I started this blog six hour short of one week ago.
In that time I've managed to write about 12,000 words, been blogrolled by about ten people that I know of, including some other bloggers that I like and respect very much, had 800 unique visitors 205 of which were yesterday, 3600 page views, 100 some odd comments, and 2 trackbacks.
Finally, I've managed to crawl my way up from insignificant microbe to crawly amphibian, and I expect that by tomorrow I'll be up to slitherring reptile.
My true goal of being a flappy bird is within reach. Yessssss.... it will be mine... it willlllllll be mine...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Not bad for a first week eh ;-)
I want to thank all the folks who have stopped by, read my stuff, linked to me, commented etc... Now go out and link whore me out to everyone you know. Comeon, yaknow you want to.
I think I've got the quantity thing worked out, now I just need to keep the quality up, and moving in the right direction.
Wish me luck, I'm'na need it.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Adsense sucks
Okay, so I signed up for googles adsense just to get the search box. It's been up there a week, I specifically registered the blog for indexing, and STILL I get no results found for a site search.
Even better, the supposedly intelligently selected contextual ads... they keep giving me ads for liberal causes, liberal bumber stickers, liberal web sites etc... So apparently they DO index my page enough to find the word liberal and give me liberal related ads, but that doesnt allow them to actually produce useful search results?
Maybe I should just remove the word liberal and replace it entirely with commiestatisttransnationalprogressivistcocksucker. At least that's a keyword I don't think they'll find anywhere else.
Update: Ok so they still suck, but at least now my site search is working.
Even better, the supposedly intelligently selected contextual ads... they keep giving me ads for liberal causes, liberal bumber stickers, liberal web sites etc... So apparently they DO index my page enough to find the word liberal and give me liberal related ads, but that doesnt allow them to actually produce useful search results?
Maybe I should just remove the word liberal and replace it entirely with commiestatisttransnationalprogressivistcocksucker. At least that's a keyword I don't think they'll find anywhere else.
Update: Ok so they still suck, but at least now my site search is working.
Breaking the Law
Read this article on governmental abuse, and tell me again why we arent rising in armed revolution?
Let's see if we can guess who the subject of this quote is shall we?
Of course the perfidy isn't limited to democrats. This is a symptom of the governmental system. When people are gven both power, and the incentive to abuse it, you can guarantee it will be abused.
I have said before. The government is only good for two things, stealing and killing. It does those things well, and all else is a shambles.
More in the extended entry...
The problem here lies primarily in the mentality of law enforcement, and especially prosecutors offices. This environment is explicitly adversarial, and increaseingly these supposed civil servants see their job not as serviing the public, but as an "Us vs. Them" competition, even to the point of war.
Look at any urban police department thse days and tell me these cops don't think they are at war.
Every time I hear a representative of the state, be it a police officer, fire fighter, prosecutor whatever, call a non state representative (i.e. every citizen other than them) a civilian I want to smack them.
Heres a very simple distinction for you. Cops are civilians. Firefighters are Civilians. Everyone who is not an enlisted man, warrant officer, or comissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States of America, is a civilian. Civilians have civil rights, military personnel (including former military personnel BTW) do not. We have rights under the uniform code of military justice.
Every time a cop calls a non-cop a civilian he is raising a wall between himself, and the rest of the public. The entire "officer protection" philosophy that is currently taught does nothing but raise that wall even further (BTW, I'm not saying that protecting officers isn't critically important, it's the millitant mentality it engenders that worries me, and that I believe is unnecessary).
The prosecutors role is even MORE adversarial, and is explicitly devised this way. It's called the adversarial advocate system, and it's set up so that the facts don't particularly matter, because its really just a game between two attorneys, with a judge and jury deciding the winner. Like any professional competitor, a prosecutor will do whatever it takes within the rules to win, and if that means completely ignoring rights, principles, and even basic decency, they can and will do so.
This is the system we have, and these are the people we grant power and authority to. In many places they are our only protection against the hostile elements in society, because we have allowed them to disarm us all in the name of "public safety".
So it comes back to, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" who watches the watchmen?
HT: Geek with a .45
Let's see if we can guess who the subject of this quote is shall we?
I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn the woman was Janet Reno, and the case is notorious as a prime example of false child abuse allegation in the 80's day care hysteria.
"had Ileana isolated from the prison population and placed in solitary confinement, naked. Ileana described her treatment in a 1998 interview: “They would give me cold showers. Two people will hold me, run me under cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods and they would just wash me and throw me back into the cell.”
Late one night, the naked Ileana, according to her lawyer, received a visit in her darkened solitary cell from an intimidating 6-foot-2 woman. The woman told Ileana that she knew that Ileana and her husband were guilty. “But how can that be? We are innocent,” Ileana proclaimed. “Who are you?”
Of course the perfidy isn't limited to democrats. This is a symptom of the governmental system. When people are gven both power, and the incentive to abuse it, you can guarantee it will be abused.
I have said before. The government is only good for two things, stealing and killing. It does those things well, and all else is a shambles.
More in the extended entry...
The problem here lies primarily in the mentality of law enforcement, and especially prosecutors offices. This environment is explicitly adversarial, and increaseingly these supposed civil servants see their job not as serviing the public, but as an "Us vs. Them" competition, even to the point of war.
Look at any urban police department thse days and tell me these cops don't think they are at war.
Every time I hear a representative of the state, be it a police officer, fire fighter, prosecutor whatever, call a non state representative (i.e. every citizen other than them) a civilian I want to smack them.
