tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90249683805671117362024-03-05T19:48:24.014-08:00Right ThinkingBen Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-73329118080465850322018-05-11T17:39:00.000-07:002019-01-06T11:50:01.289-08:00Arguing With A Younger Me<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKp0OG7eTaxlUTBTaBb5lHKJCtrliAfvGzKN5tojxrFJgynUBXwwNAlDRLs14cVQokvc4kz9qjjHvuzhewHguE34lQYs1g9WfWOGiofS2I2rvfGGKZiYU2ceeKj0tH0nT2Dz48Aph2YFs/s1600/John-Boy+Arguing+With+Grandpa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKp0OG7eTaxlUTBTaBb5lHKJCtrliAfvGzKN5tojxrFJgynUBXwwNAlDRLs14cVQokvc4kz9qjjHvuzhewHguE34lQYs1g9WfWOGiofS2I2rvfGGKZiYU2ceeKj0tH0nT2Dz48Aph2YFs/s1600/John-Boy+Arguing+With+Grandpa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKp0OG7eTaxlUTBTaBb5lHKJCtrliAfvGzKN5tojxrFJgynUBXwwNAlDRLs14cVQokvc4kz9qjjHvuzhewHguE34lQYs1g9WfWOGiofS2I2rvfGGKZiYU2ceeKj0tH0nT2Dz48Aph2YFs/s1600/John-Boy+Arguing+With+Grandpa.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I remember quite vividly the passionate apologetics of a younger me arguing against many a viewpoint that I believe so strongly in today. I remember the talking points, the slogans, the chants, that I felt so sure of to my very core. I remember being so perturbed at those so like the me of today that seemed so obstinate and obtuse. I wonder what that younger me would do upon encountering the equally passionate me of today. Would he try to persuade him of his ignorance and closed-mindedness, or would he simply flip him off and walk away in utter certainty of the superiority of his knowledge and wisdom. I am certain that that younger me would think it. Indeed, if those two were to meet today I expect each would find little compelling about the other, and even less to agree upon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Chancellor Bismarck sure saw me coming when he penned that maxim he is credited for: “Any man at twenty who is not a Socialist has no heart, and any man at forty who is still a Socialist – has no brain. Yes that was, and is, certainly me. Though the verdict is still out on whether I have even yet, a brain, I was certainly that young man that thought the answer to our world’s woes was to be found in the benevolent arms of an omnipotent government. I genuinely thought that virtually any problem could be fixed through the ubiquitous imposing of good ideas; good ideas of course, meaning mine. I still remember vividly times when “this” would not fit neatly with “that,” and I would think that if the government would just enforce a rigidly controlled standard for everything all the worlds stuff would fit and work flawlessly together. I did not realize that the USSR was at that very moment merrily doing that very thing to great and disastrous effect. I was decades away from understanding the basic divergent dynamics of free and centrally planned economies. I am sure that if that younger, and well meaning me, had in those days encountered the middle aged me he would find him a heartless S.O.B. I am very sure that he would have a quite impassioned discourse with him on the wondrous benefits of imposed world collectivism. And I am confident that the young man would leave that conversation quite bugged at the “closed minded, ignorant, blah, blah, blah nonsense” being spewed by the “obstinate middle aged, heartless, blithering idiot.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I still remember the heated argument with the guys in that backroom at the office one morning before work. I was upset over the latest death of some toddler at the hands of his older brother who had found and was playing with his father’s gun. My friends were patiently explaining the virtues of our constitution in keeping our government from completely overrunning and oppressing virtually everyone in the name of protecting us. Not to be swayed from my emotionally charged idealism I had spat:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “Constitution be damned! If just one child is saved I don’t care if we gut the entire constitution – It will be worth it.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I don’t fault that younger me of course, for he was a victim of the public school system and virtually ignorant of the protections that wondrous document gave to millions of just such toddlers from a government bent on “protecting” them, even if it must necessarily squash them to do so. No, I really had no problem taking away other people’s rights back then, in favor of my own idealism. I was quite certain that the world would be a far better place if I was king and my superior wisdom was imposed upon it. I was quite certain that the world and all children everywhere would be safe, if we would just take away everyone’s guns. And that young man would certainly not then be interested in any nonsensical facts and statistics spewed by the middle aged “Right Wing, gun lovin whacko” that he would later become.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I remember too, the exact spot sitting in my car listening to the Christian radio station. I was becoming quite the bible-thumpin,’ scripture quotin,’ generally annoying, new Christian. I still had many vestiges left however of my not-long-left-behind secular agnostic paganism. One such issue I had with my newfound Christian brethren was the whole “Abortion is Murder” thing. I had, I thought a well honed, thoughtful, and flawlessly logical position on the subject, and was fairly bugged at the Christian worlds meddling in a private issue I felt they just had no business “meddlin’” in. I remember arguing with my car radio and putting it in its place with what I thought was a very clever retort:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “Choice,” I told my radio, “Is the greatest of God’s gifts, and you Christians want to take away that Gift from God.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Yep, I had a slogan for every occasion back then. I was just a walking bumper sticker. Little did that young man know he would go on to become a rabid Pro-Life activist, and the bane of many an abortion clinic, and many a Christian who had thought, as that naïve young man had back then, that Christianity and abortion are somehow compatible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Yes there are these, and so many others of the great moral and ethical issues upon which I and that young man would most heartily and vehemently disagree. It would, I think be a fascinating conversation between the young man I was, and who I was to become. The two are so different, yet with the same passionate desires for truth and justice in the world. Sure they have, and had, very different ideas on how to achieve that, and very different lives and experiences to draw upon, but they both are, and were, trying to get to the same place. I wonder if I would try to persuade that young man of his well meaning naïveté or if I would just smile at his passionate diatribe; for there is really nothing that I could say to him now that was not already put to him all those years ago, completely demolishing his world view, and changing him forever. I expect he would find me fairly unintelligent, closed minded, and just stubbornly unwilling to learn from his clear and profound logic and wisdom. I expect he would be pretty bugged, wondering why, rather than concede to his overwhelming logic and wisdom, I just sat there and quietly smiled.</span>Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-1796059618227296262018-05-10T05:13:00.000-07:002019-01-04T20:32:49.477-08:00Embracing My Inner-Bigot<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3zFsZ-_g0J6fenFOsQ3lVqiiGbMtQokQlm-plqeOP74L6l1J9ogquj6qJlhfGHZdvahIAyr9gRfPVw9HJRqU9mIiDA0GB12d9pYgd79OixS1fDrgvT6FrxujMEbmper5CnNRpY37VPUE/s1600/NeoNazi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3zFsZ-_g0J6fenFOsQ3lVqiiGbMtQokQlm-plqeOP74L6l1J9ogquj6qJlhfGHZdvahIAyr9gRfPVw9HJRqU9mIiDA0GB12d9pYgd79OixS1fDrgvT6FrxujMEbmper5CnNRpY37VPUE/s200/NeoNazi.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Well its 2:26 AM and as I flail about tossing and turning
angrily <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have come to the realization
that there will be no more sleep tonight until I put these burning thoughts to
paper: which probably means I will again watch the sun rise…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I just watched the Movie American History X, (again) with
Edward Norton and though I am not generally inclined to midnight movie reviews
this movie and its theme are important and common enough to rate some ink, some
insomnia, and a few antacids.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">Actually American History X is a devastatingly compelling
and excellent treatise, until it isn’t… Edward Norton’s performance is, as
usual, exquisite, and the writing, the story line, and the vacuousness of
racial bigotry skillfully laid to rest, until the story, as is just painfully
too common goes a bridge too far.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The crucial storyline and message of American History X is
of the incredibly dark journey of a young mind into the depths of bigoted
depravity. The storyline, in clever anachronistic style chronicles Norton’s
character's descent into the Neo-Nazi Skin-head movement and ideology, with an early
climatic event of Norton’s murder of two black young men up to mischief in his
yard. Norton then goes to prison where he has the predictable epiphany of the monstrous
folly and ugliness of such world-view and path. After an inexplicably short time
in prison considering his murder of two young men Norton is released to start a new life
completely and passionately repentant of his earlier beliefs and lifestyle.
Norton quickly upon his release convinces his impressionable and idolizing younger
brother of the folly of the lifestyle he had followed Norton into.
Unfortunately along the way, Norton's refutation of the Neo-Nazi ideology inevitably incurs the wrath of the local
skin-head mob that had effectively deified him, while his very existence and release from prison serves as chum on the water for his victim's circling and plotting brethren. In the inescapable
but powerful conclusion Norton is of course holding the bloody corpse of his
own murdered brother on the bathroom floor of his high school, screaming
hysterically at the inevitability of what his misguided bigotry wrought…</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Were this the entirety of the storyline it would indeed be a
very powerful and convincing message, and I would be peacefully slumbering in
the arms of Morpheus. The burr under my saddle though, that currently has me
quite bugged and insomniating, is the all-too-common and purposeful conflating
of reasoned discourse on exigent inter-racial issues with common racial
bigotry. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In an early foundational scene of the movie Norton, in entirely
reasonable appearance is at the family dinner table discussing, quite eloquently, the intricacies of the
Rodney King incident. Norton quite adeptly lays out a defense of the officers
involved and portrays King, rightfully, not as a “motorist” but a common
criminal racing dangerously through the streets of LA at over 100 miles per
hour to evade arrest, acutely endangering the public at large, and then
attacking the police when finally halted. Norton then goes on to defend that
the beat-down the police gave him was taken out of context and likely not
racially motivated at all but rather brought upon himself by the continued
actions of a common thug attacking the police and refusing to relent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are all quite logical and compelling
arguments that I myself have articulated many times on the subject. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So; So far so good… </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But then Norton goes from reasoned
apologetic into full-on raving Hitlerian contempt of all things not-white. As
he rises to pace the room in increasingly mindless ranting he takes off his
pleasant buttoned shirt to show the “Kike” guest of his mother his Swastika
and other White-supremacist tattoos as he rambles on in all of his brutish
raving glory, sparing no one his misguided wrath. The message, and the subtle
innuendo is clear:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What appears to be a
reasoned, intelligent, even pleasant and mild-mannered person in defense of
racially charged apologetics is really just a cover for, or a thin veil hiding
a "classic Jew, and Nigger-hatin, Skin-head, Neo-Nazi Klansman." The skill and
sophistry of which these two completely divergent views are interwoven as one
is really quite stunning.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Cut to another scene where the soon-to-be-murdered brother’s
voice-over describes as the “real” beginning to the seeds of the majestic
bigotry of Norton’s character we encounter the idyllic gathering of Norton’s
family at the breakfast table (before the death of Norton’s firefighter
father.) Norton and his younger brother with their beautiful flowing locks and
cherubic smiles are enjoying their Leave-it-to-Beaver-esque breakfast with
their wonderfully warm mother and steadfast father while a smiling youthful Norton works
on his homework. A conversation ensues between Norton and his father about what
he is studying. Norton explains that his new (black) high school teacher has
assigned the reading and reporting on of the racially-charged book “Native Son.” Norton gushes about the
persuasive brilliance of his teacher.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The father, clearly an “old-school” classic redneck bigot responds with
at first a reasoned challenge to affirmative action quotas and how two black
firefighters in his department were hired over more qualified white men just
because of affirmative action. After such short reasoned discourse he ostensibly
reveals his true underlying racial bigotry as he describes affirmative action
as “Blacktion” and Norton’s teacher’s assignments as “just more Nigger BS.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus we again see that any reasoned discussion
of racial issues by the Right is really just more cover for thinly-veiled
bigotry.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So the Rodney-esque beat-down of anyone with the audacity to
challenge affirmative action, quotas, or any other contemporary purposeful unequal
treatment of whites and non-whites continues, and ostensibly will. Part of me
is outraged by it and part simply watches in paralyzed awe as the juggernaut of the
race-baiting machine bears inexorably down upon us. I often wonder as the
non-white power-base and its protectorate continues to expand, making claims of white oppression
increasingly irrelevant and laughable; how long the Left can continue with a
straight face to claim continuing disguised bigotry, oppression and victimhood of non-whites. I
suppose such will end around the time they stop blaming George Bush for the
current president’s failures – or perhaps when the sun burns out.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Well now with that off my chest at least I can probably get some sleep: on my soft
fluffy (white) Swastika pillow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-77719293543504659782018-05-09T23:40:00.000-07:002019-01-04T20:31:53.539-08:00Yes I did build that<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(Has anyone seen my goat?)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuxsbZ6Jr2dF3X9bn8CNujyNXqJIqQjkAzWb9h8vUqvMlEHg8TKbiAQUb_qhFT2AYCiFZ5VTc1wEv-jL-qlbyXX1uhBfXgPBUSap-8GYonEyRmc8Uw-4QjERE04hXxrAHiXArhiZQLULU/s1600/Bridge+Construction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuxsbZ6Jr2dF3X9bn8CNujyNXqJIqQjkAzWb9h8vUqvMlEHg8TKbiAQUb_qhFT2AYCiFZ5VTc1wEv-jL-qlbyXX1uhBfXgPBUSap-8GYonEyRmc8Uw-4QjERE04hXxrAHiXArhiZQLULU/s1600/Bridge+Construction.jpg" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">So anyone that knows me knows I am no fan of Barack Obama.
Given any political viewpoint and virtually any speech and statement he has
made I can be counted on pretty much to disagree upon virtually every word
including “and,” and “the.” No, Barack Obama and I just see the world
differently: probably always have, and most likely always will. So it will
surely come as no surprise that I disagree wholeheartedly with his latest
blather on who is responsible for the success of business’s and people in
America. So our disagreement is axiomatic on this issue but to say that I
vehemently disagree on this latest stupidity would be a profound
understatement. The very fact that such absurdity would even require a rebuttal
is disheartening enough. The fact that there are people who would bob their
empty heads in vacuous sycophantic union is maddening.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">So the gist, for those who might have missed it, is that the
infrastructure, the roads, bridges, the (public) schools, teachers,
electricity, the internet… that so many rely on to survive and to thrive is
“provided” by the government. He goes on to explain that the
self-congratulatory dynamic of so many business owners and other successful
people is misguided, and that none could succeed without these collective
enhancements to success “provided” by the government.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">So this one really got my goat, and the business community, the entrepreneurs, the successful
workers, managers, and executives, who are understandably apoplectic about this
latest slap-in-the-face to their myriad boundless hard work and personal
sacrifice that has now been declared only incidental to their success. So now,
not only has poor personal choices been removed by the left from the equation
of success and failure but also hard work, diligence, sacrifice, and good
choices.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">And yet with all of the hand-wringing by the outraged
successful, ranting to the media with newfound fury, I find few really
adequately parsing this latest drivel for its inherent absurdity. Lucky for you
however, you have me to add some perspective. :)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So “The government” built the roads, the bridges, the electric
grids, the schools, and myriad other infrastructure that provides the backbone
for the success of the people? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Uh….no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I really don’t think I have heard anything so absurdly and myopically
backward in all of my 48 years, and that is saying a lot. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><em><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">No
government anywhere, at any time, has ever “built” anything, “created”
anything, or “provided” anything to anyone</span>.</em> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">The government did not
create the internet. It did not ever build a road, a bridge, a power dam, or
electric grid. We did that. Contrary to Barack Obama’s ridiculous claims we the
people built it, created it, provided it. We the people collectively and
individually did every single last thing to which Barack Obama now gives this
ethereal entity of “Government” the bulk of the credit. The government does one
thing, and one thing alone. It takes. It takes the fruits and the intellectual
wealth of the people it governs and distributes and invests the people’s wealth,
mostly poorly, in infrastructure, government, friends and supporters of those
in power, pipe dreams, and more government. Not one thin red dime has the
government “provided” to anyone or anything anywhere ever. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">Those same people that Obama is now lambasting for their
“taking” so much from the collective pot while “giving back” so little have
given, and given, and will give even after they are dead, to that government
and Barack Obama’s ilk who have the audacity to then berate them for not
“giving back their fair share.” Firstly, one cannot “give back” if one has not
been “given” in the first place. The government or the collective people behind
it have not “given” anything to these. The people, and the businesses that rely
on all of these things are the ones who really provided them. These worked, and
created wondrous and majestic things from their intellect, their sacrifices,
their diligence, their hard work; and when they used those resources (and even
when they don’t) that Barack Obama misguidedly gives government, or the
collective credit for, they have paid, and paid, and paid. They have paid in
federal, state, and local taxes, fees, assessments, and every other creative
terminology governments and statists can think of for the taking of the fruits
of the people’s work and intellect. These businesses pay handsomely for every
collective resource they use. They pay property taxes, road taxes, gas taxes,
electric grid taxes, phone grid (internet) taxes, “federal usage” taxes, “state
usage” taxes, …<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They then hire the rest
of the people and pay boundless taxes to the government in way of employer
contributions, as well as providing a massive employee earnings pool that is
again taxed in endless myriad creative ways. When these business owners are
through with their business taxation and business expenses, including much of the
earnings of the collective people, should there be anything left for the
principles of that company they are again taxed, now on a personal level, at
every turn, from their own federal, state, and local taxes, to their property
taxes, capital gains taxes(should they be so evil as to invest some of what is
left at a profit), and on and on. Should that person then have the audacity to
actually have something left for their own children the government then takes
half of what is left.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">To all of this the Barack Obamas of the world proclaim that
businesses have a heavier usage and take a heavier toll than do individuals of
the collective who have provided them. Again, uh, no. Businesses pay vastly
larger amounts, both in ratio and volume to their individual counterparts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Actually the volume of money taken from these
businesses for their infrastructure usage is breathtaking. In actuality and
quite obviously if one thinks about it nothing the government has ever done
could have been done without funding from the backs of the people. Those
government employees that researched and “created the internet” were paid for
their employment from all of us who use that internet. No road, and no bridge
could ever be built without monies first taken from the people to build them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">An analogy: I raid your bank account. With those funds I buy
you a car (and cars for a bunch of other, less-fortunate people). Because I
have “provided” you a car I now ask you to “give back your fair share” for
using that car. After all you could not have gotten to work to earn a living
without the car “I provided.” And really, you should be more grateful for all I
have done for you and “give back” your fair share.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As I think on this however, perhaps I have misstated that
government actually creates nothing out of thin air. Actually government does
create the laws that control us, for good and for bad. (Although we pay for
them to do so).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The one thing though
that I have forgotten in all of this is that Government can create majestic
debt, for us, and for those yet to be born, who have no say in the matter. And
of those yet to be born will, as always be of two camps: those who are
diligent, steadfast, hard-working, who make good choices, who will be rewarded
(and taxed relentlessly) for it, and those with none of these qualities, who
will be the next fodder and excuse for squeezing every last possible tax and
fee from the productive. These will rise early, work diligently and incredibly
hard, make wise choices; sacrifice and many will become, even after ceaseless,
ruthless taxation, “wealthy.” These above all will provide the infrastructure
that the entire collective will use, deservedly or not, and just as the sun
rises in the east and progressive statists forever crave the wealth of others,
these will be told that they need to “start” to “give back their fair share.”
