John: Well, I don't agree with you. Where do you get the authority to just take what you want from me? Rob: I'm the mayor, and at my election two years ago a referendum passed by 65 to 35 about fixing potholes. I think you argued at the time that there was already enough money to fix them. It seems you were always stingy. In that referendum, Section 3, Paragraph 2.a says: "The town shall have the authority to levy taxes to an aggregate amount strictly limited to a total of $20,000 to fix the potholes in the town's streets and thoroughfares (note 1)." Note 1 says: "And in emergencies, for things other than potholes, and possibly a bit more". (The crowd laughs and slaps each other on the back) John: This is unfair. You want me to pay more without paying anything more yourself. Rob: Actually, we are lowering our own taxes. We deserve it, and you don't. We don't understand how you get your money. Some sort of luck or black magic. It probably should be ours. Somehow you took it when we weren't looking. We are leaving you more than enough. You should be happy. John: I don't have the extra money on me. Rob: We'll bill you. We are not barbarians. (The crowd looks disappointed) John: It seems I can't do anything about this. You understand that I won't be expanding my business within the town. I'm feeling a bit upset. I may go fishing. Rob: Fishing is good. We'll see you there. We may be back in a month about money for another Stimulus Package. We want to improve the town economy by giving each of us 65 a stimulus check of $1000. Those new TV's look sweet. John: Is that all? Rob: (Turns toward the crowd without answering) OK boys, next stop is 13 Orchard Lane, there is more work to do.
Rob: The town could use improvement. Renovating the school, hiring more police, fixing up the football field, and a summer splash fountain for the children. For the little children! (Rob was shaking a bit.)
John: Well, if you put it like that, I can contribute $1000. (He scans the crowd) Make that $2000.
Rob: Not enough. We want you to pay for it all, along with the other 4 rich guys in town. You are earning $250,000 and paying $80,000 in tax. We think $105,000 in tax is only fair, (his eyes flash) or maybe a bit more. That leaves you with $145,000, which is more than fair. You live in the town and will benefit from the improvements.
John: That's a big bite. Why should just 5 out of the 100 fund the whole town? As a single man, that $80,000 in 2008 payroll and income taxes is 32% of my earnings, isn't that enough? Maybe the whole town should contribute.
Rob: We contribute what we can. We have less money than you. Some of us work for you, and you don't pay enough. We should all be more equal. You have the money and we need it.
John: I already personally pay 20% of the town's expenses. The 5 rich guys in town together pay 60%. The 25 well off families pay 86%. Isn't that enough?
Rob: We are not into philosophy. We want money. You have money.
John: Well, I don't agree with you. Where do you get the authority to just take what you want from me?
Rob: I'm the mayor, and at my election two years ago a referendum passed by 65 to 35 about fixing potholes. I think you argued at the time that there was already enough money to fix them. It seems you were always stingy.
In that referendum, Section 3, Paragraph 2.a says: "The town shall have the authority to levy taxes to an aggregate amount strictly limited to a total of $20,000 to fix the potholes in the town's streets and thoroughfares (note 1)."
Note 1 says: "And in emergencies, for things other than potholes, and possibly a bit more".
(The crowd laughs and slaps each other on the back)
John: This is unfair. You want me to pay more without paying anything more yourself.
Rob: Actually, we are lowering our own taxes. We deserve it, and you don't. We don't understand how you get your money. Some sort of luck or black magic. It probably should be ours. Somehow you took it when we weren't looking. We are leaving you more than enough. You should be happy.
John: I don't have the extra money on me.
Rob: We'll bill you. We are not barbarians.
(The crowd looks disappointed)
John: It seems I can't do anything about this. You understand that I won't be expanding my business within the town. I'm feeling a bit upset. I may go fishing.
Rob: Fishing is good. We'll see you there.
We may be back in a month about money for another Stimulus Package. We want to improve the town economy by giving each of us 65 a stimulus check of $1000. Those new TV's look sweet.
John: Is that all?
Rob: (Turns toward the crowd without answering) OK boys, next stop is 13 Orchard Lane, there is more work to do.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
How is it "racism" on the part of a network when members of a particular ethnic group don't tune in? I'm sure that Hee-Haw was not high on the list of BET fans, but does that make Roy Clark the head of the KKK?
These people don't seem to know what racism actually is. It has devolved into this catch-all describe-all term that they bandy about and throw at everything they don't like but cannot find honest fault with.
Are you left handed? Racism.
Are you right handed? Racism.
Did you eat your peas? Racism.
2+2=4. Must be racism cause none of those numbers are black.
I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but not by much.
Leftists have always been wrong (most of the time), but now they're going off the rails into the realm of full-blown crazy. With each passing day their desperation grows while their grasp of reality falters. They seem to think that they'll be able to convince people that conservatives and libertarians are wrong simply by calling us names.
Ad hominem attacks are the last retreat of the intellectually bankrupt.
Besides, why should news channels or newspapers or blogs be judged based upon the skin color of the people who consume them? Shouldn't these sources of information and commentary be judged on the basis of whether they provide factual reporting and insightful analysis?
Truth and reason are color blind. Something is very wrong when a news outlet is judging itself by the skin color of its patrons instead of the quality of its reporting.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
(Ya gotta click and read from the link before this post will make sense).
It seems to me that the entire response from Espenshade is dishonest. Success in groups such as 4-H indicates that a person is likely to be grounded in reality and possess a level of maturity that might be lacking in their peers.
It is precisely this that makes such applicants undesirable from the standpoint of these universities. A student who knows who they are and has some idea of how the world works will be resistant to indoctrination and also undermine the university's efforts to indoctrinate others.
To describe these groups as merely "career oriented" and then claim that success within one might indicate someone is unserious about their education is completely dishonest. It takes independent initiative and diligence to succeed in such groups, which are precisely the qualities necessary to succeed in any endeavour, including academically. Show me a student who is intrinsically motivated to work harder, who does not give up in the face of hardship, and I'll show you a student who will succeed.