Heres a very simple distinction for you. Cops are civilians. Firefighters are Civilians. Everyone who is not an enlisted man, warrant officer, or comissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States of America, is a civilian. Civilians have civil rights, military personnel (including former military personnel BTW) do not. We have rights under the uniform code of military justice.
Every time a cop calls a non-cop a civilian he is raising a wall between himself, and the rest of the public. The entire "officer protection" philosophy that is currently taught does nothing but raise that wall even further (BTW, I'm not saying that protecting officers isn't critically important, it's the millitant mentality it engenders that worries me, and that I believe is unnecessary).
The prosecutors role is even MORE adversarial, and is explicitly devised this way. It's called the adversarial advocate system, and it's set up so that the facts don't particularly matter, because its really just a game between two attorneys, with a judge and jury deciding the winner. Like any professional competitor, a prosecutor will do whatever it takes within the rules to win, and if that means completely ignoring rights, principles, and even basic decency, they can and will do so.
This is the system we have, and these are the people we grant power and authority to. In many places they are our only protection against the hostile elements in society, because we have allowed them to disarm us all in the name of "public safety".
So it comes back to, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" who watches the watchmen?
HT: Geek with a .45
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Poker
I've just noticed something disturbing...
There are now so many poker shows that they have their own catgeory in the channel guide, and in my PVR.
Well, at least they no longer categorize it under Sports.
There are now so many poker shows that they have their own catgeory in the channel guide, and in my PVR.
Well, at least they no longer categorize it under Sports.
The Franchise
Theres a great discussion going on over at Francis Poretto's Eternity Road about the franchise, and it's potential limitation.
Let me say right now, I hold an opinion contrary to most libertarians, but in concert with Heinlein; I believe that the franchise must be earned.
My comment on why, from the comments on eternity road in the extended entry ...
Let me say right now, I hold an opinion contrary to most libertarians, but in concert with Heinlein; I believe that the franchise must be earned.
My comment on why, from the comments on eternity road in the extended entry ...
"Ok, the question of service to the state.
I draw a HUGE distinction between service to state, and service to the nation.
If you need me to explain that, then there’s too much philsophical background we’re going to need to get into first, because the difference is fundamental.
And yes, I do favor a restriction of the franchise. Very simply, that which is unearned, is unvalued.
This gets back into the difference between rights, and priviliges (philosophically not legally). A privilege is something which is granted, a right is something that is inherent to a man by virtue of his existence.
Rights are not granted by the constitution, they are inherent to man, the constitution defines how those rights can be restricted by our government.
The franchise is not one of those rights.
One could say that there is an inherent right to participate in the government you live under, and I think that argument has merit; but as privileges are earned, rights must be defended.
The defense of these rights is what I am talking about when I invoke service to the nation. If you are unwilling or unable to defend those rights, you are not deserving of them.
As there are some people who are mentally, emotionally, or morally unable, or unwilling to serve in a military capacity, there are other forms of national service which are just as much a defense of our nation.
Again if I need to explain how this is true, there’s a lot more background we need to go into before we have a useful discussion.
Hardcore libertarians might say this is slavery to the state. I contend it is something entirely different, it is duty to the nation, and ultimately duty to your fellow man, and to your self."
Strategic Analysis
The question has been asked a lot over the past few years, "Can terrorists build nuclear weapons"?
My thought: not only can they, they are in process now.
Honestly the only difficult part of the process is obtaining fissile materiel, and with the Pakistani program, the Iranian program, the north Korean program, and the various Russian pograms that fell apart, I'm not so sure how difficult that may be.
I'm most directly worried about joint projects between states and terrorists.
Presently the nuclear club looks something like this
Now look at that list, and see how many of them are actively hostile to the U.S., or are so currupt that their co-operation could be purchased.
More in the extended entry ...
Taking the full list of former soviet states as one, I count at least 8 hostile or corrupt foreign powers that have nuclear capability, and either hostile intent, or the will to sell to our enemies. We thoroughly bribe the Russians, and the former soviet states not to do so, but it only takes one or two loose nukes to bring a nightmare of hellfire down upon this country.
Melodramatic? No, not even close. Unless you've been through the training and the simulations and the scientific literature it can be hard to comprehend the kind of nastiness we are talking about here.
Not only that, but the emotional scar on this country. Would we ever feel safe again? We were able to get going again very quickly after 9/11. Within a few weeks things were, if not back to normal, at least up and running. A nuke is, psychologically and emotionally, a different order of magnitude of trauma. Our economy would nosedive, and the world would follow with us. Even more so if the targets were New York and/or Washington D.C., which would seem to be the most likely. Our society would move into a semi-collapse as people started hoarding, and becoming paranoid.
I'm not saying we wouldnt recover, but it would take time, and possibly the imposition of martial law in some areas (the depressed areas where the populace is on the edge of riot much of the time anyway, and the urban areas nearest to the attacks).
Why am I worried about state sponsored terrosim?
Let's talk about China jsut for a start. Specifically let's talk about intentions vs capabilities.
I think China is very very dangerous to their neighbors, and by extension to us (and the editorial board at parameters, and other professional strategic situation watchers agree). When China starts to really implode there are two possible results.
1. The commie fuckers at the top realize what's happening before it's too late, and they start an aggressive expansionist war.
2. The commie fuckers get strung up, shot, burned, drawn, and quartered by the irate populous and then who the hell knows what happens.
Personally, I'm hoping or 2, but I'm planning for 1.
The dichotomy here arises between intentions and capabilities.
