.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Monday, April 30, 2007

Mexico to Inspect OUR Detention Center

Dan Stein reports,
"A U-N spokesman says the Mexican national will visit the T. Don Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas, which typically houses about 400 non-criminal immigrants awaiting deportation or other outcomes to their immigration cases," KXAN reported. "He'll also examine two border areas where U-S officials have announced a crackdown on Mexicans illegally crossing the border. He'll discuss migrant issues with U-S government officials, campaign groups and immigrants during the mission, which includes a stop in Austin. Bustamante's findings will be presented to the 47-nation rights council at its next session in June."

What authority does Mexico, or the UN for that matter, have to inspect anything of ours? Were that my facility, I'd tell them to get lost. Sure, I'd go to UN jail, but it would be worth it.

What the f@#! is with Bush and immigration? He truly wants to get rid of the damn border entirely (the whole North American Union pact). Compassionate conservatism can go to hell.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Yeah, I agree. However, knowing that these people will just flat out lie about you and that they have millions of useful idiots around the world ready to believe in such lies, what harm will it do to give them a tour with a video camera so we can later use the tour and video to counter the expected lies.

There is an art to getting what you want in the end by appearing to bend and be flexible

12:42 PM, April 30, 2007  

Post a Comment

Sunday, April 29, 2007

What They're Fighting For

Friday, April 27, 2007

Bush Cutting Taxes

I saw on another Blog someone made the comment that Bush was a fool to "cut taxes" in the time of war. I am not sure how you can say that Bush has cut taxes. In fact the federal revenues for 2006 was about $500 billion more than in 2001. Drudge reports that the Government set a record this month for one day in revenue.

Bush did not cut taxes, he cut the rates. Its fair to argue that the government would have collected more taxes or the economy would have grown less but for the rate cuts. So Bush's policies were better than nothing.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Some guy at the last debate said something to the effect that if you've cut taxes just enough so that revenues go up, you haven't cut them enough.

12:40 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Yeah, that guy has been pretty lame in his contributions to this board. We should not speak of him.

3:39 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Yeah, besides, what does he know about how money works.

4:43 PM, April 27, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

All he does is complain on how the board his run. Other than that he is pretty much a nobody.

8:23 AM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

He probably made those anonymous comments himself just so he could complain about something.

5:32 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

You may be right about the anonymous comments. However, I think you would be giving him too much credit as it would require posting.

7:10 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Man oh man. You go away for a few days for work and the whole blog goes to hell.

10:44 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I see your point, S'aurus.

6:24 AM, April 29, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Global Warming and Economics

I saw this in the commentaries at Althouse in a thread reagrding Gore and his Carbon Credit offset market. I thought it was worth repeating here:

It's hard to use an economic argument to create a crusade. Perhaps for that reason, Gore & Co. have tried to sell their cure-alls for global warming as a moral imperative. Thus, it's hardly surprising that they are now getting jabbed by their own rhetoric. As others note, there's nothing unusual about using market forces to solve an economic problem -- if you think of global warming as a problem in economics, then it's just a matter of structuring the market so that all relevant costs and benefits are taken into account, after which the market can arrive at an efficient allocation. But that frame of reference carries with it the downside of cost/benefit analysis; breezy "doom is coming" stuff won't do. Among other things, the manifest uncertainties in all of the projections of possible results many decades into the future make it difficult to frame a case for the kind of vast and hugely expensive present-day remedies Gore has proposed. By the same token, anything less than vast and radical remedies to slash the emission of heat-trapping gases have no impact, and thus no benefit to make them worth the (reduced) cost.Recasting the discussion as a moral issue is an effort to avoid all of that. It has the enormous political benefit of allowing one side to dismiss the other as evil ("deniers") who are probably in the pay of the devil. That's so much easier as a marketing technique. Unfortunately, a moral frame doesn't work even on its own terms -- no matter how you frame the discussion, there's no avoiding, or hiding, the huge costs and radical changes in lifestyles that the remedies Gore proposes would entail. The moral frame has the added consequence that it makes the proponents of those remedies (none of whom intends to give up the high-flying lifestyle) look and sound like hypocrites. In all, this sounds like just deserts.

No doubt!

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Great stuff.

Another guy over there posted this:

I read this article earlier in the day and it made me wonder how much it would cost to buy my way out of my evil right wing lifestyle, and could live carbon neutral like the enlightened people such as Al Gore. I went to a carbon offset webpage and it was about $135 per year.

Unlike Al Gore, I don't own a pool, hot tub, a couple large homes, and I rarely fly. So I admit, my carbon footprint is miniscule compared to a huge polluter like Gore.

I was interested in what it would cost to offset all the carbon in the US. This may not be totally accurate, since I used emissions from Wikipedia and used an average for carbon reduction costs, but the whole country could be carbon neutral for a year for $90 Billion.

So if carbon offsets were real and worked, we could reduce the carbon footprint of the US by 40% with a $36 billion payment

2:29 PM, April 26, 2007  

Post a Comment

This goes out to some of my favorite JAS Members



You have to see the rest of these Demotivational Posters. I just about choked on my green tea with some of them.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Those French

I was paging through the the book Year 1000, by Robert Lacey, and I came across the following quote. I wonder if the author was laughing his ass off as he wrote it:

Computer analysis if the English language as spoken today shows that the hundred most frequently used words are all of Anglo-Saxon origin: the, is, you -- the basic building blocks. When Winston Churchill wanted to rally the nation in 1940, it was to Anglo-Saxon that he turned: "We shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields and the streets; we shall never surrender." All these stirring words came from Old English as spoken in the year 1000; with the exception of the last one, surrender, a French import from the Normans.

He was definitely laughing.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

But the Normans were the victors in 1065. So they would have coined the word for the benefit of the Saxons.

8:34 AM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Sorry -- didn't mean to rain on your French bashing. I'm sure they just put the word into play for their own future use. Please proceed.

8:36 AM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I don't think the Saxons surrendered. They were just defeated. Besides, one could rationalize that the Normans weren't really French, they just spoke the language.

But, alas, it is true the French have generally been good fighters in history.

Maybe this should be a lesson, that humiliation tends to stick regardless of the merits. The democrats and some conservatives are going to serve us up some humiliation in Iraq by retreating.

We will be the new French.

8:46 AM, April 26, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

You mean we will be the new French as in the plundering Eleventh Century sense, or in the Twenty-First Century self-absorbed, unindustriously socialist, profligate and culturally-divided sense?

The Normans, post Conquest, played a major role in the Crusades, did they not?

9:39 AM, April 26, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Outstanding

Here is an outstanding article... the great white lie.

