My new position has required a lot of attention on my part and as such, my posting has and will be on the low side for a while. But never fear, I am still alive and kicking.
Just a note: Since when were Anti-Semites “right wing extremists”? The aged nazi was a far cry from being right wing considering his online postings and hit list. Properly he should be called Left wing Extremist if anything more than evil.
The first one deals with fathers in the delviery room. A rather interesting article due to its linking the rise of men in the delivery room with the decline of men being fathers. An interesting observation. Perhaps more or less a subliminal recognition in the culture that men need to be there as fathers?
The other article just lends more fuel to my general: “I hate Unions” sentiment. Essentially detailing how the unions and their political supporters once again attack their competition via regulation if not outright decimation of the competition’s funding. The irony that “professional educators” claim they want children to succeed with one hand out for more money while bludgeoning Charter Schools, Free Choice/Vouchers, and Home Schooler with a bat in the other hand is rich. In the end, it all boils down to greed and envy.
The Unions are greedy for more members (cries for smaller class sizes and unionization of all educators) and thus greedy for more money (see how the Teachers Union in California has done an amazing job of grabbing money while increasing the idiocy of the youth lending to more cries for funding). Poor performing teachers are not weeded out by the Unions - it doesn’t matter if the teacher gives other teachers a bad rap, harms the children, or fails to educate, all that matters is that the Union maintains it’s membership and thus income. Leaches seems the most appropriate word.
Then there are the enlightened educators and politicians who view children as the future for their sustained power in politics and societal views. Thus children are not taught Grammer, Logic, or rhetoric. Nor are they taught essential math and the soundness of the Scientific Method lest they learn to think logically. No, they are taught to perform based off of their feelings. To expect promotion despite poor performance, and otherwise coddling by the Institutions and latter on Government. These ‘enlightened’ people seek to usurp an Uncle for a Mother. If the last election were any indication of their success in this arena, I can’t think of what else may be.
California, Individual Rights vs The State, Politics, Simple Commentary and Opinion
4 in 40
Lest there be any mistake, it is illegal to murder someone – even if morally, what they are doing, is wrong. While abortion is morally and ethically wrong (the harm to and killing of innocents) it is regrettably legal. Dr. Tiller’s murder should not have happened. Dr. Tiller’s line of business should not be legal either. In a just Nation that respects life, Dr. Tiller would be tried and punished before a court of law – IF the law were against him (and it is not). While a few people are lauding Tiller’s killer as a good thing, it was not. It neither served justice, nor did it serve the cause of the Pro-Life movement.
However, to the Left and “progressives” in the USA: in the past approximate 40 years that abortion has been legal by Judicial Fiat, only 4 abortion doctors were killed. Compared to the number of lives taken by abortion itself, it is a joke to make the death of 4 doctors whose practice is to deprive an innocent of life mean more than it does. 4 in 40 is hardly noteworthy evidence of any “Climate of Hate”
Susan Sotomayor
Certainly she has a noteworthy history as do some of the justices on the Supreme Court. But the history that matters is the history of her decisions and what they stand for. Some people like to think that we should just brush her into the Seat without much ado because we are “replacing one Liberal with another Liberal”. If only that were the case. Sotomayor goes beyond being a standard Liberal to being outright in favor of racism and a “time to remake the Constitution” liberal. There are different kinds of Liberal and some are more respective of the rule of law than others – despite their label as Liberal. Sotomayor’s most recent and notable red flag is the decision to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out test results on racial grounds. What is interesting about the test is that it was designed to avoid favoring one race over another. Still, New Haven decided that those who studied for the test and did well were not representative enough of the ethnic diversity they were seeking. Ah… gotta love affirmative action, nothing like using racism to expunge the appearance of racism.
El Presidente Barack Hussein Obama
Let us define some things (courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online)
Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Fascism:
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality.
The interesting thing about both is that they achieve their goals the same way: Centralized Government. Something I find interesting about the definitions is that the characterization of Fascism makes it seem worse than Socialism. However practical Socialism is identical to practical Fascism: Centralized Government making the decisions and calling the shots, suppression and oppression of dissent, seizure of private property for the “public good”, severe economic stratification to the complete elimination of a middle class, and the absorption of private industry into the machinations of the State (former USSR and increasingly the current Russian government, Cuba, Venezuela more and more, North Korea, Argentina, and China are all examples). At the end of the day, Fascism and Socialism are identical: the individual is oppressed and stripped of power.
