John Hinderaker has posted on the Democracy Alliance, consisting of about 100 very rich liberals working to coordinate the efforts of left wing organizations to promote a "radical agenda." A member who attended a conference in April left a copy of the Democracy Alliance papers for the conference behind. The papers are supposed to be closely held, not circulated. This outfit works very much behind the scenes.
Among other things, the over 100 pages of "handouts" identify the participating members of the group.
Hinderaker calls this a conspiracy, and it very likely meets that definition.
Of course, they think of themselves as planning; others would call the same behavior plotting.
It's a remarkable document and it brings to mind something somebody said to me forty years ago.
Evil people don't think that they are evil. Evil people have friends and their friends like them a lot.
Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Monday, July 07, 2014
Acknowledge the mob with a little gesture, oh, mighty one . . .
This is great. Hillary Clinton has complained of being "dead broke," after being accused of being insufficiently sensitive to and knowledgeable about folks like 99% of the U.S. population. She demands and gets about $250,000 a speech on the speaking circuit.
She says she pays taxes on the money, so, she's not rich; she's just an ordinary working woman.
But she's mindful of the criticism she's received for her poor little me posturing. Because -- well, how often do you or anyone you know get paid a quarter million dollars to say what's on your mind? Ever.
So, she has taken what, for her and her ilk, is the high road. She has decided to give away the money she gets from public speaking.
Who is she going to give it to? Why, the Clinton Foundation, of course.
She has a reputation. It remains unchanged.
She says she pays taxes on the money, so, she's not rich; she's just an ordinary working woman.
But she's mindful of the criticism she's received for her poor little me posturing. Because -- well, how often do you or anyone you know get paid a quarter million dollars to say what's on your mind? Ever.
So, she has taken what, for her and her ilk, is the high road. She has decided to give away the money she gets from public speaking.
Who is she going to give it to? Why, the Clinton Foundation, of course.
She has a reputation. It remains unchanged.
Friday, June 13, 2014
IRS claims it cannot find Lerner's emails and so the IRS pet dog must have eaten them . . .
The Ways and Means Committee of the House reports that it has been informed that IRS cannot comply with its request for information -- information that IRS previously said would be provided -- that is, about two year's worth of Lerner emails (remember, Lerner claimed 5th Amendment privilege to avoid being compelled to testify on the grounds that it could have led to her conviction for a crime.)
The emails requested were those between Lerner and people other than IRS employees, and you may remember that it's already been revealed that some congresspersons, who are not after all employed by the IRS, had strongly suggested that the IRS closely scrutinize any 501C(4) applications from tea party groups and conservative organizations, and the IRS scrutinized and scrutinized, delaying the grant of status for over two years, thus keeping the organization requesting the status "out of business" for that time. Other such relationships between various government agents and the IRS are suspected and strongly indicated, and Lerner might not be the only person metaphorically standing in the shadow of jail bars.
The emails were lost! Poof! Just like that.
Somehow this puts me in mind of the Whitewater investigation of many, many years ago, when Hillary Clinton's attorney billing records from when she worked for the Rose Law Firm while her husband was governor -- just went missing.
Poof! Just like that.
Oddly enough, those self same billing records were, some years later and when the investigation was over, found. In the plate room of the White House.
Damn! Just like that.
How much do you want to bet that the National Security Agency, which has a copy of every email and cellphone call you and I have made, for just in case we might be an enemy of the state, cannot locate any copies of Lerner's IRS emails?
Speculate with me. The NSA copies of the IRS email records were probably erased when the NSA decided to purge its servers so as to protect the right to privacy that all us American citizens rightfully claim. Hand on its bureaucratic heart.
Or else the dog ate them.
The emails requested were those between Lerner and people other than IRS employees, and you may remember that it's already been revealed that some congresspersons, who are not after all employed by the IRS, had strongly suggested that the IRS closely scrutinize any 501C(4) applications from tea party groups and conservative organizations, and the IRS scrutinized and scrutinized, delaying the grant of status for over two years, thus keeping the organization requesting the status "out of business" for that time. Other such relationships between various government agents and the IRS are suspected and strongly indicated, and Lerner might not be the only person metaphorically standing in the shadow of jail bars.
The emails were lost! Poof! Just like that.
