News articles repeatedly talk about ASSETS being hidden from the IRS, when it is INCOME that is taxed. As much as the extortionists in the IRS would love to, they can't go shake down someone for money just because they know the person has it.
As long as these people were paying the required taxes on any interest they earned, it is none of the government's business how much money they have or where they're keeping it. A free society requires that the power of the state be limited. The government should always have one hand tied behind its back, in some cases two. Hiding money from the state should not be a crime because ALL money held privately should be hidden from the state by default.
Now obviously the implications of this money being hidden is that taxes were not being paid on the interest earned. All I can say is that these people should have paid their taxes. This is what the news articles should be pointing out instead of implying that simply having money stashed somewhere is somehow a crime.
Call me jaded and cynical, but I'm having a very hard time looking at the antics of Levin as anything other than political grandstanding. When Democrats start whining about people paying taxes, I always think of the legal gymnastics that the Kennedy clan repeatedly pull whenever one of their lot kicks the bucket.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Religious expression as Obscenity
Student Sues school over censorship of religious drawing
The freedom to express one's religious beliefs is being progressively denied in America. Those behind this effort to deny you freedom of religion use many different strategies. One of the more common approaches is to cast religious expression as a form of obscenity.
Before I go any further, I think it appropriate to address the question of what exactly obscenity is, because this is a term that is easily abused by dishonest people who seek to play word games when confronted with the truth.
A simple search online for definitions to this word came up with the following pertinent meanings: "Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses", " Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance."
The story told in the article above is a textbook case of religious expression being cast as something offensive or repulsive, in other words as something obscene, and therefore warranting censorship.
The assistant principal tells this student that his religious expression is a violation of other student's rights.
(This post is unfinished...more will be added later).
The freedom to express one's religious beliefs is being progressively denied in America. Those behind this effort to deny you freedom of religion use many different strategies. One of the more common approaches is to cast religious expression as a form of obscenity.
Before I go any further, I think it appropriate to address the question of what exactly obscenity is, because this is a term that is easily abused by dishonest people who seek to play word games when confronted with the truth.
A simple search online for definitions to this word came up with the following pertinent meanings: "Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses", " Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance."
The story told in the article above is a textbook case of religious expression being cast as something offensive or repulsive, in other words as something obscene, and therefore warranting censorship.
The assistant principal tells this student that his religious expression is a violation of other student's rights.
(This post is unfinished...more will be added later).
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Maoist speech police hard at work at N.D. Univeristy
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/28/nd-university-investigates-raunchy-skit-where-white-student-played-obama-in-blackface/
Upon reading this article I found the response from the university officials far more "offensive" than the skit they were seeking to condemn.
Racism is bad, but using racism as an excuse to empower tyrants in waiting to be speech police is infinitely worse.
Freedom of speech is the right to tell other people what they do not want to hear. The alternative is a world in which only popular ideas are allowed to be expressed, and that my friends is a world where the tyranny of the majority ensures a stagnant society.
The only response that this skit warrants from the university is no response at all.
Upon reading this article I found the response from the university officials far more "offensive" than the skit they were seeking to condemn.
“We’re still going to be proactive in student government, as far as diversity education and training,” he said. “If there are pockets out there that we don’t know about, we want to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”
Racism is bad, but using racism as an excuse to empower tyrants in waiting to be speech police is infinitely worse.
Freedom of speech is the right to tell other people what they do not want to hear. The alternative is a world in which only popular ideas are allowed to be expressed, and that my friends is a world where the tyranny of the majority ensures a stagnant society.
The only response that this skit warrants from the university is no response at all.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"Now there is a valuable lesson — it just belongs to a different political system." -- Jonathan Turley
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080305/D8V7BKM00.html
What do Iran, Cuba, and the US public school systems have in common? All three persecute online dissidents.
Students are not the property of the schools they attend. They are not inmates in an asylum nor convicts in a prison. The school employees had no cause nor right to punish this student; she did nothing wrong.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with impolite language, and everything to do with a student's willingness to criticize the state employees in charge of her school. If only we had more like her.
School administrators should not be held immune to the criticisms of the students under their care. Educators have a job to do, and that is education. Their students are their customers. Educators are not prison guards, the principal is not a prison warden. The students in their charge are guilty of no crime sufficient to hold them in contempt nor deny them their natural rights. Prison convicts are deserving of punishment when they dispute the policies set down by the warden. The same is not true of students in a public school.
Sadly I don't think that this case is going to result in anything but an increase in the powers of school employees to attack and persecute students whose speech they disagree with. Luckily the students are not without recourse. It has long been said that on the internet no one knows you're a dog. The same thing is true of students, some of whom will simply begin writing online under pseudonyms...just like they do in Iran and Cuba.
What do Iran, Cuba, and the US public school systems have in common? All three persecute online dissidents.
Students are not the property of the schools they attend. They are not inmates in an asylum nor convicts in a prison. The school employees had no cause nor right to punish this student; she did nothing wrong.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with impolite language, and everything to do with a student's willingness to criticize the state employees in charge of her school. If only we had more like her.
