Thursday, April 28, 2005

Janice Brown...Just Vote Her In

Let me preface this post by saying that at this point I no longer have any idea what is racist or sexist, so if the next few paragraphs offend you please forgive me, no offense is meant.
On the Dennis Prager radio show this morning, Mr. Prager said something that certainly caught my attention. He was rambling on about the Senate judicial appointee debacle. Then he began talking about Judge Janice Brown. He stated that she is a libertarian.
Here is the point that might peg me as both racist and sexist...A black woman libertarian? Be still my pounding heart. I never imagined such a creature existed. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Here’s another reason for me to hate the filibuster! Just vote her in already. Hey Lib Senators, if you’re afraid to vote, give me a call I’ll do it for you...she’s in!
While on this point I have a favor to ask. If you are a woman libertarian, African-American libertarian, and/or an African-American woman libertarian please comment. Tell me a little bit about yourself. Why you are a libertarian, how you came to your philosophy, your general area of the country, things like that. I am sincerely interested. Mostly because I am well aware that society is stacked against you and thus you must be a truly brave and confident individual. I’mlooking forward to hearing your stories.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

What Liberal Media Bias

We’ve all heard of the Golden Rule, right? Basically says ‘do unto others’. Well here’s a curve on that. Let’s look at a what if scenario.
Imagine you are the media. Imagine you are at an event with the following members of the right side of the fence. Imagine you hear them say the things they are quoted as saying. Imagine the uproar it would cause. Then we will talk again...

1) A skit on the Rush Limbaugh radio show referring to Barbara Boxer....The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our filibuster isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."*

2) Between a speech he delivered without notes and a question-answer session, Bob Dole regaled an appreciative audience for nearly 90 minutes without once raising his voice, as he did in the ‘96 election. But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking Bill Clinton washing a blue dress.
"I'm not very dignified," he said. "But I'm not running for president anymore."**

3) As in years past, Democrats were almost routinely associated with Nazi Germany. Vice President Dick Cheney referred to activists as "brown shirts." columnist Mike Adams likened the Democratic National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Mel Gibson said that the a Democratic victory on Election Day would mean "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Joe Smith, a Boston city councilor, smeared the Rev. Jesse Jackson as "a tool of white leaders," like "a Jewish person working for Hitler."***

4)"I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for," former body builder, now California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told Republicans gathered at a Napa Valley wine tasting, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.****

5) Eight years after Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, on The Factor, wished death upon Senator Ted Kennedy(“If there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it"), on the same show over the weekend he seemingly desired to hasten the death of NATO General Wesley Clark for having supposedly expressed the view that the war on terrorism “is a Christian crusade against Muslims.”O’Reilly hatefully advocated: “I hope he’s not long for this world.”*****

OK, I think that is enough to show my point.

All the above are actual stories turned upside down. For the actual quotes see the asterisks below.

Now, I ask you imaginary reporters, what you would write after hearing or reading the above? And I ask, what type of uproar do you feel would occur? How would your fellow media members react to these stories?
Now ask yourself...Is there media bias?


Tuesday, April 26, 2005

The Filibuster...My Take

I have a bit of a dilemma. I’m in a tad of a quandary. I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m slow, I don’t know. But why, can someone please answer me why in the hell do we have a ‘filibuster’ in the friggin’ first place?
It has to be the most anti-Democratic crap I can personally imagine.
Let’s look at what it does. At it’s most basic, it stops a vote! Not very Democratic! And it allows the minority party to overcome the majority. Again, not very Democratic!
Shoot, if we ran our elections under this very theory, John Kerry would be the sitting president.
Sure, G.W. got more votes, damn it, but that is just ‘tyranny of the majority’! We can’t have that! What about minority rights? The neo-JFK should be manning his New England nuance machine in the oval office right now. Democratic vote be damned. We need to be fair. And tolerant. And compassionate.
But I digress. The filibuster...seems to me it’s just a rule for those who fear the future. Why would the majority now stand for such an inane idea unless it was for fear of being a minority in the future? My God, are there no politicians with balls? Other than Hillary, I mean.
Let’s not just get rid of this communistic idea when dealing with judicial appointees, let’s scrap it all together. And leave the fate of the minority party where it really belongs, in the hands of voting Americans.

Monday, April 25, 2005

The Meaning of 'Nuance'

Eureka!! I’ve finally done it. I feel like Isaac Newton or Albert see, I’ve figured it out! Yes! At last, the meaning of ‘nuance’.
And the definition proves that it’s true, it is much harder being a Liberal than being a Conservative. Recent stories point to why...

The Navajo Nation on Friday outlawed same-sex marriages on its reservation. The Tribal Council voted unanimously in favor of legislation that restricts a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

Hmm, so here we have an indigenous people attacking, nay abolishing, gay marriage? Uh oh. Where is the non-hypocritical Progressive to fall on this issue? ‘We lust after gay marriage, and yet they are a minority’ ‘The Navajos are anti-gay..damn it! And with Mr. Churchill in our ranks, we can’t be seen as anti-Indian. What a pisser!’ Quite a conundrum.
On the other hand, as a Conservative, this one is easy. No gay marriage=good. A minority group taking responsibility and handling issues on their own=great. Not requiring any extra taxes paid on my part=excellent(wringing my hands per Charles Montgomery Burns).

The Legislative Committee of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, which introduced the question, said studies in Wisconsin show that feral cats kill millions of small mammals, songbirds and game birds. Those same studies estimate that feral cats kill 47 to 139 million songbirds every year in Wisconsin.