This is also perhaps part of why such students are not desired by these universities. When individual character, effort, and merit are on full display, it is difficult to convince someone that their fate is bound by the color of their skin or the contents of their family's bank account.
Also lets not forget that the ONLY reason why anyone with a clue pursues higher education is to have a better career. That better career might not pay more than another they would have had otherwise, but it is a career that they prefer and for which education is a prerequisite. To complain about students being "career oriented" patently insane. That's like GM complaining about its potential customers being "car oriented." Cars are what GM sells, and career enhancing education is what universities sell. Students don't go to college to bask in the pontifications of tenured radicals, they go to learn what they need to know to pursue the career they desire.
Academics lie when they pretend the classes they teach that do not directly contribute to a person's career are somehow valuable. Predictably those academics with the least useful subjects to teach are the ones who most vocally cry for the value of these useless subjects for making a person "well rounded" or contributing to the "college experience." They're useless liars. Luckily for us they're also the least well paid of all academics.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
This is the lesson that law enforcement learned from the Rodney King episode: Attack those who would hold you accountable for complying with the law you are sworn to uphold.
Police fear video cameras because they cannot be impugned.
Normally cops are able to get away with murder, sometimes quite literally. They can conspire to lie and make up pretty much any story they like as long as it is even marginally consistent with the known facts of the case. When push comes to shove it is the word of several police officers against someone accused of a crime. Who are the judge, the jury and the public, going to believe?
But when those cops are videotaped, their ability to spin-doctor what happened in order to bury the accused and/or cover up their own wrongdoing is extremely limited.
They especially fear being taped without their knowledge and having that evidence show up AFTER they've perjured themselves or filed false reports.
It is for this very reason that the right to videotape police conduct, especially surreptitiously, should be protected by law. It is at least as fundamental a right as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. When agents of the state are empowered to detain and incarcerate private citizens for violations of the law, those citizens have the right to an impartial observer to ensure that those agents are conducting themselves in accordance with the law and with respect for the truth.
There was another case not too long ago where a teenage hoodlum used an MP3 device to record his own interrogation at the hands of the police. One of the cops he dealt with later lied on the stand about what took place during that interrogation, only to be destroyed by the truth.
Now the teen in question was a criminal. He was guilty of the charge, but because the police lied those charges were thrown out. Furthermore the police who perjured themselves destroyed their careers and opened themselves up to criminal charges of their own.
A good cop who does his job honestly and tells the truth has nothing to fear from the truth. Only dirty cops who look to shortcut the due process of the accused, or who are criminals in their own right, fear having their official actions recorded.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
I find it interesting that Harvard thinks it can "revoke" a degree.
This guy lied about his identity. He was a Russian spy sent here to gather intelligence to be used against us by a foreign power. He was not a good man.
However, an education is not a piece of paper. Harvard cannot deprive him of the education he received while he was here. The most that the university can do is pretend that he didn't receive it, which is itself a lie.
To put it another way imagine this: A man goes to a car dealership and buys a car. He pays cash. Later it is discovered that the money he used was stolen and the identity he used was false. The police have no idea who he was and there is no way to recover the car. It is gone and will never be seen again.
Does the dealership still possess that car, or does the man who bought it under fraudulent terms possess it? Would it be rational or true for that dealership to "revoke" that car on paper and pretend that it is still in their inventory?
That is pretty much what Harvard is doing here. A difference of opinion about where a car is physically located is easily resolved by referring to objective reality. That car is either still on the lot, or it isn't. There is no ambiguity there. The same is true here as well. Either this man completed the course work necessary to earn his degree, or he didn't. That question is easily answered by referring to his academic records and the evaluations of his instructors. If he completed his coursework satisfactorily, then he has that degree. Harvard cannot deprive him of the insight, understanding, and enlightenment that he now has as a result of completing that degree program. If these intellectual enhancements were never received as part of earning that degree, if the only value to that degree is that Harvard now claims you as one of its graduates, then that degree is already worthless except as something to pad one's resume and Harvard is nothing but a diploma mill.
But I for one do not believe that the degree he earned amounted to nothing but fluff and busywork. I believe that earning a master's degree in public administration requires a student to actually learn and master real knowledge. If this is true, then for them to say that they have "revoked" his degree is a misrepresentation of the truth equal to the one he perpetrated by pretending to be someone else while earning it.
The honest thing for Harvard to do, if it wishes to disassociate itself from this man, is to simply state that they are doing precisely that. Divorce him. Disown him. Disclaim him. But don't pretend that his degree is non-existent because that simply isn't true. Harvard lessens itself by publishing that fiction.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
This is genuinely fascinating.
Think about what he is saying here for a moment. He is calling for government control over the press.
Wow.... just wow....
When I read statements like his, and this is not the first time I've seen such sentiments, I'm always reminded of something that Joseph Goebbels said:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
When someone has the truth on their side, they do not fear those who disagree with them. They respond to challenges and criticism with the truth. (And few are in a better position to make their voices heard than journalists.) Only someone who is committed to lies is fearful of disagreement. It is this sort of person who seeks to silence their opposition, not with the truth, but with brute force.
Everything you need know about this man and people like him can be summed up by his own words. He fears an open marketplace of ideas because he knows that his own beliefs will be rejected. He doesn't want to know and follow the truth. He wants control. He became a journalist in order to control what other people think, and he is now upset that his ability to do this is draining away.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
I’ve long said that civilization trumps natural selection. I’d like to now add that persistent affluence reverses it.
These people are as they are precisely because they have not had to deal with reality. They are victims of our nation’s economic and material success. They receive all of the benefits that affluence bestows, without ever having to manifest any of the virtues that made that affluence possible in the first place.
Our nation is DOOMED because our culture has decayed from within. Character is destiny, and the character of a nation is its culture.
It won’t matter who gets elected this fall, or in 2012, because both the voters and the candidates will be cut from a fraying and substandard cloth that grows thinner each day.