Somehow this puts me in mind of the Whitewater investigation of many, many years ago, when Hillary Clinton's attorney billing records from when she worked for the Rose Law Firm while her husband was governor -- just went missing.
Poof! Just like that.
Oddly enough, those self same billing records were, some years later and when the investigation was over, found. In the plate room of the White House.
Damn! Just like that.
How much do you want to bet that the National Security Agency, which has a copy of every email and cellphone call you and I have made, for just in case we might be an enemy of the state, cannot locate any copies of Lerner's IRS emails?
Speculate with me. The NSA copies of the IRS email records were probably erased when the NSA decided to purge its servers so as to protect the right to privacy that all us American citizens rightfully claim. Hand on its bureaucratic heart.
Or else the dog ate them.
A slick cure for ESPN . . .
I am watching the National open golf television broadcast. The TV announcers are proficiently maintaining a constant chatter, avoiding nary a moment when the audience might miss the sound of their voices. Most of their voiced observations add little to what can be seen. 'Tis a relentless stream of banalities, irrelevancies, and stupidities.
Oh, wait! I just found the mute button on the remote.
There! Fixed it.
Oh, wait! I just found the mute button on the remote.
There! Fixed it.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
What do they have to hide?
A judgement in Europe requires Google to let people preserve their anonymity by asking Google to withdraw personal information. People can basically ask to be "forgotten."
That means that when you google somebody, Google will not supply you with the site of the information requested. But it is still there on the web, somewhere. If it is located, nothing prevents folks from forwarding the address to others. Right?
It just means that those who have control of information are increasingly empowered. How often do we credit gossip more highly than published reports -- because gossip feels like it comes from a close source, even when the origination is creditless.
Somebody once said that information wants to be free, but it is more true that people want to control your access to information because that increases control over you.
That means that when you google somebody, Google will not supply you with the site of the information requested. But it is still there on the web, somewhere. If it is located, nothing prevents folks from forwarding the address to others. Right?
It just means that those who have control of information are increasingly empowered. How often do we credit gossip more highly than published reports -- because gossip feels like it comes from a close source, even when the origination is creditless.
Somebody once said that information wants to be free, but it is more true that people want to control your access to information because that increases control over you.
When pipsqueeks roar . . .
Have you seen the supposedly surreptitious video of our Obama working out in Poland? With beginner weights?
Putin, who nuzzles tigers, seduces bears, and reassembles empires, so we are told, is surely impressed.
Putin, who nuzzles tigers, seduces bears, and reassembles empires, so we are told, is surely impressed.
Monday, June 02, 2014
The Google auto drone . . .
The proposed Google self-driving car, once on the road, presents problems beyond the mere problem of connecting a car's controls to an internet map, and avoiding collisions with stuff in its way, or stuff approaching it at a closing velocity.
For it to work, the maps must be in place, and the GPS connection must be available, and there must be a connection to a satellite, so that the vehicle can be operated remotely. The operation of the vehicler is, in this case, a computer making decisions, and sending the decisions remotely to the vehicle controls.
Presumably, the operator supplies the destination address to initiate the travel, and there is probably some sort of log-on process.
Is it at least possible, or conceivable that the destination signal could be input into the vehicle remotely, as well?
Sure. One of the imagined benefits of a self-driving car could be to call your car, from someplace else, to come get you. You could have the car parked a short three blocks away, and have it come to your door so as to avoid walking in the rain.
What if somebody else, not the owner/operator could run the vehicle somewhere, using owner's identification and password, or even through some backdoor conveniently left available for government law enforcement.
I think what you have, then, is an unmanned drone.
Based on the recent revelations about government surveillance . . . can we trust that it would never happen?
For it to work, the maps must be in place, and the GPS connection must be available, and there must be a connection to a satellite, so that the vehicle can be operated remotely. The operation of the vehicler is, in this case, a computer making decisions, and sending the decisions remotely to the vehicle controls.
Presumably, the operator supplies the destination address to initiate the travel, and there is probably some sort of log-on process.
Is it at least possible, or conceivable that the destination signal could be input into the vehicle remotely, as well?
Sure. One of the imagined benefits of a self-driving car could be to call your car, from someplace else, to come get you. You could have the car parked a short three blocks away, and have it come to your door so as to avoid walking in the rain.