Doh. Poor Liberal PETA members gotta have their tofu panties in a wad over this one. ‘Do we save the cats...or the birds?’ ‘Hmm...little helpless kitties or sweet singing songbirds?’ ‘Or, we could just pass a law requiring all cats to become vegans!’ Decision, decisions.
But as a Conservative, I have it easy. If the cats are the problem, fix it. I feel bad for the little fellers, but if I had rats or racoons causing problems in my abode, I would fix the would too, admit it.

Between a speech he delivered without notes and a question-answer session, (Howard) Dean regaled an appreciative audience for nearly 90 minutes without once raising his voice, as he did after last year's Iowa primary election. But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.
"I'm not very dignified," he said. "But I'm not running for president anymore."

He’s at it again. ‘Mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.’? That has to be tearing my fair minded Lib friends apart. ‘How can we accept such quotes from the leader of the DNC, and still rail against John Bolton for being mean?’ Ooh, quite a quandary.
But as a Conservative, I say, “Howard Dean. He sure is funny. Just keep him talking.”

Chicago Cubs shortstop Nomar Garciaparra will be sidelined at least two to three months because of a torn left groin.
Garciaparra was placed on the 15-day disabled list yesterday, a day after he got hurt while leaving the batter's box during a game against St. Louis. Cubs trainer Mark O'Neal said the muscle pulled away from the bone.

Bet you FemmiNazis are loving this one. I can hear you now, ‘That patriarchal estrogen hating male got what he deserved! And right where he deserved it!’ ‘Ah, but what of female compassion? What of the higher feminine mentality? Oh screw it, all men are evil!’ Ah, the moral predicament.
But as a Conservative, all I can say is, “Ouch!” (Hey, I know this one was a stretch, but I’m a Cub fan and this one really hurt.)

Well, these stories point out one thing to me, and that is:
Conservative thought and ideology is simple. It is less contradictory. Less ‘nuanced’.
And of course this gives us Conservatives more time to think about what is really important. Like should I buy the Colt or the Smith and Wesson? Or what page of the bible did I leave off on? Or is my V8 Ram ready for an oil change? Or I wonder what’s on Fox News right now? Or have I got my talking points e-mail from Karl Rove yet today?
Apologies to Noah Webster, here is my final definition of ‘nuance’:
>n. a not so subtle contradiction in thought or terms. (my def.)
>v. (usu. be nuanced) to add confusion to. (my def.)
-ORIGIN French, from Latin nubes ‘cloud’* (this one’s real, check it out! ‘cloud’? Ha, couldn’t be more perfect. )

The above is purely meant as sarcasm and irony. Those without a sense of humor may comment, but be assured I will merely laugh at your shallowness and pettiness.
Also, no kittens were killed or injured in the typing of this post. I cannot be held responsible however, for any brain cells that may have been damaged.

*Oxford University Press. WordPerfect dictionary.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Pay It Forward: Atlas Shrugged...repost

I have just finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

I am still in awe.

This is a very important work. I believe it is of the utmost importance that free men read this book.

So here is what I aim to do. I am going to pay it forward. I am going to purchase 10 copies of Ms. Rand’s book. I will give this book for free to men who I believe will read and act on it accordingly. All I will ask is that if it affects the reader as it has me, that they do the same. They pay it forward.

It can be purchased @ for $8.09.

In the spirit of the book’s philosophy, I do this for purely selfish reasons. I believe the ideas contained in this tome can change our society, for the better. I believe Ms. Rand, because of her childhood under communism, understands the meaning of America better that most free men born here. I believe she understood the greatness that is possible and the doom that is held in the hands of the looters.

If you are interested in my offer, please contact me through the comment section of this post.
If you have read the book and feel the same, blog about it. Jump on board. Pay it forward.

Who is John Galt?

He can be us.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The Importance of Private Accounts

The following paragraphs may be somewhat boring to many of you, but if you are at all interested on the Social Security debate, private/public pension issues, and/or political skullduggery it may be well worth the read.

In the state of Illinois, at this moment, there is an attempted cash grab by the vulture Blagojevich and his minions. They have their hungry, greedy eyes on a pension fund know as IMRF (the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund).
IMRF is a pension fund in which all Illinois municipal employees are forced to enroll in. Much like in Social Security, these employees have no choice…the pension is taken directly from their checks. And much like Social Security employees have no actual account with their name on it…but we will return to that later.
Back to the cash grab.

From AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Council 31, Legislative Update:

‘The Governor’s pension proposals would cut the benefits of all current university employees and teachers (employed by school districts), as well as those of all newly hired teachers, state and university employees. The resulting two-tier pension system would inevitably have the impact of holding down any further pension improvements from current AFSCME members. These cuts are being used to justify massive borrowing from the pension funds in the coming year-but in actuality, the cuts would generate almost no immediate savings.’

Let me explain. The governor wants to cut pensions on State employees, and also dip into the state pension trust fund. Basically, he wants state access to the amount of monies left over after benefits are paid to those currently drawing a pension.
But it gets worse, and here is where IMRF comes back in. You will remember IMRF is the municipal employee pension. Mr. Blagojevich has proposed combining the IMRF fund with the State pension fund. Currently IMRF invests $18 billion after paying beneficiaries and the State fund around $10 billion. The Illinois governor sees dollar signs. He feels if he can combine the funds, not only will IMRF save the state pension, but he will also have that much more in his lusted after ‘trust fund’ to use on whatever pet projects he deems worthy.