If you’ve ever wondered how great civilizations decline and perish, take a look around. You’ve got a front row seat.
Friday, July 16, 2010
I officially call upon the NAACP and all people of good will to repudiate the handist element and activities within the NAACP.
It's time for the NAACP to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members."
Sound silly and a little out of touch with reality?
Well no more so than the NAACP joining the chorus of leftards accusing the Tea Party of racism.
Think about the word racism for a minute. With the way that it is tossed about and the quickness with which the left uses it as a gratuitous accusation, does it really mean anything anymore?
Think for a moment about the definition of the term. Now look at all of the people and groups and situations where someone is being accused of it. Does that definition in any way fit the way the term is actually used in practice?
Racism, at least according to the uncorrupted definition of that word, is a social ill that is at an all time low. Show me someone who hates other human beings because of their ethnic background and I'll show you an ex-con with an 8th grade education and a room temperature IQ living in a trailer park. Decent human beings don't look for someone to dump on so that they can feel better about themselves. Decent human beings see people as individuals and judge them accordingly, not as members of some tribal group to be judged en masse. When leftists harp on and on about racism without any grounds for that accusation, I do have to believe that it is a case of psychological projection. So much of what they scream about is precisely what they do, to the point that their own accusations can be used as a pretty good indicator for what their own crimes are.
The Tea Party that I'm a part of is comprised of decent human beings. To accuse us of something as sordid and ignorant as racism pathetically absurd. Even more absurd than my accusing the NAACP of hating people who are left-handed.
Why would they do this? Because we represent ideas and principles that they do not agree with but cannot refute nor publicly deny. So instead they resort to ad-hominem attacks against us, which is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. It would be truly fascinating to hear what they say about us in private amongst themselves.
Teacher's comment questioning the qualifications of homeschoolers
Public schoolteachers believe that we should be FORCED to purchase their services. They believe that they should have a monopoly on the education of the young, one backed up by the force of law. This sense of entitlement is truly breathtaking. Contrast this with professionals whose paycheck is contingent on the quality of their services.
When the state has a monopoly on the means of production we call it communism. Our public schools are a case study for why communism doesn't work. Communism doesn't just have economic effects, it destroys the virtue of the people who are subjected to it. Public schools are such a horror precisely because of this.
The only real solution is to take the government out of the business of delivering education. Public he roads are maintained by private firms under contract with the state. The same should be done with education. Only instead of some government bureaucrat deciding which school gets the money, the parents of each individual child should decide. Make schools compete for students and for the state funding that each student represents.
Effective teachers who care about their students welcome this idea. They have nothing to fear from increased competition. In fact they have everything to gain from it as this would make their own competence an asset rather than a liability. Political intrigue, which public schools are notorious for, is the pastime of those whose position isn't based on on performance. Tie continued employment and promotion to objective standards of achievement instead of political wrangling and that intrigue will evaporate.
Bad teachers naturally don't like this idea. They want to nurse from the teat of the public treasury, secure in the knowledge that they can never be dislodged, no matter how useless or even destructive they are. They are what is known as a parasite, and should be treated as such.
Remember this the next time someone tries to feed you the standard sob story about how teachers are so underpaid and under-appreciated. More money is not what they need. Accountability that only the free market can create is what they need.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Here is a partial list of the crimes that the Oakland police department will no longer trouble itself with:
- grand theft
- grand theft:dog
- identity theft
- false information to peace officer
- required to register as sex or arson offender
- dump waste or offensive matter
- discard appliance with lock
- loud music
- possess forged notes
- pass fictitious check
- obtain money by false voucher
- fraudulent use of access cards
- stolen license plate
- embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
- attempted extortion
- false personification of other
- injure telephone/ power line
- interfere with power line
- unauthorized cable tv connection
It looks to me like child molesters and firebugs have found themselves their very own Sanctuary City.
Given the efforts by the usual suspects in California to deprive citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, I suspect that crimes like burglary will increase dramatically.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The left loves to latch on to disagreements among conservatives and pretend that civil war is on the horizon.
But that isn't the reason I'm posting about this article. I'm doing so because it keeps talking about something it calls "the war in Afghanistan."
Once again the left just doesn't get it.
The war in Afghanistan is not the war in Afghanistan.
The war is global because our enemies are global. A religious ideology of hatred knows no national boundaries.
There is no way to "win in Afghanistan" in any meaningful sense because Afghanistan is merely one of many battlefields.
Places like the UK, Holland, and Michigan are where the real battles will be fought, and it won't be with bullets and bombs, but with babies. Demographics is destiny.
Naturally we should deprive our enemies of Afghanistan as a base of operations and a source of cannon fodder and suicide bombers, but we should not confuse our ability to do this with some sort of cosmic "victory."
Victory will come when our enemies are dead.
He doesn't get it I'm afraid.
The craft of "credible, serious journalism is in a state of chaos" because journalists are no longer credible.
Money is not a the heart of the issue. Honesty is.
Journalism, once based on the ideals and ethic of Murrow, now follows a different school: that of Goebbels.
The media does one of two things. It seeks to distract the public with "news" stories about celebrity gossip. When it does cover real news, every word is an attempt at manipulation. Stories that cannot be spin doctored are ignored.
This isn't a matter of bias, but of simple honesty.
Like all propagandists, the media lies even when it tells the truth.
Naturally, the public is increasingly looking for news and analysis from other sources.
In Nazi Germany, people simply stopped reading newspapers because all of them contained the very same propaganda.
In America, people are disregarding "liberal" papers and magazines for the very same reason.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
While reading this article, I couldn't help but think about execution by lethal injection. The article describes the use of painkillers on unborn children, including their use to relieve the pain of being aborted.
Think about that for a moment.
Isn't this same issue one of the main reasons why lethal injection systems start off with a heavy pain killer and sedative before delivering the lethal cocktail that causes death?
The article cites research that suggests the unborn cannot feel pain early in the gestational process, but that doesn't stop me from being completely unnerved by the notion of a doctor administering a painkiller to an unborn child so that it won't feel the pain of dismemberment.