And to this there will just as assuredly as today, be those willfully ignorant
masses bobbing their heads in vacuous fervent agreement, and lust for other
peoples money.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-3468152484070969422018-04-29T21:19:00.000-07:002019-01-04T20:33:39.681-08:00The Great Thing Donald Sterling Did for America<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkxkMG3jFblw9j3phL9H0qE0NGvpjREtlHQo4lFxZU_XMEhTjVRAEyJ1hKJu-kC7trJNMD7SGAfvw36E50bf287qrejHuy-O2NsVgOxwDC282ociRtZdCWqc8bcJqIcCZd1tyV-ei_AoU/s1600/Jim+Crow.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkxkMG3jFblw9j3phL9H0qE0NGvpjREtlHQo4lFxZU_XMEhTjVRAEyJ1hKJu-kC7trJNMD7SGAfvw36E50bf287qrejHuy-O2NsVgOxwDC282ociRtZdCWqc8bcJqIcCZd1tyV-ei_AoU/s1600/Jim+Crow.png" width="200" /></span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So
virtually everyone is outraged about the Donald Sterling Situation: everyone
but me that is. I am absolutely thrilled… tickled. Let me explain.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Clearly
Donald Sterling is a closet racist and </span><span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">majestic hypocrite, enriching himself
off of a mostly black team and having a half-black girlfriend while secretly
despising the race. And had the girlfriend not set him up we would not have any
idea of the depth of his bigotry. So a secret bigot has been outed, and he
cannot act in bigoted ways secretly anymore. So that is a good thing. But the
great thing that has me delirious with “I-told-you-so-esque” glee is the
absolutely united outrage at the bigotry.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisXcbg1Lzr4LSSy8nyuGYweyXwFHrqO9ILORN2QT3y0GAJMy3lh9ZP6a_Z-secqPUW4yRHiG4On6HiVEdYpM3hwRUikY6IvRmFoxmMEjvx1ST5T0KX5oPWBkbGqi41a1GAzfqjN5Zv734/s1600/Jim+Crow+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisXcbg1Lzr4LSSy8nyuGYweyXwFHrqO9ILORN2QT3y0GAJMy3lh9ZP6a_Z-secqPUW4yRHiG4On6HiVEdYpM3hwRUikY6IvRmFoxmMEjvx1ST5T0KX5oPWBkbGqi41a1GAzfqjN5Zv734/s1600/Jim+Crow+2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If
we look back a very short while, just fifty years ago when I was born,
undisguised bigotry was not only the norm rather than the exception, it was the
law. In 1964 it was illegal for blacks to even drink from the same fountain as
whites. They could not share lunch counters, or buses, or bathrooms. If blacks
were allowed at all at a basketball game they were huddled in their own section
and entered through separate entrances with bold signs proclaiming “Colored
Section.” Black team members did not even share the same locker rooms. No white
would think of bringing “Niggers” with them to watch the game.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEMtwXSRWdYpw-ZApD5hly8mkO2QYOBrcuIfe2-EzABHRiqW3HnouxWoEb1a4Hs3EVs17Y0iJ-L2uBA1K3PtRO01vEqHOo1UGMp0s39pINWkbaYOlw4_G2bsWdq8cUt-YJlj1NbXYyHL8/s1600/Jim+Crow+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEMtwXSRWdYpw-ZApD5hly8mkO2QYOBrcuIfe2-EzABHRiqW3HnouxWoEb1a4Hs3EVs17Y0iJ-L2uBA1K3PtRO01vEqHOo1UGMp0s39pINWkbaYOlw4_G2bsWdq8cUt-YJlj1NbXYyHL8/s1600/Jim+Crow+3.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So
what I am so elated about with this situation is how far we have come in my short
lifetime, and the virtually ubiquitous outrage over a single outed closet
racist. An example of how far we have come is that most will be quite taken
back, perhaps even incensed at my uncensored use of “The N-word” even as an
example of bigotry in historically accurate context. What the race-baiters are quietly
and assiduously avoiding is that this is not an example of continued widespread
concealed racism but is rather a profound exposition on the ultimate demise
of racism in the country. While the race-baiters continually bring out the corpse
of racism and proclaim it alive and well, the corpse is long dead, and it is
beginning to stink. While the race-baiters will point to this single incident
hissing “See, more covert racism” they will completely miss the point of how
profound this is exactly because in a country of 350 million that it is getting
so hard to find such persons, and that virtually all universally and vehemently
denounce such thoughts and actions, and that so many think it so wrong not only
to act or speak as a racist, but to even think it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip9Zrp-w5kh-SPAMIzTcnizlW90-GfatuxuhAwllWj9dq1SYm_d6cCihpced_Tb20iLsTYWd33sEo-ABuk1I7_-gT3V7ljaWDD604RRSHw4YQJLG_e6WHRUadCkur9CHtm5O4ccwJLxuE/s1600/Jim+Crow+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip9Zrp-w5kh-SPAMIzTcnizlW90-GfatuxuhAwllWj9dq1SYm_d6cCihpced_Tb20iLsTYWd33sEo-ABuk1I7_-gT3V7ljaWDD604RRSHw4YQJLG_e6WHRUadCkur9CHtm5O4ccwJLxuE/s1600/Jim+Crow+4.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Donald
Sterling is a victim of a debunked way of thinking that this country taught
him. Horrific blatant bigotry and oppression were the lawful institutionalized
norm of this country when Sterling was 30 years old. He has had 50 more years
to learn the horrific wrong of that mindset, as most others of the country
have. Sterling has been unable or unwilling to learn and to change, and time
has brought it too light, brought him low and history will despise him for it.
It is a dark day for Donald Sterling. But this is not a dark day for America:
far from it. Eventually it will be recognized that this is a glorious thing for
America as this incident is recognized for what it really is: profound evidence
that we are truly putting the final nails in the coffin of America’s dark
racist past.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-7153800718584607862018-04-02T11:38:00.000-07:002019-01-04T20:35:34.406-08:00In Defense of Stupidity<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsZC2pJbVvzk2nUAAKgNwxh25FS7iRXhTC7QZowwYEk_LAFcwaq8jQci83fHV_lLBcZLLHIOWHHX-0N_GgSwvPa9dyK2wszsgPMZ8pAbX3QGATlFcbawsMk3OG70vZV3PvcsS29_ZfX_4/s1600/HATE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsZC2pJbVvzk2nUAAKgNwxh25FS7iRXhTC7QZowwYEk_LAFcwaq8jQci83fHV_lLBcZLLHIOWHHX-0N_GgSwvPa9dyK2wszsgPMZ8pAbX3QGATlFcbawsMk3OG70vZV3PvcsS29_ZfX_4/s200/HATE.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
It is truly frightening, the thought that my freedom to be a bigot is being eroded.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<em>"Your right to what?"</em> you ask.</div>
<br />
You heard me right: I am lamenting the slow death of my right to bigotry. <br />
<br />
I did not, and do not mean that I wish to be a bigot, but rather that if I want to think and express stupid ideas, I want and believe that our constitution and our great experiment of personal freedom once protected my right to do so.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <br />
Political Correctness run amok is quietly and stealthily, and sometimes and increasingly, boldly changing our culture and our laws to undermine our First Amendment to read that “The right to free speech shall not be abridged, as long as such speech does not offend any progressive sensitivities.” <br />
<br />
At the same time and the other side of this same strange coin the liberals are continually and diligently marching toward their vision of an offense-free utopia where one’s “right” to not be offended is protected with an iron fist by laws that simultaneously squash others right to that same offensive speech. The constant refrain is that there is no right to offensive speech that impugns some latest favored group du jour. It is, I think, the pinnacle of irony that the same group that wants to squash any dissenting opinions from the right, or anywhere not firmly in lockstep with left wing dogma as “Hate Speech” simultaneously champion their right to attack the ideologies that they find fundamentally flawed and ignorant mythology in any way, and as vilely and viciously as they please under their highly selective auspices of the same First Amendment. It is fascinating; that the same groups farthest to the left wing fringes will tout their right to do physically unto those they disagree with, find ignorant, stupid, offensive, or just in the way, will simultaneously champion their right to silence any words from those that they disagree with as somehow harmful and infringing on their right to a world where only their thoughts are allowed to be voiced. Somehow in this left wing utopian world it is OK to throw a brick or other handy projectile through the window of those you disagree with or to burn down some handy building in “voicing” protest against “The Man” or against “Bigotry” or “Hate Speech,” but it is simultaneously an atrocity to politely say, think, or even politely decline to participate in those ideas or actions that those with opposing ideology may find offensive or immoral. It is truly head-spinning and leaves one dizzy to hear the “clarifications” of glaring left-wing hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
So what would my perfect (bigotry laden) world look like? It would be simple really, and was once the law of the land. A perfect world of abounding free speech would be one where everyone everywhere is allowed to speak their mind, but would not be allowed to do harm to others. Such constitutional protection would recognize the incompatibility of a right to speak freely and a right to not be offended. Such a world would remember and recognize the simple truth that only offensive speech is in need of protecting and that speech that offends no one would not need such. Such a world would recognize and clearly define and stipulate that your right to swing your fist does not include a right to punch me in the nose. Such a wondrous free world would include my right to decry your words, ideas, and actions as misguided, foolish, stupid, immoral, and harmful, and would conversely protect your identical right to do the same.<br />
<br />
Such a world would also recognize my right to property and to do as I wish with it. Such would recognize that my house, my rentals, my company, my restaurant, and anything else with the word “My” before it are mine to do with as I wish. Such would recognize that no one of any color, race, creed, sex, age, etc., have an inherent right to work, live, eat, play, pray, or enter my property and that I do no one any harm by refusing the use of my property for any purpose. Such would recognize the fact that in allowing the use of my property to anyone for any reason, while denying such equal use to others for whatever reason I choose does no one any harm, and is my inherent right in such property ownership. Without such true ownership of one’s property such property ownership is an empty right and freedom to think and speak as I wish is an empty promise. <br />
<br />
So in my perfect world I could, dare I say it? burn a cross on my lawn. But I could not do so on yours. And in my perfect world I could post a bold placard in my widow openly refusing to serve “Jews, Niggers, Crackers, Wasps, Spics, Blacks, Browns, Whites, Yellow’s Purples, Gays, Mormons, Prius Owners, people born on Wednesday, or any other group I hated in my ignorance. In such a world the good and enlightened people would refuse to do business with such a bigot, and would even march peacefully and lawfully on the sidewalk nearby denouncing such ignorance and bigotry. The bigot would soon realize the wisdom of re-thinking his bigotry or would find himself devoid of customers and out of business. All the while everyone’s (real) rights would be protected and good and justice would prevail.<br />
<br />
In my perfect world, where property rights were protected I could express that my rental property could not be used for activities I found morally repugnant, no matter how specious my belief or reasoning. Such law would recognize that my property was truly my property and not the collective property of anyone who had not worked to obtain it. Such law would recognize that no one has an inherent protected right to use of my property. Such law would recognize that I have not harmed you by not allowing you use of my property for whatever reason I choose. Such law would recognize that not allowing you to impose your ideology on me and on my property does you no harm. Such law would simply defend your right to your property, your ideology, values, and speech, and me to mine.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-54257065801938695732018-04-01T11:53:00.000-07:002019-01-04T20:52:22.487-08:00The Beauty of a Desecrated Flag<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjslhK6BsuFHFWiPha1t1VuvnIYR4eLBFY1EKI9C0hpzgPMsLIthrd_q6azjQaY-vD2IIWjQNdcj40SYxBeKY7_ReykLlikO49RXZyya8zm5shv2kE0BBdIKGm9syhlu513d7ElaZUu6NA/s1600/Desecrated+Flag.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjslhK6BsuFHFWiPha1t1VuvnIYR4eLBFY1EKI9C0hpzgPMsLIthrd_q6azjQaY-vD2IIWjQNdcj40SYxBeKY7_ReykLlikO49RXZyya8zm5shv2kE0BBdIKGm9syhlu513d7ElaZUu6NA/s1600/Desecrated+Flag.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjslhK6BsuFHFWiPha1t1VuvnIYR4eLBFY1EKI9C0hpzgPMsLIthrd_q6azjQaY-vD2IIWjQNdcj40SYxBeKY7_ReykLlikO49RXZyya8zm5shv2kE0BBdIKGm9syhlu513d7ElaZUu6NA/s1600/Desecrated+Flag.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">For
many burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag is hugely offensive,
even an abomination worthy of substantial criminal penalties. I believe the
opposite: that desecration of the American flag without civil or criminal
penalties is the highest homage that can be paid to that majestic flag. While I
too find the act in what it represents incredibly offensive to the good and the
freedoms it represents and the sacrifices of so many to defend those freedoms
on the one hand, the freedom to do so also demonstrates those principles even
more acutely.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> Where else but America can citizens voice their angst and debate
the principles of good, of evil, and of freedom even in highly offensive ways
and be met with, and defeated by better words and principles rather than
suppression of those views. It seems to me that the very essence of the First
Amendment is the protection of the vilest, most offensive speech and
demonstrations. Only offensive speech needs such profound protections as a
constitutional amendment provides. To the people that rage that desecration of
the flag is desecration of the memory of those who fought and sacrificed and
suffered injury or death to protect its principles I say that the opposite is
true: that those who sacrificed and died did so perhaps most of all for the
right of idiots to act in utter ignorance and stupidity without fear of
reprisal: That in America we do not punish people for disagreeing even in the
vilest of manner, or for hurting each other’s feelings or even for spitting on the principles that provided those blessings or the memory of those who provided them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While
some would make such acts illegal, or even add an Amendment to the constitution
to protect the flag I believe most strongly that such would actually be a loss
of the very freedoms that flag represents and an affront to the sacrifices so
many have made to protect those freedoms. After all it is not the fabric those
heroes have sacrificed to protect but the sacrifices and the freedoms it
represents. While those idiots who desecrate the flag believe they are
demonstrating oppression and evil represented by that flag they are actually
profoundly demonstrating the opposite. That they can do so freely, without
suppression even of their own misguided rage defeats their own arguments better
than any opposition could. Desecration of the American flag without reprisal is
possibly the most ridiculous self-refuting argument that exists. And while
suppression of such vulgarity will remove it from sight temporarily it will
also serve to bolster their spurious argument that America is not as free and
fair as the flag represents.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While
I too feel the twinge of outrage seeing my flag and the heroes who sacrificed
to protect its principles dishonored it is important to look past this to the
deeper profound demonstration such ignorant actions provide. We should not be
outraged or saddened by such ignorant acts but even more proud of those
freedoms and those who have provided and protected them. Such acts performed
publicly and freely show not that such freedoms are eroded or such sacrifices
in vain but that those freedoms even of imbeciles to remain profoundly stupid
without reprisal are firmly intact, and the sacrifices of our heroes exalted. And while such idiots believe they dishonor the flag by such actions they
simply honor its principles and its heroes all the more. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">I
propose then that we simply meet and overcome evil with good, ignorance and
stupidity with wisdom and with better words and actions. When we see those
idiots desecrating the flag, thinking themselves profound; simply remind them that
that flag and the sacrifices made for it and what it represents is displayed
most profoundly in their ability to act with such profound ignorance and
stupidity without repercussion. Remind them that your son, daughter, brother,
Uncle, father, or grandfather sacrificed or died specifically so that they could
act so stupidly, offensively, and ignorantly without reprisal: that it is the
very thing and principles that they spit upon that allow them to remain so
ignorant and to freely act with such stupidity: And that it is the very freedom to publicly disrespect America, its flags, and its heroes that shows that the American Flag cannot really be dishonored and that such attempts to do so only further honor our heritage and show the profound beauty even of a desecrated American flag.</span></div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-37400217264391210192018-03-15T23:50:00.000-07:002019-01-06T10:01:30.384-08:00The Soul of a Nation<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What Just Happened? - Examining the 2012 Election Results<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIoh73BXiuSBHdwoFjovnbiooVepiZnha2Ty-SH_eSZApqZPRXmvKsOAz1LyraDcx2OzTeO_Gk4KmN8JMHkndKclx0ciYKOHBqLuj3geN3p0CzBUIm1B_MRxWvQ3XFhIO5L9PDMQz_J7E/s1600/Confused+Eastwood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIoh73BXiuSBHdwoFjovnbiooVepiZnha2Ty-SH_eSZApqZPRXmvKsOAz1LyraDcx2OzTeO_Gk4KmN8JMHkndKclx0ciYKOHBqLuj3geN3p0CzBUIm1B_MRxWvQ3XFhIO5L9PDMQz_J7E/s1600/Confused+Eastwood.jpg" title="" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Just when you thought we could all let out one collective
sigh of relief that it is finally over the realization now is setting in that
it really isn’t. Now, for the next few months comes the barrage of
gloating, recriminations, and an endless stream of opinions as to what went
wrong or right, and what it means for the country. In that spirit I thought I
should try to get in my two cents before y’all turn off the TVs and radios, and cancel
your newspaper subscriptions altogether…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I noticed a timely announcement in the news this morning,
right next to the reports of the plunging stock market. Evidently Anheuser Busch is
planning to release a stronger Budweiser beer. Could there be a timelier
announcement, as half the country wants to celebrate and the other half to just
get really drunk…?</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">Well as the pundits-sphere blathers on about what went wrong
or right “this time.” I would like to examine the bigger picture of where the soul
of the country is heading in general in what we want, or do not want from our
government. I have a fascinating old book here on my shelf titled: Two
Republics. This tome, by Alonso T. Jones was published in 1891. It juxtaposes
the two greatest republics in history, being of course, Rome, and the United
States. The basic premise of the book is that Rome was never destroyed from
without by superior forces as is the common demise of most great empires but
rather, Rome fell under its own weight of vice and the self-plundering of the nation’s
wealth by its own people. The book then goes on to highlight the same
self-destructive path of the United States and of mankind, who’s most stubborn
trait seems to be their steadfast refusal to learn those lessons history wishes
so much to bestow upon us. And of course man’s ignorance as always, can only be
outmatched by his majestic arrogance as he congratulates himself on his
superior understanding of the dynamics of all things formerly withheld from all
of mankind before him, even as he plunges in lemming-esque glee, and victory
cry, into the void.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is fascinating to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist
arguments of the founders of the country as they argued how much freedom and
power was safe to grant to the people of a country. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though all were thoroughly discouraged with
the tyranny of the king they had just dispatched, many envisioned and worried
of an even more insidious threat of over-empowering the people. The basic idea
here is that the possible damage of a single idiot in charge of a country pales
in comparison to the possible carnage of massive throngs of the self-governed,
imbued with a potent and deadly mix of ignorance, arrogance, and general
stupidity. It is a basic principle that power in hands of one, or of many is a
two-edged sword: that such can be an incredible power for good and for evil,
with the one commonality that both are generally viewed by those wielding such
to be a great good, if not in retrospect at least while happening…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the end it was decided not so much to
grant such power to the people, but rather to accede that such was a basic
right of man, for good or for evil. And as was hoped, and as was feared, the
experiment has resulted in great good and great evil, with a clear abundance of
general stupidity in the mix.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Probably the greatest danger in empowering the people was
best encapsulated in an old adage: “A democracy can only last until the people
realize they can vote themselves monies from the treasury.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That is the essential lesson of the Two Republics: that one
was destroyed from within and the other is diligently attempting the same fate
by the people, who realized that their votes held great power to plunder the
treasury, and the wealth of their fellow man, by the fist of government as
wielded by willing accomplices vying for their own power and prestige of
governmental office. And of course it could hardly be better applied that “the
more things change, the more they stay the same,” then to the self-interest of
man.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So Rome is gone, and we are here, these thousands of years
later. The question then is have we learned from history, and if not will we
ever? Have we yet learned that killing and feasting on the golden-goose must,
and will always end with no gold, and no goose?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So What happened?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The same thing that always happened: Demagoguery and
bribery. This most recent and majestic Demagoguery festival was perhaps best
summed up by the quip: “The other guy hates you and everything you love, wants
to take all of your stuff, burn down your house, eat your children, and kill
your cat.” Demagoguery is essentially the process of capitalizing on the fears
of the ignorant and the stupid. The other side of the self-interest coin is good old-fashioned
bribery: “Vote for me and I’ll give you the other guys stuff (for free).” This
of course always comes lathered in copious amounts of rationalization of why
taking from Peter to give to Paul is only fair. And of course little has been
better said than: “If you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the
full support of Paul.</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Demagoguery:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Have the masses ever been whipped into a terrified frenzy
better than by the recent crop of political operatives of today? The mantra
that we don’t learn from history just isn’t so. Political operatives have
learned all-to-well history’s lessons on the efficient manipulation of man. The
one consistent message is that man will always fall for the “I’m looking out
for you” drivel no matter how many times it proves itself magnificently untrue.