This is patently wrong.

And it points directly to the problem with not only these pension funds, but also Social Security. And the problem is they are not personal accounts. John Doe does not own his pension account. When he retires, his benefits are paid out of the trust fund. Because Mr. Doe has no personal account but is paid from a trust fund, the trust fund can be used by the state(or in the case of Social Security-the Feds)for whatever whim they see fit.

If John Doe had a private account, the government could not touch his money. They could not drain the trust fund. They could not combine pensions merely to grab cash. They could not steal from John Doe’s account.

Even beyond the pension issue, this is a Democratic governor walking a fine line of union busting. Mr. Blagojevich relied heavily on unions in his bid for election. And now his greed is pitting members of the same AFSCME union (municipal vs. state) against one another. He teases the state employees with a boon to their pensions, while at the same time striking fear in the municipal employees with a loss of theirs. Where is your Democratic love of unions here, Mr. Governor?

All totaled, few issues hit so many conservative bias’ as this fiasco.
First, the employee is forced to pay into these accounts…where is the choice?
Second, he does not actually own his account…echoes of socialism.
Third, because he is not a private owner of his account, the government can basically pirate his money. And then use it to prop up whatever failing government program or liberal boondoggle they need to get reelected.
Fourth, it shows the political process at its worst and most evil. The governor is playing state and municipal employees and their unions against each other in a money grabbing Machiavellian scheme.

This is Illinois politics at its worst, and that says a lot. But the key issues are truly country wide in scale. When pensions (and this includes Social Security) are not personally owned, they become easy prey to government pilfering and abuse. It is private ownership that keeps the vultures at bay. But even now they circle, smelling the death of your retirement dreams.

Crossposted @ The Blogger News Network
and Uncivil Rights

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

All Hail the New Pope

Looks like we have a new pope. It’s Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI. He is a conservative Catholic. And that is just killing the progressives. The fact that they won’t have an ally to destroy the church from within must really be sticking in their craws.

But here is a hint, lefties... it’s a religion, damn it! If you don’t like it or agree with it’s premises, you should change religions. Not change the religion.

But of course when your God is moral relativism that doesn’t make much sense to you.
If you’re progressive, your Catholic church should celebrate abortion. It should have a rainbow parade over gay marriage. Do handstands and backbends over casual sex. Shoot, why not hand out condoms in the Communion line. Oh yeah, and we’ll need women priests, and married priests, and transsexual body modifying Druid priests.

Hell, that whole stinking bible has to go. It’s just filled with bigoted, angry myths built on tired morals that are well past their times of usefulness. We enlightened Catholics don’t need any damn superstition spewing tome telling us how to live.

And in the same light, why don’t we get rid of those stupid, insulting ten commandments as well. They are dated and judgmental.
Just look at them...

1. Thou shalt have no gods before me. Does that include Hillary Clinton and George Soros? C’mon God, you gotta admit, they’re pretty cool. And what about Karl Marx and Fidel Castro and ANWR caribou and Global Warming? You got to give us a little slack on this one.

2. Thou shalt not use the name of God in vain. Damn it, that’s just insane. Jesus Christ, how petty can one God be? My God, what a f’ing ridiculous rule!

3. Always remember the Sabbath. Shoot, we’re supposed to remember the Sabbath when You can’t even do it yourself? Geez, is it Saturday or Sunday? I bet you don’t even know!

4. Honor thy father and mother. What kind of homophobic statement is that? Haven’t you read, “Heather Has Two Mommies”? Geez, God, didn’t you go to public schools?

5. Thou shalt not kill. Kind of harsh don’t you think. What if the baby daddy ain’t coming up with the dead presidents, some babies are just inconvenient. Or what if you have postpartum depression? Or you’re a juvenile? Or your parents were mean to you? What kind of God would hold you accountable then?

6. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. This one we actually half agree on...look what those zealots tried to do to O.J. and President Clinton. But you got to cut Dan Rather and Michael Moore a break, sometimes the ends justify the means. But you probably wouldn’t understand that, You being the ultimate religious right’s nuanced.

7. Thou shalt not steal. He can’t really mean that, can He? We all steal, don’t we? Don’t we? Why pick on me when, God...look at Enron and Halliburton! If you were to hold us all accountable for stealing St. Peter would have quite a quagmire at the pearly gates.

8. Thou shalt not commit adultery. You call yourself the Supreme Being? Look around, everybody does it. Why should I be held responsible, if everybody else is doing it, too. Shoot, doesn’t that make it normal? Why don’t you just get off your high horse for once. Or do you want me to give Joseph a call...

9. Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife. Well, that one’s easy. You’ve seen my neighbors wife. Yuck!

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods. Sorry, God, I got to part with you on this one. Have you never heard of income redistribution? I’m all about coveting. You hate the rich too, don’t you? I just want to take what’s theirs and spread it around...and hey, if a few greenbacks come my way who’s to care?

Yep, that’s a little overview of the progressive Catholic church, you know the one...the one you’re not going to get. Sweet!

Monday, April 18, 2005

Libertarian Law

GBlagg: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about our legal system and it’s laws.

Sticks and Stones: Yes, I know.

GBlagg: But how...Oh. Never mind.

S&S: Go on.

GBlagg: It seems to me that many, if not most, of our laws are based on nothing more than mere chance.