My favorite:

the reason conservative politicians so often lose their nerve, why they back down in debate even when they’re clearly right. No one wants to be condemned as a brute—especially not conservatives, who still retain some vague memory of how worthy it is to be a lady or gentleman.

This article will make a liberal's blood boil... mostly because it is right.

Giving Moral Force to the Enemy

In my reading of Dodge's series on the Napoleonic wars I came across this little nugget. Dodge reprints a letter from Napoleon to his minister of war Henri Clarke regarding the behavior of his older brother Joseph, then acting King of Spain:

To Clarke, October 10, 1809: I desire you to write to the king of Spain to make him understand that nothing is more contrary to military rules than to make known the forces of his army, be it in the orders of the day and proclamations, be it in the gazette; that when one is induced to speak of his forces, one is to exaggerate them, and to present them as redoubtable by doubling and trebling the number; and that when one speaks of the enemy, one is to diminish his force by one half or one third; that in war everything is morale; that the King departed from this principle...that it is carrying discouragement to the French troops to present the number of the enemy as immense, and it is to give to the enemy a feeble opinion of the French in presenting them as few, that this is to proclaim in all Spain its feebleness; in a word, to give moral force to his enemy, and to take it from himself. That it is in the spirit of men to believe that in the end the lesser number must be beaten by the greater....The most experienced military men have difficulty on a day of battle to value the numbers of men which compose the enemy's army, and generally natural instinct leads one to judge the enemy that one sees more enormous than he actually is...

This maxim from Napoleon can still be applied today, especially in regard to public opinion in the U.S. In Iraq the enemy exaggerates its strength through the use of suicide bombings on civilians. At the same time we diminish our power through the rhetoric of defeat by the constant coverage of the losses in Iraq rather than the successes. We are giving moral force to the enemy and taking it from our self.

I know I depart from my many of my conservative brethren regarding this war. The war in Iraq is a liberal idea - a liberal idea, which has its roots in self defense. But, on a more fundamental level, it pains me to accept that many here believe that the United States, the greatest society that has ever existed in human history, should not aid those besieged by the forces of evil. If the enemy is so deranged that they will blow themselves up in the mist of public market places in order to gain power and subject peoples to tyranny, there is no force on earth but the United States that can stand up to such perverted barbarism. Of course, we should not police the world, but the terror campaign in Iraq is not about policing, it is a battle of good vs evil. America must always be in that battle no matter where it is waged.

Now we have some on the right allied with those on the left demanding that we give up the fight. I hope they do not succeed. For if they do, we will no longer be who we once were or who we ought to be. Not all of us are soldiers, but we will all reflect on the past and what we did. Let it not be that we stood down.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

What self defense? How is this possibly self defense? Honest conservatives believe in self defense, but not in unjustified intervention. Liberals believe in nation building and meddling, not conservatives.

10:49 AM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

It's not even worth explaining again. You war opposers don't listen to the answers; you just respond back by repeating the same questions.

I understand why the Left does it -they don't care about facts, but why our own kind adopts the same tactics is most troubling....

3:39 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Because you never explain why we're there!

3:45 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

If Saurus won't explain I will.

Will Ms. Stebbing deny that we are fighting, in Iraq, an organization called Al Qaeda in Iraq? We are fighting in Iraq the war we expected to be fighting in Afghanistan. That is, Al Qaeda decided to throw all its resources into the Iraq theater and not the Afghanistan theater.

So to recap:

1) Al Qaeda is our enemy.
2) We are fighting them and killing them in Iraq.
3) By killing them there, they are diminished in their capacity to kill us here.

Therefore,

4) This is defensive.

3:45 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

No, right now we're trying to prop up yet another government against out interests. Trying to fight Al Qaeda is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Come to think of it, propping up this Iraqi government is like nailing Jello to a wall.

Additionally, we're so focused on Iraq that we're not working on getting legitimate intelligence on Al Qaeda itself. Going after Al Qaeda is something you do covertly. It has nothing to do with nation building and police actions.

3:59 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Because you never explain why we're there!

This is the same old...same old. From the war protesters. In fact you can find 100 page documents on the subject at the white house web page and dept of defense. But, the war opponents don't want to look. They don't want to contemplate the reasons... they just want to ask the question over and over and over and over again.

It's a leftist tactic. If you re-ask the question over and over and over, eventually people will believe that it has never been answered.

But I will agree with Harsh...

We went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein. We won that war. We are still there because Al Qaeda came to Iraq.

4:49 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Additionally, we're so focused on Iraq that we're not working on getting legitimate intelligence on Al Qaeda itself. Going after Al Qaeda is something you do covertly. It has nothing to do with nation building and police actions.

Says who? General Scribbler? It has everything to do with nation building. We kill them daily.

Something must be working. You say that we are not winning against Al Qaeda, yet everyone including Al Qaeda said they were going to hit us here in the U.S. followng 9-11. But, it has been 5 1/2 years.

I say the burden is on you protesters to now prove that what we are doing in Iraq is not working against Al Qaeda.

4:53 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Then why don't we go take out every tyrant? China is forcing late term abortions. Nuke 'em. And we've been awfully tolerant of the Castro brothers.

You know, we used to go after strongmen the old fashioned way, by funding the resistance. I don't know why we've chosen to kill our own guys this time. To fuel Al Qaeda's fire?

Sigh.

You guys want us to be in a war? The powers-that-be will ensure we're in a war if that's the only way they can get their damn North American Union. And they'll keep feeding you the talking points, and you won't question them.

5:09 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

They should make me General. I'd make quick work of this folly.

We did weaken Al Qaeda, at least initially. Word is they've been recovering. But we weakened them not because of Iraq. We were running some intelligence and making inroads. Pakistan screwed us, but you keep after them by getting in with their neighboring cave dwellers. You don't chase them into centralized terrorist training camps in Iraq.

5:16 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

But we weakened them not because of Iraq.

Maybe, but you only make an unprovable assertion. Six months into the Iraq war and 2 years after 9-11, your argument was plausible. We had the burden to prove that the Iraq war was making us safer. But 3-4 years into the war, that burden started to shift. Now 5 1/2 years after 9-11 and 4 years in Iraq, Al Qaeda has done nothing but make tapes. The terrorists were at the height of their power after 9-11. They had terrorist cells in 50 countries. They had 10,000 trained soldiers. Where are the cells. Where are the attacks. So far there are only audio tapes calling for Jihad. The only success Al Qaeda has had since 9-11 has been to increase sectarian violence in Iraq. That is not much of a success.

Our soldiers are winning this war. They will only fail if the defeatists succeed surrender.