There simply is no more powerful force in man than self-interest. This is seen
in both his desires and his fears. This election cycle, perhaps above all others
showed this played out as masterfully as a concert violinist, or perhaps more
accurately as the ominous music of the approaching shark of “Jaws” fame. There
was it seems in this cycle, an abundance of fear-mongering for virtually any
taste in recent months. For women, who are the most recognized asset to
political parties of late there was birth-control, and abortion. For blacks there
was “Whities thinly disguised racial hatred and contempt of Blacks, and general
annoyance that they can no longer enslave or otherwise oppress non-whites.”
Likewise for Mexicans: “Whites hate you and want to break up your family and
drag you kicking and screaming out of the country that was rightfully yours
anyway. And if they cannot oppress these or deport them they at least want to
take away their stuff and make their lives as miserable as possible for the
entertainment of the fat cats in their ivory towers feasting greedily on the
spoils of the oppressed.” There is of course the “oppression of all science and
science-minded folk by the religious zealots floundering to remain relevant,
and their insistence on controlling who can love whom, their desire to control
or oppress anyone not in lock-step with their dogma, oppress gays, re-victimize
rape and incest victims, force women to reproduce, and then of course just
allow those produced children to suffer, starve, and die.” Indeed it is
difficult to find any group that conservative and republicans don’t either
disdain or just hate and wish to at least suffer, if not die.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Bribery:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So on the other side of the: They want to take your stuff”
coin is the left’s: “We will give you stuff.” There is little that the left has
not promised to “give” us, and not for the price of our souls, but for the
entirely reasonable cost of just our vote. Amongst the plunder are Pre-natal
care, money to keep it... or to kill it, Birthing-care, Universal-health care, money for babies, infants,
toddlers, children, adolescents, teens, adults and seniors. There’s money for
food, housing, utilities, phones, school, college, retirement, and on and on.
There truly is something for everyone from cradle-to-grave. So the bribery and
the demagoguery go on and on; will not end while man is susceptible to it, and
will always be alleged by the right and denied by the left.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">More importantly however than what the left has in their
quiver is what the right does not. While demagoguery is readily available to
all, bribery is just realistically unavailable to the right, and ineffective and not
believable when the right tries to out-left the left. The plea that: “I will give
you stuff, but not as much as the other guy” is neither principled or effective, and is inherently nonsensical. The right finds itself in the absurd postion of running against Santa as Santa-light. And those foolish enough to try to out-Santa the left just find themselves in an unwinnable bidding war. Anything the Republican promises to the voters the left just promises more. The Republican must stop somewhere short of where all pretense of fiscal sanity ends but the Democrat, unrestrained by such logic or simple good sense just declares: "Yes, you can have an all hot-dog, chocolate, and red-bull diet... if that's what makes you happy - and gets your vote...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The left has tragic stories and photos of starving children, slogans, simple concepts, and bumperstickers. The right has esoteric logic, and complex concepts, difficult to articulate, and often counter-intuitive. Not only do the right not want to plunder others on your behalf, but they want to stop the others from doing so as well. And the cherry on top is the Right wants to take away all of the stuff the left has "fought and sacrificed" for to secure for their fellow man...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And the left has tied the millstone of "The Party of No" firmly around the neck of the conservative to watch them flail and drown while they try to explain how less government "help," less teachers, less money for teachers, shools, college, firemen, and cops, roads, bridges... less money for hungry children, less retirement and healthcare, are all a good thing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And perhaps the most insidious thing that so many desire is the self-riteousness of saving the world - with other peoples money. The press made much hay of Romney's unfortunate comment about 47% of the people wanting stuff that was not their own. This may be more true than not in at least an oblique way. Most on the left, quite aside even from their own self-interest and entitled attitude, also want to tap into the wealth of their countrymen, not because they have earned such, or any other principle really, except that the money is there, they want it, and democracy empowers them to take it for whatever whim or "charity" du jour they fancy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A Potent Mix</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When considering all the goodies that the left has to offer in trade for votes that are antithetical to the principles of the Conservatives it is a powerful incentive in itself. When adding in all of the other dynamics of the creation of an ever expanding entitled class it seems an increasingly overwhelming uphill slog to garner enough voter support for the Right to prevail in any election. When consdiering that we are steeped in left-wing indoctrination more thoroughly every year and at earlier and earlier stages in public schools, which have become little more than progressive re-education camps, led by an entrenched monolithic statist propagandist mob, protected and secured by an unassailable union wall; the students really have little hope of becoming anything but left-wing Mini-Me's before going on to Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, and PhD degrees in collectivist sycophancy. Add to that a reliable sycophanic left-wing press, vast union money, and a vacuous adoring Hollywood, migrating masses of illegal aliens demanding their piece of the Amercan Pie, one is left to wonder just how long the Right can remain relevant at all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, as the right inherently understands the dynamic of scaring and bribing for votes they find themselves more and more between a rock and a hard place. They can not realistically frighten the voters into voting for them as the left promise to give them their every-hearts desire and whim: hardly a frigtening proposition. Likewise they cannot out-bribe the left, as they simply become a poor imitation of that which they decry. The left, in gleeful realization of this quandry, and feigned helpfulness increasingly respond to the Rights dilemma in suggestion that they become even more left-like to regain their relevancy. Such is a win-win for the left and a sure-fire recipe for the fate of every other nation granting the people the wealth of the nations treasury for the price of their vote.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-22225948003880458832014-05-25T11:42:00.000-07:002014-05-25T14:53:32.851-07:00Just Doing Their Jobs<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7jyl9PfXmd05Sxv37wv5vPqgRaE49Ioox_8lvvawibFoHzjsYkrwRXL9AePWTACioOFcoQwtdepcTsHDFdbeppHXWan3Gi9ZIzQ4Cw1bCixBVIQPJyPmmB409n2_3tifPDTEdHLs1zcE/s1600/Medal+Of+Honor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7jyl9PfXmd05Sxv37wv5vPqgRaE49Ioox_8lvvawibFoHzjsYkrwRXL9AePWTACioOFcoQwtdepcTsHDFdbeppHXWan3Gi9ZIzQ4Cw1bCixBVIQPJyPmmB409n2_3tifPDTEdHLs1zcE/s200/Medal+Of+Honor.jpg" height="200" width="182" /></a>I want to start by being absolutely clear that Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta is an extraordinary hero. In the same circumstance that he found himself in that prompted his being granted the Medal Of Honor I may very well have simply huddled in a corner blubbering and wetting my pants.</div>
<br />
With that said I wish to examine the dynamics of what creates this and our other decorated heroes. Staff Sgt. Giunta has gone to great lengths to downplay his actions with the old “Aw shucks, I was just doing my job ma’am” mantra. I expect that the humility is real, and that he really feels that way. Now again, I do not wish to downplay Staff Sgt Giunta’s extraordinary heroism at all, but rather to emphasize all of the heroes that we will never know of. We will never know of them or recognize their equal heroism to Staff Sgt Giunta’s because the bullet was two feet to the left or right, or because they were first in line instead of third.<br />
<a name='more'></a>Now Staff Sergeant Giunta to his credit has emphasized this repeatedly, that in the same situation his comrades would do, or would have done the same. Sgt. Josh Brennan could have as easily been second or third in line that day and instead of taking the bullet(s) that killed him he could be standing at the podium next to President Obama receiving his Medal Of Honor while proclaiming that his fallen comrade, Staff Sergeant Giunta would have done the same for him. Again, not to beat a dead horse but this diatribe is not to diminish the Staff Sergeant Giunta’s of the world but to elevate the rest to where they rightfully belong. We all too easily overlook that war is generally a horrible roulette wheel of the universe with the odds stacked obscenely for the house. With the amount of deadly metal flying in every direction in any battle from bullets to shrapnel cutting down soldiers randomly we will never know how many more Staff Sergeant Giunta’s we could be honoring for extraordinary heroism. I understand that we need our heroes, and heroism. It is invaluable in making us all strive for the greatness available in the core of humankind, and that it brings us all up to a better us. But as we give Staff Sergeant Giunta his well deserved honor and admiration we should not forget any of these soldiers, airmen, and sailors who go about their every day thinking, just like Staff Sergeant Giunta, that they are “…Just doing their jobs,” when they are doing so much more. We should never forget that but for a bullet, or shrapnel, passing a few inches in another direction, or other plain dumb luck they could as easily be the guy at the podium receiving the medal, or the guy in the veterans hospital with half of his body blown off, or in the ground, or the guy back home telling of being rescued by their buddy, the hero. So as you see that uniform, wherever it is, do not forget that every one of these that put themselves in harm’s way for you and for me are extraordinary and deserving of the respect and honor of anyone wearing a Medal Of Honor. And I know that it can feel awkward, but as you pass them by without the recognition they deserve, stop – Go back and let them know that they are wrong… that they are not just doing their job – That they are all extraordinary heroes.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-85183110233956913032014-04-14T12:12:00.002-07:002014-05-24T16:46:17.514-07:00A Misunderstood Misunderstanding<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRXpY-c_Wuq1zQF0EUZ8GcZoKKx-2Ae8HoDVprweLgMo2VGyCq6t-wVbX0N9RaRG3ZdhvaElw6RtGUJwVlEzjg4K1FH2AcZvBeJjnxwOWp-tSIXif2vJgs5Vx4QprzOyAn2IlObcqnfIs/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRXpY-c_Wuq1zQF0EUZ8GcZoKKx-2Ae8HoDVprweLgMo2VGyCq6t-wVbX0N9RaRG3ZdhvaElw6RtGUJwVlEzjg4K1FH2AcZvBeJjnxwOWp-tSIXif2vJgs5Vx4QprzOyAn2IlObcqnfIs/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+3.png" height="200" width="187" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><em>"Pitbulls
are not dangerous: they are just a misunderstood breed."<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">I
have rarely heard a more absurd statement then that. Pitbulls are dogs: they
are animals. All animals and all dogs bite for many reasons. They bite because
they are afraid, or hurt, or annoyed, or defending their space or property. Just as a
toddler will smack her/his brother or sister defending their current possession
of a favored toy, dogs will defend against perceived threat of taking of their
bone. Dogs do not have opposable thumbs to hang onto their stuff, and they have
no hands or fists to punch or slap a perceived aggressor or thief. Their natural instinct
when being hurt is to defend themselves by biting back. Statistics show that there
are approximately 4 million dog bites every year in America with about 1
million of those (1/4) requiring a doctor or emergency room visit. That is a
whole lot of dog bites, and it would be ridiculous to think that Pitbulls would
not be among that number.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0qS83fiw-6XDjQUKUBYgDalVcObwgnRg3IScUHB08sOGB4F7Sq7GbWazoK1mhmGwkuycyFTsWGJ2iuFQBCaejoqqiTMEgRldWvrJsAWbu0CUJ1kq81927tNux6OEtGYU24aFzGbbcGSc/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0qS83fiw-6XDjQUKUBYgDalVcObwgnRg3IScUHB08sOGB4F7Sq7GbWazoK1mhmGwkuycyFTsWGJ2iuFQBCaejoqqiTMEgRldWvrJsAWbu0CUJ1kq81927tNux6OEtGYU24aFzGbbcGSc/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+4.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And though they are amongst that number Pitbull
attacks are actually a very small part of those numbers. Pitbulls are actually
much less prone to biting than many other breeds. Actually the most prolific
biters are poodles. But we do not hear of Poodle attacks because they are just not as severe. It is an unassailable fact that Pitbulls are less prone to attacks than many dogs. But it is also an unassailable fact that Pitbulls are more prone to extensive damage or to kill when they do attack. Every couple of weeks another pit-bull mauling or killing
of a child or other dog is highlighted in the news. And every time we are once
again inundated with the same tired argument about the breed being misunderstood,
and that it is not the animal’s fault but the owner’s. I would agree that it is
usually not an especially vicious animal and that the attack was likely caused
or exacerbated by actions of the child or other things out of the control of
the dog. Actually most attacking Pitbulls never show any previous signs of aggression, and are most commonly reported as very sweet and gentle dogs previous to the attack. Indeed the most common phrase heard in Pitbull attack reports is "Never showed any previous signs of aggression..." </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3An4YcPT7OfdLAXifWeUWqMcyNsizRnhJVp19_7t2YCIUETU_PY5ge3U8qDMUwWXs8xZK32cuD1bYKz_6AQExX-sQiRAnNO81tLaIJIeTK5ZYvTeaEWbYgfvXS3rw-anwjYQO6dqVP4/s1600/Pitbull+Attacking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3An4YcPT7OfdLAXifWeUWqMcyNsizRnhJVp19_7t2YCIUETU_PY5ge3U8qDMUwWXs8xZK32cuD1bYKz_6AQExX-sQiRAnNO81tLaIJIeTK5ZYvTeaEWbYgfvXS3rw-anwjYQO6dqVP4/s1600/Pitbull+Attacking.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What the <em>“Pitbulls are wrongly maligned”</em> apologists do themselves not
understand is that it is not the tendency toward violence that makes pitbulls so
dangerous but their power and lethality when provoked as so many dogs are. The
reason we don’t hear of poodle mauling’s and deaths is that poodles are just
not physically capable of the levels of destruction that pit-bulls are in the
same situation that so many dogs find themselves in. The danger of Pitbulls is
their incredible muscular strength and power. They have quite large and
powerful mouths, jaws, and teeth, and amazing body musculature. While it is a myth that Pitbull jaws lock
during an attack an average Pitbull can easily fit its large mouth and teeth
around the arm of a full grown man and rip most of the flesh from that bone in
seconds with a few amazingly fast and powerful shakes of its head. If that same Pitbull
finds itself in the same defensive situation with a child; well history shows
all-too-clearly the level of destruction possible in seconds.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Recently I watched parents with a Pitbull lounging directly next to their very young children. Though this is a very sweet dog that has been around these children many times the mother was nevertheless very close by, dutifully ready, should the unthinkable happen. What even this very good and protective mother does not realize is the incredible speed and power that such attacks occur in, usually with no visible or obvious warning. though the mother could possibly intervene within a few seconds the damage inflicted in those critical few seconds would likely be extreme and possibly fatal, and there is also no guarantee the mother could pull the dog off of the child without further devastation to the child, and even to herself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyATbQFLn04xGo7J-k8Z0tzdDh8u5w6ZIPq3X51LkTHyC9McZmizZ9Tmy_tIW9RQLcCgM2LCjb4bNeHDGtxMrWnj0dUotUNN6LmEBhyEqr4nU4XRlc7yl4NImh_G1YcYoTQEXTLbHv-pI/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyATbQFLn04xGo7J-k8Z0tzdDh8u5w6ZIPq3X51LkTHyC9McZmizZ9Tmy_tIW9RQLcCgM2LCjb4bNeHDGtxMrWnj0dUotUNN6LmEBhyEqr4nU4XRlc7yl4NImh_G1YcYoTQEXTLbHv-pI/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child+2.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The point is that
it is just a naturally precarious situation placing small children and dogs
together: any dog and child. This is because they both are unpredictable, and
both have little understanding of the other. Children do not understand how
they can hurt or frighten or annoy a dog, and dogs do not understand that the
child does not understand their warning signs or how to stop a child from
hurting, frightening, or annoying them. In the dog-pack dogs understand these
warning signs clearly and back off or fight. There is really little difference
in the way toddler siblings interact in similar situations as they yell and
fight over real and imagined slights and infringements on their perceived space
and property. Anyone with toddlers knows there is no credible argument that a toddler will not eventually hurt, frighten, startle, or annoy the family dog. Putting themselves in harms way and frightening the bejeezus out of their parents (and grandparents) is what toddlers do. They seem to take no greater joy than the look of horror on their care-takers faces as they find ever-more creative ways to harm themselves. It is really not a matter of if a toddler will hurt, frighten, startle, or annoy a dog, but when. Case-in-point: it was only this morning that I had to sternly remind my own sweet granddaughter: "Honey, we never ever hit the dogs..."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNjV2w8myKDpoDqcG9ce3UXCedNoBjWxe94aXX5aDkS_DTcUJRzB5WaGLzyUxqXSo8Z9tmLM1HvQ_4UkEjLq6MzS_9juuySIW7FCcGvkNnxyLB3-5oKSnqcGSTYDBEwOLCoWHiAvC-md0/s1600/Pitbull.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNjV2w8myKDpoDqcG9ce3UXCedNoBjWxe94aXX5aDkS_DTcUJRzB5WaGLzyUxqXSo8Z9tmLM1HvQ_4UkEjLq6MzS_9juuySIW7FCcGvkNnxyLB3-5oKSnqcGSTYDBEwOLCoWHiAvC-md0/s1600/Pitbull.jpg" height="146" title="" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I have had this discussion with an acquaintance who owns a very sweet Pit-bull. She defends this very sweet dog, explaining that "She is not mean at all, but is actually afraid of everything and would never hurt anything." Though this sounds like a cogent defense, a person I met who provides a foster-home for Pitbulls explains that fear is a far more common reason for attacks than aggression. Any dog expert will explain that dogs much more commonly attack out of fear than aggression and that aggression is often a response to an underlying fear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbGCVHPqMfNusw6nBU5UXtTpOVK0iuQ5reyL2jBYB8b6lqEjO4d2K8WM1bsygmLYABMieCkh_NQXv8bUaBBpTNi71LDgHU7WsqlOkdjArKSkCBQwKsqRzsX1PiRUWX8qiBar5Lb7yKFcI/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbGCVHPqMfNusw6nBU5UXtTpOVK0iuQ5reyL2jBYB8b6lqEjO4d2K8WM1bsygmLYABMieCkh_NQXv8bUaBBpTNi71LDgHU7WsqlOkdjArKSkCBQwKsqRzsX1PiRUWX8qiBar5Lb7yKFcI/s1600/Pitbull+with+Child.jpg" height="134" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">I
find myself constantly admonishing my toddler granddaughters to not rile-up my
two small dogs; to not pull their ears or do other things to hurt them, to not
jump on the couch and potentially on a dog, to not take their bones or taunt
them…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I live in constant fear of the day
that they harm or frighten or taunt one of the dogs too far and the dogs reacts
as most dogs, or you, or I would. It is all-too-possible, even likely that the
dog will react by biting after the child fails to recognize the dogs warning
signs to leave it alone, or because it is afraid, startled or hurt, or simply defending its property or its place on the couch. Although my dog will likely be then perceived as a
vicious, dangerous dog, and perhaps euthanized the child is unlikely to have
serious lasting wounds. This is simply because of the physical prowess of the
dog. In the same situation and the same defensive attack that would likely not
even require stitches for many dogs, a similar response by a Pitbull would likely leave the
child seriously wounded and disfigured, or dead. </span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAhyphenhyphensUW2nLMtHBfHgK_QlG6qrn4gcZwCZZJ5q54sutrztztU0LBxG0OULTghyTbNNpPcXG_bRt8faD9ZQUCth-eusanefTgZ2I4Ky8WO_ImSM9wocz1_sOtRiDky4TIAy-a4gpQN1vkkw/s1600/Injured+Child.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAhyphenhyphensUW2nLMtHBfHgK_QlG6qrn4gcZwCZZJ5q54sutrztztU0LBxG0OULTghyTbNNpPcXG_bRt8faD9ZQUCth-eusanefTgZ2I4Ky8WO_ImSM9wocz1_sOtRiDky4TIAy-a4gpQN1vkkw/s1600/Injured+Child.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And of course the newspapers
would pick up that story, and the same tired argument would again play out in
the news about whether Pitbulls are an especially vicious breed or
misunderstood. And again both sides will miss the pertinent issue entirely. The
concern is not whether Pitbulls are more vicious, but whether they are more
dangerous and lethal in the same situation played out so many times when a dog
meets dog or dog meets child situation goes very wrong. To say that a Pitbull will not respond in such precarious
and volatile situations like every other dog would is just absurd denial. To
ignore that a very common bad situation between child and dog is far more
dangerous with such a powerful animal is irresponsible. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So yes, Pitbulls are misunderstood, but by
both their detractors and defenders. They are generally very sweet and gentle
dogs, but they are dogs; they react like dogs, and though undeniably <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> more vicious, they are inarguably
more potentially dangerous. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-75275567003119694692014-01-11T19:00:00.000-08:002014-05-26T05:08:54.882-07:00A Simple Math Question<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPQ5mMmQbe8rlev9PlPbHUhXe6efbtPr5fwIAhwid6j-x-KTPmPRHlIuW47DLsTATk6jQCbBJH1_QqmRPmoF3W8-b2JDDgU93CPLpDBjfEF_xQPIsHwcT84uT4r6n4dCQQTgikcCmWM7U/s1600/ObamaCare+Math+Question.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPQ5mMmQbe8rlev9PlPbHUhXe6efbtPr5fwIAhwid6j-x-KTPmPRHlIuW47DLsTATk6jQCbBJH1_QqmRPmoF3W8-b2JDDgU93CPLpDBjfEF_xQPIsHwcT84uT4r6n4dCQQTgikcCmWM7U/s1600/ObamaCare+Math+Question.jpg" height="142" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> A certain unnamed ObamaCare sycophant told me recently that ObamaCare would cause the
very rich to pay more into the insurance pool, therefore helping the poor who
cannot afford the extravagant care afforded the very rich. My question is in
regard to how that works mathematically?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The very rich already have the best insurance money can buy,
or they are simply self-insured in that they pay cash for everything. So those
currently buying the best insurance could not purchase more or better insurance
as none exists. Thus they will be putting the same amount into the pool as
before. The self-insured may be required under the new law to participate in
the insurance pool thus these will provide new funds to the pool, but
conversely, they will also then use that insurance before dipping into their
own self-insurance funds. Thus they will be taking significant amounts out as
well as putting funds in. Also since realistically only the evil 1% can afford
to self-insure that really is only an additional 1% to add to the pool at most
(minus the funds taken out for their care). That means, by my math, at most 1%
addition to the insurance pool funding of the country. That still leaves at
least 99% of the country with no gain from these additional funds.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>ObamaCare is lauded to provide 30 million with care that did
not have it before. (Actually these will now be required to purchase insurance
that they were not required to before, with varying subsidies). So as 30
million is about 9.6% of the current US population how do 1% additional funds
pay for 9.6% more recipients?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>Raising premiums and deductibles could add significant
additional funds to the pool but the Left and the administration has assured us
that ObamaCare will actually lower costs, and certainly they would not lie to
us about that... especially since the poor are affected adversely by such
raised costs far more than the wealthy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>The new substantial taxes on medical supplies and devices
could likewise add funds to the pool, but those taxes are simply passed on to
the customers (mostly the poor) thus any funds they save are simply poured back
in the other end.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>So, how is this all adding additional funds to the pool?</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And btw, are you aware of the potential massive insurance
bailout written into the law if the insurance companies incur a significant
loss as the Left hopes and the math insures they will? And which economic segment of society do
you think will disproportionately shoulder the burden of that massive gift and
love letter to the insurance companies?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>Yes, the ginormous insurance companies thank you for your
continued generous support.</span></div>
</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-42906344789016178982014-01-11T18:11:00.001-08:002014-05-26T05:09:58.112-07:00Jedi Mind-Trick<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEG2l4-OuXzuk2SVpRSJV6Cn163IRzMbOtnLygOgzHpgyHe1l0mazjvFnfp9lBtMKg-IaM4DmF1ZgeQlwFCxvwXR-oIrw85arAwGVL6t0kOyF3LQJaYRByzjhWB-rypKWlruqpm9UkOaM/s1600/Jedi+Mind-Trick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEG2l4-OuXzuk2SVpRSJV6Cn163IRzMbOtnLygOgzHpgyHe1l0mazjvFnfp9lBtMKg-IaM4DmF1ZgeQlwFCxvwXR-oIrw85arAwGVL6t0kOyF3LQJaYRByzjhWB-rypKWlruqpm9UkOaM/s1600/Jedi+Mind-Trick.jpg" height="187" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span id="goog_2047768979"></span><span id="goog_2047768980"></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">So I just listened to Obama's budget Spiel.
I had two thoughts on it. The first was "My ears are bleeding!" The
second was "Damn he's good." The fascinating question I always ponder
when listening to his speeches and watching him is "Does he really believe
the words that are coming out of his mouth?" I mean really, does he
actually believe what he's saying or is he so committed ideologically or
politically to his position that facts really just don't matter? As the late
great Tony Snow would oft muse: "He's living in a fact free universe!"
It really is amazing; He will state his position or intentions repeatedly on
camera, and then he will unequivocally reverse his position, again on camera.
When Fox News puts the two videotapes side by side to highlight
the competing Obama's he simply goes on TV again and does his amazing
Jedi mind trick. He stares directly in the camera without flinching and say's
most emphatically In that Obi Wan Kenobi voice: "I did not say what you
just heard me say. So I sit in front of the screen, probably like millions of
others across the land staring blankly at the screen. The words come dully from
my lips: "You did not say what I just heard you say." I get up
and shuffle blankly to the fridge to pour myself a glass of milk while
muttering the words Hope... Change... I sit here pondering the half empty
glass of milk, my breathing becoming tight an wheezy as I remember that I am
allergic to milk. There's something I was supposed to remember. Something
important, but I can't remember what it was. All is well... hope...change...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, on to what this rant was supposed to be about. Deficits. There are two
camps of progressives today. One calls themselves "Democrats",
and the other likes to call themselves "Republicans." The divide
between their ideologies is mostly in their preferences for a huge federal
government or a massive one. The Republicans have shown their recklessness
of a teenager with their first credit card. Spending is Good! Yet they have no
understanding what that envelope is that they get at the end of each month from
their credit card company. This leaves them indefensibly open to ridicule from
the left due to the bloated debts and deficits. And the left has the cure! They
are going to pay off the maxxed out $1000 credit card with a shiny new
$5000 credit card which they will soon max out as well. Not to worry
though: An envelope with a "pre-approved $10,000 credit card offer
just appeared in their mailbox. Life is good.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ltmSMqY-SOngW_XUyMMVQ91qHnF7IVhs8dUQAhBLx8OvTVZ_d_dfxFlC6KcYHsI0cfuH7zMZpOWHhLWNi8Mh2Owzc8xgseUge6Crq0Anb3wWz9POrL1pk48qkmKc7u3iTUoz4TiFFkU/s1600/Obama+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ltmSMqY-SOngW_XUyMMVQ91qHnF7IVhs8dUQAhBLx8OvTVZ_d_dfxFlC6KcYHsI0cfuH7zMZpOWHhLWNi8Mh2Owzc8xgseUge6Crq0Anb3wWz9POrL1pk48qkmKc7u3iTUoz4TiFFkU/s1600/Obama+2.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So Obama gets up there at the podium, by all appearances channeling Ronald
Reagan. "Tax Cuts... Fiscal responsibility... Tighten our belts...
wasteful spending..." He is going to get these Bush created deficits under
control. Well there are only two ways in the known universe to reduce deficits,
and if you know of a third please, please, educate me in the comments section.
These are: spend less, and/or tax more. Now Obama in true old fashioned grandma
and grandpa fiscal conservative fashion has promised not to waste a dime on
frivolous stuff. After all peanut butter and jelly are just fine for lunch every
day, and quite nutritious! Meanwhile he is installing a huge new 70 inch flat
screen TV on the living room wall. He shows us a few examples of glaring redundancies
and waste in government spending that he will excise from the budget with the gleeful
and industrious efficiency of a French Revolutionary with a shiny new
guillotine. There’s a 22¢ saving here, and an 83¢, savings there. These will
surely offset the additional million dollars of indispensable new expenditures.
After all it’s really just a matter of prioritizing. And remember his priorities
are your priorities; and if not you’re probably just a Teabagger.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Definitions are the key. When Obama and his ideological kin speak “Deficit
Reduction,” and "investments in our future" they mean one thing and one thing only. Taxes; Lots and lots of new
taxes. They will drag out the old saw “We will only tax the rich,” to the
vacuous cheers of their lemming worshippers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They will spread them around with myriad Orwellian titles of marvelous
creativity. All the while we will hardly notice as the mega-wealthy stand
beside us thrusting their fists in the air chanting heartily with us: “Tax the
Rich, Tax the Rich.” We will be assured that these taxes will only effect the
other guy, and the other guy in his philanthropic zeal would never consider passing
on this additional burden to you. Just remember one thing if nothing else. [And
I will plagiarize here unabashedly from Fred Thompson] …They will only take
water from the other side of the bucket.<o:p></o:p></span>Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-53725564395992564752014-01-10T17:20:00.000-08:002014-05-02T11:14:34.031-07:00Constitution For Dummies - Part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYRit_IYElwT3nAyYSFyms9bXkib-uqp99kNGxl9p0PY904gCiZRV7wsrE7Z8pXyd8e3lZN_izyZWxntSw-EqanAql7kjDEMhqJaQqN1Qk_YAlL089yi4RDbWtLcXNWMR7KmestcXQPWE/s1600/Constitution.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYRit_IYElwT3nAyYSFyms9bXkib-uqp99kNGxl9p0PY904gCiZRV7wsrE7Z8pXyd8e3lZN_izyZWxntSw-EqanAql7kjDEMhqJaQqN1Qk_YAlL089yi4RDbWtLcXNWMR7KmestcXQPWE/s1600/Constitution.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYRit_IYElwT3nAyYSFyms9bXkib-uqp99kNGxl9p0PY904gCiZRV7wsrE7Z8pXyd8e3lZN_izyZWxntSw-EqanAql7kjDEMhqJaQqN1Qk_YAlL089yi4RDbWtLcXNWMR7KmestcXQPWE/s1600/Constitution.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So here begins my series I will call Constitution for
Dummies – Part 1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This issue has been
percolating for years really, but Bloomberg and his anti-constitution buddies
really have my undies in a wad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
really is maddening to watch politicians raise their hand and swear to defend
and uphold the constitution and then in the next breath as soon as their hand
drops to diligently attack and erode those parts that their left-wing
sensibilities despise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is just as
maddening to see these </span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">idiots out there who support such duplicity as long as
these duplicitous traitors only go after the parts of the constitution they
also disagree with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are really just
like the guy who buys hot goodies from the local thief, but then are outraged
when their home is burglarized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So let’s
talk about those enemies – foreign and domestic, especially those domestic, who
I also raised my hand and swore to defend the constitution from. And unlike
Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk, I meant what I said.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So you have a part of the constitution that the guys who
wrote the document considered paramount. They went on at length to express that
without this right, all others would fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This of course was the right to keep and bear arms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So now the gun-grabbers like to say, “No that
was only for the militia.” Well who exactly were the militia anyway, and who
were they using their guns to fight against? Were they just a bunch of hunters
worried about hordes of deer and bears kicking in their doors in the middle of
the night and confiscating their guns? No. These were the same people decried
today by the establishment as a bunch of inbred hillbilly redneck imbeciles
with their own strange radical views of limiting the governments control over
their personal lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only
difference between those then and those of today is that those won their war
and history then went on to re-write these once outcasts as the heroes. And the
same people that told them to just shut up and follow the oppressive rules then
slapped them on the back with newfound camaraderie with the old “aw shucks, we
were with you all along!” And of course the more things change the more they
stay the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No these were not hunters
with deer rifles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These were not the National
Guard. These were in fact, average Joes fighting against, and killing the
“National Guard” troops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These were guys
fighting against the army of the long established government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The right they were so adamant about was to
keep their guns to defend solely against government oppression or others who
would do them harm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The right they were
so adamant about was the right to be free from the government confiscating
their weapons so as to render the common citizen less able to defend against
their arbitrary will. And the weapons they meant were the most effective
weapons they could acquire for killing as many government troops or others
intent on taking their rights as was possible with “modern weaponry.” I think
it safe to say that if George Washington had them available he would have armed
every one of his rag-tag “anti-government” troops with “fully automatic assault
rifles with high capacity magazines,” because as John Dillinger realized early
on, the trick was to have more bullets heading away from you then toward
you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The gun was clearly the last – best
hope those guys that penned the constitution saw for defending all of those
other rights penned therein from those who would try to take them, either in or
outside the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So am I
advocating armed insurrection?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me as
both Mr. Nixon and Mr. Obama are so fond of saying, be perfectly clear: I am in
no way saying or implying so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am most
strenuously and vehemently against it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think there are far too many mechanisms in place to keep our government in
check without violence to warrant or necessitate violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe the government would necessarily go
very very far in oppressing its citizens before such action were warranted.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson I abhor the thought of bloody insurrection every 20
years, or every 100, or even every 500. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point here however is to put to rest that
ridiculous assertion that the 2<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>nd</sup> amendment was only meant to arm
the national troops which are already inherently armed without such
constitutional mandate. I mean, c’mon guys are we really so obtuse that we need
a constitutional amendment to make sure our soldiers have guns?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If I hear one more time the phrase “Gun Show Loophole” I am
just gonna, I dunno…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could you idiots
Please, please, just stop thinking in bumper sticker for just a moment and
really use your brain for something other than remembering to breath and
memorizing slogans?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So here it is, as
simply as I can articulate it for those logically-challenged amongst us,
otherwise known as Liberals or Progressives: The right to “Keep and bear arms”
is a right, not a privilege. The Constitution does not give us this right. The
right exists inherently due to the simple facts that we are breathing, and we
are Citizens. The Constitution actually does not even apply and is not
addressed to the citizen. What it does is it limits the governments right to
infringe or attempt to take away this right or otherwise render it void. Now of
course as the courts have found myriad times since the constitutions inception there
are limitations to virtually every right as government must intrude sometimes
upon our rights to protect us and all of our aggregate rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea of those creating such government
was a balancing act with only that slightest government power to intrude in doing
so as was absolutely necessary to achieve such ends.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So what is the then, dare I say it? “Gun Show
Loophole.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well since we have a “Right
to keep and bear arms” that obviously includes a “Right” to obtain those guns
somehow. It means we have the right to make them and to buy and sell them from
and to each other. After all they do not magically fall from the sky, and not
all of us have the prerequisite skills to manufacture such a complex and
technical thing as a gun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So people
manufactured and sold guns with little governmental intrusion for a couple
hundred years now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But lately the
government has found amazingly broad powers and ways to meddle and “protect us”
in ways the constitution never ever contemplated. So how did they do this? Well
the Loophole the government found to circumvent its constitutional limitations
was the wondrous thing called the Commerce Clause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You see the founders realized that an
arbitrator was needed to keep the states from arbitrarily taxing out of state
goods so as to give their own states businesses and industries unfair and
insurmountable advantages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was a
very good thing, and leveled the playing field so that for instance, states
with ports could not get imported goods at a low taxed rate and then jack the
rates oppressively before selling the goods to their neighbors without such
sea-ports.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well some clever and
enterprising person in government a while back put forth the new and novel idea
that any time anything of any financial value whatsoever happened between states it then
created a federal power to intervene and control that “Interstate Commerce.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So if the slightest part of your product or
even the process of manufacture could be shown to have been made in one state
and crossed a state line such product or activity was now magically and
wondrously “Interstate Commerce.” So voila, if the drinking water in the fountain
in the break room at your gun manufacturing plant flowed downstream from the
neighboring state, or the oil used in your delivery trucks came from say, the
middle east, etc., etc., etc., you are engaged in interstate commerce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How cool is that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise if you make a gun in Tennessee and
ship it to Ohio – Yep, Interstate Commerce. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So that is why gun manufacturers no longer
have the “Right” to sell guns to you and I.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are now engaged in “Interstate Commerce,” and that is not a Right,
but a “Privilege,” and can thus be tightly controlled and regulated under the Commerce
Clause. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So what about you selling your gun to me, or visa versa?
Well, the governmental nannies have tried this same Commerce Clause ruse for
this but have thus far been thwarted as the judiciary has been shown not even
the slightest evidence necessary to call a sale of a product between two
private citizens in the same state “Interstate Commerce.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed the courts cannot separate out this
product even with the extraordinary agenda driven pressure to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly if an individual selling this product
to another in the same state is “Interstate Commerce” there is virtually no
limit to what the government can find an excuse to regulate between private
citizens on some pretense or another. That is not to say they do not diligently
continue to try it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So why if it is a “Right” do we need a license to buy a
gun?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Put simply you don’t. I can sell
you my gun, and you can sell me your gun on a handshake with no paperwork
whatsoever just as I may sell you my old television or tennis racket. Likewise
with your carving knife or baseball bat (Lethal weapons.). That is because it
is a right. It is not a privilege. We do not need government permission, or
“license” to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So why then must licensed gun-dealers require me to do a
background check and get a license before selling me a gun?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is because gun manufacturers and gun
dealers are not a private citizen. They are a licensed business engaged in the
federally granted “Privilege” of making or selling guns under the strict
controls of the Commerce Clause. The gun manufacturers use parts from many
states and then sell and distribute them to other states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Part of the strict control of this is that
they must only sell their product to federally licensed dealers that are also
tightly controlled under the Commerce Clause. These in turn are told that they
can only sell their product to those that meet certain licensing guidelines.
You see the license does not really give you a right to purchase the gun, but
rather it gives them the “privilege” of selling it to you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So you can sell me your gun, or I can sell you mine with
virtually no government intrusion. This is not an absolute right however. We
can keep these arms, and we may bear them(carry it with us). We may use it to defend
against threats to our lives, safety or property. We cannot however randomly
shoot in whatever direction we wish or into a crowd for kicks or for
Allah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We also cannot sell it to someone
that we know or reasonably believe has lost their right to keep and bear arms,
such as a felon, or someone who may reasonably be a danger to themselves or
others in obtaining such a weapon, such as a drug addict or a crazy person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a very reasonable and minimal
government intrusion on this otherwise sacrosanct right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>So that brings us to where we may transact this private sale
by right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, that is very clear as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You may sell me your gun in your living
room, bedroom, den, your car or mine, in any private property. As Dr. Seuss
would probably say: “You can sell it while on a boat or on a goat, in a town,
or dressed as a clown.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yes, you may
sell it in the most obvious place to buy or sell your gun: a gun show that has
the sole purpose of bringing together those who wish to sell and those who want
to buy this constitutionally protected product. In reality the only place you
cannot sell a gun without prior permission is on public property or right of
way, and not because of the gun issue but rather because it is virtually
illegal to sell so much as a stick of gum on public property without a business
license and oodles of “helpful” government oversight and regulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So for those of you about to say “Aha – many
gun shows are at public fairs and other public property” – The public
facilities are rented by private Licensed companies for the purpose of
facilitating sales of legal items just as a flea market do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Invariably these groups are such as
Washington Arms Collectors, Ohio Arms Collectors, etc., which often have more
stringent requirements over gun purchasers than the federal government. And
regardless of this, such rental of government facilities does not magically
render such transactions Interstate Commerce.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So the “Gun-Show loophole” is actually just one of our most
simple and sacrosanct rights in action as guaranteed and protected by the
constitution, and the lefties just despise it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So they try to paint it as an absurd, obscene, and dangerous variance
from the intent of the creators of the second amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing could really be farther from the
truth. It is really one of the last vestiges of real protection under that
amendment, and one that the anti-constitutionalists are determined to whittle
away at or work around one way or another. And we underestimate their diligence
and patience at our peril.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And to those who question the relevance or foresight of the
authors of that amendment as naïve to the complexities of our world now some
200 years later why do you think they felt the need to put in stone as it will
our right to buy, sell, keep and bear our arms?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why only this? Why did they not feel compelled to specifically protect
our right to keep and use wagons or desk lamps?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Perhaps they were more wise and prophetic than the left would want us to
believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps they knew all too well
what the one thing that the ignorant, the misguided well-meaning buttinskis,
and the unscrupulous would most passionately endeavor to take from us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-66500988444576661802013-07-19T14:06:00.002-07:002014-05-26T05:07:18.133-07:00Just The Facts Ma'am<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6AXYhl_f7_EHTDjxHnUvrMp6d28BHQLJTZDu7y6V7VjcfU1kJt4MlcHOJ8AV4RXizhxSzCqveyl7PvQoEWc6togs5NdkmkIPg3SGIfnJAFezxETjfo5x_Ffk-04lMcp9dImzjgZ3PGws/s1600/Dragnet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6AXYhl_f7_EHTDjxHnUvrMp6d28BHQLJTZDu7y6V7VjcfU1kJt4MlcHOJ8AV4RXizhxSzCqveyl7PvQoEWc6togs5NdkmkIPg3SGIfnJAFezxETjfo5x_Ffk-04lMcp9dImzjgZ3PGws/s1600/Dragnet.jpg" height="112" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Unless one has lived their entire life in a cave there is
very little chance they have not heard that pithy phrase. And of course most
know that it is attributed to Sgt. Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb on the 1960’s
police drama, “Dragnet.” I still have that clip of Sgt. Friday, and his equally
dispassionate partner, Bill Gannon, played by Harry Morgan of later MASH fame
as Colonel Henry Potter locked in my head from seeing it so many times all
those decades ago. And as I went researching that for this blog post I found it
fortuitously even more germane than I imagined to the current subject, As Sgt. Joe
Friday never said that. And isn’t that ironic, that I and probably many many
more can both see and hear that video clip of Sgt. Friday dispassionately
saying “Just the Facts Ma’am” in our heads when The facts are that he never
said it: Nor did Harry Morgan. (You can find what Sgt. Friday actually said at:
</span><a href="http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp"><span style="font-family: inherit;">http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp</span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Likewise I find it incredibly amazing, and maddening beyond
words (almost), to continually hear so many commentators, pundits, lawyers, experts,
and virtually everyone before a camera or microphone today quoting or pointing
out “facts” of the Zimmerman Martin case that never happened and simply do not
exist. I find it especially maddening that so many blatant falsehoods are
continually repeated, and believed by so many, when the real facts are so easy
to find for anyone who really cares to know. And evidently, few really do. And
although such unnecessary ignorance of the facts by so many is certainly their
right, that so many couple that ignorance with proclaiming those ignorant and inaccurate
(false) facts as pertinent and accurate facts of the case is as evil as say,
profiling of a black youth simply because of his race or what he was wearing,
which the FACTS show never happened, all OPINIONS to the contrary
notwithstanding.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And in that vein of my suggestion that people should garner
the facts rather than simply accept my, or anyone else’s opinion in the case
before listening to any more of my input one should listen directly to the 911
tapes of the incident to ascertain if my analysis matches the facts or that I
too am portraying them falsely. There are many copies of the Zimmerman 911
tapes available on the web from a quick Google search. Here is one such link
that includes all of the 911 tapes of that night: </span><a href="http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/trayvon-martin-911-calls-audio/"><span style="font-family: inherit;">http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/trayvon-martin-911-calls-audio/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">OF HOODIES AND UNICORNS<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi88tafZuoDdLWYnJD9x2fzPSZmSjyG6qKJ-Mf_zY46F_DMUCvUq9It4viVIgCSNci8ghV7IxNhgLeBaxHE3A7PQo97yVat7jbX-euDh0XBjZDRJWDjN5xOhpKgKHSEGVOyc3c19TzMJwU/s1600/Million+Hoodie+March.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi88tafZuoDdLWYnJD9x2fzPSZmSjyG6qKJ-Mf_zY46F_DMUCvUq9It4viVIgCSNci8ghV7IxNhgLeBaxHE3A7PQo97yVat7jbX-euDh0XBjZDRJWDjN5xOhpKgKHSEGVOyc3c19TzMJwU/s1600/Million+Hoodie+March.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So the first, and probably most widely spread LIE, stated as
fact, is that Zimmerman stated or implied that Martin’s hoodie was a factor in
his suspicions. As anyone can know as a certainty from simply listening to the
actual 911 tape and from all of the police interview tapes and transcripts,
Zimmerman never ever said or implied that the hoodie was a factor in his
suspicions of Martin. The only mention Zimmerman made of the hoodie was
directly in response to the dispatcher asking what Martin was wearing, to which
Zimmerman replied: “A dark hoodie like a gray hoodie and either jeans or sweat
pants, and white tennis shoes,” Regardless of this FACT virtually everyone,
including those on both sides of the Zimmerman – Martin discussion have
seemingly accepted as gospel truth that Zimmerman profiled Martin at least in
part because of his “Gangsta Hoodie.” A whole industry has grown up around the
false-fact that Zimmerman considered the hoodie as a factor in his suspicions.
There have been “Million Hoodie Marches” (actually there were “hundreds” in
attendance), congressmen, and whole sports teams and myriad public figures, and
virtually everyone with a blog or twitter account has opined on the “fact” that
Zimmerman profiled Martin’s hoodie. One is really left to wonder if it could
perhaps be hoodie makers that are pushing this lie the hardest. And while one
might ask why this particular lie is so important, especially considering “the fact”
that black youths are “unfairly profiled” because of their hoodies; the
importance is that this lie is a large factor undergirding the equally false
fact that there is any evidence to show that Zimmerman racially profiled
Martin. The FACT is that while Zimmerman may have racially profiled Martin in
his own mind that night there is absolutely no evidence to bolster that other
than the biased assumptions of the usual race-baiters, and their prey, and
those who inherently profile whites as racially profiling them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">OF FACTS AND
ASSUMPTIONS<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nothing could be clearer from the Zimmerman 911 tape that
Zimmerman DID profile Martin because of his race. Zimmerman can clearly and unequivocally
be heard to say “He looks suspicious; he looks black.” That truly is a scathing
indictment of Zimmerman – if not for the FACT that that was a doctored tape and
just as imaginary as Joe Friday’s quote, “Just the facts ma’am.” The FACT is
that NBC outrageously doctored and released that tape to make it appear that
Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. It is really a fascinating thing that NBC
felt it necessary to doctor Zimmerman’s 911 tape to show “clear racial
profiling” of Martin. One is left to wonder, why would NBC feel such need to go
to such desperate lengths if there is so much real evidence of racial profiling
available as so many proclaim? The simple and unassailable FACT is that no such
FACTS exist. The real 911 tape shows that the “He looks suspicious” and “He
looks black” statements by Zimmerman had nothing whatsoever to do with each
other. The tape shows the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if Martin was “White,
Black, or Hispanic” to which Zimmerman replied: “He looks black.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivRcSQ1O1CTY9qbBUa-8Y5xVgyrxdDYfPgfLe2aakUN9MQRhZgEFZTYrwkcGpzzhCMOCnbHYrjPaeyxCib3xuv4rLIJ2KTMbTxm1XVB2ezVW8MAoUgXER4D_WDOzwHoxDevE47LYMMACU/s1600/Zimmerman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivRcSQ1O1CTY9qbBUa-8Y5xVgyrxdDYfPgfLe2aakUN9MQRhZgEFZTYrwkcGpzzhCMOCnbHYrjPaeyxCib3xuv4rLIJ2KTMbTxm1XVB2ezVW8MAoUgXER4D_WDOzwHoxDevE47LYMMACU/s1600/Zimmerman.jpg" height="112" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Unwilling to let go of their assumptions portrayed as facts,
the ever-vigilant race-baiters have now latched onto further statements on that
911 call wherein Zimmerman is heard to state: “He’s got his hands in his
waistband… and he’s a black male.” Just as in the doctored 911 tape however
there is a (short) gap between Zimmerman highlighting that Martin had his hand
in his waistband and reiterating to the dispatcher that Martin was a “black
male.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While one can credibly ASSUME
that this is the usual white code-speak (Zimmerman is Hispanic), one could with
the same credibility ASSUME that the two statements have nothing to do with
each other. Though it could be helpful to those seeking a racial profiling
connection to make the tenuous connection the dynamic situation could as easily
explain them to those without an agenda or predisposition. Alternatively to the
racial profiling assessment assigned to the two statements could just as
credible be that Zimmerman had forgotten previously describing Martin to the
dispatcher as a black male. This would seem especially true if race played no
part in Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin. It is equally telling that Zimmerman
in the next breath described Martin as having “a button on his shirt” which
would be a difficult statement for the most ardent race-baiter to connect to
racial profiling. When taken in context the evidence of that conversation
indicates a George Zimmerman trying to describe Martin to the dispatcher with
claims of his racial animus or racial profiling code-speak or bigoted “slips of
the tongue” being at best, very flimsy.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcodSAamuCjCQ3b67lL8yKutzZoCfglElo4vmiBnPCYDxKgP_ovJzZccbuWGXo29g50oklgwqapaFff4QBomQFh6pP3b4nWhMR970CnUOTEKQGuwh0ex9tpNfbAleV7rsIXo_bnKKQHgw/s1600/Zimmerman+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcodSAamuCjCQ3b67lL8yKutzZoCfglElo4vmiBnPCYDxKgP_ovJzZccbuWGXo29g50oklgwqapaFff4QBomQFh6pP3b4nWhMR970CnUOTEKQGuwh0ex9tpNfbAleV7rsIXo_bnKKQHgw/s1600/Zimmerman+2.jpg" height="127" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And that, anyone who actually listens to the available 911
tape will see, is the entire extent of the “facts” and “evidence” of George Zimmerman’s
profiling of Travon Martin that night. Yet still, unwilling to accept those
facts the Martin sycophants, the race-baiters, and those with real and imagined
anecdotes and claims of continuing racial profiling and oppression of blacks,
continue to desperately search George Zimmerman’s entire life history for any
signs of open or concealed bigotry. Another common claim as fact is that
Zimmerman has a clear history of profiling blacks in the neighborhood as
potential criminals. While those making such claims as loudly and repeatedly
and broadly as possible to anyone and everyone that will listen such claims are
simply not facts. While they may be facts, absent documentation of such, they
can as easily be simple desperate slander of George Zimmerman. While there is
also many claims of Zimmerman’s racial harmony, mentoring of black youth,
taking a black girl to the prom, etc., good people will never accept claims for
or against Zimmerman’s case unless and until they have adequately vetted those
facts. Unfortunately the common nature of man seems to be to simply accept those
facts supporting what they already believe and reject any facts in opposition
to their presuppositions. While that is not morally wrong to assess the world
in that way is evil to make allegations about a man’s heart or actions based
upon such a poor way of assessing truth.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">CHICKEN AND EGGS<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoh54ywdlvjb9zizdEI13BCAQpajo7h7FhkWS5QOi07Q5eMNNETYSIMC7sGjUOeGCirwnSQaIxdT-qliUrHJApLihsIZTZppfao-gmyMkS7APXO37V3WMccGpit_M3dCmBqtshW0ks_9s/s1600/Hoodie+Burglar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoh54ywdlvjb9zizdEI13BCAQpajo7h7FhkWS5QOi07Q5eMNNETYSIMC7sGjUOeGCirwnSQaIxdT-qliUrHJApLihsIZTZppfao-gmyMkS7APXO37V3WMccGpit_M3dCmBqtshW0ks_9s/s1600/Hoodie+Burglar.jpg" height="112" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Even if we take such claims of evidence of inordinate numbers
of local black youth racially profiled by Zimmerman as proven fact we are
still, at best, left with the tired old chicken-and-egg dichotomy of whether Zimmerman
profiled too many black youth, or that too many black youth were proven to be committing
crimes in the neighborhood, thus making profiling logical, if not
politically-correct. And while claimed interviews of these local black youth
reportedly elicited that they felt disproportionately and unfairly profiled by
Zimmerman, such in no way proves or disproves whether these were actually
criminals, or that Zimmerman profiled them because of their race. Nothing in
their suspicions or claims against Zimmerman shows that he was not actually suspicious
of them because they perhaps appeared to be casing houses or other suspicious behaviors
having nothing to do with their race or physical appearance or attire.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And those suspicions actually articulated by Zimmerman on the
911 tapes and in subsequent interviews with police officers investigating the
incident are available to anyone preferring facts over ignorant assumptions and
irresponsible proclamations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">SO DID ZIMMERMAN
PROFILE MARTIN?<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Absolutely. Profiling potential criminals is the sole purpose
of any neighborhood watch. The factors that Zimmerman considered however, are
clearly shown in the 911 tape, and show absolutely nothing to do with his race,
physical appearance, or attire. Zimmerman’s statements to the 911 operator are
clear, unequivocal, and show Zimmerman to be suspicious that Martin was,
contrary to virtually all reporting, not traveling anywhere but was instead
just standing around in heavy rain seeming to be “just staring, looking at all
the houses.” Zimmerman reiterated twice that Martin was strangely just looking
around in the rain at all the houses. Zimmerman opined that he appeared to be ACTING
strangely. His actual statement(s) were:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“He looks like he’s up to no good, or
he’s on drugs or something. He’s just walking around looking about.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">and<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“He’s (unintelligible) just staring,
looking at all the houses.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In subsequent interviews with the police Zimmerman again
reiterated that he thought it strange and suspicious that Martin was just
standing around in the rain rather than traveling somewhere to get out of the
rain. Clearly Zimmerman was sitting still in his parked truck watching Martin
as he described him to the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman then tells the dispatcher
that Martin then apparently sees Zimmerman looking at him from his truck and
approaches the truck, and only then does Martin take off … ”running.” This is 2
minutes and eight seconds into the 911 call that Zimmerman is clearly parked
and watching Martin before Martin actually starts traveling anywhere (running).
And this seems even now to me, a strangely long time for someone to be
relatively stationary in the rain if as reported, they are simply trying to get
back to the second half of a football game after a Skittles run.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And while it
is not my intent to revisit, reanalyze, and retry the abundant circumstantial
and physical evidence ad infinitum and ad nauseum as so many are, my intent is
to show that there is abundant evidence to show Zimmerman legitimately profiled
Martin because of his ostensibly suspicious actions and no evidence whatsoever
to indicate his profiling of him based upon his race, appearance, or attire. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And one last widely reported “fact” that simply does not
exist. Virtually all, on both sides of the issue, and even the defense have
proclaimed that Martin was simply traveling home, and that Zimmerman
misinterpreted his actions and intentions. While that ASSUMPTION is one
possibility it is not FACT, nor bolstered by any FACT. While there seems to be
no actual evidence other that Zimmerman’s assessment of Martin’s behavior that
Martin was actually up to something, such as casing houses, that lack of
evidence actually cuts both ways. That Martin was returning in the general
direction of home from 7-11 with Skittles is irrelevant to his actions as he
traveled. There is nothing in evidence to say that Martin’s Skittles run was not
an excuse to case houses for future crimes as he traveled. Likewise talking to
Rachel Jeantel on the phone is no evidence for or against ill intent or actions. While
there is no evidence that Martin was actually talking to Jeantel about future
burglary prospects, there is conversely, no evidence that he was not. And while
we can assume and we can believe that Martin was not casing houses as he traveled,
repeating those assumptions loudly, widely and incessantly cannot convert those
assumptions and beliefs to facts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, though what Sgt. Joe Friday actually said is an incontrovertibly
true statement “All we know are the facts ma’am,” Far too many are proclaiming
that they “know” so much more than, and contrary to the actual facts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-3818231420426687522013-07-15T14:47:00.001-07:002013-07-15T21:05:00.720-07:00Majestic Sophistry<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyyQG1EQ1KxwB30lTQASyvhmS2Ah39qNRmT296wyk6VZ4Zr40UYDvwdaYFyBUnNQjCIdYWvNcnI7j57uJ5RIBOE5O4oBTyjnWE5s2nsN4esD_Olf5cdZBeQRPkRh1_wWRzzQZGUxOBwwY/s1600/Magician.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyyQG1EQ1KxwB30lTQASyvhmS2Ah39qNRmT296wyk6VZ4Zr40UYDvwdaYFyBUnNQjCIdYWvNcnI7j57uJ5RIBOE5O4oBTyjnWE5s2nsN4esD_Olf5cdZBeQRPkRh1_wWRzzQZGUxOBwwY/s320/Magician.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
So several have asked when I intend to blog about the Zimmerman - Martin issue(s). Rest assured I have blathered and ranted on about it ad infinitum and ad nauseam but the case, the trial and the issues have been far too multi-faceted and dynamic to put to ink before some other fascinating and/or maddening aspect came to light. I have however blasted off several email and twitter screeds to those particular commentators or "experts" who really got my goat. So here is a freshly minted response to Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. Dr. Hill is an extremely talented, erudite, and eloquent spokesman for the perpetual and eloquent intractably wrong. This is in response to Dr. Hills exceptional article "Travon Martin Was Put on Trial," found on the blog website: Black Enterprise.com (<a href="http://www.blackenterprise.com/blogs/zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-marc-lamont-hill/">http://www.blackenterprise.com/blogs/zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-marc-lamont-hill/</a>)<br />
<br />
And my response:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dr. Hill,</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Though there seems no end to the race-baiting leading up to,
during, and following the Zimmerman trial I have found you to be the most
eloquent orator of straw man arguments that I have encountered in a very long
time. Your straw man arguments in your article “Trayvon Martin Was Put on Trial”
truly were a masterpiece of sophistry.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">First to your statement, “While George Zimmerman entered the
courtroom with the constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence, Trayvon
Martin was afforded no such luxury in the court of public opinion.” Actually
no. Those in the tank for Zimmerman <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">assumed</i>
him innocent, while conversely those in the tank for Martin <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">assumed</i> him innocent as well. When
speaking of the assumptions of the innocence of Martin I do not mean only in
the confrontation but in Zimmerman’s initial assessment of him. Virtually all,
including ostensibly the defense team have accepted the assumption that Martin
was not casing houses as he walked with Skittles as unassailable fact,
regardless of the FACT that no evidence whatsoever exists to either bolster or
rebut Zimmerman’s initial suspicions. While it may be outrageous to assume
Trayvon was casing houses with some nefarious intent (peeping, burglary, …)
absent the least scintilla of evidence of such it is equally outrageous to
assume Martin’s absolute innocence of such considering the exact same lack of
evidence that he was not. That Martin had Skittles on him proves no more than
Mark Chapman having the book “Catcher in the Rye” on him after gunning down John
Lennon. What single piece of actual evidence do you have that Martin was not,
as Zimmerman actually stated, “Just standing around… staring at all the houses”
other than your oft’ stated belief that white people continually wrongly suspect
black people solely because their skin color?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Imagine if Zimmerman had not met Martin that night but had
rather, on a previous night, met the black youth living in the neighborhood who was arrested for
burglarizing homes in that same neighborhood. Imagine if Zimmerman actually
witnessed that burglar casing those homes that he intended to later burglarize.
Imagine if Zimmerman saw him meandering seemingly without purpose, perhaps on a
rainy night when any reasonable person would likely be hurrying somewhere to
get out of the rain. Imagine if Zimmerman followed that person with the same
result. Imagine if that black youth was returning toward his own home there
with Skittles and ice tea from 7-11 while taking the opportunity to also case
the houses he would later burglarize as he traveled. Those burglaries would
never have occurred and Zimmerman would be on trial while you and others
proclaimed this just another outrageous profiling of innocent black youth. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You would, as here, proclaim that a complete
lack of evidence for or against innocence to be evidence of innocence.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You and far too many others have put forth the straw man
argument of Zimmerman profiling Martin because of his hoodie unchallenged for
far too long. While you and these continue to proclaim that Martin’s hoodie was
a factor in Zimmerman’s profiling of him there is not the slightest evidence
that it was a factor. Whereas Zimmerman described Martin as wearing a “dark hoodie
like a gray hoodie, and jeans or sweat pants, and white tennis shoes,” that
description was solely in response to the dispatcher asking what he was
wearing. Just as NBC outrageously doctored the tape to remove the dispatcher
asking Zimmerman’s race you conveniently conflate Zimmerman’s response to a
request for clothing description with Zimmerman considering the hoodie as a
factor in finding Martin suspicious. While Zimmerman may have thought the
hoodie suspicious he never, ever indicated so, and your constant beating of
that drum cannot make it so. Zimmerman could very well have had the same idea
on hoodies that you do, that hoodies mean nothing suspicious, especially on a
rainy night. And yet you continually proclaim as fact that Zimmerman profiled
Martin because of his hoodie without the slightest evidence other than your
belief that white people inherently find hoodies suspicious when worn by black
youths. And how is that not an outrageously bigoted viewpoint?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Your straw man argument in regard to Rachel Jeantel is
likewise a brilliant bit of sophistry and rhetorical sleight-of-hand. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While there were legitimate questions of
Jeantel’s changing story just as claims of Zimmerman’s changing story the
Martin/Jeantel apologists have continually put forth the magnificent sophistry
that any challenges to Jeantel’s testimony were simply more white elitist
attacks against Jeantel’s intelligence, appearance, and culture. And that bit
of rope-a-dope is a time proven tactic of virtually all self-proclaimed victim
groups of the last few decades. Now instead of dealing with the merits of the glaring
discrepancies, problematic timelines, and newly added facts at trial, those
challenging this prosecution witness are instead kept busy defending why they
are not just more classic bigots. And this is in spite of the fact that so many
Zimmerman apologists have carefully avoided such attacks against Jeantel for
this very reason. I really would proclaim you brilliant beyond words in this
tactic except that you are not the first to employ this tactic either in this
case or myriad other interracial or inter-world-view collisions. You are
however, one of if not the most eloquent at it that I have encountered.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And that unfortunately seems to be the fulcrum upon which
rests most of contemporary black and white relations today and going forward.
Those proclaiming victimhood need only state such allegations and the accused
must constantly rush about like the proverbial Dutch Boy with their fingers in
the holes in the dike that are never-ending accusations of blatant and
disguised bigotry. It really is genius and an enviable position to be able to
simply lob accusations and ones opponents must continually scurry about
attempting futilely to disprove a negative.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And while you proclaim that Trayvon Martin has not been
afforded the luxury of presumption of innocence in the public sphere the facts
simply do not bear that out. While there are many who suspect Martin of being a
hoodlum there are seeming endless commentators (like yourself), legal experts, black
“Leaders,” and throngs of outraged protestors across American cities who have
assumed Trayvon Martin innocent of Zimmerman’s suspicions that night without
any evidence whatsoever to bolster such assumptions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-27420689540387160772013-06-02T13:37:00.002-07:002014-04-06T17:33:22.334-07:00A Well-Boiled Frog<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6bFU9utRKA0xp_itlzFbVc8HTBKdxehIci3OsZdjx_cZ9BlgCC7v05Z-PO2OlxU1YnQI9dMOnVOgmJIYat_5FK6qTnf8WDvz5-PiXXrBAfvuDNBR5y6BAdQ3Mw-kJx2LQjdquGamnkXo/s1600/Boiling+Frog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6bFU9utRKA0xp_itlzFbVc8HTBKdxehIci3OsZdjx_cZ9BlgCC7v05Z-PO2OlxU1YnQI9dMOnVOgmJIYat_5FK6qTnf8WDvz5-PiXXrBAfvuDNBR5y6BAdQ3Mw-kJx2LQjdquGamnkXo/s1600/Boiling+Frog.jpg" /></a></div>
So this is an exchange with an aquaintance and myself that really got my goat. I had wtitten about an article discussing how a growing number of police agencies are carrying devices that can extract all of your private information from your cellphone during a routine traffic stop, including all texts, emails, geotags, photos, videos, etc., virtually anything on your phone including deleted items. Though such legislations and capabilities have been challenged profusely in court, several courts have deemed these warrantless search and seizures of ones property completely constitutional and legal. To my objections of such my acquaintance submitted the following: (My response follows)<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
"One thing I've noticed about Americans is that the moment we feel we are
being monitored or "big brothered" when tend to freak out. And while I feel an
officer asking for your cell phone and accessing our data is cause for concern
the one thing I don't worry about is a complete loss of freedom.<br />
<br />
People who
worry about losing freedom seem to forget one thing: Americans enjoy so much
freedom that regardless of what the government or law enforcement tries to do, I
feel there will ALWAYS be a point in which we decide enough is enough and push
back. That's why I personally get up in arms when I hear stories of monitoring
or other types of privacy violations. Because there is never a doubt in my mind
that if the government crosses too far over the line, there will be a point in
which they get pushed back. People will only go as far as you allow them to.
With that being said: if someone feels the accessing of smart phone by a law
enforcement is too much they still have options. (1.) Fight the legislation that
allows it. (2.) Refuse to give the officer their smart phone. (3.) Don't carry a
smartphone, because quite frankly, Americans have survived hundreds of years
without one and as unbelievable as it may seem to some people; Smartphones are
NOT a necessity."<br />
<br />
And my response:<br />
<br />
<div>
John, (Name changed to protect the utterly stupid).<br />
<br />
I don’t worry about losing all of my freedom for the very reason
you suggest: that there is a point where Americans will push back. The problem I
have is when my fellow countrymen feel that a freedom they do not cherish or are
willing to defend is one that I should not either. When people laud our freedoms
they generally weigh them against other, less free parts of the world, rather
than how free we are, as opposed to how free we were at the beginning of this
great experiment of personal freedom. The founding fathers are regularly
pooh-poohed today as not understanding current dynamics and the necessity for
the governments whittling away of its own limitations, yet their own words of
that day are rife with exhortations that the nature of government is to
incrementally do so, and that slowly diminishing our freedom like the proverbial
slow-boiled frog was a far more insidious and certain fate. They also recognized
man’s innate nature to passively accept dominion and ostensible safety over
freedom and uncertainty. Ben Franklin in this is perhaps most famous of these in
his quote that “Those who will trade freedom for safety will have, and deserve
neither." Even in their day the world had perhaps equal amounts of those
demanding their freedom with its concomitant risks, juxtaposed against Statists.
There was no shortage even then, even right after deposing one tyrant, of those
who wished to install another “better” king as our government. Long into our
fight for independence and freedom there were many (Tories) who were either
alright with the status quo, or unwilling to fight for their own freedom. Many
of these of course, proudly sang the praises of those hard won freedoms though –
after others had fought, died, and won those freedoms for them. And even today,
that is a profound irony we too easily forget. Many freedoms that we have but do not
cherish are a result of many dead Americans who died acquiring them for us but
never lived to experience them in their own lives.<br />
<br />
Like the proverbial
slow-boiled frog, we really barely recognize just how amazingly far our
government has progressed in whittling steadily away at our freedoms. And like
that proverbial frog, telling his fellow boilee’s to quit their paranoia and
whining, those who have little reference point for those freedoms already
stealthily lost, many before they were even born, we are constantly told; "I am
fine with trading my freedom for safety, and thus you should be too." I propose a
different, if unlikely reality. Those who want and are willing to struggle to
maintain their rights and freedoms should have those freedoms, and those
ambiguous or uncaring about them should live with the heel of such government
upon their neck simultaneously, without complaint. That however is not reality.
The real, and unfortunate reality of the world is that those who care for and
struggle the most for rights and freedoms often never experience the rewards of
such fights, and rarely sufficiently to offset the price of the struggles, while
those who care little, and struggle less go on to enjoy those hard-won rights
and freedoms with little understanding and even less appreciation.<br />
<br />
A few
years ago I wanted to get married. I felt this my right as a human being. I did
not wish, nor ask for the sanction of the government. I only wanted to be
married by a pastor of a church and did not feel the government should have any
place in such a religious sacrament, either bringing it together, or putting it
asunder as that seems to me, the sole venue of God and of those involved. As a
license for any act is by definition “Permission to do that which is otherwise
illegal” I did not feel I was doing anything illegal by going before my friends
and family and swearing my faithful allegiance to my bride. And she felt
likewise. Pastor after pastor simply refused to perform such religious sacrament
without permission and blessing upon my marriage by the state. Even after
consulting with the state, who assured me that there was nothing illegal or
wrong about doing such virtually all pastors were in fear of simply marrying me
in a church as a solely religious sacrament. They were all terrified of the
repercussions of such even though the state made assurances there would be none
and that they simply would not recognize my marriage as valid. Though these
pastors have in theory, more freedom than even they understand, someone had made
it clear to them that they exercise such freedom at their own peril. And each of
these, I am sure would laud the extraordinary rights of this country, all while
being terrified of simply exercising them.<br />
<br />
The problem is not what
freedom is currently being diminished or obliterated but that the nature of
government (and those who are willing to sacrifice my freedom for their own
(sense of) security) is that the boundaries of their power will always be
challenged and that only our diligence slows that encroachment. And every
infringement upon our promised liberties has been met with governmental
assurances that such is harmless and necessary and the sycophantic refrain of
the accepting and the apathetic: "Nothing to see here - move along..." The other
constant danger is that those born into the current balance of oppression and
freedom will find it perfectly acceptable as “It’s always been that way.” And
each successive generation lives comfortably with fewer freedoms while little
understanding or caring that it really hasn’t.<br />
<br />
Regarding your proposed
options:<br />
<br />
1. Obviously there are many who have fought and continue to
fight that legislation but seem to be fighting a losing battle, ostensibly
because of the law enforcement agencies who value efficient tools over their
oaths to abide by and defend the constitution(s), and those of the public
without a healthy skepticism of governmental power.<br />
<br />
2. Refusing to give
the officer their smartphone is a grand idea. Valid (and good) Anti-texting
while driving laws give any officer probable cause to access your phone should
they “suspect” you were texting while driving, or even talking without a hands
free device. I would recommend anyone suggesting such to try it themselves
before recommending it to others. As the Clash so aptly opined in their song “…
you have your rights… as long as you are not so dumb as to actually try
it.”<br />
<br />
3. "Don’t carry a smartphone because they are not a
necessity."<br />
<br />
What other non-necessities should I forego rather than assert
my constitutional protections against unreasonable (and without warrant) search
and seizures? I find it simply amazing that the solution of some to the eroding
of my rights and freedoms is to surrender others. And while my fellow man is
comfortable with surrendering my freedoms that they might not value, I wonder
what freedoms they value but I may not that they would not be concerned with me
surrendering for them? And that is the most insidious danger to our freedoms
that we face: that so many are uncaring and willing to sacrifice the freedoms of
others while having little understanding or concern that they have no right to
do so.</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-44479453138647003982013-06-01T18:51:00.000-07:002013-07-27T11:18:27.850-07:00Old Habits Die Hard<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuoRXIS25gAOE-SOHdXUmQH9bYFbBe4Dg1msygQsSeQ-ObJoKfSgB6f6HiaLVHilOIenUhvSXPio7XgJ7ChTm_i59MdGFWEUz9opHjwxz-fKoFft2_3A_Fgjk5UWKJPWNHa3c4ROw_Rmg/s1600/Obama+Skeet+Shooting.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuoRXIS25gAOE-SOHdXUmQH9bYFbBe4Dg1msygQsSeQ-ObJoKfSgB6f6HiaLVHilOIenUhvSXPio7XgJ7ChTm_i59MdGFWEUz9opHjwxz-fKoFft2_3A_Fgjk5UWKJPWNHa3c4ROw_Rmg/s1600/Obama+Skeet+Shooting.png" /></a></div>
So now Obama is claiming to be a Skeet shooter and that he shoots all the time at Camp David. (Yeah right.) Well there are no pictures, strangely since there are pictures of Obama doing everything but brushing his teeth, but here's the transcript of the audio from one of his skeet shooting outings:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
A little to the Right sir.<br />
<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
A little to the Right sir.<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
A little to the Right sir.<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
Sir, you keep missing to the left. Just aim for the center of the skeet.<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
Uh, aim for the center sir.<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
The Center sir, a little less left.<br />
<br />
Pull !<br />
Bang.<br />
Sir, a little less, ...nevermind.<br />
<br />Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-10519365018675316652012-11-21T16:39:00.000-08:002013-06-05T16:44:35.332-07:00Assigning Blame<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxm2zuBWldM1aZK5NBR3NnLySJAG1yCJbdhd_NUz6gDN2Tgbg7LbH_D2ME1suGDtl5M-lnEEUzcmfJ47smrNB3toAvsouq_qSD4rC8ffOtN-U7bQZ5hnV4NSpPpVxgXVHMiyjoRAqVKYI/s1600/Whiner.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxm2zuBWldM1aZK5NBR3NnLySJAG1yCJbdhd_NUz6gDN2Tgbg7LbH_D2ME1suGDtl5M-lnEEUzcmfJ47smrNB3toAvsouq_qSD4rC8ffOtN-U7bQZ5hnV4NSpPpVxgXVHMiyjoRAqVKYI/s1600/Whiner.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxm2zuBWldM1aZK5NBR3NnLySJAG1yCJbdhd_NUz6gDN2Tgbg7LbH_D2ME1suGDtl5M-lnEEUzcmfJ47smrNB3toAvsouq_qSD4rC8ffOtN-U7bQZ5hnV4NSpPpVxgXVHMiyjoRAqVKYI/s200/Whiner.JPG" width="200" /></a></div>
There's really nothing like Progressive talk radio to get the old juices flowing. So I am listening to some obscure left wing talkee named Ed Schultz on my local Progressive talk radio station. I hear some leftee going on about how he wants to throw a brick through the TV every time he watches Fox News. I have a similar response when listening to Left Wing radio, but what I have a desperate urge to do is ask them questions. Also, unlike the leftee's I see nothing to be gained by destroying my own property. But then, I bought it myself, rather that relying on other people’s money to procure it for me.<br />
<br />
So Ed is listening to a "99er," which is a person who has been unemployed for 99 weeks. She is going on anecdotally about being out of work for an extensive period, and how she is about to get kicked out on the street with her three children. She raves on about not being able to get so much as an interview after her phone service technician job got outsourced to India. Ed finds the woman compelling and promises to get her on his show. Someone please get me some tissue. I am sobbing all over my keyboard... Please.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
It is a fascinating, a deafening silence as I wait for the questions that never come. In all of the conversation a father (or fathers) is not mentioned. Ed never mentions the father (or fathers) once. Not once does Ed mention his/their responsibility in caring for the children. Nope, It is All ostensibly George Bush's fault. Maybe G.W. got her pregnant. Maybe G.W. was trying to become the “father of his country.” The woman is 42 years old, and was a teacher for eleven years. To be a teacher she must have had a degree. This woman states that she and her children will soon be on the street, yet she cannot find a job, any job, for more than two years. Presumably the father(s) cannot find a job(s) either. Where are the parents, grandparents, and siblings? We have the possibility of both of her parents, both of the fathers parents, and any grandparent in laws. There could also be as many as two other fathers, each with up to four grandparents of their own. This is all without even considering all of the potential siblings, cousins, aunts, or uncles. The woman is forty two and has evidently made no friends in the world willing to allow her and her children to stay with them even temporarily.<br />
<br />
As usual this woman is just another victim. There is, and can be no discussion of any choices in her life that may have contributed to bringing her to this place in life. Unfair you say? Cruel, unjustified, and judgmental? Well if she can assign blame to anyone but herself I will feel free to examine her accusations.<br />
<br />
So who am I too judge you ask? Well let me tell you. My life pretty much sucks right now. My industry withered over the last few years, and then evaporated… Poof, maybe never to return. I have also been unemployed for a very long time. I am losing my house, My truck, and my dog. (Yeah, I know – sounds like a country song.) And do you know who’s fault that is? MINE.<br />
I made a lot of bad choices in life. Some seemed good at the time, and many I was warned against. I am an intelligent and capable guy, but I have lived an unfocused, meandering life. I ignored the age-old refrain to “stay in school.” I traveled and had great adventures, and this was a trade-off for stability and prosperity. Even my “good” choices were not the optimal choice. Yes there were outside forces that swept me into unfortunate circumstance but these too were either manageable or entirely avoidable had I made other choices.<br />
<br />
So where you ask, do I get off judging this woman’s choices without knowing her, or even if I did? Well It seems pretty clear to me that a 42 year old unemployable college graduate, with no father, (or fathers) helping to raise the children, with no grandparents from the mother or fathers side, No brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, or friends that are willing to help; a woman like that must have spent a great deal of the time and energy of her life burning every bridge. It seems to me, safely I believe, that such a person should spend a little time on self reflection, and less time blaming others for the direction her choices have taken her and whining about not receiving more from the public trough.<br />
<br />
So in running the rough draft of this by my favorite lefty I was advised that it is really not societally acceptable to pick on the women or the children. I was reminded that when going into a village we can kill the combatants, but we are not to kill the women or children. Soooo OK, first: I am not killing anyone, nor raising a finger in violence. Second: This woman is on a talk radio station spewing her nonsensical blather, blaming everyone that thinks like me for her circumstance, and I cannot disagree with her? And as usual, the children are used as pawns to bolster the classic Marxist blather. It is obscene.<br />
<br />
Decades ago, as a child, I was admonished to “Think with your heart.” I suppose they thought this stirring prose quite wise and enlightened. Years later, if I have learned nothing else, I have learned that the heart does not think. Far from it. Emotionalism is the opposite of thinking. Emotionalism causes us to squander our resources. Emotionalism is evil because it assuages your guilt while squandering your resources that could have truly been used for good had you not poured them down an empty hole with misguided masturbatory euphoria. I really have no problem with anyone doing this with their own resources because they are truly theirs to do with as they will, but I have no patience for your rationalizations as to why you think it ethical to do so with mine or anyone else’s not your own.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-22648150948685211812012-11-15T16:44:00.000-08:002012-11-16T12:28:34.418-08:00Taking Responsibility<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1NS4VKksimWgME14RlFxPjLcNUmfWcGOFIggUUP2oriVFLcZkxyaTUQIclxd_Z2WXbv8w8xSOC9aWfW1Y_6F8KGRdktawwBqcqCF-kfGcAsMEyC1DMwq7BDJM_6fnqleGBFJK-iuX6Ss/s1600/Harry+Truman+-+Buck+Stops+Here.jpg" /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Harry Truman:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">THE BUCK STOPS HERE</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC2MFVp9_qyOt_Z15pxXh9__tUrLm7KVspdKbNfMeOpX69CiiO_mY7kxtlrWjAqYTAiubk9KKFGIzUHLCiwOCxpWJ-AykSmRgYuAzhaSceqlVXG_5e_omffDjPufA4XOJjtG07P-32-qg/s1600/Obama+Pointing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC2MFVp9_qyOt_Z15pxXh9__tUrLm7KVspdKbNfMeOpX69CiiO_mY7kxtlrWjAqYTAiubk9KKFGIzUHLCiwOCxpWJ-AykSmRgYuAzhaSceqlVXG_5e_omffDjPufA4XOJjtG07P-32-qg/s200/Obama+Pointing.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Barack Obama:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Let me be clear,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">Where the buck stops is a very interesting and unavoidable question, and I
would do a disservice to the very idea of where the buck stops were I to just respond with a
thoughtless sound-bite in response to a question of such import. Indeed were
one to just blurt out some clever slogan for political gain to deflect from the
momentous import of such inquiry, the injustice done to the deeper truths of
the actions taken, and to the intent of so many who have given so much to this
country in their years of service; American heroes all, would be in
contradiction to the very ideals we all hold so dear as the bedrock of our
American principles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><a name='more'></a> These profound principles demand better from me, and from all of
our leaders who might be tempted to assign blame unfairly to themselves absent
circumspection, to do so for simple political expediency. We must
therefore be ever-vigilant to avoid such seductive temptations, but we must rather, with renewed vigor, hold
fast to the principles of careful and methodical investigation into not only
where the buck stops, and should, but also when, why, and how the buck stops.
With such consequential events in mind we must give thoughtful and careful consideration of not
just the mechanics of where, or even how and why a buck stops but the very
nature of not only what a buck is, but what it is not; and if in fact there even is a buck that stops, did
stop, will stop, or even should stop anywhere at any time and for any reason, and whether it is proper for it to stop, when stopping may in fact be not the most efficacious solution. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So before we just bow to, and quibble over such baseless and futile
gotcha questions about where “the buck stops” we owe it to these four dead heroes,
and indeed all of our nation's heroes who have so consistently “given there last full
measure of devotion” to assure to our posterity that we in America shall always give proper import to the question of where a buck stops, while giving proper reverence to the true significance of such deliberations, and that even should this great nation last for a thousand years,
they will even then proclaim with assurance that America is and forever shall
be a land where a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,
shall give proper care and credence to not only where such buck must stop but
indeed why, how, and with great solicitude, whether such questions should even be asked. This we owe to these,
and to our posterity that we may remain the greatest country on God’s green
earth. And may God so continue to bless this great country, and us all.<o:p></o:p>
</span><br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-24484065959277156622012-11-12T17:55:00.001-08:002012-11-14T11:49:17.732-08:00I Blackmailed General Petraeus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht54nF-wTh4GSe3Et-DiXwjhQ3zqQeTWoPz0qNhCZA2Ohf1XS883ly0pLtLIs9PcW8D4_9cf_zyv4Kn6YEZ5AR6zTSNSRNugljOtEQDeiryQg_bj2TPajFexCBeqX0SDD0NXhrj1K-Z6s/s1600/Petraus+Thumbs+Up.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht54nF-wTh4GSe3Et-DiXwjhQ3zqQeTWoPz0qNhCZA2Ohf1XS883ly0pLtLIs9PcW8D4_9cf_zyv4Kn6YEZ5AR6zTSNSRNugljOtEQDeiryQg_bj2TPajFexCBeqX0SDD0NXhrj1K-Z6s/s200/Petraus+Thumbs+Up.jpg" width="155" /></a>Well now that I have your full attention... I didn't actually blackmail either Petraeus or his mistress, Paula Broadwell or anyone who may have been covering for him, but you'll just never know for sure...</div>
<br />
You see that is the point. The military, and US governmental agencies issuing security clearances take adultery very seriously because it provides a very great danger to blackmail, and the most common way that foreign spies compromise holders of security clearances with access to Secret and Top-secret information. This truly is the oldest trick in the book. Once a person with access to secret information is compromised through elicit affairs or other acts they would wish to keep secret they are vulnerable to blackmail to pass on secrets, ignore or destroy pertinent intelligence, or to act in other ways detrimental to the security of the people they are entrusted to protect. For this simple reason adultery, and other compromising activities are actually criminal offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and also in civilian statutes regarding US Security personnel. The issue is not so much when such are discovered but the time that they are compromised before discovery.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgztp5ul2u07UlvD_S8hPWCw6FlP7DUh99pgZetYVPMj-xvpcYubyI6emJ7guwriyvnlOiYEEesDSyuvbfmUL0OfpAuW-cN57uVCKno6-ET9iBmqzs-9q9K4ftM5bSUJ88yz7CqMBAFgWs/s1600/Sinking+Carrier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgztp5ul2u07UlvD_S8hPWCw6FlP7DUh99pgZetYVPMj-xvpcYubyI6emJ7guwriyvnlOiYEEesDSyuvbfmUL0OfpAuW-cN57uVCKno6-ET9iBmqzs-9q9K4ftM5bSUJ88yz7CqMBAFgWs/s1600/Sinking+Carrier.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Though the refrain: "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is well known, it really is not so much loose lips as loose-zippers that really sink ships.</div>
<br />
Before you go on rolling your eyes at my "conspiracy theory" understand that I held a top-secret security clearance in the Navy. I know and understand what I am describing here not from reading some spy novel or conspiracy website, but rather, firsthand. We had this drilled into us emphatically and repeatedly before and while holding such clearance. We were clearly informed in no uncertain terms that such behaviour by us could and WOULD result in criminal action, demotion, imprisonment, and Bad Conduct or even Dishonorable Discharge. It was, and is, a VERY serious offense to place oneself, and US security interests in such jeopardy. We were further told that, far from an unlikely scenario such had played itself out many times in our nations history.<br />
<br />
So do we know if Petraeus gave up any US Secrets, or otherwise acted counter to our security interests as a result of blackmail while his affair was yet undiscovered? We realistically will, or may never know. He may have done so and covered his tracks sufficiently to avoid detection. He certainly has no incentive to admit to such and change his status from simple "Horn-dog" to "Traitor." Even if he was discovered the details of such can easily be declared top-secret for political or "security" reasons and never released to the public. <br />
<br />
And it is not just Petraeus that is subject to such potential compromise. It has already been reported that Petraeus' mistress, a reserve military officer herself, was found to have unauthorized secret documents on her computer, from as yet undisclosed sources. She too has/had a marriage and military career to protect, and likewise is subject to the same consequences as the General. If that alone does not make one cringe, among the several videos of Ms. Broadwell released just today is one of her blathering on at length about the extraordinary access she (his mistress) was granted to top-secret materials and briefings as his biographer. In this she goes on about her commitment to the integrity of her own security clearance with a straight face - while in violation of all of its laws, rules, and principles. If that alone does not give one pause it is also instructional that the nexus for the investigation that brought all of this to light was the threatening emails Ms. Broadwell sent to her percieved rival for the affections of the General. And we are now to believe this person was safe to entrust with access to top-secret materials as she was doing the General and threatening perceived rivals? If this is not a massive security breach it would be fascinating to see what is.<br />
<br />
Thus it is likely that Ms. Broadwell is in for some very pointed questions and some interesting times ahead.<br />
<br />
And will we ever learn the answers to those questions? Probably not.<br />
<br />
At least those of you who did not blackmail them won't.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-2799350690401442142012-11-11T11:46:00.000-08:002014-05-02T03:05:57.068-07:00Plausible Deniability<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIYewwNobUWMIqA9fCco1eTu6ccNMjvVSs2fhUYmaL2BtsHxtblQtECK2-CM2xK_VO3X8k7LjjET6m_B4FmDpdtW_aePcCd0GemQ_y_6MzddQy-Vs53tXxhnCg0-XPgusWnKoIPrN92-Y/s1600/Seargent+Shultz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIYewwNobUWMIqA9fCco1eTu6ccNMjvVSs2fhUYmaL2BtsHxtblQtECK2-CM2xK_VO3X8k7LjjET6m_B4FmDpdtW_aePcCd0GemQ_y_6MzddQy-Vs53tXxhnCg0-XPgusWnKoIPrN92-Y/s200/Seargent+Shultz.jpg" height="175" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
It was very cute, when Sargent Shultz would happen upon the latest schemes of Hogan's merry band of willing prisoner's of war and saboteurs extraordinaire. Of course that was television, and Colonel Hogan and his crew were the good guys. When it is the real world and our own national security at risk such cynical "Insulation-by-Obliviousness" of the current administration is not nearly as endearing: not really acceptable at all, except evidently, by the administration: and their sycophantic press. So as the various scandals are unfolding in increasing numbers and rapidity Jay Carney, Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder evidently find the constant refrain of "we didn't know: we weren't told" to be an entirely acceptable answer to challenges and questions of the people.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And why abandon such a time-proven methodology of deflecting any criticism or challenges. Really, this has worked flawlessly by Barack Obama and all near him as long as I can remember: Tony Resco - Did an "interesting" purchase from him but didn't really know him. Bill Ayers - Obama worked for him disseminating millions and millions of dollars but evidently never really communicated with him. Twenty years in Reverend Wrights church, proclaimed spiritual leader, married Obama... Never noticed he was a raving racist, anti-Semite, America-hating lunatic, nope - "I never knew the man..." Then there were the constant stream of ostensibly un-vetted and un-nominateable first cabinet proffering's that fell like dominoes. It is fine that Barack Obama has always seemed oblivious to virtually everything questionable happening around him but it is just amazing that this seems more and more of late to be not a detriment but rather a qualification.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So cut to years later and we have thousands of guns intentionally sent to Mexican drug cartels, and then forgotten, until found next to our dead border guard, Brian Terry. Also, basically unmentioned are the tens of thousands of Mexican citizens killed by these guns and Mexico's outrage at this. Eric Holders response to this of course was the endless slow-walking and stonewalling of Congress and claims of ignorance of these "insignificant" details. Then we have the months of attacks on our Benghazi embassy and CIA operations, their continuing warnings and pleas for help and increased security that went unheeded, ignored, and/or denied, and then the resulting murder or our personnel and sacking of our embassy and CIA installations there. And now, after the election we are learning of the attack on our drones in international airspace and the majestic security breaches of the compromise of our CIA and the seeming unfettered access to Top-Secret materials and briefings by his mistress.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And the administrations response to these hugely momentous events and their convenient timing of release to the public after the election and before Petraeus' sudden cancelling of his upcoming testimony before congress is the administrations evidently acceptable Sargent Shultzian response of "We know nothing." Bad enough that it could actually be true that they are relatively oblivious to everything happening under their leadership, but perhaps more disturbing is their ostensible belief that obliviousness is a valid excuse and does not in itself call into question their leadership.<br />
<br />
And if anyone finds the latest game of "Where's Waldo" regarding our Secretary of State disconcerting now that she has found everything not in the US of immense concern while the scandals and the questions abound back here in the states, fear not, she will return - probably to tender her resignation and clean out her desk while avoiding those pesky questions. And where is she now? I don't know - and if recent history is any indication she probably doesn't know either, as no one told her.</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-44654864426907138542012-11-08T13:58:00.000-08:002012-12-09T15:52:42.193-08:00A Fundamental Question<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizUfzEhhcWJP_EOwJTZTWblGwEEV1D13TKjZcfguz7AzNrTb4ab7DgXySItsQiZM6A7XBvDvE_-RlUKh2VNL37BLjdfkLpqd9V3omBJA8e4i2wK0osJEBjBQOfnc3dNK2hnLZiT00kKXc/s1600/hand_of_the_irs1-240x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizUfzEhhcWJP_EOwJTZTWblGwEEV1D13TKjZcfguz7AzNrTb4ab7DgXySItsQiZM6A7XBvDvE_-RlUKh2VNL37BLjdfkLpqd9V3omBJA8e4i2wK0osJEBjBQOfnc3dNK2hnLZiT00kKXc/s200/hand_of_the_irs1-240x300.jpg" width="160" /></a></div>
So I left the "compound" for a little while this afternoon in the pickup: went down to the big city. On the way I thought I'd treat myself to a Little "Progressive Talk radio." As soon as I returned I jogged up the stairs to the computer to do a little ranting before my head exploded. So okay, I am going to keep this as concise as possible. I have a question, and it is sincere. I have asked it many times over the past few years and received no answer at all. Please if you are a liberal, progressive or any other kind of collectivist explain to me this one core question that divides us:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, the foundation for my question. I will keep it as succint as possible. My basis for the role of government and the ethical scope of taxation is, I think, pretty simple... Anything I want from the government I should have to pay for. I believe that the only real rights I have; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are mine because they cost no one else anything. In these rights I take nothing from anyone. No one need give me anything, or expend any energy on my behalf. My understanding of the core responsibility of government is to protect these rights. They do not give these rights, and they cannot take them away unless I forfeit them by infringing on someone else's identical rights. We have a contract, you and I. We have agreed to combine some of our resources to protect these rights. We call this contract "government." The combined resources we agreed to put up toward these ends we call "taxes." Everyone receives the benefit of protection from this government, so everyone has to pony up. There are no free rides. This seems unequivocally fair to me. So that is my conservative, libertarian, and I feel unassailably logical world view in regard to my rights and symbiotic responsibilities.<br />
<br />
So I believe that I should pay for the military because I get a direct benefit from it. I believe that to be realistically protected we need a more superior military and weaponry than those who would do us harm. This is one thing that truly only the government is big enough to do. I believe that we all share the "Right of Way," and the rest of the infrastructure of electricity, water, sewage, etc. Thus we are all required to pay our fair share for our use of it. On a local level we have the equivalent of the military in the local, state, and national police forces to protect us from those within our borders who would infringe on our aforementioned rights. These all seem logical, and I know of few who would argue with any of this. But this is where the two worlds of collectivists and non - collectivists such as conservatives and libertarians diverge.<br />
<br />
Whenever I have asked the myriad collectivists; those liberals, progressives, the various brands of Marxists and Fascists, what is the basis for their world view in the morality and ethics of taxation and our "duty" to our fellow man, they always start at the same place as me. They will always turn the onus back on me, asking:<br />
<br />
<em> "Well you want roads, and police, and electricity and such don't you? Well you have to pay your fair share for those benefits."</em><br />
<br />
<em>"So Yeah,"</em> I say, <em>"we totally agree on that, but what is the basis for me paying for those things that I derive no benefit from whatsoever?"</em> <br />
<br />
<em> "Well,"</em> they will say, <em>"if you want to be taken care of when you get old you have to take care of others when they get old: fair is fair."</em><br />
<br />
<em> "Well yeah"</em> I reply, <em>"I may want to make you work to take care of me when I am old but how do I actually derive the right to the fruits of your labor or intellect?"</em><br />
<br />
At this point I just get a plethora of circular reasoning explaining how we all have a moral collective duty to each other. As often as not they will explain that the resources of our dear Mother Earth do not belong to any one of us, thus we must all collectively pay for them. My response to that of course is:<br />
<br />
<em>"Why can't we just pay for them individually as we use them? What could be more fair than that?</em> <br />
<br />
And of course there is the ever-maddening:<br />
<br />
<em>"It's for the children."</em><br />
<br />
Now I understand why I am responsible for the children that I have created. They are helpless and I caused them to be. That is pretty straightforward. What I cannot for the life of me understand is why I am responsible for children that I did not father. To this query I will get a frustrated <br />
<br />
<em> "because they are children!"</em><br />
<br />
<em>"Right… but how did I become responsible for them?"</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em> "...Because they are children…"</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em> "Hmmmmmm..."</em><br />
<br />
Referring back to my benefits creates obligation thesis should I not have the right to sex with any woman whose child I am responsible for? I mean, maybe those feudal lords were onto something with their "Rights of Prima Nocta" - Just sayin...<br />
<br />
Which brings me to the "Right to Healthcare." - aaargg! I am completely bewildered and aggravated beyond words [almost] by this reasoning; this "Right to Healthcare." In watching the way this sacred cow is spoken of in reverent holy tones you would think that "Healthcare" was picked directly from the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. "Healthcare" is a product. This product is created by the labor and intellect of those who wish to sell this product and service just as other others choose to sell shoes or surfboards. These people attend school and expend vast amounts of wealth and the minutes and years of their lives, gaining the expertise to heal people, to alleviate their suffering, and to save lives. They often spend twelve years of their lives at huge personal expense just to achieve entry level to their field. They purchase hugely expensive equipment facilities, and staff. They employ armies of support staff to deal with the ever burgeoning regulations and issues that constantly chew away at their incomes. They subject themselves to endless lawsuits from ambulance chasers suing them for virtually anything they prescribe and anything they do. Aside from this there are the livelihood of the support staff and those whose livelihoods depend on the products that they sell through the healthcare system. This is what we really think we have a "Right" to? What exactly have these people done to owe you, me or anyone anything at all? I am serious; what gives us the "Right" to any of the fruits of their investment, their labor or their intellect?<br />
<br />
So <em>finally</em>, my question: Based upon my above reasoning what is your basis for the morality of collectivism? Why do we all have a duty to fund anything that the left dreams up, and arbitrarily decides is now my responsibility? What is the basis for your progressive, liberal taxation ideology? What gives you the "Right" to save the world with my money?<br />
<br />
This is a serious question and I really am seeking understanding of this mindset because it is the key to almost all of our ideological differences. For Ned, and all of the "Agree to Disagee'ers" I really am not seeking agreement, disagreement, debate, or a hearty slap on the back and a "You go guy!" I am truly perplexed by the basis for the collectivist world view. I am asking you to do what progressives have always claimed as their mission statement: enlighten me.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-42942158273060278042012-11-07T23:27:00.000-08:002014-05-02T02:21:30.737-07:00Simple Math<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6lRNxSt0IeaSrNjR3Lb7dwr6lvKmImXrlGRy_T2tvj2x-vKRvHLOFPubbz8qKPFpyJx2EKgZaRCYUOfuqVT4E-i1vSXcfeZB8k64qQueYC2XrBi4tx9YHa7dlkploSBan4oJ0M8PJezg/s1600/Fat+Cat+Banker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></a><br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6lRNxSt0IeaSrNjR3Lb7dwr6lvKmImXrlGRy_T2tvj2x-vKRvHLOFPubbz8qKPFpyJx2EKgZaRCYUOfuqVT4E-i1vSXcfeZB8k64qQueYC2XrBi4tx9YHa7dlkploSBan4oJ0M8PJezg/s1600/Fat+Cat+Banker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6lRNxSt0IeaSrNjR3Lb7dwr6lvKmImXrlGRy_T2tvj2x-vKRvHLOFPubbz8qKPFpyJx2EKgZaRCYUOfuqVT4E-i1vSXcfeZB8k64qQueYC2XrBi4tx9YHa7dlkploSBan4oJ0M8PJezg/s200/Fat+Cat+Banker.jpg" height="200" width="176" /></span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">So
the mantra goes: “Why does a CEO make 700 times what his average worker makes?”
The ostensible killer punch line then goes: “Does he work 700 times as hard?
This reasoning, far from a profound expose on the unfairness of the capitalist
system really just shows abysmal lack of understanding of the relationship of
value to compensation. Now when Worker Joe hears this is he is generally quite
indignant. He believes that value is weighed as human worth. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In business, and economics it is not. He
rightly believes that connecting “part A” to “Widget B” on an assembly line is
as important to a company as “The Suits” doing zillion dollar deals at
corporate luncheons. They are equally important, but they do not both bring
equal value to the company.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a name='more'></a></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUiiexO9U4jQpJ2xKWC8m8i0Oc2h0jlX0V3M33B9Gb4uLs3S8haMe5p58EaHjjykbJvkuokywII6To4gXW9bXnZnkyT5Dv4alftjwdj61ol2O4nrEVtDGF_CIgESpvS55xpXvWciZeFKA/s1600/Worker+Joe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUiiexO9U4jQpJ2xKWC8m8i0Oc2h0jlX0V3M33B9Gb4uLs3S8haMe5p58EaHjjykbJvkuokywII6To4gXW9bXnZnkyT5Dv4alftjwdj61ol2O4nrEVtDGF_CIgESpvS55xpXvWciZeFKA/s200/Worker+Joe.jpg" height="132" title="" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">An employee’s worth to a company is in the aggregate
amount of revenue and monetary value the individual brings to a company. If we
reverse the question and ask: "can an assembly line worker bring several million
dollars to a company?" how many widgets would Joe worker need to assemble to
bring enough raw dollars to cover a multi-million dollar salary? Joe could not
produce enough widgets working twenty four hours a day with eight arms on a
diet of nothing but Red Bull to produce enough revenue to cover such a salary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzFuKfZjyCkzlkSLGp1V7yNbh6NvQEPUymb060Q2H031fPQXTO7ZgcZRXm2_YcsFhXn-TA3xGDWyxiMA5fyCiBrijhXPmMa1VzNr3zsDDDMmSZ3q6NIEVR8UR1mj_SOlcSe1eS4CqlCes/s1600/Banker+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzFuKfZjyCkzlkSLGp1V7yNbh6NvQEPUymb060Q2H031fPQXTO7ZgcZRXm2_YcsFhXn-TA3xGDWyxiMA5fyCiBrijhXPmMa1VzNr3zsDDDMmSZ3q6NIEVR8UR1mj_SOlcSe1eS4CqlCes/s1600/Banker+1.jpg" height="132" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now back to the Executive lunch. Yes it looks absurdly easy to laugh over a
lobster lunch and then hand off the paperwork to the lawyers and accountants
but the executive has an entirely different skill-set. And just as engineers
have a different skill-set than line-workers, and line-workers a different
skill-set than delivery drivers, with each being compensated upon the value
they bring to the company executives salaries cannot be based upon hours worked,
or upon some arbitrary sense of “fairness” but upon raw dollars they bring to
the table. The simple economics is that it is economically feasible to pay Joe
worker say, $50,000 for the $300,000 dollars he brings to the company just as
it is economically feasible and equitable to compensate a CEO $19 million for
the [b]illion dollars of revenue he brought to the table. No, he could not do it
if there weren’t a lot of worker Joes producing widgets, but on the other hand Worker
Joe would not have customers to make those widgets for without<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the Fat Cats<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>making those massive business deals over lunch before 9 holes of golf
that afternoon. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Economics is not
susceptible to our arbitrary sense of fairness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Economics is absolute. Economics does not care who feels bad about some
arbitrary sense of inequity. Economics simply provides that compensation levels
must be commensurate with objective value provided. That value, as measured by
pure economics is in increase – not effort. We all barter our compensation
based upon our ability to bring a certain amount of value ($$) to a company.
Worker Joe says: I can bring you about $400,000 dollars, and for that I will
require $65,000 (16.25%). Executive Al likewise says: “I can bring you about
$800 million, and for that I will require $19 million (2.38%). When examined in
the light of pure economic principles and simple math Joe Worker often receives a much higher
ratio of compensation to value accrued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
beauty of pure economics is that it, unlike the whims of man, never substitutes
one arbitrary sense of fairness for another. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No company that ignores economics will remain
in business for very long. Compensations packages that mirror the economics
involved pay homage to unchanging and unalterable universal laws of economics.
Companies that ignore these dynamics in attempting to appease the ignorant
protestations of those who do not (or will not) understand economic dynamics
can only take such company down a happy Yellow-Brick- Road to ruin.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-78776805965141833172012-11-07T00:17:00.000-08:002012-11-29T14:28:51.773-08:00The Right Kind of Oppression<span style="font-family: Times;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCUAEEJGUz6adIB7mrTLHrpsUXCzdPV_bCMQRZV-zkJWbu1Czj5nAQnpGmKfK7a-yYuMFaVtNlBumXdQ_xoVpJpUw10KVwC2tpntCRJStxzBFtS296kXINJwYuxeLYHBPUYGeAQwlf3E/s1600/Iran+execution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCUAEEJGUz6adIB7mrTLHrpsUXCzdPV_bCMQRZV-zkJWbu1Czj5nAQnpGmKfK7a-yYuMFaVtNlBumXdQ_xoVpJpUw10KVwC2tpntCRJStxzBFtS296kXINJwYuxeLYHBPUYGeAQwlf3E/s200/Iran+execution.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
So Obama it seems has made it his mission to leave a legacy of “freedom” throughout the Middle East. So he is advocating, nudging, or shoving all of the dictators from their perches, supporting anyone purporting a “freedom” ideology, banner, or bumper-sticker. So throughout the Middle East dictators are being toppled like dominoes as we provide money, and clandestine troops and assistance and randomly lob missiles hither and thither. And it all seems to be going splendidly as “freedom-luvin” groups throughout Middle Eastern countries are suddenly inspired to get theirs.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a> And as the dictators respond violently to prevent their own overthrow and demise their violence is then highlighted worldwide on Al Jazeera and the other world media, invoking even more animus against these evil dictators in a circular death spiral of their various regimes. The new mantra of the current administration is that we will no longer support or allow dictators to oppress their own people just because they are “Our dictators...” Stirring words<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
So how’s that working out for you?</div>
<br />
Well if you ask any lefties today they will tell you that it is working majestically and that freedom and democracy is on the march throughout the Middle East in wondrous ways. Soon many new countries throughout the Middle East will be democracies akin to the United States. Well firstly, our form of government here in the U.S. is not democracy, and thank Allah for that! Democracy has been best described as four fox’s and a chicken voting on what is for lunch. Democracy sounds good as long as you are not the chicken. So, as these burgeoning “democracies begin to take hold with these various countries vast majorities being staunchly Muslim how much actual “freedom” do you think will reign there? Well, you say, it is not for us to force our world views on them. Well isn’t that what we are doing right now as we decide their current way of doing business is not acceptable and we intervene and help to overthrow their current way of doing things? As it is repeatedly shown that Islamic run countries oppress their peoples majestically, the common mantra is that it is not our place to interfere with their traditions and way of governing their people, yet that is exactly what we are doing in favoring and supporting a majority led dictatorship over a minority led dictatorship. So let me get this straight: “Oppression by military might is evil, but oppression by a large mob is good.” OK, thanks for the clarification.<br />
<br />
So why does this seem to me to be Déjà vu all over again? Oh yeah, I remember now: Carter already tried this experiment, though on a much smaller scale in the 70’s with Iran, and that certainly worked out well! Yep, similarly to the current “new” freedom plan for the Middle East Carter allowed and supported the overthrow of that evil dictator, the Shah. Now that worked out well, huh? Yeah, now four decades later Iran is a veritable icon of freedom, to be emulated throughout the Middle East. Just think how wondrous a place the Middle East will be once Iran-style Islamic freedom is implemented throughout the entire region. “But no, goes the mantra, these countries are not being taken over by religious radicals, but rather those fine secular groups such as the Islamic Brotherhood. And how much more secular can one get than a group with Islamic in their title? “Well, that is their business, not ours,” goes the mantra of the left. Right, so why is it our business when it is the current form of oppression rather than our preferred form of oppression of Democracy?<br />
<br />
“Well, what are we to do,” the lefties ask, “just allow oppression violence and murder of these people by these tin-pot dictators?” Well maybe so, and maybe not, but a good start would be to admit that you favor butting into and imposing your ideas as much as the righties do. That would be a good start. Another edifying thing for all would be to for once not ignore the law of unintended consequences in favor of good intentions and happy thoughts to actually contemplate if our constant interventions might be misguided and once again helping the Middle Eastern peoples out of the frying pan and into the fire, or worse.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-48502596339433335812012-11-07T00:00:00.000-08:002012-11-29T16:51:11.265-08:00Health Care Compliance Police - Part Duh<br />
That's "Part Two" for those of you who missed the hysterical Charlie Sheen Rambo - Part Two spoof.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj23YsmVoDx1oFziDBaLtRMK1aD6et_KmV2Ry8XRvtwXp-6eLm95UX-SxkpqYr_lp-RS1kKAKlzzBtYsSl2Av8tRvRNnn_XJk5BNcpo-iiVslEfAo52fjyAt4d3HIXqmT_YmVllGgIX8Bs/s1600/Health+Care+Compliance+Police.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj23YsmVoDx1oFziDBaLtRMK1aD6et_KmV2Ry8XRvtwXp-6eLm95UX-SxkpqYr_lp-RS1kKAKlzzBtYsSl2Av8tRvRNnn_XJk5BNcpo-iiVslEfAo52fjyAt4d3HIXqmT_YmVllGgIX8Bs/s200/Health+Care+Compliance+Police.jpg" width="190" /></a></div>
So I have an update to the merry-go round post. It is another fascinating angle to the whole Health-care issue. I was watching O'Reilly and Beck doing a segment on this very topic and Beck raised a very good point. If we have to fund your Health-care we should be able to have a say in how you live your life so as to not squander our money. So I think we, or our government agents should be able to control what you eat, whether you smoke, and enforce that you get a proper amount of exercise, etc. Further, I think we should be able to control any dangerous activities that you might participate in that could put you at risk, and therefore raise the costs to all. Skiing and snowboarding would definitely be out. Likewise rock-climbing and skydiving. Oh, and those skyrocketing STD costs? Well we'll need to track and control your sexual liaisons to keep health-care costs in check.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Of course there are those scoff-laws that would try to ignore these "common sense guidelines for the good of all, that are really just designed to contain out-of-control Health-care spending." I think therefore some of our government Health-care tax dollars should go to the creation of a Health-care Enforcement Department to ensure compliance with nutrition, health, and safety guidelines. Of course this would all be administered through "Voluntary compliance. Everyone would get a universal health-care card; Kind of like a National ID, or a National driver's license. After all, if they can give you a Social Security card, why not a "Social Health-care" card? It would be just like the drivers license laws where you can refuse to take the breathalyzer but they can revoke your license if you refuse to comply. So it would work something like this:<br />
<br />
The FBHC [Federal Bureau of Health-Care Compliance] officer shows up at your door and tells you that they are there to examine your residence and interview you in regard to suspected violation[s] of Health-Care ordinance HCC 100.43.789[d]. They go on to inform you that your compliance is strictly voluntary but that refusal will result in suspension of all Health-Care licenses associated with this address including the "primary and sub-licensees" [Parents & children] So maybe this was just a random screening as required by the HCC [Health-Care Code] or perhaps it was in regard to a tip from a neighbor. The agent is sorry but she can't tell you who turned you in. It's part of a new amendment to the HIPPA privacy laws. Well you really can't afford to get dropped from the system now as your child would lose his government provided Ritalin, and imagine the horror of that! Also, if your teenage daughter got knocked-up again you'd have to pay for the abortion yourself, or just have another useless little eater under your roof. [But on the other hand there would be the extra welfare dollars; - hmmm? decisions-decisions.] So you let them in. After all, you are a law abiding citizen. What do you have to hide?<br />
<div align="center">
****</div>
So, the inspection didn't go so well. She found the refined sugar, some non goat-cheese, and the beer in the fridge. Uh, yeah... those are violations of new sections of the code, she informs you. She provides you with the pertinent sections of the code. Good thing she didn't find the bootleg cigarettes your son has stashed with his playboys or you would all be screwed. She also found some huge glaring gaps in your workout validation log from the gym. Seems you have missed several of your mandatory cardio-classes. Then there is the sex-log. It seems that your new potential boyfriend has not been screened. She collects his contact info and demands a full STD and AIDs screening before any sexual contact will be allowed. "Do not ignore this extremely important and required step!" she warns firmly. "It is really best that you not be alone anywhere with him where things could get out of hand. After all, hormones and candlelight can can cloud the inhibitions. And for God's sake, no alcohol until your liaison has been approved! Remember, the penalties for violation of the Sexual-Protection Act are severe!"<br />
<br />
So she doesn't suspend you right now but just confiscates the products in violation, and calls the gym to set up some remedial workout compliance there. She also schedules a follow up inspection to ensure proper compliance in the future. Hopefully you will find those cigarettes before she does, and the candy bars.<br />
<br />
And the potential boyfriend? Well he was one of those wacko's who doesn't want his sexual history and health records submitted to the government. Well you didn't need a crazy conspiracy-nut like that in your life anyway!<br />
<br />
So anyway, it is actually a lot easier to stay in shape, what with all of the fast food places being driven out of business by the new regulations. After all you can't have McDonalds and those other evil giant multi-national corporations making everyone unhealthy and skyrocketing the costs for everyone can we? Sorry Mcdonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell.... Sorry Jobs. Oh, and all of those teenager jobs that went away? well we all have to carry our part of the load in our righteous quest for everyone to be healthy.<br />
<br />
And in a slight digression here I'd like to address those super-cute miniature girl scouts that just rang my doorbell with their huge basket of cookies between them: Sorry Girls you are in clear violation of the law. (sugar & trans-fats!)<br />
<br />
Well the other restaurants have also been ravaged by the new regulations. Hard to cook without salt, sugar, cheese, trans-fats, MSG, or anything the FBHC determines unhealthy. So the restaurants are dropping like flies too. But hey, the upside to this is that the numbers show a clear uptick in the overall health of America. Virtually all metrics show improvement, except suicide, which has "inexplicably" shown a massive spike. And what to do about that? After all it is kind of pointless to revoke someones Health-Care privileges after they're dead.<br />
<br />
So you say that this is a ridiculous, impossible scenario here in America? Why is it impossible, or even improbably? It is just another step in the methodical march to a socialist nirvana that the ever growing collectivists amongst us crave. It is actually a logical step as well. After all the actual cost of the leviathan Health-care 'Overhaul" will have been proven, just as all other government programs have, to cost about five or six times what the progressives assured us it would. And of course the lost tax revenues from the ravaged economy brought on by the strangling regulations on the food industry will have increased the deficit to a level that would make even Barack Obama blush. And of course what do we do in such a scenario to reduce those exploding deficits from Health-Care costs? Well he has already showed you his blueprint for that. Why it's quite simple. We just need to "ensure" that everyone gets healthy. After all, we are all in this together...<br />
<br />
PS: the really scary part is that the progressives reading this will actually see the scenario I described here as a perfectly acceptable part of the plan.Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9024968380567111736.post-26539339213006038542012-11-06T23:20:00.000-08:002014-05-02T02:22:20.394-07:00Being Civilized - or not....<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKujYYP9Dok7N98NC2u_vXzjfbeFK_FmHGCpc_ml8WFuRz-qC591fQDerEjtF6KyGBybtz4woRpzUts_gt00Ql-mhvVinc8OP00f10_G6ZSUHoJf1eaGHdD9IygeKpfHI5BmTNHwHlf8/s1600/Death+Penalty+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKujYYP9Dok7N98NC2u_vXzjfbeFK_FmHGCpc_ml8WFuRz-qC591fQDerEjtF6KyGBybtz4woRpzUts_gt00Ql-mhvVinc8OP00f10_G6ZSUHoJf1eaGHdD9IygeKpfHI5BmTNHwHlf8/s200/Death+Penalty+1.jpg" height="148" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Anti-death-penalty apologists will often tout Norway’s
abolishment of the death penalty in comparison to the United States’ “barbaric”
death penalty adherence. Apparently to these, killing a person for murdering
another is uncivilized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well today’s ruling
out of Norway could not be a more fitting demonstration of what a “civilized”
country is, or is not.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a name='more'></a>Today Anders Breivik apologized: “for not killing
more.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>- Yes you read that right. Just
before sentencing Breivic apologized to his fellow “Militant Nationalist” for only
killing 77 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>people (Mostly teenagers),
and wounding 242 more. Evidently Breivic is also sorry that his bombing of
Oslo’s government buildings only killed eight people, and that the carnage was
not much greater. </span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So Breivik is apologetic for not wreaking more carnage and
murder, but to the victims, the court, and to the people, not so much…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Actually not at all).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So one would think this blatant defiance
would garner the wrath of the court and of the judge, and they would be right.
Clearly the judge finds the crimes, and Breivik’s defiance and pleasure in
these deaths to be appalling. After all the judge did sentence him to the
maximum allowed sentence in Norway for the horrific crimes of bombing
government buildings and mass murder of children (and a few adults).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And what is the penalty in the “civilized”
Norway for terrorism, bombing, and mass-murder of 77 children and adults, and
wounding of 242 more? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well He was
sentenced to 10 to 21 years maximum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Wow, you say, 10 years for each victim seems a little light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Uh no, that’s 10-21 years total… Yep He could
be out in as little as ten years with good behavior. Heck if he did it all
again he could get out next time before 60 and live fairly comfortably on a
government pension. The courts can hold Breivic indefinitely if he is still
considered a threat under Norway’s “Preventative Detention” law. But if he is
really, really sorry ten years from now, sees the error of his ways, and “gets
religion” while in prison – well it just wouldn’t be fair to hold him after he
has completed his sentence if he is no longer a threat, would it?</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So the anti-death apologists continually repeat the tired
refrain that not having the death penalty would be cheaper as convicts appeal
less when not on death row.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they are
right again! Breivic is not appealing his sentence. After all, he’ll probably
be released before such appeal would make its way through the courts so why
bother?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is so much better use of
one’s time working on writing his next manifesto.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, he is…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, if the militant anti-death penalty camp gets their way
the United States may one day be as “civilized” as Norway. And perhaps the next
Usama Bin Laden that manages to evaporate several city blocks in Manhattan and
a few thousand people can also get their day in court (remember that was just a
criminal act, and not really war (no uniforms)). And really, if we are going to
sentence one guy to 10-21 years for killing hundreds, or thousands, surely we
can’t fairly sentence some simple serial killer to a whole decade for murdering
a mere 34 people?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To all of this I have but one prayer, “God please protect us
from ever becoming as ‘civilized’ as these people wish us to be.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Ben Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10167735737077463668noreply@blogger.com0