There are four possible situations vis a vis intentions and capabilities:
1. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
2. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment
3. The enemies intentions are hostile, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
4. The enemies intentions are hostile and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment
We spent most of the last 60 years facing down a situation 1, while thinking it was a situation 2 with the Soviets (referring to the purely military war not the political one). This is actually one of the safer possible situations, because in this case neither party wishes to act. The stronger party believes they are at rough parity, and the weaker party has every incentive not to move to a situation 3, and to keep the stronger party believing in the weakers false strength.
China is right now in situation 1 (occasionally tipping into a weak 3), trying very hard to move to situation 2. If they ever reach two there is a good chance they will jump to 4 right away. If they have a major internal incident they will jump to a strong 3 right away. Either sit 3, or sit 4, are incredibly dangerous and undesirable states. China represents one of the cases where 3 may be more dangerous than 4 (as does Korea). A state in sit 4 is at least generally predictable, and rational, an enemy in sit 3 is neither. Actually enemies in sit 4, often quickly revert to sit 2 when they secure their objectives. Since by definition state 3 enemies cannot achieve their objectives through normal means they become INCREDIBLY dangerous.
Saddam Hussein was clearly a situation 3, trying to become a situation 4. He had to be removed before he achieved situation 4.
I believe Iran is now in a situation 3, and is very clearly attempting to become a situation 4, and will have to be dealt with accordingly.
North Korea worries me, because Kim Jong Il is clearly insane. He's in a situation 3 and what worries me most is what he's going to do when he finds out he is dying, or losing control of the country. It's similar to the outcomes above for China, only worse because the Chinese still have some rationality left.
In light of this, we must prepare for both our enemies intentions, and their capabilities. Our enemies may not have the capabilities to strike us directly with nuclear weapons, but the possiblity iexists, and is not remote, so we must prepare for it.
My thought: not only can they, they are in process now.
Honestly the only difficult part of the process is obtaining fissile materiel, and with the Pakistani program, the Iranian program, the north Korean program, and the various Russian pograms that fell apart, I'm not so sure how difficult that may be.
I'm most directly worried about joint projects between states and terrorists.
Presently the nuclear club looks something like this
- U.S.A
- Russia
- Ukraine
- Georgia
- Great Britain
- France
- China
- India
- Pakistan
- Israel
- Other former soviet republics(maybe)
- Iran (maybe)
- North Korea(maybe)
Now look at that list, and see how many of them are actively hostile to the U.S., or are so currupt that their co-operation could be purchased.
More in the extended entry ...
Taking the full list of former soviet states as one, I count at least 8 hostile or corrupt foreign powers that have nuclear capability, and either hostile intent, or the will to sell to our enemies. We thoroughly bribe the Russians, and the former soviet states not to do so, but it only takes one or two loose nukes to bring a nightmare of hellfire down upon this country.
Melodramatic? No, not even close. Unless you've been through the training and the simulations and the scientific literature it can be hard to comprehend the kind of nastiness we are talking about here.
Not only that, but the emotional scar on this country. Would we ever feel safe again? We were able to get going again very quickly after 9/11. Within a few weeks things were, if not back to normal, at least up and running. A nuke is, psychologically and emotionally, a different order of magnitude of trauma. Our economy would nosedive, and the world would follow with us. Even more so if the targets were New York and/or Washington D.C., which would seem to be the most likely. Our society would move into a semi-collapse as people started hoarding, and becoming paranoid.
I'm not saying we wouldnt recover, but it would take time, and possibly the imposition of martial law in some areas (the depressed areas where the populace is on the edge of riot much of the time anyway, and the urban areas nearest to the attacks).
Why am I worried about state sponsored terrosim?
Let's talk about China jsut for a start. Specifically let's talk about intentions vs capabilities.
I think China is very very dangerous to their neighbors, and by extension to us (and the editorial board at parameters, and other professional strategic situation watchers agree). When China starts to really implode there are two possible results.
1. The commie fuckers at the top realize what's happening before it's too late, and they start an aggressive expansionist war.
2. The commie fuckers get strung up, shot, burned, drawn, and quartered by the irate populous and then who the hell knows what happens.
Personally, I'm hoping or 2, but I'm planning for 1.
The dichotomy here arises between intentions and capabilities.
There are four possible situations vis a vis intentions and capabilities:
1. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
2. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment
3. The enemies intentions are hostile, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
4. The enemies intentions are hostile and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment
We spent most of the last 60 years facing down a situation 1, while thinking it was a situation 2 with the Soviets (referring to the purely military war not the political one). This is actually one of the safer possible situations, because in this case neither party wishes to act. The stronger party believes they are at rough parity, and the weaker party has every incentive not to move to a situation 3, and to keep the stronger party believing in the weakers false strength.
China is right now in situation 1 (occasionally tipping into a weak 3), trying very hard to move to situation 2. If they ever reach two there is a good chance they will jump to 4 right away. If they have a major internal incident they will jump to a strong 3 right away. Either sit 3, or sit 4, are incredibly dangerous and undesirable states. China represents one of the cases where 3 may be more dangerous than 4 (as does Korea). A state in sit 4 is at least generally predictable, and rational, an enemy in sit 3 is neither. Actually enemies in sit 4, often quickly revert to sit 2 when they secure their objectives. Since by definition state 3 enemies cannot achieve their objectives through normal means they become INCREDIBLY dangerous.
Saddam Hussein was clearly a situation 3, trying to become a situation 4. He had to be removed before he achieved situation 4.