S&S: Interesting. Could you be more specific?

GBlagg: Well, much of what we consider unlawful finds it’s foundation merely in the clouded realm of possibilities.

S&S: That is a little hard for my mind to grasp, do you have any examples?

GBlagg: Ok, how about the speeding laws? The actual act of speeding is not dangerous in and of itself. But it is against the law. Why? Not because of the speed itself, but rather for a nonspecific future negative outcome. The mere possibility of an accident.

S&S: And how is that wrong?

GBlagg: Well, I would say because over 99.9% of speeders see no negative outcome, cause no accidents.

S&S: Yes, but aren’t those laws to protect the less than .01%?

GBlagg: That is how they are sold.

S&S: And why is that wrong?

GBlagg: For many reasons, but here is one. It is wrong because any limit is simply an arbitrary number. The theory is that fewer people will be injured or killed if the limit is 55 rather than 65. If this is so, it seems fewer still would face negative consequences if the limit were 45 instead of 55. And then again fewer at 35. And 25. And so on.

S&S: Leading to what?

GBlagg: Stagnation. Logically. Followed to its final progression, this form of thought results in no movement whatsoever.

S&S: Yes, that would be the logical conclusion.
You stated there are other problems inherent in such laws...

GBlagg: Well, on a simply egotistical level, they are somewhat insulting to the adult independent human. They lock you into a perennial kindergarten. It is the ‘Junior was bad, so no one gets recess’ ideology.

S&S: You analogies never fail to impress.

GBlagg: Is that sarcasm? Now I’m impressed.

S&S: Let us go back for a moment to the speeder. If, as you say, the act of speeding itself is not dangerous, how do our laws affect the speeder.

GBlagg: Well, first I would have to add that there is not anything morally or ethically wrong with the actual act of speeding. Because in it’s most minimal sense, one is speeding at just one mile over the limit, or even one tenth of a mile. These laws, when peeled to their cores, basically just make honest men criminals.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: Is a man not honest or moral simply because he breaks the speed limit?

S&S: Well, is he not breaking the law?

GBlagg: Yes. The law of the state. Does that make him dishonest or immoral? Do you feel dishonest or immoral when you are speeding? Or do you feel this way when you murder, rape, or steal?

S&S: I see. Let us keep that in mind and move on.
Surely, the speeding laws cannot be your only objection?

GBlagg: Of course not, there are many such laws. Basically the entire traffic code is based on ‘what ifs’. Along with many of the gun laws. Most building codes. The drug laws. And so on.

S&S: So where are you headed here? If these laws are wrong, or you used the word immoral, what is it you would consider a right moral law? How would one, instead, build a right or moral system of law?

GBlagg: I believe we must first decide what is criminal.

S&S: Go on...

GBlagg: So what is criminal? It would seem to me that anything that injures or holds the possibility of imminent injury to a person or property should be criminal.

S&S: Then let us begin there.

GBlagg: Alright.

S&S: Why would a law ‘that injures or holds the possibility of imminent injury to a person or property’ be right or moral?

GBlagg: Because they include an actual tangible injury.

S&S: Ok, we have a tangible injury. Now what?

GBlagg: If there is a true real injury, we can then morally charge. And if guilty, demand a grievance.

S&S: A grievance to a tangible injury. So is this it?

GBlagg: Yes, I believe so. A right/moral law would be based on tangible real injury. Followed then by a charge and if a finding of guilt, then grievance.

S&S: Ah.

GBlagg: Laws based on replies to actual actions. Let’s look at murder. If one murders another, he is charged for murder. An actual action followed by a charge. If he is found guilty, he is punished. A grievance. That is right/moral law. But many of our present laws are set so that one can be held accountable for an action he has yet even to commit, simply by acting a certain way in the present. If the merest possibility exists that one may cause an accident or injury at some unknown time in the distant future, that infinitesimal possibility is enough be ticketed, jailed, or fined in the present. This type of law is wrong/immoral.

S&S: If that is the case, then in order to build a code of right/moral law we need to start with your four presuppositions...tangible injury, charge, finding of guilt or innocence, and grievance.

GBlagg: Sounds right.

S&S: So to establish a code of moral law, we will begin with the statement that the criminal is one who injures person or property.

GBlagg: Or is in imminent threat of injuring person or property.

S&S: Imminent?

GBlagg: Yes. ‘Imminent’ someone pointing a gun at your chest or swinging a bat at your head would be ‘imminent’..

S&S: So, someone you dislike or fear who is buying a bat or pistol from the local sporting goods store is not an imminent threat?

GBlagg: No. There is nothing imminent in that.

S&S: Ok, so we have this...A criminal is one who commits or is in imminent threat of committing an injury to person or property.

GBlagg: That sounds like a great place to start. A perfect basis for a system of law.

S&S: Agreed.
But how do we deal with the dangerous actions that are not illegal yet cause negative outcomes? These do happen in the real world. As in your speeding analogy, how do we deal with the dangerous driver? How are we to prevent a person from acting irresponsibly?

GBlagg: I have an idea on that. But let me first ask you how do we accomplish this now?

S&S: Why, from making such acts illegal.

GBlagg: I will ask do we accomplish this now?

S&S: I see.

GBlagg: Yes. We don’t. A person who acts dangerously will act so regardless of the law.

S&S: And so, what is your solution?