10:16 PM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

We did some damage in Afghanistan, no question.

You think we've hobbled them, though? Outside of the Middle East we've seen the train bombing in Madrid, the London bombings, the too-close-for-comfort plot for the London-to-US flight. And if you want to say the Iraq war is related to terrorism, they've succeeded in killing another 3,300 Americans, doubling their 9/11 take.

And they've been rumored to be gathering strength. If a goal of 9/11 was to get us out of Saudi Arabia, what do you think they're using for propaganda now? They're eating this up!

What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish there right now? Is our goal now to fight one-on-one with Al Qaeda? We'd need a hell of a lot more troops than we have men in this country, because we will need to occupy the entire Middle East.

Meanwhile, we're bringing the Middle East here to America, just lately to the tune of 25,000 Iraqis. That's just a start. We're going to get our own little training camps in the suburbs. Man, what a mess.

7:40 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

And your alternative plan is better?

8:00 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Your commentary is wrong on all points. Al Qaeda is not the norm in the middle east. There is no islamic tradition supporting Al Qaeda. There is nothing about Al Qaeda that can be attributed to any islamic glory age. Blowing up civilians is not in the tradition of Saladin or any of the caliphs. It is a peversion of anything in history. It is a fascist movement. It can and will be defeated. But to defeat it we have to fight it and not sit back and hope that the impovershed people of Afghanistan or Iraq or any other peoples in the middle east fight it themselves.

The goal of 9/11 was to get us to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So that we could be defeated there and leave the middle east all together. After our retreat, Bin Ladin, with a giant victory on his shoulders, would have little opposition in rebuilding his "caliphate."

What are we trying to accomplish. We need to stay there until Al Qaeda peters out and keep them from gaining anything.

8:10 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Dateline today: Poll finds most Muslims agree with Al Qaeda's goals

8:16 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

This breaks it down in better detail: http://nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30032604

and it was dated yesterday, not today.

8:45 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

You of all people Scribbler should know better than to cite polls from countries ruled by dictators, you should know better than to cite polls from countries where people disappear in the middle of the night for opposing the regimes. In countries where people and their families are targeted by fanatics for speaking up against them.

How far do you have to go Scribbler to support your bankrupt positions. Maybe you can cite Saddam's election results to prove that Saddam was loved by the people.

Maybe it's better to look at results. If so many people in Egypt support Al Qaeda, why aren't millions flocking to Al Qaeda's ranks.

8:46 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

And now Al Qaeda is planning a massive attack: Al Qaeda in Iraq Planning Attacks in the UK.

At least our intelligence is better than it was. But Iraq is not working.

8:48 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The poll was conducted by "the Washington-based nonprofit group WorldPublicOpinion.org and the University of Maryland."

8:49 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Al Quada is now planning a massive attack? Oh no!

This must be because of Iraq. They were so peaceful before. If we hadn't invaded Iraq there is simply no way they would be planning a massive attack now.

8:55 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I'm just saying we're not seeing a lot of improvement. There HAVE been more attempts since our involvement in Iraq, but we seem to be more on top of them, more alert.

8:57 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Al Qaeda has been such a dissappointment for the anti-war crowd. They get overjoyed when Al Qaeda releases another tape with Bin Ladin wagging his finger at us saying we are doomed. The anti-wars groaners are hoping and praying for just even a measly car bomb attack here in the U.S. Then they can stand up and scream... "Bush was wrong we are not safer."

No doubt Al Qaeda knows this. They have been trying and trying, but it's hard to get recruits these days...so many of the good ones are lying in graves in Iraq.

9:05 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I can't speak for the anti-war liberals, as their position is not grounded in any moral basis, having been entirely willing to get into Bosnia, etc. But Mr. S'aurus makes a preposterous claim against those of us who oppose the war from a conservative, Constitutional foundation. We have the clarity, not feeling the need to adhere to a party line or talking points, to understand that war in Iraq has no positive effect on our vulnerability to terrorists. On the contrary, it is demoralizing our nation, dividing us so that we may be conquered, and is sapping our resources.

Look, I listen to talk radio too, a lot of the same guys you all do, but I've given myself permission to think for myself. Try it. They say using your brain helps to stave off Alzheimer's.

I feel a sudden need for sunlight and fresh air. Don't miss me too much.

9:41 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I've given myself permission to think for myself

Outrageous! Are nominations for the vitriol award allowed here?

9:56 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

But Mr. S'aurus makes a preposterous claim against those of us who oppose the war from a conservative, Constitutional foundation

I never made that claim. I am not sure what opposing the war from a "conservatvie constitutional foundation" means.

On the contrary, it is demoralizing our nation, dividing us so that we may be conquered, and is sapping our resources.

You are right about this. But whose fault is it? The Civil War also divided us, but the truth prevailed. The divisions already existed before the war in Iraq began. The challenge was bound to occur and it did on Sept 11. Sept 11 opened the wounds that already existed in our society on how to deal with these threats.

Whose fault was the civil war? Would it have been better to keep James Bucannan in office for another term in 1860? Would that have reconciled us or only postposed the inevitable.

10:10 AM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The War of Northern Aggression is a matter for another post. But I can see some similarites, none of them positive. However, we weren't forced to take on tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants as a result thereof.

2:34 PM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

It was the "German" division that collapsed on the Union Right at Chancellorsville.

I would talk about the large transfers of freed slaves from the south to the north, but lets leave that discussion for Brits.

3:06 PM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Freed slaves practiced the same religion as the rest of us, and held similar values at that time. And the slaves were already here.

But good idea. We'll save that for Brits.

3:12 PM, April 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

Monday, April 23, 2007

Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tonight on Lou Dobbs (CNN) 5 p.m.: Ron Paul discusses issues that affect the middle class.

Would someone tape this for me? For more reasons than I care to list, I don't take cable. YouTube video, DVD, 8 mm, any format will work.

(Cross-post from On Scribbler's Mind)

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Who?

7:04 AM, April 24, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Lou Dobbs. You know, he has a show.

Here's the video. Thanks for all your help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL8aV7oYJh8

7:19 AM, April 24, 2007  

Post a Comment

GOP Candidates on Civil Liberties

About.com has a section devoted to Civil Liberties. The ringmaster there, Tom Head, puts forth his ratings, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, of the Republican presidential candidates.

To preface his findings, my view is that the ACLU is approximately 50% correct in its assessment of civil liberties. They give a positive rating for Second Amendment support, despite being remarkably silent on the issue themselves. The rest of the Amendments they also view as mostly good, though seeming to make exceptions to the Tenth Amendment, falling down, for example, on issues of abortion (thinking a federal guarantee to however/whenever necessary instead of leaving it to the states) and gay marriage (opposing the Defense of Marriage Act which reiterates the state's role in marriage recognition).