So we have our President who not afraid to exercise central control of Finance (sure, it might have started with Bush, but at least he was not trying to Control the industry – just keep it afloat – Obama has gone much further by dictating to them what they can or cannot do), government control of 2/3rds of the American Auto Industry (yeah, sure we believe you Obama - just like we believed your campaign promises after you won the nomination), wants to regulate every aspect of the American Citizen’s life under the guise of combating Global Warming, manage who lives and who dies via Nationalized Health Care (great if you never need it), and is just chummy with the other dictators of the world. I have the sense that Conservatives have their work cut out for them.
Much of what Obama builds up will have to be torn down and it won’t be easy because the longer it is there, the more people will come to depend on it. Much of FDRs work will likewise have to be torn down, but more along the lines of phasing programs out – like Social Security, than outright removing it.
Zombies… you know, the undead?
Che Guevara is on odd symbol young adults like to wear today. Che was a murderer. Che’s actions resulted in impoverishment of millions despite his seemingly benign start as being sympathetic to the plight of the poor. The path he chose was violent, not peaceful, and the result was a deepening of the impoverishment of the poor while simply transferring wealth and power from a few to another select few.
Interestingly, this is always the result when revolution is inspired, not by the seeking of freedom, but by the desire to raise up the poor. Struggling to make less poor simply results in their increase, not decrease. Freedom such as Freedom from intrusive government sought by the Founders, leads to fewer poor as Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are respected and protected.
I have been hearing a lot of Republicans saying we should support Sotomayor because she is Hispanic. Excuse me? Are you ignorant of what you just said? You are saying you need to support a deconstructionist Judge because they are Hispanic? Ever heard of Racism? By supporting her because of her race and because they falsely believe it will garner them minority votes they destroy the Republican ideal that all men are equal and the ideal of the Great Leaders of this nation such as Martin Luther King who said a man (or woman) should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
!?!?
Republicans want to know why they lost so much control and power in 2006 and 2008? This form of race pandering and tolerance towards Big Government. That Republicans think they can win minorities by pandering to them with Amnesty or support of minority appointees regardless of their qualifications and suitability for the position is a downright foolish. People are smarter than that! They know the difference between someone offering them a half-dollar and someone offering them a hundred dollars. They will vote for the real Liberals and Socialists, not the fake ones.
And the wise answer of many in the Republican Leadership? We need to be more ‘Moderate’. We need to support Sotomayor because it will get us votes. We need to look like the opposition… Perhaps, instead of being in the Republican Party you need to go to the Democrat party. Specter already did. What is the point of being in the ‘other’ party if you are not going to offer a real, solid difference? What is the point of being a Republican if you decide that getting the vote is more important than the message itself?
Have you no integrity?
Have you no backbone?
Have you no confidence in what you say you believe - well, at least the platform the Party you are part of says it stands on?
Sotomayor should not be supported. Not because she is one race or another or one sex or another - that is completely irrelevant to her character and ability to perform her job, but because she is racist and because she cannot be - by her own words and the words of Obama, be objective, impartial, and impersonal. We respect her as a person, but reject her because of her stated lack - pride in it as well, of impartiality.
Heck, is it not good enough to oppose her because many of her own judgments were overturned by the Supreme Court? Fox, meet the Henhouse.
Sure, some Hispanic voters will believe the mass media reports that the Senate Republicans opposed her because of her race or sex, but they were not going to vote for you anyways because: 1 - Republicans are not sending a clear message that can be distinguished from media reports and confusion with the Democrats message and 2 - they are not interested in the USA as it was founded but what the USA can give to them via handouts.
Dear Senators, by not opposing Sotomayor because she is Hispanic tells me, a Hispanic, that race matters more to you than character, than the rule of Law, or integrity of our Constitution. Please, for the sake of the Party, our Conservative ideals, and the very fact that ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL: oppose her!
Sonia Sotomayor was an expected pick by Obama for the Supreme Court Nomination. Also expected was the fact that she is a liberal. What is not expected is that she is a sexist racist. That last statement of expectation depends on your perspective of Liberals of course. However, the assertion that she is a sexist and a racist is based on statements she and Obama have made. Namely this one and this one.
Sotomayor has also stated, though she tried to obscure the statement after recognizing that she was being recorded, that the Judiciary is activist – that they form policy as opposed to strictly interpreting the laws. This happens to espouse violating the separation of powers. The Legislature creates the laws. The Executive executes the laws. The Judiciary interprets the laws. Without checks and balance of power by the separations of those powers you have tyranny.