School administrators should not be held immune to the criticisms of the students under their care. Educators have a job to do, and that is education. Their students are their customers. Educators are not prison guards, the principal is not a prison warden. The students in their charge are guilty of no crime sufficient to hold them in contempt nor deny them their natural rights. Prison convicts are deserving of punishment when they dispute the policies set down by the warden. The same is not true of students in a public school.
Sadly I don't think that this case is going to result in anything but an increase in the powers of school employees to attack and persecute students whose speech they disagree with. Luckily the students are not without recourse. It has long been said that on the internet no one knows you're a dog. The same thing is true of students, some of whom will simply begin writing online under pseudonyms...just like they do in Iran and Cuba.
Monday, February 4, 2008
A wonderful definition
Delusion: (from psyweb.com)
When reading this definition, I can't help but be reminded of certain people. I'm sure you're experiencing a similar sort of Deja Vu as well. All of us know, or know of, people who cling to demonstrably false ideas, even in the face of conclusive proof that they are wrong.
There is no use trying to reason with such a person. They are blind, or at best indifferent, to the truth.
It isn't always easy, or even possible to determine what is true, but determining that something is false is usually not nearly as hard.
- Delusions are false beliefs that are deeply entrenched and clearly not based in reality. They are not consistent with cultural tenets or with the person's level of intelligence and life experience. Persons cling to these beliefs even after they are shown to be false.
When reading this definition, I can't help but be reminded of certain people. I'm sure you're experiencing a similar sort of Deja Vu as well. All of us know, or know of, people who cling to demonstrably false ideas, even in the face of conclusive proof that they are wrong.
There is no use trying to reason with such a person. They are blind, or at best indifferent, to the truth.
It isn't always easy, or even possible to determine what is true, but determining that something is false is usually not nearly as hard.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Someone finally said it....
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html
Mark your calendars folks as today marks a new low point in the ongoing destruction of our civilization, from within of course. Why do I say this? The quote below, from the article linked to above, says it all:
"'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister..."
'Freedom of expression' does not only mean the right to offend, it means this more than any other possible interpretation of the phrase.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." (If you can tell me who I'm quoting, I'll give you a cookie.)
To forbid speech that others take offense to is to forbid speech period. There is no objective measurement of how "offensive" something is, or objective criteria for what constitutes an "offensive" statement.
I could choose, with a perfectly straight face, to pretend to be 'offended' by just about anything anyone anywhere might choose to say at any time. Because what is 'offensive' to me is completely subjective, those targeted by me for causing offense would be unable to defend against the charge.
This scenario is in fact precisely what those who demand freedom from being offended intend to create. They want a world in which ideas and facts with which they disagree can be made illegal to express, and they've made a great deal of progress in that direction.
Genuinely valid restrictions upon freedom of expression are few in number and adhere to a stringent objective standard. Inciting someone to commit a crime ("Go kill that bastard!") is not protected. Neither is speech that would cause a reasonable person to endanger themselves or others, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no fire was present.
Restricting speech because it hurts someone's feelings is not only foolish, it is wrong. The truth is more important than how anyone feels, and without near-absolute freedom of expression, the truth can and will be obscured by the powerful and the zealous. This is nothing more than tyranny through manners, a new spin on a very old game.
To create a world where people can demand freedom from the things they don't want to hear is to create a world where everyone will be free...from the light of truth.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A reverse nickname?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE
Is the "Democratic" in "Democratic Party" a reverse nickname? Is it like the "Democratic" in DPRK?
Lawsuits to prevent people (mostly "minorities") from holding a caucus after they endorse the "wrong" candidate? Say it ain't so Joe!
I do understand where they are coming from though. Their goals for this country are too important! Why should they let something as trivial as the democratic process stand in their way? If you can't win the game, to hell with the rules. This will teach those uppity minorities working in the casinos to remember their place. Just who do they think they are anyway? Voting is a privilege for those "people," not a right. If they can't vote for the right candidate, then they just won't get to vote at all! [/sarcasm]
Then of course there is the lawsuit filed by Denny K in New Hampshire claiming that the Clintons rigged the Diebold voting machines (with the help of Dick Cheney maybe?)
The more I look at things, the more the histrionics in the 2000 election over supposed voter fraud look like Freudian projection to me.
Does experiencing this much schadenfreude make me a bad person?
Is the "Democratic" in "Democratic Party" a reverse nickname? Is it like the "Democratic" in DPRK?
Lawsuits to prevent people (mostly "minorities") from holding a caucus after they endorse the "wrong" candidate? Say it ain't so Joe!
I do understand where they are coming from though. Their goals for this country are too important! Why should they let something as trivial as the democratic process stand in their way? If you can't win the game, to hell with the rules. This will teach those uppity minorities working in the casinos to remember their place. Just who do they think they are anyway? Voting is a privilege for those "people," not a right. If they can't vote for the right candidate, then they just won't get to vote at all! [/sarcasm]
Then of course there is the lawsuit filed by Denny K in New Hampshire claiming that the Clintons rigged the Diebold voting machines (with the help of Dick Cheney maybe?)
The more I look at things, the more the histrionics in the 2000 election over supposed voter fraud look like Freudian projection to me.
Does experiencing this much schadenfreude make me a bad person?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