I believe Iran is now in a situation 3, and is very clearly attempting to become a situation 4, and will have to be dealt with accordingly.
North Korea worries me, because Kim Jong Il is clearly insane. He's in a situation 3 and what worries me most is what he's going to do when he finds out he is dying, or losing control of the country. It's similar to the outcomes above for China, only worse because the Chinese still have some rationality left.
In light of this, we must prepare for both our enemies intentions, and their capabilities. Our enemies may not have the capabilities to strike us directly with nuclear weapons, but the possiblity iexists, and is not remote, so we must prepare for it.
Guilt and anger
I'm feeling two things very strongly right now. I'm feeling guilt, and I'm feeling anger.
I'm a very difficult man to make angry. Bad things tend to happen when I'm angry, so I don't let it happen very often.
Over the past few years, I've had a few guys I served with killed. I lost two friends on flight 175. 16 people I had worked with, and several clients were killed in the towers.
My friends, and my brothers are getting killed, and I'm sitting here getting fatter.
I can't tell you how guilty, and how angry I feel right now.
I left the Air Force because I didn't like what my career prospects looked like under Clinton. I know it was the right choice, but it doesnt make it any easier.
Something really got me a few weeks ago. The first Rescue Officers are now out with the teams. If that option had been open when I was commissioned, instead of facing some bullshit intel billet, I would have gone rescue officer all the way. I would have stayed in and fuck Clinton.
It made me feel even more guilty to see that though.
I'm feeling very Kipling right now. My comment below about Prag Tewari is from Kiplings "The Grave of the Hundred Head".
More in the extended entry...
I'm a very difficult man to make angry. Bad things tend to happen when I'm angry, so I don't let it happen very often.
Over the past few years, I've had a few guys I served with killed. I lost two friends on flight 175. 16 people I had worked with, and several clients were killed in the towers.
My friends, and my brothers are getting killed, and I'm sitting here getting fatter.
I can't tell you how guilty, and how angry I feel right now.
I left the Air Force because I didn't like what my career prospects looked like under Clinton. I know it was the right choice, but it doesnt make it any easier.
Something really got me a few weeks ago. The first Rescue Officers are now out with the teams. If that option had been open when I was commissioned, instead of facing some bullshit intel billet, I would have gone rescue officer all the way. I would have stayed in and fuck Clinton.
It made me feel even more guilty to see that though.
I'm feeling very Kipling right now. My comment below about Prag Tewari is from Kiplings "The Grave of the Hundred Head".
More in the extended entry...
"The Grave of the Hundred Head" - Rudyard Kipling
There's a widow in sleepy Chester who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River, a grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri who tells how the work was done.
A Snider squibbed in the jungle, somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead and the back blown out of his head.
Subadar Prag Tewarri, Jemadar Hira Lal,
Took command of the party, twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river as the day was beginning to fall.
They buried the boy by the river, a blanket over his face—
They wept for their dead Lieutenant, the men of an alien race—
They made a samadh in his honour, a mark for his resting-place.
For they swore by the Holy Water, they swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib should go to his God in state;
With fifty file of Burman to open him Heaven's gate.
The men of the First Shikaris marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village, the village of Pabengmay—
A jingal covered the clearing, caltrops hampered the way.
Subadar Prag Tewarri, bidding them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party with Jemadar Hira Lal.
The men of the First Shikaris shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal on to the howling crew.
The Jemadar's flanking-party butchered the folk who flew.
Long was the morn of slaughter, long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken, five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shikaris went back to their grave again,
Each man bearing a basket red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village—the village of Pabengmay,
And the drip-drip-drip from the baskets reddened the grass by the way.
They made a pile of their trophies high as a tall man's chin,
Head upon head distorted, set in a sightless grin,
Anger and pain and terror stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.
Subadar Prag Tewarri put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph, the head of his son below,
With the sword and the peacock-banner that the world might behold and know.
Thus the samadh was perfect, thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris—the price of a white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris went back into camp again.
Then a silence came to the river, a hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed, and Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a kullah's head
Must be paid for with heads five score.
There's a widow in sleepy Chester who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River, a grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri who tells how the work was done.
He Gave the Last Full Measure
From: Kim DuToit.com
You may be familiar with Kim's "Walter and Adam fund", where supporters donated to help provide supplementary suplies, and care packages for Walter and Adam, and the soldiers they serve with.
A car bomb exploded in Mosul on Wednesday Feb 17, 2005 killing a soldier who many of us online helped support.
U.S. Army Sergeant Adam J. Plumondore, 1st Bt. 24th Inf., Ft. Lewis Wa, age 22, entered the service from Gresham Oregon.
Requiescat In Pace Sgt. Plumondore.
I'm sure kim will update us as and if any news becomes available. I expect the Walter and Adam fund will be converted to a memorial fund.
I have one more thing to say:
Where the fuck is Prag Tewari when you need him.
...
Update: Here is the web site of Sgt. Plumondores recon platoon http://www.deucefourrecon.com
The pictures and commments are kind of tough to look at.
You may be familiar with Kim's "Walter and Adam fund", where supporters donated to help provide supplementary suplies, and care packages for Walter and Adam, and the soldiers they serve with.
A car bomb exploded in Mosul on Wednesday Feb 17, 2005 killing a soldier who many of us online helped support.
U.S. Army Sergeant Adam J. Plumondore, 1st Bt. 24th Inf., Ft. Lewis Wa, age 22, entered the service from Gresham Oregon.
Requiescat In Pace Sgt. Plumondore.