The ACLU includes a couple other quirky categories in their ratings which skew the results: Homeless Rights, additional gay rights (supporting hate crime and "antidiscrimination" legislation), affirmative action. They also have a soft spot for immigration. But discussing the vice and virtue of their position on that issue is a whole 'nother blog post.

The ACLU's insistence on protection of the First Amendment, apparently the Second Amendment, and the more important, universal civil liberties makes their ratings worthwhile, if to be taken with a grain of salt on the sillier inclusions.

Tom Head's Civil Liberties ratings on the GOP presidential candidates may be found at The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates on Civil Liberties.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

The ACLU in the end is really only a tool for the Left. I wouldn't trust them for anything.

I can't support anyone that takes an extreme view on these matters. What is the point of having a culture if we don't intend to keep it. If someone someday wants to build a radical madrassa in my neighborhood, or in my state, I want to keep the ability for the government to say NO.

I think Ron Paul would let that Madrassa be built. One more step to cultural suicide.

11:07 AM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Is defense of the Second Amendment extreme? The First Amendment? Let's see if I can recall Barry Goldwater's quote, "Extemism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

It's the made-up stuff where the ACLU runs off on its own: gay rights, hate crime/antidiscrimination, things that don't fall in line with the Constitution.

Like I said, they're about 1/2 right. At the risk of promoting Ron Paul again, see his profile on the above link. He should be the barometer for civil liberties, not the ACLU for him.

12:59 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Btw, one big difference in Ron Paul and the ACLU is in immigration. I should get into this on another post, but the reason why we must severly curb immigration and kick the existing criminals out is because of our welfare state. For many reasons, we have created a magnet for a different culture. Were we not a welfare state, we would not need to be concerned about immigration as there would be no draw.

1:02 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Me again. We should be curbing Muslim immigration, but guess what? We're bringing another 25,000 Iraqi refugees here, thanks to the war. Just so long as they build the Madrassa in Eden Prairie and not Excelsior . . .

Greenland is starting to look better and better.

1:09 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I am all for immigration when its Legal, when its for people who want to come here and learn English, work hard, and to become American. These requirements do not include forcing our existing institutions to accomodate a foreign religion, a foreign language, or any foriegn customs. People are free to do that at home.

I think all here would agree.

1:56 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Are you saying you're good with the 25,000 Iraqi immigrants then? They are legal, welcomed directly by the President.

6:03 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger hdhouse said...

I rather thought the ACLU supported causes first and looked for political affiliation second. As they have supported such right wing issues involving Rush Limbaugh to the KKK to the American Nazi Party, it appears that the ACLU is hardly a "tool for the left".

However, if one feels that the ACLU winds up on the side of a number of "left" persona could it be that the root reason is that the right is or has been in a position to attempt to squash civil liberties that the left holds dear and the ACLU jumps in - and as the right seems to want to squash these liberties with increasing frequence, it just appears that the ACLU leans that way?

I give you sirs, John Adams, who truly was a man who looked at causes before affiliations.

11:46 PM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Giuliani on Global Warming

Or is it now called "Climate Change" to encompass both cooling and warming, whichever cycle we find ourselves in?

From ballotbox2008.com, Where the Republicans Stand: Global Warming:
[Giuliani] said that he does believe that global warming is happening and that, "The big question has always been how much of it is happening because of natural climate changes and how much of it is happening because of human intervention." He has made clear that: "the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause. He also has mentioned that the issue shouldn't be an issue simply because we should be dealing with pollution anyway.

Giuliani has praised the Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for his environmental leadership, but stressed that he hasn't taken a look at the details of California's law to reduce emissions by 2010. "I generally agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger,'' he said. "He's a good friend and a progressive leader.'

You're talking about a lot of regulation and lot of resources confiscated (and you guys were shocked when Hilary wanted to confiscate oil profits). Y'all still want to elect this guy?

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Yeah, what is up with this stuff. Newt came out big for global warming as well. However, we need to look through the politics on this stuff.

I think it is a good strategy politically to say you are concerned about global warming -even say that you believe in it, while at the same time promising not to regulate the economy in any meaningful way (as Newt did). In this way you can make sure the segment of the population - the Left's useful idiots - who are independent and have been swayed by the media on global warming will be satisfied. It's sad, but true.

Whether Guiliani supports world government or regulation for global warming is still unclear. However, if he believes that we need to regulate to fight global warming, I cannot support him.

8:55 AM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I'm mildly curious: is there an issue on which Giuliani is good? (Don't say judges. We can't elect a president ONLY on the judge matter. Besides, look at Giuliani's Civil Liberties rating. You want that in a judge?)

9:27 AM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Global warming Scam

This column appeared in the National Post and was emailed to me by King Oliver. It's worthy of repeating.

National Post, Monday 9 Apr 2007, Page: A13, Section: Issues

"UN Report Proves Canada Must Act Now On Climate Change," trumpeted the headline of a Liberal party press release on Friday, timed to correspond with the release of yet another alarmist UN summary on climate change.

"Canada must act aggressively now to avert the destructive consequences of climate change," the Liberals insisted.

"Canada must be ready for a carbon-constrained future," said party leader Stephane Dion. "Human beings can't continue to use the atmosphere as an unlimited and free dump . It is within our power to prevent the worst of the effects of climate change."

This, of course, marks the second alarmist release by the UN this year, both coming before its own scientific report on global warming is even out.

Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria before its catastrophic forecasts for the future can be checked against the more moderate scientific truth.

We already know that the coming report -- the fourth by the UN in 15 years -- will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.

Yet the so-called "summaries for policy makers" are becoming more shrill each time: Species will be wiped out, crime will rise, starvation will kill hundreds of millions, disease will become rampant, islands will disappear beneath the waves, deserts will consume entire continents.

Science goes down, UN hysteria goes up. Curious, isn't it, how that plays into the UN's desire to be at the centre of a global effort to plan human activity?

But let's look at just what the global-warming theory implies and at Mr. Dion's charge that humans, Canadians included, are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% -- about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml -- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

Blogger hdhouse said...

Ahhh math and silly math.

I'm sure you are familiar with a threshold of cancer causing chemicals (benzine, tri-chlorals, etc.) and their acceptable limit outside of purpose concentration? No?

Well, it is usually set at 5 parts per billion (ppb). So let's take our 16 ounce bottle of Tri-Cholorals (degreasers, dry cleaning type chemicals) in pure form. To keep within the legal limits (so your brains or livers don't blossom with cancer) that one bottle needs to be diluted with 80 billion ounces of water (625 million gallons.