GBlagg: Any illegal act, and we have agreed what makes an illegal act, that is committed while the perpetrator is behaving in a dangerous manner is dealt a more severe sentence. In fact, any outcome causing injury to person or property, whether illegal or not, will be dealt with severely when caused by reckless, irresponsible behavior.

S&S: Can you give me examples in order to illustrate this better.

GBlagg: Yes. Let us look again at the speeder. Any injury he causes while driving irresponsibly or dangerously, becomes an illegal act. And the sentence becomes more severe in ratio to the dangerousness or recklessness of his behavior.

S&S: And how is this better than the current system?

GBlagg: Well, because then there is an effect to an actual cause. Not, as now, an effect to a possible cause. It put the burden of illegality back to the criminal and not the honest man. The grievance is then based on the reality of an injury. Law again becomes moral.

S&S: Moral law. Interesting ideas, I will think on them.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Lawttery

Richard Durbin, honorable senator from Illinois is at it again. He hates guns. Pretty sure he feels the same for most gun owners as well. Those rural Illinois hill rods don’t deserve any respect from him, damn it, as they surely didn’t vote for him.
And the manufacturers, they’re even worse. He’d classify them right along side Halliburton and Karl Rove.

Under the Gun Industry Accountability Act, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), municipalities would be able to sue gun manufacturers for federal costs, as well as local costs related to treating crime vicitms.’

Who cares if that makes about as much sense as suing Oneida when someone is killed in a knife fight.
But Mr. Durbin loves his laws. And in that light, I’ve got just the thing for him.

Dear Mr. Durbin,

Or can I call you Dick? I feel much more comfortable calling you Dick.
I have an idea for you that may seem strange at first, but if you bear with me, I believe it may be of some benefit to you. It is an idea whose time has come. An idea that will bring financial boon to both business and government alike. An idea that might even make America safer.
Are you sitting down, Dick? Here it is...Murder Insurance!
No, not insurance against being murdered, we already have that... it’s known as life insurance. But insurance against murdering. Yes, you read that right Dick. We will enact a law requiring every Illinois, nay every American citizen over the age of 6 to purchase Murder Insurance.
This is an astounding idea if I do say so myself.
Is murder not horrendous? Is it not an enormous drain on loved ones and the state, both financially and emotionally? Is it not possible that any one of us may commit murder at some point in the future? Sure it is highly unlikely, but you must admit it is possible.
Do we not have laws on the books already, Dick, that are based on this exact principle? The seat belt laws, child safety seat laws, uninsured laws, helmet laws... just to name a few. All based upon citing an individual for some action in the present based on some remote possibility of a negative event occurring at some distant point in the future. Laws at their basic levels, based on nothing more that possibilities, probabilities, odds, the whim of chance.
Sure, the nay sayers will argue that you are making criminals of honest men, but we do this all the time. Just look at the above paragraph if you would deny this, Dick. How many Americans are right at this moment in County jails for not having insurance for their automobiles? In jail merely for not owning something now that could possibly be needed on some far off day?
Citizens are ticketed hundreds of times a day for not wearing a seat belt. Why? Again, to protect them from some possibility that may or may not occur at some point some time in the unknowable future. Murder Insurance, Dick, does exactly the same thing.
And it brings in cash. A lot of it. You like cash, right Dick? Plus, the insurance companies would love you, if you know what I mean. And we both know that the more they rake in, the more taxes they’ll pay. You like taxes, right Dick? They are for the children after all. You like children... you do, don’t you Dick?
Plus, it would even have the added benefit of lowering crime. What murderer would dare commit homicide if he feared a raise in his Murder Insurance bill? It works kind of the same way the present gun laws work. Look how many criminals don’t use guns in their crimes because they know it is illegal to do so. Aren’t all our laws aimed at the criminals amongst us, Dick? We don’t make laws to criminalize law abiders, do we Dick?
So before you simply dismiss my idea as insane, take a moment to ponder it. I think if you do, you’ll come to realize that it has possibilities. And aren’t possibilities exactly what we’re talking about here...Dick.


Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

In The News

Psst, MSM, did you hear?

Sandy Berger pled guilty to stealing confidential
documents from the National Archives. Don’t tell the Republicans, New York Times...they might take his admission in the wrong way. And he cut them up with scissors...but don’t let the American people know about that MSNBC, they could think he’s done something illegal. He was found guilty and basically given a slap on the wrist...did you hear that Ms. Couric? Better keep it under your hat though, you know how the little people are talking about the judiciary, no reason to fan those flames.

Hey, it’s not like these documents had any national security information in them, right Chris Matthews? How could letting someone basically get off Scott free while stealing confidential documents possibly be a bad thing. But just the same L.A. Times, let’s just keep it on the down low.

Ooh, and did you hear how our nuance loving Senator from Massachusetts outed a CIA agent? You didn’t? Good. We should probably keep that quiet too, Mr. Maher.
That damn John Bolton set him up I think. He kept referring to the agent as John Smith, how pat is that? Of course, Mr. Kerry would be confused. Of course he would slip and call him by his given name, who wouldn’t Brian Williams? Even so, let’s keep it between me and you, Mr. Koppel. Wouldn’t want the Right wingers throwing the whole Wilson/Novak conspiracy right back at us would we? Not after we had it pinned directly on the chest of Karl Rove.

So, let’s agree to ignore these stories. No one will know what we don’t tell them, right? I’m sure you’ve got some Abu Grahib stories you can run, right?

Or better yet, did you hear Jimmy Carter didn’t get to ride on Air Force One?