I'm sure kim will update us as and if any news becomes available. I expect the Walter and Adam fund will be converted to a memorial fund.
I have one more thing to say:
Where the fuck is Prag Tewari when you need him.
...
Update: Here is the web site of Sgt. Plumondores recon platoon http://www.deucefourrecon.com
The pictures and commments are kind of tough to look at.
Theres too much blood in my caffeine system
I am an honest to god caffeine addict. Most days I have a pot of coffee, and two or three two liters of diet mountain dew or diet pepsi evry day (I'm worried about diabetes).
The brew for today: Gevalia Peruvian Organic
Actually my favorite PVP cartoon is also about Brent and coffee.
Friday, February 18, 2005
In concert with eric, two takes on "Why I'm not a conservative"
The first is Freidrich A. Hayek's seminal essay "Why I'm not a conservative". Now you have to understand, Hayek is damned near a god to me. He is the economic philosopher upon which rational libertarianism is based.
The second is from a quite different source, a man who I have been an acquaintance of for some years named Eric Raymond. He wrote a little list "Top ten reasons I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative", which I mostly agree with. He's a little more to the antistate side than I am (and that's really saying something, but I find we have a general agreement on principals, if not necessarily on actions.
Actually in general, you should check out Erics blog, and his home page writings section
The second is from a quite different source, a man who I have been an acquaintance of for some years named Eric Raymond. He wrote a little list "Top ten reasons I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative", which I mostly agree with. He's a little more to the antistate side than I am (and that's really saying something, but I find we have a general agreement on principals, if not necessarily on actions.
Actually in general, you should check out Erics blog, and his home page writings section
Eric's random musings: Why I'm a Liberal
I just found Eric Cowperthwaites page through his fine comments on this blog, and I say, go, read, be enlightened (yes, it's a catchphrase, I'm hoping it will catch on).
Eric's random musings: Why I'm a Liberal
The greatest complement I can give him is that reading this page, I could have written it myself. Same thing for most of his "when I wore green" posts, though of course in theory I wore blue (Air Force), but most of the time I was in green (actually most of the time I was covered in brown, but thats another story entirely).
Oh and I'm a Heinlein fan myself, and a FIRM believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.
Hell were both even security managers (I'm an independent contract Information Security and Systems Architect, Engineer, Administrator, and Manager. Just to keep the recruiters happy with a broad description ;-)
Eric is hereby added to the Blogroll of Doom!
Eric's random musings: Why I'm a Liberal
The greatest complement I can give him is that reading this page, I could have written it myself. Same thing for most of his "when I wore green" posts, though of course in theory I wore blue (Air Force), but most of the time I was in green (actually most of the time I was covered in brown, but thats another story entirely).
Oh and I'm a Heinlein fan myself, and a FIRM believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.
Hell were both even security managers (I'm an independent contract Information Security and Systems Architect, Engineer, Administrator, and Manager. Just to keep the recruiters happy with a broad description ;-)
Eric is hereby added to the Blogroll of Doom!
Scott Adams goes Political
Hmmmmm......
Hmmmm...
I'm not sure what to make of this one actually. Scott has said before that he's more Wally than anyone else (and certainly this is far "smarter" than Wally would normally be), and we all know the PHB is the embodiement of all that is evil....
It's not really funny, and I don't think it's intended to be. I'm guessing it's an actual transcript of one of Scotts conversations, in which he takes the Wally part. I'm jsut not sure what REAL point he's trying to make here, and more importantly WHY???
Dilbert isn't a political cartoon, at least not in the normal governmental sense. Scott Adams has touched a bit on politics in his non fiction books, mostly about how silly/stupid it is, or how many problems it causes etc.., and I certainly agree there, but really, why this one Scott?
I really shouldnt make fun of EBay, because I'm going for a job with them next week but.....
This guys is a pure frikken genius
Losing our delusions
Ooooh I love this. Read now, and be enlightened
Ok let me make this clear (in case it isn't already). I am a small "L" libertarian. On the left to right scale I am absolutely nowhere because I dont believe it works. I'm a follower of the Pournelle Axis myself, upon which I fall at about 2,4
I believe that all government of any kind is inherently bad, but that sometimes bad is better than really really bad.
Example: War bad, Hitler being allowed to dominate Europe and kill all the untermenschen, really really bad.
I especially believe that collectivist, eglalitarian, authoritarian government is really really bad. For more bout why look up Harrison Bergeron (or see the Sean Astin TV movie of it, which was actually damned good).
Every time a liberal wakes the fuck up to reality, my life gets a little bit better, and hopefully so does yours because he won't be out there working for the subjugation of us all to the nanny state.
More in the extended entry ...
I read a great book a few years ago by Harry Stein "How I joined the vast right wing conspiracy", about a raving liberal who over time (and children), became a part libertarian/part conservative. The first step for him, like for so many others, was realizing that most of what they believed in, or at least SAID or THOUGHT they believed in, was either flawed, naive, or just plain complete bullshit.
"Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really. What's left is the laundry list: the catalogue of programs (some dubious, some not) that Republicans aren't funding, and the blogs, with their daily panic dose about how the Bush administration is ruining the country."
The actual liberals really have no ideas any more. The only ideas on the left are coming from the socialists, the statists, and the anti-capitalists (not all of whom are communists, some are actually anarchosocialists), and I think you can suss out my general opinion of THOSE ideas.
