Sunday - October 04, 2009

The most dangerous thing in the world today is the universities!

YouTube is amazing. Who knew you could find an interview with… Ayn Rand!

Part II

Part III

Presented without much comment. What I’ve read about Ayn Rand I like. But I’ve yet to read Ayn Rand’s writings.

h/t small dead animals

Posted by Christopher     on 10/04/2009 at 08:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 24, 2009

A timely reminder and thanks to:  Argentium G. Tiger

Originally posted by:

Argentium G. Tiger 05/22/2009 at 09:50 PM

The Tiger posted this excerpt last week and it belongs here, right now, and especially today.
I think I should also say thank you very much Tiger, and so I do.  Shamed to admit it but I had forgotten this. But not anymore.

“If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to.  This is the last stand on earth.  And this idea that government is beholden to the people; that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to men.

This is the issue of this election.  Whether we believe in our capacity for self government, or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

-- Ronald Reagan - From his speech to the Republican National Convention, October 27, 1964

Watch the whole thing, it’s got some good pearls of wisdom in it.

Posted by peiper     on 05/24/2009 at 06:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Patriotism • Personal • Philosophy •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 12, 2009

POSSIBLE SYMPATHY FOR HIJACKING PIRATES?  YOU GOTTA BE CRAZY OR PLAIN STUPID. OR BOTH.

I am not going to post the whole article. Not that it doesn’t have some interest. If you’re interested, the link is below.

Some background.
A journalist named Colin Freeman, working for the Telegraph, was kidnapped in Nov. of last year while covering the pirate story along with his photographer.  They were held captive for six weeks.
That’s he on the left in the photo.
Now then, I have a gripe with one statement he makes in the article, and I truly believe it’s indicitive of the thinking among many hand wringers who’d rather kiss and make up.  It also appears to me, though I may be entirely mistaken, that his thinking is very much a part of Brit mindset these days.  It’s as though they feel awful when they have to hurt someone who is hurting them.  ?? I’ll never understand that sort of thinking. 

Mr. Freeman says the following, and he can not be more wrong.

“When pondered for real, the mere thought that somebody might die because of you ---

even if it’s a kidnapper ---

---- is hard to face.”

ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Photo appears to have been taken while in captivity.

Posted by peiper     on 04/12/2009 at 12:54 PM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy • Pirates, aarrgh! • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 08, 2009

Kitchen prose and gutter rhymes

Apologies to Ian Anderson, but for some reason this poem by H. P. Lovecraft keeps coming to mind under the B. Hussein Administration…

Come hither, my lads, with your tankards of ale,
And drink to the present before it shall fail;
Pile each on your platter a mountain of beef,
For `tis eating and drinking that bring us relief:
So fill up your glass,
For life will soon pass;
When you’re dead ye’ll ne’er drink to your king or your lass!

Anacreon had a red nose, so they say;
But what’s a red nose if ye’re happy and gay?
Gad split me! I’d rather be red whilst I’m here,
Than white as a lily and dead half a year!
So Betty, my miss,
Come give me kiss;
In hell there’s no innkeeper’s daughter like this!

Young Harry, propp’d up just as straight as he’s able,
Will soon lose his wig and slip under the table,
But fill up your goblets and pass `em around
Better under the table than under the ground!
So revel and chaff
As ye thirstily quaff:
Under six feet of dirt `tis less easy to laugh!

The fiend strike me blue! l’m scarce able to walk,
And damn me if I can stand upright or talk!
Here, landlord, bid Betty to summon a chair;
l’ll try home for a while, for my wife is not there!
So lend me a hand;
I’m not able to stand,
But I’m gay whilst I linger on top of the land!

Remember, back in HPL’s day ‘gay’ meant ‘happy’. It didn’t have the deadly life-choice meaning it has now.

Meanwhile, it’s ‘Eat, Drink, and Spend...’

Posted by Christopher     on 02/08/2009 at 03:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • Philosophy •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - December 28, 2008

Liberal, Conservative, what’s the difference?

Finally, somebody wrote a piece that succinctly defines the difference between liberal fascist moonbats and compassionate conservatives. He is Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker. He wrote, in part:

“This is the basic conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you can solve social problems with government programs. Conservatives believe that you must solve them person-to-person, face-to-face. Compassion means, literally, “suffering with.” Getting paid to run a government program to help the poor with tax dollars isn’t “suffering with.”

Exactly. This is the true ‘trickle down’ economics: government, be it local, state, or federal, rakes in billions through the threat of force, and ‘trickles down’ just enough to keep you breathing. Good times or bad, Government never seems to “suffer with” us at all.

I do my “charitable” works personally with people I know through various venues: family, church, work, neighborhood, etc. I don’t (usually) just send money off to some big, impersonal government ‘welfare’ organization (like United Way) so that they can skim a few hundred thousand off the top for themselves and ‘trickle down’ some pennies to those in need. That doesn’t count what those government ‘charities’ seize by force from my paycheck…

Go read the whole article entitled The Conservative Elevator Story.

I guess George W. Bush was right when he used the phrase ‘compassionate conservative’. I hated it because I thought it was redundant, but I couldn’t quite point out why I thought that.

Posted by Christopher     on 12/28/2008 at 07:37 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Government • Personal • Philosophy •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - December 01, 2008

The Truth Behind Thanksgiving

Back online after the long holiday weekend.  Brother-in-Law was down from maryland, so lots of lead went downrange (much to the chagrin of our aging mutt, who decided to run halfway across the county as a result) and much good conversation was had.

Whilst catching up on the news this morning, I found a link to this little article.

For What Do We Give Thanks?

As our modern gladiators chase a pigskin down the field in Dallas or Detroit, we settle into our living rooms, loosen our belts and remind the little ones this is the day we echo the thanks of the Pilgrims, who gathered in the autumn of 1621 to celebrate the first bountiful harvest in a new land.

The Pilgrims’ first winter in the New World had been a harsh one. The wheat the Pilgrims had brought with them to plant would not grow in the rocky New England soil. Nearly half the colonists died.

But the survivors were hard-working and tenacious, and — with the help of an English-speaking Wampanoag named Tisquantum (starting a long tradition of refusing to learn three-syllable words, the Pilgrims dubbed him “Squanto”) — they learned how to cultivate corn by using fish for fertilizer, how to dig and cook clams, how to tap the maples for sap. And so they were able to thank the Creator for an abundant harvest that second autumn in a new land.

The only problem with the tale, unfortunately, is that it’s not true.

Fascinating history lesson there, very relevent for today.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 12/01/2008 at 11:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy • Politics •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   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 • 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 •  

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