Sunday, April 10, 2005

An Investigation Into Self Esteem

GBlagg: You are a lightening rod.

S&S: Thank you.

GBlagg: That is not necessarily a compliment.

S&S: Oh?

GBlagg: There are those who seem to absolutely hate you.

S&S: Is that so?

GBlagg: Yes. They insult you and curse you.

S&S: And yet who do you see?

GBlagg: Excuse me?

S&S: Who stands before you?

GBlagg: Obviously, it is you.

S&S: Yes. And do I look or seem different. Have I changed somehow?

GBlagg: No.

S&S: So, have their words or feelings affected reality?

GBlagg: No. But why? Why do the words or feelings of another not affect you?

S&S: Because A is A.

GBlagg: Please explain.

S&S: Do you have time?

GBlagg: Uh oh....

S&S: Yes or no?

GBlagg: Ok, yes.

S&S: Let us begin with the way a man views himself. Is there a term for this? A man’s thoughts of himself?

GBlagg: Yes. Self esteem.

S&S: We will call it self esteem.
How is it a man gains knowledge of himself?

GBlagg: Through his actions, the way he lives, how he deals with others...

S&S: Yes, yes...and this builds up his self esteem, his personal view of that which he is?

GBlagg: I believe so.

S&S: Then why are so many in delusion?

GBlagg: I do not understand.

S&S: Why do so many live under false pretenses? Believe they are great, when they are not.

GBlagg: I don’t know if that is necessarily true...

S&S: Let us not fall into the trap of untruth. You know of men who esteem themselves far beyond their means, do you not?

GBlagg: Well, yes.

S&S: So there is false self esteem.

GBlagg: Yes.

S&S: And as an opposite, there must be true self esteem.

GBlagg: Yes.

S&S: And, we as men should choose the true.

GBlagg: Obviously.

S&S: So what is true self esteem? How do we gain it?

GBlagg: Is it belief based on facts? A knowledge of ones self grounded in the truth.

S&S: I believe that to be true. But we must break it down even further.

GBlagg: Go on.

S&S: To positive self esteem, and negative self esteem.

GBlagg: Ah.

S&S: Do you understand the difference?

GBlagg: Well, I would say positive self esteem is that which makes a man feel...

S&S: That which raises a man.

GBlagg: And negative would then be that which lowers him.

S&S: That which debases him.
Which is the proper ambition to strive for?

GBlagg: Well, obviously the positive.

S&S: And how would a man do this?

GBlagg: By doing what is right?

S&S: It is more than just the doing. It is the succeeding.

GBlagg: But not all men can succeed. Not all men are Einstein, or Tesla, Edison.

S&S: No they are not. Never have all men had the same talents. But all men, even the slowest can be Honest. Even the brute can have Integrity. Even the daft can show Courage.

GBlagg: This seems to be true.

S&S: It is. Every man can have positive self esteem. It is within his grasp. He need only choose the right path.

GBlagg: So what does this mean? This man and his self esteem?

S&S: It means this. When a man has true self esteem. Earned from his successes, and thus being positive, he then knows himself. He knows what he is. He becomes confident in this knowledge.

GBlagg: I see where this is headed.

S&S: When a man has true self esteem, the words of others are merely questions. Do those words mesh with what he knows of himself? If they do, he sees the other's words as true. If they do not, those words ring false. And are thus meaningless.

GBlagg: And here we are at the beginning again.

S&S: Yes. I am a lightening rod, this I accept. That I am hated, this I accept. That I am what any man wishes to make me simply by the use of his words, this I deny. No man can make any other man, without his consent, that which he is not simply by wishing it so. A is in fact A.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Pay It Forward: Atlas Shrugged

I have just finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

I am still in awe.

This is a very important work. I believe it is of the utmost importance that free men read this book.

So here is what I aim to do. I am going to pay it forward. I am going to purchase 10 copies of Ms. Rand’s book. I will give this book for free to men who I believe will read and act on it accordingly. All I will ask is that if it affects the reader as it has me, that they do the same. They pay it forward.

It can be purchased @ for $8.09.

In the spirit of the book’s philosophy, I do this for purely selfish reasons. I believe the ideas contained in this tome can change our society, for the better. I believe Ms. Rand, because of her childhood under communism, understands the meaning of America better that most free men born here. I believe she understood the greatness that is possible and the doom that is held in the hands of the looters.

If you are interested in my offer, please contact me through the comment section of this post.
If you have read the book and feel the same, blog about it. Jump on board. Pay it forward.

Who is John Galt?

He can be us.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Investigation Into Choice and Fear

GBlagg: Why is it the Left always comes down on the wrong side of every issue? On the side of evil? On the side of the drug addict, the side of the criminal?

S&S: Do you really want to know?

GBlagg: It would help me to live in the world.

S&S: Then what is it the left fears the most?

GBlagg: Conservatives?

S&S: Do not be patronizing and naive. What do they fear?

GBlagg: Why don’t you tell me?

S&S: You asked the question why does the Left side with ‘the drug addict, the criminal’. Why do you think that this is the side that they take?

GBlagg: Compassion?

S&S: It is not compassion. But I believe you are fully aware of that. What does the Left fear?

GBlagg: Truth?

S&S: You are getting closer. What is it about the drug addict and the criminal that the Left finds attractive?

GBlagg: Track lines?

S&S: I will not help you if you trivialize our investigation.

GBlagg: You’re right. Go on.