The older I get and the more I think about it the more opposed I am to abortion as a form of birth control. When I was a kid I saw all the propaganda on MTV that made abortion sound like some kind of civil rights issue when nothing could be further from the truth.
Time and time again you will hear about a woman's right to choose. What does that mean though? Really, what does that mean? Unless a woman is raped, she made a choice when she decided to have sex. All choices have consequences. One of the potential consequences of sex is pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant then she should refrain from having sex, a simple fact that the left does everything it can to ignore
The left doesn't promote personal responsibility and understanding the consequences of one's choices when it comes to sex. The left promotes sexual promiscuity and the abdication of personal responsibility over one's sexual choices, all in the name of "sexual liberation."
Well that is just plain bunk.
Freedom does not mean making bad choices and then shifting the consequences off onto someone else. It means the power to assume complete responsibility over something.
Freedom of speech prohibits the state from assuming responsibility for what someone says. It prohibits the state from attempting to control what someone says. It also prohibits the state from punishing someone for what they have said. It does not mean that people who say stupid things are to be held in equal esteem as people who say things that are wise. The consequence of saying stupid things is that people are going to doubt your intelligence, if not your sanity. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are protected from this consequence.
The same goes for sex. People have a fundamental right to make their own choices about sex as long as those choices don't violate the rights of another. But with that power, with that freedom, comes responsibility. If someone makes a choice, they have to deal with the consequences. Choosing to have sex means you might get pregnant. Violating someone else's rights (in this case your unborn child's) in order to avoid taking responsibility for your own choices is as good a definition of evil as any I've ever heard.
Abortion is not only evil, it is unnecessary. The solution to the problem that abortion claims to resolve is to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. Don't have sex with someone you don't intend to have children with. Contraceptives are available, and they do work, but they are not 100%. So either accept the risk that comes with the choice to have sex, or stick to sexual activities that won't result in conception.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
(This post was originally in response to another poster's comments on the article above)
Let me get this straight. Election day comes. John has studied the candidates. He goes to the polls and casts his vote. Juan excludes himself from the political process. He stays home and watches TV.
The election results come in and the candidate that John voted for wins over the candidate that Juan stayed home for.
In our modern Bizarro world, when the system works as intended (i.e. voters get to decide the outcome of elections), federal election law has been violated.
Self-determined behavior on the part of independent individuals now requires state intervention to ensure that members of a specific ethnic group are more likely to vote.
That is pure insanity.
I've no problem with the voting system itself. It seems no worse than any other, at first glance at least. But I do have a very big problem with the attitudes that have inspired this change. It doesn't take a latino to represent latinos any more than it takes a methodist to represent methodists. Ideas and Character are what matter, not ethnic Identity and skin Color. Bobby Jindal is living proof of this. If someone chooses to exclude themselves from the political process because no one from their self-defined identity group is on the ballot, then that person is a fucking loser.
I also dispute the notion that "our civilized society" decided that affirmative action (read racial discrimination) and minority redistricting (read Gerrymandering) are necessary to ensure equality. They do not produce equality, but its antithesis. Everyone should be held accountable to the same standards of conduct and performance. Ethnic Gerrymandering only serves to create and perpetuate ghettos, which is precisely why the left is so fond of it. They want ethnic minorities to feel isolated and marginalized so they'll be more likely to vote for the destruction the country as a whole. Divide and conquer is the name of the game.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The police have no business arresting anyone for drinking beer or anything else short of paint thinner (and even then only to take them to the hospital.) The law doesn’t get to define someone as only having certain rights and not others. If someone has reached the age of majority then that person has all of the rights (and responsibilities) that go along with that status. When the government plays favorites and defines some people as more equal than others, all of us are made less free.
You can thank MADD for this nonsense. Rather than punish drunk drivers, they lobbied the feds to punish teenagers. The end result was a ZERO percent decrease in the rate of drunk driving and the creation of an entirely new class of “criminals” where no “crime” had previously existed.
I also believe that these laws are actively enforced as a way to punish young people simply for being young.
I’m 37 years old by the way, and a dedicated libertarian.
This is just another reason for me to do most of my shopping at Wal-Mart.
The left loves to pretend that Wal-Mart abuses its employees. This is a lie of course. It is hard to abuse someone by paying them minimum wage for a job that warrants it.
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut. The average IQ is 100. Because intelligence follows a normal distribution, this means that 50% of the population has an IQ lower than this. What kind of jobs do you think these people are going to have? How much money do you expect them to be able to earn? Unless they have a valuable talent that is not tied to their intelligence, most of them are going to wind up in menial positions making minimum wage. It is unfortunate that not everyone gets to be an astronaut, but it is also inevitable. All men are created equal. That is to say that everyone is equal before the law. No one has special rights or privileges based upon their birth. But that does not mean that human beings are equal in terms of character, ability, inclination, or ambition. These all vary wildly from one person to the next, and it is inevitable that those individuals who hare lacking in ability gravitate towards jobs that are not intellectually demanding. Even if you were to take someone in one of these menial positions and give them a higher paying job, they would not be able to perform that job. They have gravitated to their natural station in life.
What makes America a great nation is the fact that a person’s station is not determined at birth. The children of these menial workers are not themselves forced to assume that same station if their talents and ambitions are greater than those of their parents. Given the genetic diversity of this country it is not at all uncommon for an above average child to be born to parents who are below average. The genius of America is that those kids have the opportunity to achieve their potential.
There are also some people who work at places like Wal Mart who are not lacking for intelligence, but who do lack ambition. Talented losers are nothing new. The other great thing about America is that should one of these underachievers ever come to their senses and see the error of their ways, opportunities to do something better with their life will still be there.