Minor amounts of anything in a delicate balance are nothing to be sneezed at. If it baffles you, then you need to learn more science.

The answer rests in knowledge, not in laziness.

11:57 PM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Friday, April 20, 2007

Ginsberg on Abortion

A column in the LA Times today discusses Justice Ginsberg dissent in the recent partial birth abortion case. In her dissent Ginsberg argued that abortion was about equality and not about privacy.

It defies social reality to approach the abortion issue as a mere matter of privacy, as if it could really be divorced from questions of sex equality. Some proposed restrictions on abortion, such as requiring the consent of the father of the fetus, are plainly an effort to revive discredited notions about women's proper place, and they violate equality principles for that reason. True, men cannot become pregnant, and it is tempting to think that, for that reason, abortion restrictions cannot possibly create a problem of discrimination. But perhaps this argument has things backward. In our society, isn't there an equality problem if laws target only women's bodies and leave men's bodies alone?

It is interest comparing Justice Ginsberg's view on abortion and equality to Susan B. Anthony who opposed abortion on the same grounds:

She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. ("When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights.
If in Ginsberg's opinion that abortion is required to give women equality, doesn't that mean that men should also be allowed to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy? Because men are required by law to provide child support, the only way to maintain equality between men and women in this area is to either give men the right to terminate the pregnancy or to not require any financial assistance from men.

Maybe in her next case, Ginsberg will force the government to give free steroids to women so that they can have the opportunity to grow beards just like men.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Fighting back.

A minor skirmish has started over at The Corner. John Podhoretz is shocked that John Derbyshire wondered why anyone didn't fight back.

I agree with Derbyshire. I, of course, don't know how I would react in such a situation. Maybe I would cower like a bunny or cry like a little girl. But I know how I would want to. I hope I would fight. This was one man against scores. Yes, the scores were outgunned, but he was outnumbered.

There was a time when the thought of young men jumping out of windows while young women were getting shot would have been shameful for the men. They would fight back because that is what they thought was expected of them as men.

Men, think of this situation: Suppose Cho came into your house and started shooting, and say he already has hit a family member. You are unarmed (and can't reach for a gun) but you could get away. Would you get away, and let your family deal with him? After all, he has a gun! If you fight, he'll just kill you!

Of course you don't run, or at least, of course you hope you are not the type to run. You grab anything you have to throw at him, or just rush at him.

Part of this is also training. I've read the safest thing for soldiers to do when caught in an ambush is attack the ambushers. It puts them off guard and on the defensive. But soldiers have to be taught to do this. The first instinct is probably to run, which simply increases their probability of being killed. But soldiers can be trained to fight back. When ambushed, the training kicks in, they fight back and most of them live.

Our young men are no longer trained to protect the women around them. It simply doesn't enter their head that is what they are expected to do. And it has been this way for at least a generation. It certainly wouldn't have entered my head 25 years ago when I was in college. Knowing who I was back then, I think I would have jumped out a window. But I have a feeling my father, at that age, would have felt compelled to protect those around him, even at the cost of his life.

This is a change for the worse.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

In ancient war, battles would sometimes rage for hours with few losses on either side. Men would hit each other on their bronze armor doing little damage. Then one side would break, turn their backs, and the slaughter would begin.

It's better to be on offense than defense.

12:34 AM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

They say, for women being attacked, you're better off to fight. Having a gun is best, but even kicking and biting gives one better odds. Most bullies are wussies at heart.

8:30 AM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger hdhouse said...

Interesting take on armour here. Next time you buy it, buy the entire set of it, not just the half the protects the front.

Ohhh the mindless slings and arrows of half thought out wit.

12:05 AM, April 24, 2007  

Post a Comment

Are you in the game?

In his post below (Disgusting Profession), Saurus expresses justified outrage at the decision of NBC News to broadcast this nutcase/depraved killer's advertisement.

I think I understand the mindset of the press.

Recall when Mike Wallace jumped on Peter Jennings when Jennings said he would warn American troops about an ambush. Wallace said you have to be a reporter first, a disinterested observer and note (or video) taker. (See video here.)

The problem here is the press actually thinks it is possible for them to be "outside observers" or if they don't think this, they think they need to pretend it is possible to be outside observers. They willfully put on blindfolds to the fact that they are part of the game. People do things precisely because of the press coverage. The press can't simply observe events and report on them because the events themselves depend on the coverage.

Spree killers and coverage are but one example. The more prominent example is their coverage of the war. Most of the reason Al Qaida in Iraq does what it does is to get the press coverage.

Those in the press put on this blindfold because they don't like the implication that they are part of the game. They would prefer a world where they just report the facts and the facts don't change because they report them. So they adopt a morality for the world as they want it to be, not the world as it actually is. But this itself is immoral. We have a moral duty to operate in the world we are actually in.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Apparently families of some of the victims are cancelling interviews with NBC.

I think this is a mistake. These relatives should go on to NBC LIVE to tell them how despicable it was for NBC to publish the killer's manifesto. They need to tell Brian Williams to his face.

3:20 PM, April 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

Constitution Aborted

The WSJ OpinionJournal opines today that yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart was a step toward reversal of Roe v. Wade. They are wrong. And the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold a federal law that does not conform to the Tenth Amendment.

Hopes for reversal of Roe v. Wade should be pinned to states' rights, and yesterday's ruling was a step backwards in that respect. Abortion is simply not a matter for consideration of the federal government, its law or its courts, any more than your average homicide laws.

Conversely, the Nebraska partial birth abortion law overturned in Stenberg v. Carhart should have been deemed perfectly constitutional.

On a lighter note, also in OpinionJournal, Julia Gorin tells us why Embryos are Cooler than Kids.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Didn't they write in the majority that they did not consider the Commerce Clause argument as part of the case because it was not brought up? I think the law would be likely struck down if such an argument were made. However, this ruling will also apply to the state laws.

8:24 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I'll have to read the opinion. It would have to be the opposite of the Commerce Clause though, States' Rights, unless the Commerce Clause was cited in the law itself as justification.

Either way, the prolife movement shoots itself in the foot when it subverts the Constitution with federal abortion law.

8:30 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I'm not sure I agree with Stebbing about tactics, but I agree about the law. If I had my way, I would have used this occasion to strike down the federal partial birth abortion ban as unconstitutional and overturn Roe v. Wade, both under the justification that this is a state issue.

About tactics, what you are proposing Scribbler is that the pro-choicers can pick and choose on a case by case basis whether abortion is a federal issue. If a state wants to outlaw it, the Federal Constitution disallows this, but if the Federal Congress wants to ban a certain procedure, then abortion all of the sudden becomes a state issue. We shouldn't let them get away with this. If it's currently a Federal issue because they made it one, we get to fight back using the Federal government while making it clear that we don't agree that this is the proper playing field.

This is essentially the tack Thomas took in his one paragraph concurrence (joined by Scalia). He basically said "ok. According to my reading of your stupid opinions on abortion previously, this law is fine."

10:28 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

You misunderstood me. There should be NO federal abortion laws, either pro or con.

States can have all the abortion laws they want, again either pro or con, and with whatever punishments the deem appropriate. I'm fine with Nebraska having their partial birth law.

Technically, California could choose to have no penalty for abortion up to the age of five. I'm not saying I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it would be Constitutional.

And if Connecticut wants to have a "no birth control law" (this was the first "privacy" case), in my opinion, that is Constitutional.

11:08 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

If you're saying Roe needs to be overturned to give the states back their rightful authority, I agree.

11:10 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

That's what I'm saying. The Federal Government needs to get out of the abortion law business. That should be our position. That as a matter of Constitutional law, this is a state issue.

BUT, as long as the other side forces the playing field to be at the federal level, we need to play the game there, while noting that we think this is the wrong playing field.

11:22 AM, April 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Disgusting Profession

It has recently been reported that the mass murderer at Virginia Tech sent in a manifesto the media prior to his murders. Now the media is airing it for everyone to see. It shows his complaints and grievances to the world.

The media has gone too far on this one. There was a poll recently that said more young people wanted to be famous rather than rich in this country. The desire to be famous is the culture of this killer's generation... and the media is falling for it by publishing this guy's picture, by publishing his name, and now worst of all by airing this guy's manifesto. How is it that this individual has earned the right for millions maybe even hundreds of millions to see his picture, to know his name, and to listen to his complaints? Because he murdered 33 people. He figured that if he murdered people would listen to him, people would study him, people would try to understand him...and now he is right. There will be copycat murders. There will be more kids who see that you can become famous by committing horrid crimes and it will be the media's fault. They are no longer reporting the news, The media is aiding and abetting the evil that men do. The media has become the drug dealers of these fame seeking murderers. The media supplies them with the goods to get high, and the innocent suffer. They can't stop doing it because their ratings are tripling by airing his manifesto. The media is one of the most disgusting professions. It's sickening. We need a new rule. Members in the media need to be boycotted, they need to be criticized and ostracized for giving this murdered a stage in the same way Don Imus was..... Will anyone stand up?

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

A voluntary, self-imposed rule, of course. But you can't get away from it by just turning off the tube. The internet loves propagating such things as the pictures of the killer. So the next guy will just send his propaganda to Drudge or SmokingGun or the snuff site du jour. What you'll ask for next is a China-styled law for the internet. It's coming.

7:59 AM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

The media did a heck of a job keeping the identity and pictures of the duke rape accuser secret. Why can't they do that here?

8:21 AM, April 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

Racism vs Free Speech

So much has been said over Don Imus and his nappy comments that I've tuned out the debate. But Ron Paul cuts through the hype and puts it clearly:
The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

Ron Paul goes on to denouce the calls for curtailed free speech, citing the First Amendment, "which states unequivocally that, 'Congress shall make NO law.'" You may read the entire article, Government and Racism, here.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

This whole episode has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment. The government didn't fire Imus. CBS and MSNBC did.

It does have to do with our ridiculous culture. The Rutgers BB players should have simply told Imus "we won the national championship. F*** off." Not "oh I'm sure injured. Boo hoo."

We've become a nation of thin skinned crybabies.

And who the heck is Ron Paul?

8:34 AM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

There are kooks who are calling for government imposed curbs on free speech over this.

Paul's article also discusses how government policy fosters the cultural divisions among racial and other lines. Read it.

Oh, please, you know who Ron Paul is. I may have mentioned him once or twice.

9:01 AM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I think Paul (whoever he is) makes an interesting point - that we have this collective mentality towards race.. that people are somehow appointed leaders of a particular race..which becomes their only credential for being such a leader (that they are of a particular race).

I'm glad people like Dave Paul have the courage to bring these arguments to the forefront.

10:56 AM, April 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No less a luminary than Oprah has begun something of a crusade on the issue, insisting that the double standard over the language of Don Imus NOT be permitted from rap musicians and other members of the "black culture," either. Some of them, hypocritically enough, make big money for Disney and CBS. It will be interesting to follow this, though it's probably a flash in the pan.

J. Ewing

11:28 AM, April 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep pretending you don't know, that way you will look increasingly more foolish/ignorant as the word continues to spread about the greatest living embodiment of our Founders unsurpassed wisdom.

Dr. Ron Paul

Suggest a candidate with a better, documented voting record than Ron Paul...

They'd have to top the following short list. Hell, I'd settle for 80%:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

He is the antithesis of the general scum that get elected.

4:21 PM, April 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, that explains it, should have checked first.

Sloanasaurus
Industry: Law
Occupation: Law
Interests* Tax Law

said...

I think Paul (whoever he is)

What a wonderful time of intellectual dishonesty and wide spread phenomenon of "adults" in a perpetual state of selfish child arrested development we find ourselves. Consider where you would be now had your attitude existed when real men of selfless goodwill and wisdom were risking all to forge a Nation of inspired Law. Have you been a worthy steward of that legacy?

4:39 PM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Dear Anonymous nutball:

That business about not knowing who Ron Paul is was something you are probably not familiar with: A joke.

Ms. Stebbing has posted about Ron Paul quite a bit, (notice she mentioned this in her reply?) so of course members of this blog know who he is.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming of only allowing comments from members of the blog, who know each personally, and aren't humor impaired.

4:52 PM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Hey, that wasn't me posting anonymously (though that's an interesting idea). Pretty sure it wasn't Federal Farmer either. He doesn't talk to us anymore.

4:52 PM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

At first I thought the anonymous poster was J Ewing (who needs to get an account).


I very much enjoy Ron Paul's principles. In fact I agree with most of them (except for his views on National Defense).

However, we live in reality, not fantasy. Ron Paul constantly votes against his party, he sits out there alone by himself he only votes for himself... he has alienated many. He reminds me of the captain who always votes to go down with his ship, regardless of the others on board. He reminds me of someone who would vote for the democrats so that we can all learn a needed "lesson" suffering under government health care and higher taxes.