S&S: There is a commonality you seem not to grasp. What makes the drug addict and criminal different from you and I?

GBlagg: They are no different.

S&S: Very good. But how does the left view them differently?

GBlagg: They see them as lower.

S&S: And what does that mean exactly?

GBlagg: I am not sure...

S&S: It means that they see them as creatures who have no choice. As animals, who are doomed to the drug or the crime as the night is doomed to the dawn. And that is what they want. They want man to be an ape. A slave to his baser instincts. Thus a slave to their whims.
Look at our culture, the culture the Left loves and adores.
In the overt sexuality of the adult, and of the child as well. When mankind is reduced to the sexual and is thought merely a victim of his hormones, is he then not an animal? An animal that can and should be controlled?
In the honoring of the depraved. In the relishing of it. You see, if some men are depraved, then depravity must surely reside in the hearts of all men. Thus, in the mind of the Left, all men are equally evil and deserve no respect. No exhaltation.
In the reverence of the lazy and inept. Of the Welfare State. If the lazy can be idolized as heroes, true heroism loses its meaning. True men have nothing in which to aspire.
These are their thoughts.
This is the type of man that they long for.

GBlagg: Why? Why on Earth?

S&S: Fear.

GBlagg: Of what?

S&S: I will ask you. Why does the Left wish man to be a ‘slave to his baser instincts’?

GBlagg: Well, that would seem to mean that man has no choice. That he is a victim of his genetics.

S&S: So what do they fear?

GBlagg: Choice!

S&S: Yes, choice. They fear the man who is not chained to his instincts. They fear the man who rises above. They fear the man who sets freedom as his highest order. Who claims his 'right to choose' as a birthright. Who holds it dear through danger and threat. That man they can not control.

GBlagg: Still, something doesn’t make sense to me. The Left claims that ‘the Bible thumpers’ and all religious observers are merely superstitious zombies who follow a mythical book unquestioningly. They claim that these people have no choice. Why then, does the Left despise them so much?

S&S: Because religion teaches right and wrong. Because right and wrong are choices. In the school moral relativism there is no need for choice. No need to judge or decide. A true believer in moral relativism is the ape they so dearly desire. An animal in need of control. But, you see, a spiritual man is grounded in choice. It is his heaven as well as his hell.

GBlagg: But why? Is the free man not the greatest of men? Why do they fear this man?

S&S: Because he will make hard choices. And choices are the enemy of safety. The Left longs for safety. They lust after it. Look at the laws we now abide that make criminals of honest men, simply in the name of safety.
The free man understands that the meaning of life is not, and has never been, safety. The true man understands the meaning in the words responsibility and repercussion. Understands that merely because choices may be hard, it does not mean choices should not be made. He honors freedom and treasures choice. Even choices that may bring pain and sorrow.

GBlagg: But, that is just life....

S&S: And that is what the Left fears the most.


Thank you to Aunt Annie for the heads up on this article from
Well, this is just ridiculous. And probably patently illegal.

Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions.
"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.

Ms. Brauer, you do not own that prescription. It is owned by the person it was prescribed to. Once you make the decision not to fill it, any attitude or thoughts you have regarding it are irrelevant.

Had I been the person involved in this, I would have made a 911 call for theft.

It should be obvious to anyone following the last few posts, that I agree with a pharmacist’s, or a pharmacy’s, right to refuse to sell morning after drugs. In fact, they should be able to sell or refuse to sell any drug whatsoever. But, under no circumstances is it right for any person, for any reason, to withhold a legally written prescription.

Dear Aunt Annie

I fear for the future of our country. I fear many of us care little for what personal rights that by birthright we presently own. Like the Left’s view of the Constitution, our rights seem to be living entities. To be toyed with. To be redefined. To be stolen.

Here is a comment on my last post.

The ruling is that a pharmacy must fill a prescription written by a doctor, not a particular pharmacist.

How would you feel if you went to your pharmacy with a prescription for a pain-killer and the pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription but wouldn't return it to you to get filled somewhere else? This is what has happened to women trying to get birth control pills and rape victims trying to get morning-after pills. These presciptions are, at this time, legal, and I side with the customer's right to get her prescription filled. Do you really want the pharmacist to be making decisions about your medication needs? What if they decide not to fill depression meds, or anti-inflammatory drugs, or ADHD meds because they feel the side effects are too dangerous (or because they feel the drugs are over-prescribed). That is a doctor's decision, not a pharmacist.
Aunt Annie | Homepage | 04.07.05 - 6:40 am | #

And my reply...

Sorry Aunt Annie,
I would feel fine, and I would go elsewhere. You see, I make ‘decisions about my medical needs’. The only control I have over another man's business is where I spend my money. The government should have less than that. This is not communist Russia.
You say, ‘The ruling is that a pharmacy must fill a prescription written by a doctor, not a particular pharmacist.’ How is that any better?
You see, there are a myriad of other pharmacies. Most towns have more than one. Owned by private citizens. Not by the government. People like you seem happy to cede rights previously held by private citizens to the government merely for your safety or ease. I will not.
A better analogy than yours would be the government making a law that forces you with the threat of fine or jail to kill another persons child. Would it matter if the parents of that child did not mind? If that idea sounds obnoxious to you, maybe you can sense the feelings of that pharmacist. She should have rights also.
As of now Conservatives still do. I am well aware that the Left finds that offensive. I am well aware that the party of tolerance is only tolerant of it's own beliefs. I am well aware that the party of compassion has none for opposing ideas.
If, in fact as you have said, the pharmacists have not returned prescriptions, that is wrong. That should be and probably is illegal. If you have proof of this please send me the articles. You have my word I will post on the injustice of that action as well.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Who Owns Your Soul, Who Owns Your Business?