Wal-Mart also works very hard to prevent their employees from unionizing. At first glance that sounds horrible until you realize that unions in America have decayed into corrupt organizations that serve no one’s interests but that of their leaders and their bosses in the Democratic Party. I wouldn’t want to do business with a company whose workers belonged to a union unless I knew for certain that the particular union in question was NOT corrupt. Show me a union of the employees, by the employees, for the employees and I’ll support it. The unions we have in this country today don’t fit that description at all.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
"...A New York Times profile last week described Courtney Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University with nearly $100,000 in student loan debt -- debt that her degree in Religious and Women's Studies did not equip her to repay...."
I guess she should have gone for the Art History degree after all.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Now why do you suppose that a Watermelon Marxist group like Grassroots International would encourage people to destroy seeds that could be used to improve their lives?
The answer to that question can be found in the demographics of the people they are trying to victimize. Virtually everyone in Haiti is black. It is the policy of the left to keep black people in ghettoes. Some ghettoes are neighbourhoods in the inner cities of America. Other ghettoes are comprised of entire nations. The common factors that comprise a ghetto are economic poverty, spiritual and moral poverty, and a sense of hopelessness that anything can be done to make things better. So when someone comes along and offers the people in the ghetto something that might improve things, the left HAS to act to stop it.
If the people of Haiti are better able to feed themselves, this undermines the oppression that the left seeks to impose upon them. So of course the left is going to do whatever it can to prevent them from making progress in this way.
Now you might be wondering why the left would do this at all. Why would the left want to keep certain people in poverty. Well the answer is that they hold these people up as the victims of Democracy and Capitalism. In other words, the left works to prevent these people from receiving the fruits of Democracy and Capitalism so that they can then claim that Democracy and Capitalism have created the problems these people are suffering from.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
This article leaves some questions unanswered. Has he sought protection from the Israeli government? Are the Israelis offering to protect him, or have they thrown him under the bus? I doubt that they have abandoned him, but I do have to wonder. Does he believe that they cannot protect him?
ICE actively ignores the presence of millions of illegal aliens in America, but they pay extra special attention to this guy. Why? And by why, I mean what is the real reason. The excuses listed in the article don't hold water. (Are there other reasons the article doesn't mention?) I don't know exactly, though I do wonder how much walking into the DHS office and making himself known to them had to do with it. A Bureaucracy is just a fancy name for organized incompetence. Had he kept a low profile odds are they never would have done a damned thing about him, just like they neglect their duty to deport all of the other illegal aliens.
He came here legally, but did not leave when his visa expired, so he is an illegal alien, albeit one with a strong case for seeking legal asylum.
If it were up to me I'd find out what the Israelis are offering him. If they can't or won't protect him then I'd give him asylum here. In fact I'd probably offer him asylum regardless of what the Israelis say. He has worked to save the lives of Americans and is now being threatened by a common enemy. If he doesn't deserve asylum, then who does?
If rule of law is to mean anything at all, all branches of government must take appropriate action to ensure that the law is followed.
A community college is a public institution. While it isn't responsible for enforcing immigration law, it is responsible for ensuring that its admissions standards and processes are compliant with that law.
The article above raises the issue of a scholarship, privately funded but publicly administered. The real issue is that illegal aliens are being admitted to public colleges in the first place.
Friday, May 28, 2010
This article is downright shameful. I couldn't understand why the author was saying the things he did, until I looked at who he is:
"The writer, a Republican, represents Florida's 14th District in the U.S. House."
Suddenly, everything became clear.
Florida has a large Cuban community. This is an election year. He's just pandering to them.
Of all the illegal immigrants in this country, Cuban refugees have the least to fear I would think. They are fleeing communist tyranny. I for one would NEVER support a policy that returns them to Cuba, and I don't think there are many conservatives or libertarians who would. The people of Cuba are victims of a criminal regime and deserve our friendship and support.
If you have not clicked on the link, you should. That article is a good example of what could best be described as a diffused straw man attack. He never quite articulates what exactly it is that is wrong with the law, other than that it is "bad." The complaints that he does make are inaccurate.
First he blathers about Obama and the Dems in order to establish his credibility with conservatives.
Then he drags in the internment camps where we stuck Japanese Americans during WW-II. While regrettable, and something that I hope does not happen again, that bit of history has NOTHING to do with the current law. It is a complete non-sequitur.
Then he talks about securing the border. Nice idea, but without comprehensive enforcement of immigration law throughout the nation, making the border harder to cross just isn't good enough. Once an illegal alien enters the country, he or she is home free. Making it harder to get here helps, but is only part of the solution.
Next he starts pretending that the law is about protecting the majority over the minority. This is just another way of pretending that the law is derived from ethnocentrism. The purpose of this law is to remove illegal aliens from the country. The fact that most illegals in AZ come from the country next door, with a different culture and language, is a coincidence, not a causal factor. Americans (including the Latinos he implies are being targeted) have nothing to fear from this law. The only people who will be touched by this legislation are illegal aliens.
Next he pulls the "Where are your papers?" canard out of his arse, which is a grotesque perversion of what the law actually states. If the police pull you over, they want to see your ID. It makes no difference whether you are an illegal alien or not. They're asking for your ID to determine who you are. It has been this way since time immemorial. To pretend that this now constitutes some sort of fascist attack on our liberties, or racist attack on a privileged ethnic group, is ridiculous.
If he is this dishonest, then why would anyone want to vote for him?
I can only conclude that this guy is yet another individual who has not actually read the law in question.
But you can:
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The problem here is not Arizona. The problem is a federal government that has abandoned the rule of law.
What legitimacy can a government have when it not only fails to enforce its laws consistently, but refuses to enforce some laws altogether?
The legitimacy of any state is derived from its people, not the other way around. This is something that many Americans have forgotten. Many Americans seem to think that the government is there to tell us what to do and that we have no choice but to obey. Government officials are not our masters. They are not feudal lords and we are not peasants and vassals. They have no authority except that which defined by law. Authority that carries with it the obligation to enforce that law.
The sole purpose of state power is to enforce the law. The powers of the state are defined, and limited, by law. The authority to enforce the law carries with it the OBLIGATION to do the same. Just as the state cannot assume powers not defined by law, neither can it neglect to enforce the law using the powers it has been given.