What if somebody else, not the owner/operator could run the vehicle somewhere, using owner's identification and password, or even through some backdoor conveniently left available for government law enforcement.
I think what you have, then, is an unmanned drone.
Based on the recent revelations about government surveillance . . . can we trust that it would never happen?
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Set it to music and call it "VA Follies." . . .
So, now the administration has to find a new head of the Veteran Administration, now that the current leader has fallen on his own sword on publication of the incompetence -- and worse -- of health care for vets.
The main qualification of the next appointee? Why, nothing less than the willingness to be the designated scapegoat, later, should it again become politically necessary to protect the administration if and when the quality of care vets once again becomes an issue.
The incompetence of the VA is built in. Most of the employees are protected through collective bargaining and the "employer" has no real competitors to set a "market" price for provided services, and no motivation on the part of management to make a profit by controlling expense. Further, compensation bonuses for management are based on numbers.
Thus VA employees get paid if they report good numbers, whether true or not, and with little bad consequence if not.
We just have to kick the can down the road past the next election by arguing that the cure is in the works.
It's all politics based on the healthcare provided to vets.
Why would we expect anything else?
The main qualification of the next appointee? Why, nothing less than the willingness to be the designated scapegoat, later, should it again become politically necessary to protect the administration if and when the quality of care vets once again becomes an issue.
The incompetence of the VA is built in. Most of the employees are protected through collective bargaining and the "employer" has no real competitors to set a "market" price for provided services, and no motivation on the part of management to make a profit by controlling expense. Further, compensation bonuses for management are based on numbers.
Thus VA employees get paid if they report good numbers, whether true or not, and with little bad consequence if not.
We just have to kick the can down the road past the next election by arguing that the cure is in the works.
It's all politics based on the healthcare provided to vets.
Why would we expect anything else?
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Cyber dreams in Google land . . .
Google technocrats have been in love with the idea of driverless cars for a while now. The idea is that there should be a car which drives itself to the destination you select, without the need for any human intervention. Using Google maps, and a GPS signal, Google figures they can get you anywhere, with enough proximity detectors on the cars to avoid bumping.
Oh, say. Has anyone ever been misled by Google maps, like, when the roads were changed, or closed? Does Google know where all the bike lanes are, when new ones are added? How about all the new little projections into what were usable vehicle lanes, to stick little nasty, grassy spots to collect water runoff and Starbucks cups? They didn't used to be there. In other words, maps need to change with changes to the roads, and the maps can't always keep up.
Of course, Google is concerned with safety, so they are going to put extra bump padding on the outer surfaces of the vehicles.
And here's the best part. Top speed will be 25 mph. Google says that even if there is an accident, with that speed, nobody should be hurt very bad. Oh, and it will be great if you want to get flaming drunk some night; your car will be your designated driver.
I can't wait. Just the thing to eliminate the stress of rush hour. Just sit in your car; let it drive you home while you play games, or text your friends, or read lies on your I-phone.
And there is always a rush hour stress as everybody is trying to get home and drivers must be hyper alert while driving in rush hour traffic. But, Google says no driving, no stress.
On the other hand, wonder how much the stress of rush hour will be increased when you are stuck following a driverless vehicle which refuses to go faster than 25 mph?
I suspect that it would take no more than a dozen self-satisfied, smug dipshits with Google smart/slow cars, strategically distributed, to make an entire city unlivable.
On the other, other hand, where's my flying car I was promised by Popular Science magazine, back in the fifties?
Oh, say. Has anyone ever been misled by Google maps, like, when the roads were changed, or closed? Does Google know where all the bike lanes are, when new ones are added? How about all the new little projections into what were usable vehicle lanes, to stick little nasty, grassy spots to collect water runoff and Starbucks cups? They didn't used to be there. In other words, maps need to change with changes to the roads, and the maps can't always keep up.
Of course, Google is concerned with safety, so they are going to put extra bump padding on the outer surfaces of the vehicles.
And here's the best part. Top speed will be 25 mph. Google says that even if there is an accident, with that speed, nobody should be hurt very bad. Oh, and it will be great if you want to get flaming drunk some night; your car will be your designated driver.
I can't wait. Just the thing to eliminate the stress of rush hour. Just sit in your car; let it drive you home while you play games, or text your friends, or read lies on your I-phone.