Sotomayor is not a good choice in any respect by the fact that she cannot be an impartial Judge. The fact that she views the Judiciary as a policy making device shows her contempt for the law she is supposed to be interpreting and the Constitution by which she is obligated to uphold. No judge is supposed to interpret the law based off of their race or sex – the law which might have been written from that perspective is not logically interpreted by that same perspective. That is: logic and reason are not based on race or sex, the interpretation of law is irrespective of race or sex. It is neutral in all respects which is why impartiality is required of Judges. A good judge is one who is impartial, not one who says “my sex and race lend me this perspective and though the law says this, I judge this way.”
That she believes sex and race effect logic is as erroneous as saying sex and race effect math calculations. No, anyone who supports her nomination is Now, on the other hand, if she can hold to “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it” and hold to being as unbiased as she possibly can be, then she will have done what is expected of any Judge. If that is the case, I will eat my words. But I have serious doubts given the statements by Obama that “her perspective” will impact the decisions of the Supreme Court – let alone her own statements which left doubt concerning her commitment to being unbiased.
Constitution, Individual Rights vs The State, Politics, Simple Commentary and Opinion
May 20th, 2009 Voters of California rejected measures 1A-1E, all of which would have allowed Sacramento to ignore the needed buget cuts in favor of higher taxes and raiding of voter secured programs. Given statements from the Governor and other elected officials, you would have thought that a formal letter had been sent saying California Voters don’t care about Democracy and would rather have the Legislature figure out how to do this on their own. If you listened the link (27:35 into the recording), you will hear that Arnold thinks people may not like exercising Democracy by voting. Really? You will also hear Arnold give the typical trope about cutting Education, Police, and Fire services - AS IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY PROGRAMS the State of California funds. If only.
One can only hope that sense will prevail in the State’s Legislature and they will stop playing to the Unions and Special Interests.
There are many choices we have and can make in life by benefit of living in this great Nation. We can choose to have long or short hair. We can choose who we marry. We can choose the type of car we drive or the very light bulbs we use (at least until 2010). We can choose what we do or do not believe. While there are certain things we have no choice about (who our parents are), we have plenty of opportunity to choose much concerning the courses of our lives.
Emphasis on lives. We cannot choose nor can we have opportunity without life. The foundation of this Nation, the Declaration of Independence (the Constitution and Bill of Rights would come later) iterates three inalienable rights (they are a primacy): Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without Life, no one has rights. Without Liberty, one cannot exercise their rights. Without the Pursuit of Happiness, one’s freedom means little. So we have the right to Life. An inalienable right.
Yet, that most basic of rights has, at times in our Nations history, been denied to people. Not on the basis of action - such as those condemned by Capital Punishment, but by basis of birth; the color of one’s skin. There are those who uphold the Supreme Court as the best defence in this Nation against Executive or Legislative abuse of our rights, yet if you look at the but a few examples (Dred Scott) you see that the expediency of appeasing financial and political allies overthrew the rights of many. It took a bloody civil war to rectify that fault in America.
Today, we have a similar situation. It was not born out of compromise in order to create the Union as slavery was. This was born out of a mistaken ideology which does not value life for it sees no separation between man and common animals. The very Supreme Court case: Roe vs Wade, relied on poor and debunked evidence to support the theory that a human fetus was not human. When is a human a human if not at conception? Certainly not prior to conception, there is zero potential for humanity in a sperm or ovum (* link may offend some). Once conception occurs, regardless of the simplicity, there is 100% potential. That is: you have human life. The main differences are: size, intellectual capacity, self-reliance, communication, and maturity.
The premise that a woman has the right to abort her fetus is an erroneous argument. It presumes that the rights of one individual outweigh the rights of another. The only instances allowed are in cases of Capital Punishment and self-defense. With regards to a mother’s choice then; with regards to a pregnant woman’s choice then, we do not have an instance where Capital Punishment of a Fetus is expected nor do we have an instance of self defence except for the case where a woman’s life is in direct danger due to the pregnancy. Otherwise, what gives the right of anyone to take the life of another?
Where does that right come from except by dehumanizing the fetus; the unborn? Only by assuming that our inalienable rights do not come from a higher power: not from God but from man - that we make the rules and rights. All should be very much afraid for if man can pick and chose the rights to bestow on his fellow man, then likewise those same rights and more can be taken away.
Constitution, Individual Rights vs The State, Parental Rights, Politics, Religion, Science, Simple Commentary and Opinion
There is a difference between seeking a middle ground between your ideas and the ideas of your opponents and seeking to move your ideas to that middle ground. If you stand firm on your ideas you balance against the ideas of your opposition. However for whatever reason, should you move your ideas to what appears to be the middle - the point of balance, you shift the point of balance further away. Certainly you will eventually meet that middle ground, but only when your ideas are exactly the same as your oppositions.