So apparently only some Illinois residents rights matter to you Mr. Governor?

Pharmacists must dispense contraceptives even if they believe the drugs kill the unborn, Gov. Blagojevich has deemed in an emergency ruling.
An Osco pharmacist refused in February to dispense "morning-after" pills to two women, telling them they could come back later and ask for a different pharmacist. Osco and the American Pharmacists Association backed up the pharmacist's right to invoke the state's "conscience clause."’

This type of government intrusion into business and personal choice must not stand!

My E-Mail to Comrade Governor...

Mr. Blagojevich,
Your recent Executive order forcing pharmacists to sell morning after drugs through the threat of fine and jail is very disturbing. It is a usurping of the freedoms of any conscientious American. Your stance does not advance the freedom of anyone involved. Not the women who were refused the drug...they could simply have gone down the street to a Walgreens and had their prescriptions filled. Not the are using the force of government to abuse her rights and conscience.
You have over stepped your authority and have moved us one step away from communism. In forcing a private business to sell a product that you as the government representative deem needed, you have basically used your position to take over that company. Can you, then, force any surgeon in Illinois to perform abortions on demand? Is that in your authority?
It is frightening to any freedom loving American when someone with your power to fine and arrest uses that power in tyranny. A private business is not here to 'serve the public good', it is here solely for the profit of its owner/owners. If through business decisions it does not gain profit, it will perish. That is free enterprise. What you are doing through your actions is un-American and it is wrong. It is malevolent government intervention. You should be embarrassed as an American, as I am from your actions.
Please rethink your stance on this issue. Think about it as an American. Think about it as a free man. Think about it as a conscientious human being. For once, ignore the PC police and do what's right.

Do we still live in America?

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Seat Belt Law

Policeman: Sir..
S&S: Yes?
Policeman: Do you know why I’ve pulled you over?
S&S: No...
Policeman: Well, sir, you are not wearing a seat belt.
S&S: Yes, officer. I am not.
Policeman: That is against the law, sir. May I see some ID?
S&S: What is against the law?
Policeman: Not wearing a seat belt. I will have to ticket you for it.
S&S: It is against the law not to wear a seat belt?
Policeman: Yes. But I’m sure you are well aware of that....
S&S: And you are going to issue me a ticket?
Policeman: Yes, I am.
S&S: So, is this a criminal offense?
Policeman: Not exactly...
S&S: But I will be fined for it?
Policeman: Yes, sir, the amount of...
S&S: Can I ask you a question?
Policeman: Well, OK.
S&S: Am I a criminal because I do not wear a seat belt, or is it your law that makes me a criminal?
Policeman: It is the law sir.
S&S: You did not answer the question.
Policeman: It makes no sense...
S&S: Let me rephrase the question. Was I criminal before I entered my vehicle and chose not to wear my seat belt?
Policeman: That is not for me to decide...
S&S: Or does your Seat Belt law make me a criminal?
Policeman: Can I see your ID, please?
S&S: On what moral or value system is your law based?
Policeman: It is for your safety!
S&S: Was I in an accident?
Policeman: No, of course not.
S&S: Then on what is this law based.
Policeman: It is protect you in case of an accident.
S&S: So it is a law to protect me in case I am in an accident. And yet I have not been. And I am still getting a ticket for not wearing a seat belt.
Policeman: Yes sir.
S&S: So I am getting a ticket for not doing something in order to protect me from something else that has never happened.
Policeman: It is only $75.00. I am sure you can afford it.
S&S: So the fact that I can afford it makes it right that you are making me a criminal merely for an inaction of an uncertain outcome?
Policeman: You are not a criminal, this is not a jailable offense.
S&S: Is that so?
Policeman: Yes it is.
S&S: So, there is no way I will ever see jail time from this offense?
Policeman: That is correct.
S&S: Good. Because I will not pay this fine. I believe this law is immoral.
Policeman: That is not a good idea sir.
S&S: Why?
Policeman: Because your failure to pay will cause you to have a warrant signed out on you.
S&S: if I refuse to pay, there will be a warrant for my arrest?
Policeman: Yes. And you will be arrested.
S&S: So, you were incorrect when you said that this is not a jailable offense?
Policeman: When you put it that way then, yes, I was.
S&S: So, let me get this straight. In order to protect me from some accident that by odds has very little chance of happening, you are willing to put my life in jeopardy by throwing me in jail with murderers and rapists?
Policeman: Yes, can I see your ID?
S&S: Here it is officer. Any suggestions for my trip to the big house?
Policeman: No, Mr. Stones. Here is your ID, you are free to go.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Who is John Galt

There will always be men of quality
Men who take nothing unearned and expect even less
Men of integrity and character whose word means a damn
Men who love their lives and their deeds and their wives
There will always be men of insight and thought
Who do not take the responsibility of opinion lightly
Men who honor their gifts and admit to the knowing
Men who know that when there is light there is darkness as well
There will always be men of courage and vision
Men who ignore the whims of the press and the times
Men who strive for the heights that most would not dare
There will always be men to prop up the rest
Men who’ll push straight ahead though disaster is looming
But now
The looters run loose and their numbers are booming
Who is John Galt?

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas