Tuesday - November 04, 2008

This one’s for Grumpy

I just started reading Terry Pratchett’s works a couple of months ago. I find this quote to be especially relevant today.

The Ephebians believed that every man should have the vote. Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes.

This comes from Discworld #13, small gods.

Keep this in mind as you vote today.  

Posted by Christopher     on 11/04/2008 at 05:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • Philosophy •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - January 20, 2008

A Progressive’s Journey

If you’ve not stumbled upon it before, the Neo-Neocon has been writing a series for a long time (with a one-year break) about her journey from a liberal democrat to a thinking conservative.  It is a fascinating read; very well presented and thought out.  It is well worth the time.

Click below to see all of the segments.  Read from the bottom-up

A mind is a difficult thing to change: my journey

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 01/20/2008 at 08:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - November 30, 2007

Freedom or Justice?

Bill Whittle asks a great question:  Do you want Freedom or Justice?  Can you really have both?

Are you in favor of Freedom? Well, who isn’t?

What about Justice? Put me down for that too.

Everybody wants freedom, and everybody wants justice… but it occurs to me, if you really get down to brass tacks, that pure freedom and pure justice are mutually exclusive.

For example, if one was truly free, utterly at liberty to do whatever one wanted, whenever they wanted to do it, then that person would leave a vast wake of injustice. To walk wherever you wanted: trespassing. To take what you wanted: stealing (or rape if it was who you wanted). If you were absolutely, utterly free you could murder at will. Or perhaps just drive as fast as you want.

The fact that you are not able to do any of these things puts constraints on your liberty. It limits your freedom to act. Thank God.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 11/30/2007 at 03:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 20, 2007

Less Guns, More Shooting

One for the “Duh” file.  From John Hawkins we see a report from the Boston Globe that wonders why the ban on guns in the nation’s capital has not had the swimming success it was purported to have.

Effectiveness of D.C. gun ban still a mystery

WASHINGTON - Three decades ago, at the dawn of municipal self-government in the District of Columbia, the city’s first elected mayor and council enacted one of the country’s toughest gun-control measures, a ban on handgun ownership that opponents have long said violates the Second Amendment.

All these years later, with the constitutionality of the ban now probably headed for a US Supreme Court review, a much-debated practical question remains unsettled: Has a law aimed at reducing the number of handguns in the District made city streets safer?

Bzzzzzzzt.  Yes, someone in the audience wants to answer this one.  Go ahead young lady.

NO!

Correct!  100 points for you.

Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.

But, But, But.....how can that be?????  There is a ban on guns.  No one is allowed to have them.  Surely everyone listens to and follows the law, right?  RIGHT?

In making by far their boldest public policy decision, Washington’s first elected officials wanted other jurisdictions, especially neighboring states, to follow the lead of the nation’s capital by enacting similar gun restrictions, cutting the flow of firearms into the city from surrounding areas.

“We were trying to send out a message,” recalled Sterling Tucker, the council chairman at the time.

We’re such a collosal failure, we thought we’d like some company in the effort.

“It’s a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you’ll have,” D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said.

Maybe to someone who lives in FantasyLand it does, but not to those of use who actually live in the real world.  You know, the world where there are actual bad people who don’t follow your laws and are intent on taking stuff and killing people?

Dolts.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 11/20/2007 at 09:34 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats • Firearms • Philosophy • Politics •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 31, 2007

Deputies Seize Baby From Parents

From Wardmama.

Deputies Seize Baby From Parents

By: Anna Jo Bratton
Associated Press Writer

OMAHA, Neb.—A nearly 7-week-old baby is home after sheriff’s deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy’s parents object to on religious grounds.

Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha say their due process rights were violated and they’re considering legal action against the state and county, which decided to “grab the baby and ask questions later,” said their attorney, Jeff Downing of Lincoln.

The Douglas County attorney’s office says it only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health. The blood test—usually performed within 48 hours of birth—screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

“Our job is to uphold the law and provide for the safety of a child that’s at risk,” said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. “We wanted to make sure the testing was going to get done.”

It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states—South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others—that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.

Health officials say the newborn screening is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.

The Anayas and some other families say the screening is not only unnecessary for them, it may be dangerous to their children’s physical and spiritual well-being.

The Anayas believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with these parent’s stance, but what does that have to do with anything?  They have a conviction about the way they provide for the health of their child.  Is it the state’s right to override that?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/31/2007 at 11:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Health-Medicine • Philosophy • Religion •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - October 29, 2007

Core Beliefs

From the American Thinker, we have a list of core beliefs of both conservatives and liberals.  Interesting opinions put forth.

I’ve recently read two articles that have as their theme the fact that liberals, while currently riding the anti-War, anti-George Bush juggernaut, are defined by negativity and, in fact, offer no new ideas to replace the doctrines and people they seek to defeat.  In that regard, modern liberalism (or, as liberals have restyled the movement, Progressivism) is a political movement akin to the person who rips down an ugly house, but has no idea how to rebuild a new one, leaving the former residents homeless.  Nevertheless, for all their anti-this and anti-that attitude, Progressives at least have the virtue of offering an ostensibly powerful and well-funded united front to swing voters who are often confused or disinterested.

Conservatives seem to face the opposite problem.  They’re awash in ideas, but can’t seem to cobble together a platform of ideas that appeal to the largest numbers of people.  Instead, they’re like high school cliques, with the Pro-Life crowd holding itself aloof from the Hawks, who, in turn, want nothing to do with the Fair Tax group.  Cliques are great, of course, if you actually belong to one, but to the American voters, looking at these disparate groups that can’t seem to find a common bond, they don’t look like a great bet to win either the White House or Congressional in 2008.

Since I would like to see a Conservative win in 2008, it occurred to me that it would be a useful exercise to examine myriad hot button issues to find core beliefs that will appeal to the greatest number of conservatives.  That is, I wanted to find lowest common denominator beliefs that, I think, still define the way most Americans think.  You can layer on the details later, but I do believe that there are certain conservative ideas underlying most issues that will resonate with the greatest number of voters. 

Obviously, since I’m just one person, I couldn’t undertake this task alone.  I started a post with my idea about Conservative and Progressive beliefs regarding core issues.  I then asked my readers to contribute, which they did, intelligently and vigorously.  I’ve now worked their ideas and mine into this article, and hope to take it to the next step, with contributions from the larger pool of readers available here - or, at least, with a larger group of people thinking about positive, unifying ideas to counter the relentless nihilism that characterizes today’s Progressives.

So, without further explanation or ado, and in no particular order, here’s the list:

He then goes on to compare and contrast the Conservative and Progressive beliefs on a number of topics:

• Immigration
• The Supreme Court
• Abortion
• The Iraq War
• Islamic Terrorism
• Taxes
• Religion
• America
• Government
• Gun Control
• The Nature of Human Beings
• Multiculturalism
• Climate Change

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/29/2007 at 02:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy • Politics •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - October 26, 2007

What Happened to the First Amendment?

Apparently I missed this, but Stephen Colbert is possibly plannign to throw his hat in the ring for the Presidential election?  I’m not sure if this is a crank to promote the show or a serious bid, but wither way, it brings up an interesting question:  if he does, is it illegal for him to promote his canidacy on his show?

John Hawkins has a link to Rick Hansen who thinks through this cunundrum.

Does Viacom Get the Media Exemption for Stephen Colbert’s Promotion of His Candidacy on the Colbert Report?

Allison Hayward says yes, and Cliff Jones, in comments to her post, agrees. I’m leaning towards no, but the issue is not a slam dunk.

Here’s the relevant law. A corporation cannot fund the express advocacy of a candidate for federal office out of its treasury funds. So General Motors could not run a newspaper ad saying “Vote for Colbert for President.” The same rule applies to labor unions. The funding has to come from its political action committee.

But there’s an exemption in the law for “any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.”

He goes through a couple of examples, showing that a serious media personality like Bill O’Reilly would be less plagued by this question than a goof candidate.  He ends with this comment, which sets up my discussion:

Given the dearth of caselaw and useful FEC commentary on this question, we might well ask two questions to figure out how this case should come out. First, what is the purpose that the ban on funding from corporate treasury funds is meant to further? Second, given that purpose (or purposes), what is the justification for the media exemption. I imagine that many of us would answer those questions differently---and the answers we give could provide better guidance on how to treat a question like Viacom’s promotion of a Colbert candidacy.

This is my main problem with the McCain/Feingold law.  It completely disembowels the First Amendment.  Let’s review what that amendment actually says:

The relevant parts for this question are: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Now I am of the mind that not everything qualifies as free speech.  I’m torn about calling someone burning a flag free speech.  I can see how it might be, but its not totally clear to me.

What is clear, however, is what the intent of these clauses was.  They were to prevent the government from squelching people from talking about the government.  I can’t think of something more plain than supporting or dissenting with a political candidate as speech or press.  When a radio host speaks for or against a politician, or a newspaper writes a story about a politician, or a blog claims support or disdain for a candidate...that is actual free speech.

Back to Hansen’s first question: “What is the purpose that the ban on funding from corporate treasury funds is meant to further?” Is it to protect a right?  Is it to bolster freedom?  Is it to protect politicians?  You can argue that companies have a great deal more money to spend compared to the individual, but does that really change the intent of the constitution?  You may not like the fact that your voice is not as loud a BigCorp’s, but does that change the constitution?

Should any form of speech be regulated by the government when it comes to politics?  Obviously, slander and libel are exceptions, but I’m talking about real, honest support or disagreement with a person’s politics and policies.  If they are running for, or hold, a public office, shouldn’t anyone be able to give their opinion about them in any public forum?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/26/2007 at 09:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 25, 2007

Insensitive, but…

Quoting Tam, quoting herself.

I’ve argued this over and over.  The Federal Government has specific, enumerated functions.  Bailing everyone out of every bad situation they find themselves in is not one of them.  Yes, I greive and mourn for those affected by disaster.  In fact, I’ve been down to Mississippi twice already helping in the cleanup effort, spending my vacation time and money to do it.  I spent a week in the back hills of Kentucky this spring helping rebuild a ministry that helps those who are down and out. 

I’m sorry, but making things all better for people after they loose possessions is not the job of .gov.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/25/2007 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Philosophy •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - October 22, 2007

The Lightning

Great essay by the Geek this morning.  Go give it a read and let me know what you think.

Here’s an excerpt to whet your whistle:

Whether America remains free and prosperous will be determined by whoever controls The Lightning; which is some critical portion of war suitable energy resources.

And it damned well better be us.

Let’s talk a little while about The Lighting, so that we understand what it really is. There are a lot of high yield energy resources on the planet; nuclear, coal, gas, oil and oil distillates, hydraulics, and a pile of what are currently low yield types, such as wind, geothermal, solar, and the like.

All war is logistics, and all logistics is resource allocation and delivery, and it all takes energy.

In order to prevail, the warfighters, their support supplies, their weapon systems and their munitions must be delivered to the theatre and positioned such that they can effectively used to defend or take and hold their objectives.

Of these energy types, most are simply not suitable for war. They may be useful for economic and private consumption, perhaps, but not useful for war.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/22/2007 at 09:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy • Self-Defense •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - September 26, 2007

Book In Progress

Mrs. DuToit has started a writing project and would like some eyes to look it over and give feedback. 

Raising Moral Children

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/26/2007 at 06:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 25, 2007

Due Process is Such a Bother

Saw this linked over at Tam’s.

Turn It Up; Lose Your Wheels

A new Rockford, Illinois law allows police to seize the automobiles of owners who play their stereos too loud.

But it gets worse.

There is no requirement that a police officer responding to a complaint objectively measure sound levels with electronic equipment or even personally witness an alleged offense. Instead, the ordinance states that “hearsay evidence shall be admissible” and that property will be seized upon the assertion of probable cause.

The only way to protest the seizure is to prove you weren’t driving your car at the time virtually anyone could have lodged a complaint against you. But look at what you have to go through to get it back:

If a motorist believes his car has been unlawfully towed on a Friday after 5pm, he may challenge the taking by “depositing a written request for a hearing in the silver drop box located behind city hall,” according to the ordinance. The city must then respond by the following Wednesday. If the registered owner was not driving at the time the car was taken, he will be mailed a letter within ten days. After this time he is given less than fifteen days to request a hearing. The city may then wait another 45 days to schedule a hearing while storage fees accumulate up to $1100.

A hearing officer designated by Rockford will decide under a preponderance of evidence standard whether it is likely the motorist is guilty, in which case the hearing officer’s employers will collect the fine and fee revenue from the motorist. If the vehicle’s owner does not receive the mailed notice or cannot pay the fees within 30 days, the city will confiscate the vehicle permanently.

So, this give us an interesting dilemma.  On one hand, no one (of reason) like to hear the BOOM, BOOM, BOOM of someone’s base invading their space, be it their car or home.  On the other hand, HEARSAY AS PERMISSABLE EVIDENCE????  And then you could loose your car for months, having the burdon of proof on you that you did nothing wrong.  Then, even when you’re found “not guilty”, you have to pay storage fees. 

Holy Jumping Catfish Batman.  I don’t like the smell of this at all.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/25/2007 at 03:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Philosophy •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - August 31, 2007

To Each His Own

I believe in the Capitalist economic model.  That is, you are free to conduct trade as you see fit, within the law of course, but don’t expect everyone to buy, or even like, your stuff.

WordWeb is a free dictionary program you can download and use.  Looks like it has some neat features and some good testimonials.  Then you get to the license agreement.  That is, what you are willing to agree to if you want to use their software.

WordWeb may be freely used only by people who meet the conditions below.

Global greenhouse gas emissions are currently around 5 tonnes per person per year, and need to be reduced by about 80% have a good chance of avoiding catastrophic warming. Most computer users are responsible for far more emissions than is sustainable. For example one medium distance return flight can be equivalent to over 1 tonne of emissions1: more than an average person should be emitting in an entire year. A typical SUV causes about twice as much warming per mile as a typical normal European car: 10,000 miles of travel in an SUV is responsible for about 5 tonnes of emissions. Offsetting emissions is no substitute for direct cuts.

You may use the program free of charge indefinitely only if

- You take at most 4 flights (2 return flights) in any 12 month period
- AND you do not own or regularly drive an SUV (sports utility vehicle).

If you do not qualify you must uninstall the program after the 30-day trial period or purchase WordWeb Pro. The licence is designed to provide a small incentive for people with massively unsustainable emissions to cut down.

Whenever a user no longer meets the above requirements, and they have installed the product for more than 30 days, they must uninstall the product or purchase WordWeb Pro; otherwise it is software theft.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 08/31/2007 at 12:18 PM   
Filed Under: • Odd-Strange • Philosophy •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 03, 2007

Where The Hell Is Matt?

Why have I not heard of this before?

Matt is a 30-year-old deadbeat from Connecticut who used to think that all he ever wanted to do in life was make and play videogames. He achieved this goal pretty early and enjoyed it for a while, but eventually realized there might be other stuff he was missing out on. In February of 2003, he quit his job in Brisbane, Australia and used the money he’d saved to wander around the planet until it ran out. He made this site so he could keep his family and friends updated about where he is.

A few months into his trip, a travel buddy gave Matt the idea of dancing everywhere he went and recording it on his camera. This turned out to be a very good idea. Now Matt is quasi-famous as “That guy who dances on the internet. No, not that guy. The other one. No, not him either. I’ll send you the link. It’s funny.”

The response to the first video brought Matt to the attention of the nice people at Stride long-lasting gum. They asked Matt if he’d be interested in taking another trip around the world to make a new video. Matt asked if they’d be paying for it. They said yes. Matt thought this sounded like another very good idea.

At the end of 2005, Matt left on a 6 month trip through 39 countries on all 7 continents. In that time, he danced a great deal.

Matt dances very badly, but most people don’t seem to mind.

Matt is not rich. Matt also doesn’t have some magical secret for traveling cheaply. He does it pretty much the same way everybody else does.

This is awesome. Yes, Matt dances badly, but the idea of a young man venturing out on his own and dicovering the world is a dream many of us share.  The fact that a corporate sponsor picked him up, with pretty much no restrictions, and let him continue his journey, only adds to the magic.

I’ve been to a couple of the sites he danced in, and watching the videos made me want to get back on a plane. 

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 07/03/2007 at 02:30 PM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Philosophy •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - June 11, 2007

Three Kinds of People

Dr. Mike Adams talks about a subject we have brought up before, but in his classic, to-the-point style.

When I was growing up my father used to say there were two kinds of people in this world. When I would ask him “What time is it?” he would say “There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who ask what time it is and those who wear watches.” He had so many variations on the theme that I eventually decided there really were two kinds of people in this world: Those who dichotomize and those who do not.

But, later, with the help of Lt. Col. David Grossman, I decided there are three kinds of people in this world: Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.

I suspect all three are represented to some degree on this humble part of the internet.  I would like to think we have a skewing toward sheepdog.  In fact, I would like to think I am one of the sheepdogs, but I wonder, even with the training and practice, how I will perform under the stress of the situation.  How do you really know until you are tested?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 06/11/2007 at 07:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Firearms • Philosophy •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner