Saturday, November 29, 2008
This was breaking news of the Islamic terror attacks in India on that would last three days late in November of 2008.
Beware, some of the footage is graphic.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The New York Times is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Wall Street Journal is read by people who actually do run the country;
Time Magazine is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
Barrons is read by people who own the country;
The Washington Post is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country and The L.A. Times is read by people who think it is.
New York Post readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
But this article and others like it can still be useful to help examine the situation. Its easy to say people should not be one thing in name only and something else in reality. People should not be big government nanny staters. Frankly, they should not be dishonest or idiots, in general.
But those are not things that conservatives can change.
"We" need to focus on what we can do, not what others should have done.
What we can do is not pretend when we have an administration that is not acting conservative - in the future, we need to be honest about that. Bloated budget deficits and extra-constitutional government actions are not conservative. But we also need not to use personal attack and name calling - like calling the President of the United States "Jorge."
We need to be honest about policy differences without going personal. We can do this. But its already starting with the candidates - conservatives are attacking personally instead of being straight forward about policy issues.
It is critical to go forward in a constructive fashion.
Ronald Reagan emphasized not just policies but constructive tactics.
He stood on the podium and endorsed Gerald Ford in 1976.
And he took George Bush into the administration even after Bush called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics."
Policies are important but so are tactics and the character reflected by those tactics.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
One is an analysis of how the plant and animal kingdoms appear to behave while the other is a twisted suggestion about how a certain group of humans should behave.
I don’t see why anyone thinks that would sense to compare them.
Some animals will eat their young. That is a scientific fact. If some group comes along and says humans should eat their young and we tried to blame the scientists for observing that behavior in animals that would be a really twisted interpretation.
Nazi behavior is the fault of the humans who engage in Nazi behavior and blaming anyone else is just making excuses for Nazis.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Well we are talking about people who use religion to increase hate. Tomorrow they may be walking the line about hating the sin but loving the sinner when they act like they hate the sinner and envy him at the same time.
But today they are working on Evolution. Since the Discovery Institute was outed by the leak of the wedge document, many rational conservatives have assumed they mean what they say in the wedge - to replace science with something more in line with their religious beliefs.
And yes, that's the wedge strategy and I don't doubt they "mean it" and have some repressed level of their minds convinced that what they do is good.
But we who are either scientists or people with strong interest in learning about our world and the people in it need to look beyond the obvious. We can't just take then at the "secret word" any more than at their regular word...
I think if you look at what goes into a movement favoring heavy handed Christian government you will almost always see lot of small well intentioned workers, money, both big money and as well as a few dollars from granny's social security she couldn't really afford to send.
At the outflow you see good works, often high profile good works but never enough for what went in. Other outflows are political contacts, the ability to make phones ring and to give or take heat to politician and a much improved life style.
In short we are talking about for profit power building and using machinery. I doubt the leaders know or care much about evolution - Playing on fear in this day or any other can be just a convenient way get the masses to move the stones to build your pyramid.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
1. The President is to uphold the constitution - not choose every decision in advance
2.We can’t keep living on Chinese credit cards - the paid for the Iraq war but we spent money the government does not have.
3. Grover Norquist - why would any American want to follow him or anyone associated with CAIR, Hamas and Hezbollah?
The vulnerability of the American economy is discussed in political but its a slow story, not sexy at all. But it is real.
When a household greatly increases their spending but the father stops working his second job that family goes into debt. If they owe money to bank of America, they are beholden to Bank of America but BOA wants basically the same things the family wants, a strong, secure economy so BOA can make money. This was the situation when the Reagan administration took us deeply into debt. We mainly borrowed from the Japanese and since our military keeps Japan safe that wasn't such bad people to owe money to. And the second job is the analogy is extra taxes. Like a father with a second job, high taxes have a real cost to the American family.
Under the Bush43 administration, the borrowing is largely from the Chinese. That's not quite as bad as a father borrowing from a loan shark, but China is not our friend. This makes us vulnerable to Chinese threats to disrupt our economy if China wishes to punish us.
The next President need to stop borrowing so much money from the Chinese. The Bush43 tax cuts were empty tax cuts - paid by borrowing not by cutting spending. If we cannot cut spending the President needs the option of raising taxes (or at least threatening to raise taxes) or we find that we owe China so much money our independence is threatened.
>>China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 8:39pm BST 10/08/2007
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Fistful of dollars - China's trade surplus reached $26.9bn in June
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.
Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.<<
Friday, September 07, 2007
I think the only long term solution to the split is society is not for one side to win but to separate the kind of marriage that the government recognizes and gives incentives for (i.e. Marriage - one man, one woman) from the kinds of households that people have a right to form by legal agreement, contract families, for lack of a better name.
Contract families could be semi-traditional - a heterosexual couple that is not married, a Grandmother and grand kids or two widows living together. But it could also be two women, two men , or three consenting adults anything we don’t have a constitutional reason to ban.
Contract families would not be anything we have to encourage - not anything the church needs to bless and not anything the government has to call marriage. They are the consensual relationships the people wish to formalize that the government has no right to interfere with. This could work just like any other contract - we don’t limit contracts by gender or how many people can sign a contract.
So that would exclude polygamous cults that force young girls to marry, and would exclude any arrangement with a child below the age of consent, incest, nonconsent, coercion, and anything else there is a constitutionally valid law against.I don’t think we are ready but I see this as the logical, most workable solution to an otherwise intractable dispute.