"The conflict between right and left in the United States is different. What animates American conservatism is the future of the regulatory state and the trajectory of federalism. The conservatives have not themselves agreed on how far they want to retract either regulation or the authority of the national government. These are not axiomatic questions for them, as can be seen by their determined and contravening success last week in empowering not the states against Washington but Washington against the states in the area of tort law. As Jeffrey Rosen has pointed out in these pages, many of these issues will be fought out in the courts. But not all. So a great national debate will not be avoided."
Of course it's not like the conservatives ideas are much better. They are mostly focused on tearing down the really bad ideas that the liberals and socialists have been building up since 1932.
And then you have Pat Buchanan.
Now this article isnt all good, in fact it's still mostly lefty bullshit, but it's a least a step in the right direction.
I don't think that this bullshit can last long term. I really believe that the distribution of information and changes of attitude that seem to be building in our country, and in the world as a whole, will eventually let us take back our governments (read the Heinlein book NOW if you actually give a damn about how the country is run BTW).
As I said in my post on the disintegration of the dems, I think this fundamental lack of ideas is a good thing. It means that we are coming closer to the day that the two party false dichotomy politics we have today is replaced by something, hopefully, maybe, just a bit more oriented toward a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
UPDATE: This Article is another good example today of liberals waking up to smell the bullshit
HT: Revealed Truth , The Smallest Minority
Ok let me make this clear (in case it isn't already). I am a small "L" libertarian. On the left to right scale I am absolutely nowhere because I dont believe it works. I'm a follower of the Pournelle Axis myself, upon which I fall at about 2,4
I believe that all government of any kind is inherently bad, but that sometimes bad is better than really really bad.
Example: War bad, Hitler being allowed to dominate Europe and kill all the untermenschen, really really bad.
I especially believe that collectivist, eglalitarian, authoritarian government is really really bad. For more bout why look up Harrison Bergeron (or see the Sean Astin TV movie of it, which was actually damned good).
Every time a liberal wakes the fuck up to reality, my life gets a little bit better, and hopefully so does yours because he won't be out there working for the subjugation of us all to the nanny state.
More in the extended entry ...
I read a great book a few years ago by Harry Stein "How I joined the vast right wing conspiracy", about a raving liberal who over time (and children), became a part libertarian/part conservative. The first step for him, like for so many others, was realizing that most of what they believed in, or at least SAID or THOUGHT they believed in, was either flawed, naive, or just plain complete bullshit.
"Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really. What's left is the laundry list: the catalogue of programs (some dubious, some not) that Republicans aren't funding, and the blogs, with their daily panic dose about how the Bush administration is ruining the country."
The actual liberals really have no ideas any more. The only ideas on the left are coming from the socialists, the statists, and the anti-capitalists (not all of whom are communists, some are actually anarchosocialists), and I think you can suss out my general opinion of THOSE ideas.
"The conflict between right and left in the United States is different. What animates American conservatism is the future of the regulatory state and the trajectory of federalism. The conservatives have not themselves agreed on how far they want to retract either regulation or the authority of the national government. These are not axiomatic questions for them, as can be seen by their determined and contravening success last week in empowering not the states against Washington but Washington against the states in the area of tort law. As Jeffrey Rosen has pointed out in these pages, many of these issues will be fought out in the courts. But not all. So a great national debate will not be avoided."
Of course it's not like the conservatives ideas are much better. They are mostly focused on tearing down the really bad ideas that the liberals and socialists have been building up since 1932.
And then you have Pat Buchanan.
Now this article isnt all good, in fact it's still mostly lefty bullshit, but it's a least a step in the right direction.
I don't think that this bullshit can last long term. I really believe that the distribution of information and changes of attitude that seem to be building in our country, and in the world as a whole, will eventually let us take back our governments (read the Heinlein book NOW if you actually give a damn about how the country is run BTW).
As I said in my post on the disintegration of the dems, I think this fundamental lack of ideas is a good thing. It means that we are coming closer to the day that the two party false dichotomy politics we have today is replaced by something, hopefully, maybe, just a bit more oriented toward a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
UPDATE: This Article is another good example today of liberals waking up to smell the bullshit
HT: Revealed Truth , The Smallest Minority
Geek pride post
Charmed, Angel, Buffy, all huge hits, even cultural phenomena, appealing primarily to young women, and geeks of all ages and sexes.
(wow, there were a lot of commas in that sentence weren't there)
Then tell me, why did Firefly and Forever Knight both fail miserably? On the surface they should have been equally as successful. They featured good looking, angsty but fun characters, the supernatural, the fantastic, pretty good writing, and cheezy in a good way dialogue.
Personally I blame it on the canadians, but maybe it's jsut me... No really they were both made in canada, and starred mostly canadians, and you could hear the accents and everything. Seriously.
Okay no it wasnt the canadians, so what was it?
Firefly was never allowed to find an audience, which is too bad, because it's some of the best storytelling Joss Whedon has ever done (barring a few particular episodes of Angel and Buffy), and it was expensive because Joss insisted on some very good sets and effects; There was almost no promotion done for it, and no-one could find it in their market...
I could go on and on about why the show didn't work, but none of it has to do with the quality of the storytelling. Thankfully someone else saw the potential of the show, and there is now a three picture deal at Universal with the first movie, "Serenity" coming out later this year. Hopefully the movies will spark a new deal for the show, maybe on Sci-fi if not on one of the syndicates.
Forever Knight was one of the cheaply produced mostly canadian "adult oriented drama" series bought up by CBS to have something to replace Pat Sajak (and thank god for that). They called it "Crime time after prime time" and it featured Sweating Bullets, Silk Stalkings, Forever Knight, and a couple others that I (and apparently no-one else on the net since I cant find it in google) can't remember.