I dont live life as an all or nothing proposition. I have to constanly manage risk so I don't lose it all. Because when you have lost it all, there is none left to invest. Life is not about getting the average... it's about managing your highs and lows so that you are always gaining and never losing.

Yes, Ron Paul has principles. He stands for good things. I love getting excited about his views...
I just would never want him in my foxhole.

10:37 PM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

You'd be less likely to FIND yourself in a foxhole with Dr Paul as Prez. But it's true, and in keeping with libertarian philosophy, that you'd be mostly on your own, to succeed or fail, with much better odds of success.

8:33 AM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger hdhouse said...

John Adams was both a bright light of reason and an even brighter light of reasonableness.

You can give up trying to reason or be reasonable with Sloan. There are no facts to back anything up. There is just hot dogma faxed out of the feelgood wing of the white house.

We belong in Iraq as much as Sloan belongs to a blog associated with John Adams.

1:14 PM, April 25, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I don't know who hdhouse is and don't care. Commenting on this blog is restricted to members of this blog, which hdhouse isn't. The settings somehow got changed to allow him to post. They have been changed back.

2:34 PM, April 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Truckers: Don't Tread on Me

When the truckers roll April 23, it will be within the speed limit, but barely. The minimum speed limit, that is. American truckers will be forming a "rolling blockade," stopping up traffic surrounding the Capitol, in protest of the Bush administration's plans to, within weeks, allow Mexican trucks to operate freely across the U.S., presumably operated by drivers unable to read English traffic signs.

The protest plans have been published widely across the internet, such as in The People's Media Company story, Breaker, Breaker, a "Truck Out" Planned Over Mexican Drivers Entering the USA.


Despite opposition by Congress, unions and even the US DOT, Bush has his teeth dug into this one. I'd guess he feels it a good first step toward the North American Union he's set on furthering. Of course, you all know he signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America pact last year with Mexico and Canada. Our new nation has it's official government website at www.spp.gov.

Was that a collective yawn? The United States is soooo Twentieth Century.

For more fun along these lines, I recommend reading about our new North American Legal System. Bye-bye, Bill of Rights (soooo Eighteenth Century).

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

In France, farmers or truckers or the aggravated group of the moment would blockade the highways to the airport, causing huge jams -- and the people would support THEM! That's why they always have such crap.

I've always thought that if someone pulled such a stunt here, and the president called in F-16's for an airstrike, the president's approval would skyrocket. "We all got issues buddy, so don't f*** with my ability to get around" seemed to me to be the American attitude.

So if the truckers want to protest fine. But it better not inconvenience me or whatever sympathy I had for their cause before will go to zero.

2:43 PM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

If federal employees, lobbyists and Congressmen can't get in to DC for a few days, the truckers will have already done the nation a service.

3:10 PM, April 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

This is a test post

This is a test post to see if new blogger works.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

This is a test comment.

10:39 AM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Appears to be working. Thanks for updating it.

11:06 AM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

This is a test response to the test comment. No comment on the test post.

11:36 AM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I think scribbler's response to the test comment is outrageous. OUr civilization is art risk.

1:26 PM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Art risk? You want to talk about art risk? Why . . . why . . . you neocon wine and brie eater!

2:05 PM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Hey, where's my little seven-year-old Scribbler picture?

2:06 PM, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Mark said...

If a real comment is made, will we be instructed to seek shelter?

1:25 PM, April 18, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

After encountering this blog, it is not unusual for one to feel the need to seek shelter, however, we generally advise seeking tax shelters whenever possible.

5:37 PM, April 18, 2007  

Post a Comment

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Roll Call

Surely JAS Members did not shirk their civic duty today, and all were at the tax rally among the other 5,000 - 7,000 good souls, right?

But I got around, as I was campaigning for Ron Paul -- handed out 900 pieces of lit and saw about half of those in attendance face to face -- and only ran into King Oliver, Festivus, and a newer member who has yet to establish his nom de plume. But I didn't get up onto the capitol steps where a quarter of the attendees were nestled. That must be where you all were.

So, to save face, go ahead and give us a "I was there," and we will rest the matter. Else, your protestations last Wednesday night that "Taxation is Coerced Charity" must be brushed off as so much rhetoric.

Anonymous Air Marshall said...

I arrived at 12:05, wasn't feeling very well, saw there was a good crowd with lots of cheering going on, decided they didn't need me and I left.

9:16 PM, April 14, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Good enough, A.M. You showed.

On the other hand, the crowd on the capitol steps spilling down across the drive into the mall may have been a mirage. After a fairly close inspection of the Strib and Pioneer Press sites, yesterday was your average crime-riden day in the Twin Cities, no torches, no pitchforks, no angry taxpayers.

I won't purchase a paper edition, so there's a chance I'm wrong, but the rest of you who did not show have no need to feel quilty as you blissfully read of the world humming along, trains running on time, over your coffee.

10:15 AM, April 15, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Quote for Today

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

~ G. K. Chesterton

(Found this on LewRockwell.com today, above a story on whimsical, state-enforced morality at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/plummer-a1.html. I know you all like a good Gilbert quote.)

The Great Scam - updates

That is of course "catastophic" global warming, being caused by humans. IN today's Wash Post there was an article about how Europe is committing suicide over this ficticious problem by regulating the the end of economic growth. The article is sick. You can feel freedom dripping away - drip, drip, drip. They should call themselves the UESR (Union of European Socialist Republics) rather than the EU. I pray this stuff never happens here.

In Belgium, they just passed a tax on grilling.


The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Can this be for real? A $25 tax for grilling? I can't wait for the thermal masking grill to come out. It's only a matter of time. Drip. Drip. Drip.

UPDATE: Belgium denies this story and says it is a April Fools joke. Whew...we have at least a few more years of unregulated grilling.

On the other hand a climatoligist at MIT who also thinks its a scam managed to get published in Newsweek. Apparently he did not get the message that global warming being caused by humans is "scientific consensus." The article is worth reading here. Note that he is the "Sloan Professor of Meteorolgy."

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are these solar-powered helicopters?

J. Ewing

2:08 PM, April 10, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

This was an April Fool's joke. It isn't true.

3:37 PM, April 10, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Not yet . . .

4:38 PM, April 10, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" last night. Very welll done and forcefully stated. Nice to see the Brits and Canadians doing something like this.

8:30 PM, April 10, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

What a great April Fools joke. It's so believable.

12:43 AM, April 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The greatest strike against a silly idea is to poke fun at it so convincingly that people see it for the lunacy it is.

J. Ewing

9:48 AM, April 11, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Or use it to desensitize people to the idea.

3:05 PM, April 12, 2007  

Post a Comment

Monday, April 09, 2007

Debate Wednesday: Taxation is Coerced Charity

The John Adams Society

Roger L. Belfay, Chairman

John J. Pope, Secretary

Larry Colson, Chief Whip

Marianne Stebbins, Chancellor

April 2007

The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the cruelest delusions which has ever befuddled the human mind. -- Winston Churchill

GOVERNMENT IS A CHARITY CASE. An entire economy exists as a fiction of the tax code, shielded by threat of penalty and oppressive complexity. In one way or another, most people in the US are dependent on government. Some forty-seven million receive Social Security, most of whom also receive Medicare. Sixty million receive Medicaid, about half of whom are children, with most of the rest disabled adults and some seniors. The cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security makes up more than eight and one-half percent of Gross Domestic Product, about twice that of national defense. Roughly five million families receive welfare. Most children attend public schools. Most homes receive some publicly subsidized utility service. Nearly sixty million work for an entity of government or are supported by someone who does, and a good many others are employed by companies that have at least an indirect stake in furnishing the government on which Americans have come to depend. All in all, our system of tax and entitlement begets an electorate dependent on government.

Why lament? Submit – be happy. If you are a business, sell to the government. If you are an investor, buy assets attracting government credit. If you are a public servant, enrich your constituents with pork. Unionize as a state employee; the taxpayer is most accommodating. Start a charitable organization; get money in exchange for a story and a tax deduction. And when you tire, rest and collect welfare.

ON THE OTHER HAND, for what is charity but noble purpose? This purpose is best met by economies with minimalist tax systems, wherein tax deductions are generally considered unnecessary for giving. With a universally low and flat tax rate and a high personal exemption, true charities and true charities alone will be sustained, without government strings attached. That is, without the confusion of that three and one-half million-word Internal Revenue Code that keeps getting reshuffled and expanded with each and every new congress and president. As things are, donors overly mindful of tax deductions are disingenuousness and encourage dubious charities; and too much otherwise productive energy is spent fretting over tax obligations and the morally objectionable programs they may facilitate. In sum, our system of taxation is un-charitable in that it ultimately pits human nature against doing good for goodness sake.

The Chairman, trying to imagine a humble charity that takes money by force, calls for a debate:

RESOLVED: TAXATION IS COERCED CHARITY



The Debate will be held on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (651) 222-2782 or the Secretary at (952) 486-8059.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Correlation Curiosity

I am idly wondering if liquor sales increase in proximity to April 15 each year. How about admissions to the insane asylum? Any guesses as to what Scribbler is doing on this fine Easter Sunday? Paying for her sins, apparently.

(Oh, don't worry that I was Doing Taxes Under the Influence -- there's probably a law against that. There simply is no good wine pairing for Pain Flambe a la Chez IRS.)

Blogger Air Marshall said...

I hope the price she pays is not too dear.

11:10 PM, April 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

What about your Swimming Pools!

Gore is starting to get heckled:

His presentation was halted at least twice as opponents to his agenda began to shout out.They called him a liar and a villain, and screamed, "What about your swimming pools?" in regards to recent allegations that the monthly electricity bill of Gore's estate rivalled a year's bill for the average American home.

I am not sure why people keep inviting him to speak.....what a loser.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Paul close 2nd in last week's PJ Poll

PJmedia was hard pressed to keep Ron Paul out of their presidential straw poll following Dr. No's growing percentage in Zogby. Dr Paul trailed Thompson 35% to 29% last week, and was leading the poll this week.

Vote and read more about the poll here.

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

If Pawlenty signs the Democrats tax increase, then you were right to stay home during the last election. If Pawlenty vetos the tax increase, were you still right to stay home?

4:37 PM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I didn't stay home, as I've said before; I voted for a better candidate. Even vetoing the tax increase, Pawlenty has done more harm than good for the conservative cause. See McCain, Support of; Socialized Sports; Private Property Takings via Smoking Bans; "Health Impact Fees;" Light Rail and Other Commie Transit, Support of and too many more to list here.

11:13 AM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Maybe, but Pawlenty won the primary. Wasn't the primary the time for you to voice your differences and vote for the other guy. Once Pawlenty had won the primary it was either him or the democrats. At that point are the other fringe candidates really worth voting for.

A giant tax increase would be pretty bad. Something we may not have because of Pawlenty and the people who did not vote for fringe candidates like yourself.

Do you think voting for fringe candidates, even after you have had a chance to vote for your guy in the primary is taking an election seriously?

12:04 PM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I never was good about following the rules and doing as I was told. I vote the way I do so that I can hold my head up and face the mirror in the morning.

If more people had been true to their beliefs and concerned about facing the mirror, the primary may have had different results. Instead, the many slaves to the GOP choose to live in shame and the shackles of being told what to believe and for whom to vote.

I am slave to no one, and certainly not to a political party. How else could I have so much fun saying "I told you so!"?

Someone should check our JAS Blog archives to see what Sloanasaurus was advocating during the primary. Was he then telling us to vote our conscience? I wouldn't bet on it.

12:28 PM, April 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scribbler, I think you underestimate, and perhaps insult, the 95% of the people who voted for Pawlenty. I don't think even DFL voters can be that universally absent of intellectual capacity.

I am pushing an old rule, in a new bottle, called "half a loaf is better than none," or perhaps "Any Republican is better than a Democrat." If you do not like your candidate, don't vote against them until you're sure you have a better one. We've now seen how well the other approach works.

I was asked by more than one person, prior to the electon, something like, "The Republicans have done so badly, how much worse could the Democrats screw things up?" Even I did not realize the awful extent of the answer.

J. Ewing

2:49 PM, April 03, 2007  

Post a Comment

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Read it Here. Can you believe this stuff is actually happening?

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

This must be the manifestation of self-loathing among European Elites. They are very eager to find common ground with the enemies of Western Culture to enhance their own victimization. Jew hating is one area such common ground is available.

10:07 AM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

[Is Sloanasaurus talking to himself? Let's listen in . . .]

Sorry to interrupt, S'aurus. Muslims (or Moslems -- which is politically correct?) own Europe now. And if we don't do something about our immigration policy -- the legal policy -- we'll be there sooner than we'd like to think

As it is, we're taking in tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees at Bush's insistance. If the UN had its way, we'd be taking on much more than that. Bet that we will in the near future.

11:30 AM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

It is not only unbelievable, but to those of us who lived through WWII insulting as well. It was thought by most of us that this kind of thing had been stopped for all time. The scale of destruction, death, and sacrifice was too great to be ignored. Shows how wrong you can be.

12:06 PM, April 02, 2007  

Post a Comment