Any government that neglects its duty to enforce the law as written is illegitimate. Any government official who acts in bad faith and shirks his or her duty to enforce the law as written has violated their oath of office and should be subject to civil, if not criminal, prosecution.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The above article notes that couples consisting of professionals with college and (especially) graduate degrees tend to have stable marriages. They also tend to live together before marrying, marry relatively late in life, have children at a later age (and fewer children at that), and have few children out of wedlock.
Meanwhile couples consisting of negligibly educated bottom-dwellers tend to have unstable marriages and suffer from all of the other ills that most people associate with them.
The article goes on to describe the winning formula as a "Blue" lifestyle and the losing formula as a "Red" lifestyle.
These labels are completely arbitrary. They were chosen to damage the brand equity of conservativeness in general.
I'm no fan of social conservatives, but neither do I pretend that they are losers. There are plenty of social conservatives who are well educated, have good jobs, and strong marriages. The same is true of many liberals.
Meanwhile there are other social conservatives and other Liberals who aren't so well educated, who don't have real jobs, whose relationships are dysfunctional, and who engage in self-destructive bullshit (drug abuse, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The difference is not between Red and Blue, but between winners and losers.
The difference between a winner and a loser is not WHERE they are in the game, but WHO they are at a fundamental level.
Even when you change the rules of the game, once the dust settles you will find the very same people on top, and the very same people on the bottom, as you did before the board was shuffled.
Political ideology is not nearly as strong an indicator of personal and professional success as are basic competence and character.
You can only turn a winner into a loser by destroying that person. You must kill them or otherwise devastate them in such a way that they never recover. What you can't do is turn them into a loser by taking from them the rewards that they have won from life by being a winner. Do this and they'll simply go out and win them all over again, or perhaps choose other goals that they will be equally successful at achieving. What they won't do is turn into a loser.
Neither can you turn a loser into a winner, except perhaps by some form of psychotherapy not yet invented by which a person's fundamental character can be forged anew. A loser can become a winner, but only through the realization that they are in fact a loser and through the determined effort to effect inner change. You cannot change a loser into a winner by handing them the rewards that come from being a winner. Anything you give them will be squandered and wasted, and they will be no better off than before, and in fact will often be worse. Losers who suffer a windfall often find that they finally have enough money to really get themselves into trouble.
Regardless of which direction the winds of fortune blow, both losers and winners will always gravitate back to the station in life that their own character has destined them to occupy.
Attempting to apply such transparent culture-war labels to these two camps is as dishonest as it is ridiculous.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The problem with a book like this, and books like these in general, is that they are books. To read them requires that a person actually spend the time and money to procure a copy.
Who is going to do this? The people who already know (or strongly suspect) what is in the book and approve of its message.
I know the authors want to make money from this book. They spent time and money of their own to research and write it. But if they really want as many people as possible to be made aware of the information they have uncovered, posting that information to blogs and other websites is the best way to disseminate it.
The truth matters, but truth that people are unaware of is truth that cannot help them. If the average American had good knowledge of who and what Obama is during the Dem primaries, he wouldn't be in the White House now. We might have Hillary instead because McCain was such a loser, but we wouldn't have Obama.
Modern politics is an information war. The lefties control most of the media and use that to block and distort the truth while promoting lies. Writing a book that will only be read by republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, and even then only by those eager to spend the time and money to do so, is literally preaching to the choir. They already know that Obama is bad. They buy and read this book to confirm that assessment of him. Independents and honest leftists (also known as future libertarians) won't get this information because they aren't looking for it. You have to put it out there where they are likely to encounter it, or at least encounter someone from the left trying to discredit it.
Think for a moment about the stings that brought down ACORN. Had O'Keefe and Giles written a book about their experiences, instead of providing video on the internet, nothing would have happened. Breitbart uses the power of mass media to get the truth out there, and the authors of this book should consider doing the same.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
She says she works at Bellevue, but her though processes make me wonder if she isn't a patient.
Here is the response I posted:
The easiest way for people in Arizona to prove that they are legal residents is to pull out their Arizona driver's license or state-issued ID card. If someone lives here, then that is something that they should already have.
Arizona does not issue ID cards to illegal aliens. You must be either a US citizen, or a legal alien with the proper documentation.
Federal law requires legal aliens to carry their green card at all times. So even if someone is a legal resident of the US, but lives in another state, they will still be able to prove that they are here legally.
The people who will be most affected by this are Americans from other states which DO issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. I confess I don't know off the top of my head which states do this, but it is my understanding that some states do. I work at ASU and we have many out of state students who will likely be affected by this. The good news is that this law has not gone into effect yet. They have plenty of time to obtain an AZ driver's license or ID card.
This new law does not authorize the police to go around asking for ID from every person they see. Such a law would never have been passed.
What it does do is require police officers to determine the legal status of the people they are already interacting with. Why this should be so controversial is really beyond me. If a police officer pulls you over for running a stop-sign and asks for your license, one of the first things he or she does is check to see if you have any outstanding warrants. How is checking to make sure that you are here legally any different? If someone is not here legally, then they are breaking the law. This is an irrefutable truth. Try as I might, I really, really can't get my head around the idea that the police are not supposed to enforce the law.
The full text of the law can be found here:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The ICE agents who arrested this guy are federal agents who deal with illegal aliens as part of their daily routine. If they thought he was an illegal alien then they probably had good reason. You won't find out what that reason is from the article of course, because telling the whole truth would interfere with the narrative. If the ICE agents acted inappropriately or made a mistake then I sincerely hope they will be reprimanded.
Having a commercial driver's license doesn't prove anything. While AZ does not issue driver's licenses to illegals, there are other states that do. Where was his license from? The article doesn't say. (Check again, it does not say.)
As for AZ licenses, they would serve as proof that the person was either a citizen or a legal alien since AZ doesn't issue licenses to illegals. If you are a citizen then they want your birth certificate or proof of naturalization at the DMV. If you are a legal alien then they want the documentation to prove that you are here legally.
A fake license might get you past a bouncer at a club, but the cops can call that license up on the computer in their patrol car and verify whether it is real or not. They also look at state issued ID for a living, so even if they didn't have access to a terminal they'd be able to spot all but the best of fakes on sight. You also have to ask yourself why they would assume that a license was fake and the person was an illegal alien. It's not like the cops are going to go around assuming that everyone is an illegal alien and challenging us to prove otherwise. There would have to be reasonable suspicion that someone was an illegal before the issue would even come up.
As for a person's license being lost or stolen, all you have to do is go to the AZDOT website and they'll send you a replacement in the mail.
Legal aliens are required by law to carry their green card with them at all times. So even if they don't have an AZ license, they're still supposed to have proof that they are here legally.
Given that some other states do issue ID to illegals, this may cause problems for Americans who live in AZ but whose licenses are issued by other states. There are many ASU students who fall under that category. The good news is that these people now have time before this law goes into effect to get their shit together and get an AZ license or ID card.
No normal person is going to go around without proper identification. Even if they don't drive they would still need a state-issued ID card to function in society. The only people who don't carry ID are illegal aliens and criminals.
If Joe Blow has a warrant from Illinois, hiding out in Arizona under an assumed name becomes a lot easier if he avoids carrying ID. If the cops interact with him in an official capacity they will give him a hard time, and might even arrest him, but he still has a better shot at avoiding extradition if they have trouble determining who he is.
Lets not forget all of the criminals who come up from Mexico also. Hiding out in the US is easy for Mexican criminals because they can just blend in with all of the other illegal aliens. US law enforcement isn't necessarily looking for them, and there is an underground support system already in place to help them work under the table and find a place to live anonymously. Meanwhile they can get back to their life's work of being a criminal
The Federal government has refused to enforce its own legislation, which places the burden for enforcement on the states. I'm very glad that I live in a state that is willing to step up to the plate and take care of the problem. The people who cast this as some kind of "human rights" issue are foolish at best. There is no universal right of domicile in the United States of America. Leftists want illegals here, and want them to have the power to vote here because the American people reject leftist crap for the most part. This is a center-right country and always has been. Bringing in illegals is simply a ploy to manipulate the political complextion of the country. The left wants to expand the ranks of people who will support their evil nonsense, and they see illegals as a ready made "victim" group they can fool into supporting their agendas. All of their whining is cover for a scheme to jerrymander the electoral system, only instead of moving the border they simply move people from one side of it to the other. Their bullshit is as transparent as it is rancid. They will be punished for it in due time.
I fully expect that this law stand up to legal scrutiny in the courts and I hope that other states will adopt similar legislation.
Here is the full text of the law in case anyone is confused about exactly what it says:
As for me, I'd love to get deported "back" to Ireland.
Get me set up in a nice apartment in Dublin where the music never stops, the bars never close, and the fiery lasses like Americans.
The more I think about it, the better that idea sounds.
If anyone would like to sic ICE on me, I'd appreciate it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Apparently one of the side effects of ObamaCare is that there won't be enough doctors to treat everyone, at least in theory. I don't really believe that because if there is more demand for a good or service then the supply will also increase.
Let me be the first to say that if more people are able to pay for medical care, then that is not a bad thing. I'm in no way a fan of ObamaCare, but I will not criticize it for enabling consumers to pay for medical treatment.
Monday, April 12, 2010
“The failure to identify our enemy for what it is, violent Islamist extremism, is offensive….”
Why does he feel the need to complain about this policy on purely subjective grounds?
Criticisms of objective reality based on purely subjective criteria are fundamentally invalid.
Anything can be “offensive” to anyone at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all. It is an argument that has absolutely no rigor attached to it. One that can be made without anything to substantiate it. This is why it is a favorite the left. Anyone can claim to be “offended” when presented with facts they cannot refute. Leftists love to shift the rules of evidence from the real to the subjective when they have a losing argument (and they cannot lie outright), and this is merely the easiest way for them to do so.
So why is Lieberman doing it here? He undermines his own position when he trots out that old canard, and needlessly so because the factual arguments he does make are very strong.
I think it must be second nature to him, something he does without really thinking about it or understanding what it is that he is actually doing.
Now just stop and think about that for a moment. A majority of Americans were opposed to this new legislation before it passed, and almost 60% of Americans are in favor of repealing it now. The Dems began working to pass this monstrosity over a year ago against majority opposition that only increased as time went on.
So how is it possible that the Dems passed it, knowing full well that doing so was against the wishes of the majority of Americans from whom the legitimacy of our government is derived?
Because the Democrats don't believe in Democracy. The Dems have turned the federal government into a rogue organization. In a republic, it is the consent of the governed that makes the laws legal. Laws that are passed without this consent violate the sovereignty of the American people and are fundamentally invalid. Attempts to enforce such a law constitute tyranny.
Back when Bush was in office the left continuously portrayed him as a would-be tryant, someone who sought to destroy our republic and turn it into a fascist dictatorship. If there is anything I've learned about the left, it is that they consistently project their own sins onto those they oppose. If they accuse someone of something without merit, then you can be dead certain that it is something that they themselves are guilty of, or would be if they had the chance.
This is what makes the accusations of racism against the Tea Party movement so telling. Such accusations are complete fabrications and have no basis in reality. The fact that the left screams this so loudly and vehemently is to me positive proof that they themselves are racists.
But then the concept of racism has been bandied about so much that its actual meaning has been thoroughly conflated with other concepts that have nothing to do with it. It has devolved into a gratuitous accusation that can mean anything, or nothing, at all. How can one defend against a charge of nothing? This is even more diabolical than the old standby "Do you still beat your wife?" At least in this question the actual crime is clearly specified and understood, even if the question itself is rigged to ensure that the accused can never be found innocent.