This is the problem with those who say the Republican Party should move their ideas to the middle. It is a middle that is mere illusion and transitory. It can never be met until the Republican Party resembles the Democrat Party in all but name.
The Republican Parties best chance of success is not in moving towards that middle, but in making their ideas clear and moving their ideas back to the ones that won them elections: conservatism.
I recall decades ago, when I was less conservative, Reagan’s Big Tent appeal. When contrasted against today’s Big Tent proposal, I am struck by their opposition to each other. On the one hand you had Reagan drawing people together based on shared ideals. On the other hand, you have politicians trying to draw a party together based on name.
With one there is definition, a certainty of what it stands for and an inclusiveness that sees no barrier based on political titles. It did not care if you were Democrat or Republican; Green or Libertarian so long as you shared a common set of ideals. It was, ultimately, the difference between Liberal and Conservative. Neither were truly tied to any one party other than a majority of either residing in each party. It was why Reagan appealed to more than just Republicans; he appealed to Conservatives.
With the other there is uncertainty, a lack of definition that only sees a vague outline called Republican. It does not care if you are Liberal or Conservative, it only cares if you are called a Republican. It sees the success of the opposition and does not take into consideration the totality of why the opposition is in control. It does not think that they should define themselves more clearly but that the definition that once made the party so successful should be abandoned. In so doing it clearly fails to see that the Republican take over in ‘80 and ‘94 as well as the Democrat take over in ‘06 were due to candidates espousing Conservatism. The Republican loss of the Presidency in 2008 to Obama was not due to conservative ideal, it was due to the lack of any solid ideal. McCain’s appeal was to party and a vague sense of ‘togetherness’. Obama appealed to non-liberals because he sounded more conservative after winning the nomination while liberals already knew he didn’t mean it because they knew what his real ideal was.
The Republican party’s success and failure are seen in Reagan vs. Bush (all three: H, G, and J). Government as a problem vs. government as a solution. Ideals vs. party success. Certainly G. W. Bush was not a Liberal, but his approach was certainly less Conservative and in the end relied on government providing solutions to everyday matters. Certainly Reagan was a Republican, but only because the Republican party reflected ideals he cherished. I think people forget that Reagan was once a Democrat and changed parties because the parties ideals shifted more and more towards Liberalism. Contrast that with Arlen Specter who changed parties because he realized he would not prevail in the senate primaries in his State as a Republican because he had become more and more Liberal.
When I look at Obama, I see a likeable man. But his ideals, his values, are contrary to very foundation of this Nation. When you listen to what he says, you hear a man who has little love for America except for how much he can make it reflect his ideals and his values. Reagan, too, was a likeable man. His ideals and values reflected strongly the ideals and values that founded this Nation. What he said and how he acted demonstrated his love for this country and how much he wanted this country to better reflect that foundation.
Reagan’s Big Tent was successful because he had an ideal. It was an ideal people recognized and understood as standing for America. It was an ideal that welcomed you with open arms regardless of your political party. It was uncompromising.
Today’s Republican party’s Big Tent is going to be unsuccessful because it seeks political expediency over ideals (see California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger - he is an example of political expediency over ideals). It welcomes only those who abandon ideals, only those who will say they are Republican. It attempts to mimic the opposition thinking that it will garner more votes yet by this compromise, makes itself a mere shadow of the opposition. To that, people can only ask: why vote you when we can vote for the real deal?
You cannot build a political party on vagueness. You can certainly run a political campaign on vagueness – Obama did so, but you cannot build a party on it and expect it to weather adversity. Reagan’s Big Tent appealed to all because the ideas were clear, fundamental, and uncompromising. The Neo-Repub’s Big Tent attempts to be appealing by losing any sense of foundation and by so doing presents an unstable and thus unappealing party that appeals to few – even Republicans.
Here is to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. May the Republican party soon recall that most basic foundation upon which we declared our Independence and by its very nature necessitates a small and unobtrusive government dedicated to protecting those most basic and fundamental of rights from enemies both without and within our borders. The alternative is at best the dissolution of the Republican party and at worst, it being a mere shadow of the Democrat party.
No, I am not lost in space or dead. Nor have I lost interest in politics (though I must admit I dislike politics as I have always disliked them for decades). I have been processing and thinking. Sometimes, however, my processing and thinking involves off topic subjects like this one
Cryptography is also a fun topic and this article is a fun one for those who enjoy cryptography.
Anyways, for those who desire to read a blog from me with any regularity: my apologies. I just finished off a second job which was consuming my week, mind, and family more than I expected it to. It was fun, but I am glad it is over (because now I have more time to read and write).