The thing is, as cheezy as the show was sometimes, it was often actually quite well written, and other than the vampire fright takes, was generally pretty well acted. More importantly, it had engaging stories and characters.
I just finished the first two or so (the episodes were in canadian order not U.S. order and so the seaosn were a little mixed) seasons on DVD (god I love netflix), and I think it would work remade today, with a younger and even more atttractive cast, and slightly better effects and production values (In other words a bigger budget).
I still remember my friends in college ranting how LaCroix was SOOO much better than "The Master" from Buffy (I started college in '93, finished in 97, so I neatly encapsulated the Forever Kinght to Buffy Transition).
Oh and Bruce Campbell NEEDS to have his own show again. Sam Raimi has unlimited money and clout now, maybe he can shove something his best friends way.
(wow, there were a lot of commas in that sentence weren't there)
Then tell me, why did Firefly and Forever Knight both fail miserably? On the surface they should have been equally as successful. They featured good looking, angsty but fun characters, the supernatural, the fantastic, pretty good writing, and cheezy in a good way dialogue.
Personally I blame it on the canadians, but maybe it's jsut me... No really they were both made in canada, and starred mostly canadians, and you could hear the accents and everything. Seriously.
Okay no it wasnt the canadians, so what was it?
Firefly was never allowed to find an audience, which is too bad, because it's some of the best storytelling Joss Whedon has ever done (barring a few particular episodes of Angel and Buffy), and it was expensive because Joss insisted on some very good sets and effects; There was almost no promotion done for it, and no-one could find it in their market...
I could go on and on about why the show didn't work, but none of it has to do with the quality of the storytelling. Thankfully someone else saw the potential of the show, and there is now a three picture deal at Universal with the first movie, "Serenity" coming out later this year. Hopefully the movies will spark a new deal for the show, maybe on Sci-fi if not on one of the syndicates.
Forever Knight was one of the cheaply produced mostly canadian "adult oriented drama" series bought up by CBS to have something to replace Pat Sajak (and thank god for that). They called it "Crime time after prime time" and it featured Sweating Bullets, Silk Stalkings, Forever Knight, and a couple others that I (and apparently no-one else on the net since I cant find it in google) can't remember.
The thing is, as cheezy as the show was sometimes, it was often actually quite well written, and other than the vampire fright takes, was generally pretty well acted. More importantly, it had engaging stories and characters.
I just finished the first two or so (the episodes were in canadian order not U.S. order and so the seaosn were a little mixed) seasons on DVD (god I love netflix), and I think it would work remade today, with a younger and even more atttractive cast, and slightly better effects and production values (In other words a bigger budget).
I still remember my friends in college ranting how LaCroix was SOOO much better than "The Master" from Buffy (I started college in '93, finished in 97, so I neatly encapsulated the Forever Kinght to Buffy Transition).
Oh and Bruce Campbell NEEDS to have his own show again. Sam Raimi has unlimited money and clout now, maybe he can shove something his best friends way.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Gack!!! Wheres my web page????
Go daddy has screwed up my DNS, and the site at which all my pics are hosted (my main homepage) is now redirecting to my blog. Actually all 19 of the domains I manage are redirecting to me here, instead of the 5 I actually WANTED redirected here.
Hopefully the folks whose sites went down wont be too irritated. Nothing major, jsut some sites for friends etc...
Anyway they say it'll be fixed shortly.
Hopefully the folks whose sites went down wont be too irritated. Nothing major, jsut some sites for friends etc...
Anyway they say it'll be fixed shortly.
The myth of having it all
Lileks is a genius!
But then if you're reading me, you probably already knew that.
Ok this is going to be a long one because, well, I'm both long winded and extremely bitter about this topic thankyouverymuch.
Gloria Steinem ruined America.
Gloria Steinem, and Helen Reddy, and Carole king, and anyone else who told women "Yes you really can have it all".
They convinced women that not only COULD they have it all, but if they didn't, there was something wrong with them.
They convinced women that they needed to have amazing careers, and amazing hsubands (who ALSO had great careers AND helped out with the housework), and great families, and great sex, and hell they could even get a little on the side 'cuz the men did it so why not them. They even convinced women that they could do everything in the military that men could.
BULLSHIT!!!
They were selling women a fairy tale no different from a knight in shining armor on a white horse.
Men have know for... well just about forever... that there are tradeoffs to be made.
There are three life areas, social and personal life, marriage and family, and work life. If you are going to be successful in any one area, you need to compromise on the other two. There isn't time enough in your life to be highly successful in your job, to raise two great kids and have a great marriage, and be a champion origami folder all at the same time.
In the '70s and early eighties women decided that they could have their careers, but more importantly they could be "personally fulfilled", and to "find themselves" over and above their families. Those women made the excerable Charlene song "I've never been to me" a number one hit, and then raised kids like me and my brother. I love my mother, but she was a horrible mother. She tried to be my friend. She read progressive books. She never punished us...
I could go on, but basically my mom was ms. new age mom, and it NEVER EVER WORKED. We, and many millions of people my age, never actually had parents.
Then in the mid to late 80's women started worrying entirely about their careers. Power suits, and BMW's and day planners and filofaxes. 80 hour work weeks. Divorces, cocaine, bad sex...
Yeah my mom went there too. Never saw her, she was working all the time. She would punish me when my younger brother got in trouble, because I was supposed to make sure he didn't.