The debasement of racism as a concept is quite intentional. The most pernicious use of language by the left involves what I call Nothing Words. These are terms to which emotions can be attached but which have no real concrete meaning, or a definition that is an antonym of their most obvious interpretation. This goes beyond being a mere euphemism into the realm of deliberately deceptive language.
"Social Justice" is a good example of this. What does this term actually mean? A naive person might assume it means something good because justice is a good thing. Who would not be in favor of justice? In truth this phrase promotes abusing the power of the state to confiscate money from one person or group and give it to another. In other words, Marxism.
"Affirmative Action" is another good one. What does this term mean? This term is even more ephemeral than the previous one. Attempting to break it down and derive some notion of its meaning from its constituent words is futile because the meaning of both is dependent upon the context in which they are used. It would be like trying to figure out what a "Blue Maybe" is. But as anyone knows, this term is just a cover for racial, sexual and other forms of discrimination on the part of the left.
What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Perhaps someone should come up with an updated version of the Devil's Dictionary to explain these terms. Call it the Democrat's Dictionary.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
I'm so very glad that I'm not a teenager living in Wisconsin.
This story is a strong reminder for me of why I detest "social conservatives" almost as much as I despise leftists.
I guess their notions of small government and individual liberty only apply to topics where they're not completely bug-fuck insane.
I don't know what is worse, the fact that you've got a social authoritarian prosecutor trying to write his own legislation, in direct opposition to the legislation that was actually passed, or that sex between two 17 year olds is considered a crime there.
As always, the usual suspects are trying to indoctrinate young people, and fighting with each other over who gets to do it.
Why the hell are people so neurotic when it comes to sex? Why is this issue such a source of never-ending insanity?
To me the whole idea of specialized "Sex Education" is ridiculous. Not because I'm one of those people who says that sex is such a serious touchy subject that it should only be dealt with in the home, in secret, where no one else can hear.
On the contrary, the ubiquitous nature of sex makes it something that should be as ordinary and unremarkable as driving a car or anything other normal activity in life.
We don't let children drive cars, but we don't hide the existence of cars from them. Why do we treat sex any differently? Kids know about cars and know that people drive them. They see cars and have some idea of how to operate one long before they actually get behind the wheel.
Now some, particularly the neurotic and intellectually dishonest, will pretend that I'm promoting the sexual abuse of children under the guise of "sex education." Well all I can say is that I'm most definitely not. There are evil people who want to abuse children and they need no excuse. What I am promoting is a world where sex is not hidden away and treated like some dread secret. Where the average person knows as much as possible about it long before the time comes when they will actually start doing it themselves.
I'm not one who buys into the unspoken and irrational belief that sex is somehow bad, and that knowledge of sex somehow ruins a child's "innocence."
If you want teenagers to be sexually responsible you have to teach them to be, starting LONG before they reach puberty. Hiding sex from them, or trying to brainwash into believing that it is somehow dirty or evil or shameful or any of the other neuroses that seem to persist among certain subcultures, is just plain crazy.
I find it peculiar that many of these "social conservatives" will teach their children the responsible use of firearms from a young age, and yet go completely nutty when it comes to sex. If someone is irresponsible with a gun, people get maimed and killed. If someone is irresponsible when it comes to sex, people get pregnant. Not a good outcome of course, but not nearly as bad as what can happen when firearms are misused.
The reason this matters is that teenagers are walking around with loaded guns in their pants, and I'm not just talking about the guys either. What sense does it make to carefully instruct them in the care and use of a firearm that they won't generally have access to, while completely ignoring the loaded gun that is part of their own anatomy?
I've been watching this circus act my whole life and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. I have no doubt that 50 years from now people will still be waxing psychiatric over sex, and being especially psychotic when it comes to the knowledge and understanding that the young have about sex.
It takes a special form of intense self-deception to maintain the twisted world view that casts the engines of human progress as evil. The wheel wasn't invented by a cave-man government bureaucrat. It was invented by someone who was looking for something that would increase his or her survival potential. In other words it was invented by someone inspired by the profit motive. The leftists don't understand this because they are the unintended consequence of a world where losers are no longer culled from the gene pool. Civilization trumps natural selection.
The world is not a perfect place, and it never will be. Human beings are flawed and limited and some are quite evil and mad. This is reflected in the nature of our institutions, including everything from governments to companies to country-clubs. This is why power must be limited, why checks and balances are essential, and why each individual must ultimately be empowered to defend his or her own liberty from the forces of tyranny whether they come from a corrupt government or a corrupt business.
The view of leftists that casts government as the white knight protector of the people against the predations of private enterprises is ridiculously sophomoric. These people know nothing of the nature of evil. They unwittingly rail against a cartoon concept of villainy, often at the behest of real villains. Reading their comments and getting a glimpse into the way they think is like hanging out with a bunch of middle schoolers. Kids really do say the darnest things!
Monday, April 5, 2010
The rationale behind this new rule?
"Parents don’t send their kids to Yale to sleep with their professors. Why don’t we say that?"
Since when did Yale University make a habit of admitting juveniles?
I have no issue with a rule forbidding romantic relationships between students and faculty. Given the power disparity between these two groups such a rule is only common sense. What I do have an issue with is the rationale behind it.
College students are not children.
Yale University is not band camp.
In my lifetime I have seen the definition of childhood creep ever upwards, and I'm only 37. Back when I was 18 or 19, a person that age was expected to be an adult. Not an adult in the same way that a 40-something with a mortgage and 3 kids is, but an adult nonetheless. Today a person that age is expected to be an infant, and is treated accordingly not only by our culture but by our institutions.
I was out on my own at the age of 20, and that actually made me something of a late bloomer in 1993. Today people well into their twenties, who should be making their way out into the world under their own steam, are instead still living with their parents as if high school never ended.
This new rule at Yale is nothing more than another manifestation of the perpetual adolescence that has been foisted upon the younger adults of this country.
I work at a University where our students aren't simply presumed to be infants, but legally classified as such. Would you believe that by default a 25 year old is classified as a dependant of his or her parents as far as financial aid is concerned?