Then the 90's come around and Martha Stewart and Lynette jennings become the superwoman icons.
Once again, I could go on, but we all know how it turned out. We get parents scheduling quality time, and play dates, and kids who have so many before school, and after school and during school, aactivities, their lives are scheduled down to the instant by their control freak career moms. We get kids injuring themselves just so they can take a day off from swimming lessons and dance lessons and horseback lessons and... and....
It's called projection BTW. Parents are feeling unfuliflled in their lives, so they project that feeling onto their kids and MAKE them "get the most out of life".
How about we let women be women, men be men, and kids be kids? Think that might work out? I mean it worked for thousands of years before the 1970's
More to come on this subject, but Im too irritated right now.
UPDATE: Let me just say, men don't get let off the hook with me either. I'm'na do a post on the little boys in mens bodies who dont know how to be dads, dont try, or at best mail it in. They're jsut as bad as the supermommies if not worse.
But then if you're reading me, you probably already knew that.
Ok this is going to be a long one because, well, I'm both long winded and extremely bitter about this topic thankyouverymuch.
Gloria Steinem ruined America.
Gloria Steinem, and Helen Reddy, and Carole king, and anyone else who told women "Yes you really can have it all".
They convinced women that not only COULD they have it all, but if they didn't, there was something wrong with them.
They convinced women that they needed to have amazing careers, and amazing hsubands (who ALSO had great careers AND helped out with the housework), and great families, and great sex, and hell they could even get a little on the side 'cuz the men did it so why not them. They even convinced women that they could do everything in the military that men could.
BULLSHIT!!!
They were selling women a fairy tale no different from a knight in shining armor on a white horse.
Men have know for... well just about forever... that there are tradeoffs to be made.
There are three life areas, social and personal life, marriage and family, and work life. If you are going to be successful in any one area, you need to compromise on the other two. There isn't time enough in your life to be highly successful in your job, to raise two great kids and have a great marriage, and be a champion origami folder all at the same time.
In the '70s and early eighties women decided that they could have their careers, but more importantly they could be "personally fulfilled", and to "find themselves" over and above their families. Those women made the excerable Charlene song "I've never been to me" a number one hit, and then raised kids like me and my brother. I love my mother, but she was a horrible mother. She tried to be my friend. She read progressive books. She never punished us...
I could go on, but basically my mom was ms. new age mom, and it NEVER EVER WORKED. We, and many millions of people my age, never actually had parents.
Then in the mid to late 80's women started worrying entirely about their careers. Power suits, and BMW's and day planners and filofaxes. 80 hour work weeks. Divorces, cocaine, bad sex...
Yeah my mom went there too. Never saw her, she was working all the time. She would punish me when my younger brother got in trouble, because I was supposed to make sure he didn't.
Then the 90's come around and Martha Stewart and Lynette jennings become the superwoman icons.
Once again, I could go on, but we all know how it turned out. We get parents scheduling quality time, and play dates, and kids who have so many before school, and after school and during school, aactivities, their lives are scheduled down to the instant by their control freak career moms. We get kids injuring themselves just so they can take a day off from swimming lessons and dance lessons and horseback lessons and... and....
It's called projection BTW. Parents are feeling unfuliflled in their lives, so they project that feeling onto their kids and MAKE them "get the most out of life".
How about we let women be women, men be men, and kids be kids? Think that might work out? I mean it worked for thousands of years before the 1970's
More to come on this subject, but Im too irritated right now.
UPDATE: Let me just say, men don't get let off the hook with me either. I'm'na do a post on the little boys in mens bodies who dont know how to be dads, dont try, or at best mail it in. They're jsut as bad as the supermommies if not worse.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
I am a crunchy crustacean
In the TTLB ecosystem.
Meaning that I actually have some traffic after only tree days of having a blog, mostly thanks to my friends at the Nation of Riflemen, Kim DuToit, and the readers of The Smallest Minority, SondraK, The Whatever, and Publicola, where I am a frequent commenter and contributor.
Aint referrer logs cool?
That and I seem to be getting a lot of google traffic, but I'm not a sitemeter pro member, so I don't know what search terms they are using.
I used to use extremetrack (thats where the first 148k hits I had were, from the hits on my main page of the past 5 years or so), which showed a lot more detailed stats for free, but sitemeter is what TTLB uses, and what the Alliance of Free Blogs use (or is that uses? Alliance is a singular term but made up of plural members so....) so here I am on sitemeter.
INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!
My aspiration, to be a floppy bird.
UPDATE: I am now a Crawly Amphibian. Soon, SOON I will be a Flappy Bird, BWAHAHAHAHA!
Meaning that I actually have some traffic after only tree days of having a blog, mostly thanks to my friends at the Nation of Riflemen, Kim DuToit, and the readers of The Smallest Minority, SondraK, The Whatever, and Publicola, where I am a frequent commenter and contributor.
Aint referrer logs cool?
That and I seem to be getting a lot of google traffic, but I'm not a sitemeter pro member, so I don't know what search terms they are using.
I used to use extremetrack (thats where the first 148k hits I had were, from the hits on my main page of the past 5 years or so), which showed a lot more detailed stats for free, but sitemeter is what TTLB uses, and what the Alliance of Free Blogs use (or is that uses? Alliance is a singular term but made up of plural members so....) so here I am on sitemeter.
INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!
My aspiration, to be a floppy bird.
UPDATE: I am now a Crawly Amphibian. Soon, SOON I will be a Flappy Bird, BWAHAHAHAHA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)