And there is always a rush hour stress as everybody is trying to get home and drivers must be hyper alert while driving in rush hour traffic. But, Google says no driving, no stress.
On the other hand, wonder how much the stress of rush hour will be increased when you are stuck following a driverless vehicle which refuses to go faster than 25 mph?
I suspect that it would take no more than a dozen self-satisfied, smug dipshits with Google smart/slow cars, strategically distributed, to make an entire city unlivable.
On the other, other hand, where's my flying car I was promised by Popular Science magazine, back in the fifties?
Saturday, May 24, 2014
My power of sarcasm grows weak in the face of overwhelming stupid . . .
Here's a story about a university dropping its gender studies program and replacing it with a course on the United States Constitution. The usual suspects, morons, professionally outraged, and blinkered feminist uglies are outraged. The program being dropped once provided information on how to become a lesbian in a mere 10 days. Of course, we can all see how such a course is needed in our troubled times, and how a course on the U. S. Constitution would be dumb and stupid seeing as how it is no longer of any importance or in any way pertinent to the needs of politicians to be elected and re-elected in pursuit of their expectations of wealth, based on their obviously superior knowledge of pretty much anything.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Boil your water, Portland . . .
Portland Water Board issued a warning to everybody using Portland water, to boil it, not ingest it, this morning. I also got a robocall from the City advising the same. On the 20th of this month they found E. coli in the water, and every day including today.
So. Did I drink water on the 20th? Yes I did. Did I do it again on the 21st? Yup. How about the 22nd? You betcha! And this morning? Why, yes again.
I sure am glad I was warned not to drink Portland water, cook with it, brush my teeth in it, or use any ice cubes made any time since the 20th.
And aren't you glad you voted no on the issue proposal to get water out of city hall politics, because unnamed "corporate polluters". -- unnamed so as to avoid defamation lawsuits -- were supporting the proposed change of administrative responsibility? Oh, and who were the cronies who paid for all the vote no campaign material?
Did I say crony? I meant to say "interested citizen with special access to local ambitious politicians." Yeah, that's what I meant.
So. Did I drink water on the 20th? Yes I did. Did I do it again on the 21st? Yup. How about the 22nd? You betcha! And this morning? Why, yes again.
I sure am glad I was warned not to drink Portland water, cook with it, brush my teeth in it, or use any ice cubes made any time since the 20th.
And aren't you glad you voted no on the issue proposal to get water out of city hall politics, because unnamed "corporate polluters". -- unnamed so as to avoid defamation lawsuits -- were supporting the proposed change of administrative responsibility? Oh, and who were the cronies who paid for all the vote no campaign material?
Did I say crony? I meant to say "interested citizen with special access to local ambitious politicians." Yeah, that's what I meant.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Sucker Lists and the suckers who are on them . . .
Just got a phone call from a local charity we've given to in the past. No big surprise. They are running short of funds for their current programs and they need more money to keep on keeping on.
But in addition, they've just started an exciting new program to serve an additional population segment, and they need money for that, as well.
Why would you start a new program you couldn't pay for, when you already are doubtful of taking care of the existing needs?
Oh, well. I shouldn't be so critical.
At least the phone caller wasn't trying to convince me that they are from Microsoft and my computer has a scary problem they can fix with the simple disclosure of credit card information. Had two of those calls today, alone, despite the fact that Microsoft publishes that it never telephones people to alert them to problems they didn't know they had. And Microsoft certainly never initiates phone calls from Mumbai.
Oh, no. When Microsoft needs more money, it issues a wonderful, new version of Windows and stops supporting old versions.
I must be on a list of some kind.
But in addition, they've just started an exciting new program to serve an additional population segment, and they need money for that, as well.
Why would you start a new program you couldn't pay for, when you already are doubtful of taking care of the existing needs?
Oh, well. I shouldn't be so critical.
At least the phone caller wasn't trying to convince me that they are from Microsoft and my computer has a scary problem they can fix with the simple disclosure of credit card information. Had two of those calls today, alone, despite the fact that Microsoft publishes that it never telephones people to alert them to problems they didn't know they had. And Microsoft certainly never initiates phone calls from Mumbai.
Oh, no. When Microsoft needs more money, it issues a wonderful, new version of Windows and stops supporting old versions.
I must be on a list of some kind.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Clipper hugga-muggah
Oh, Lordy, Lordy. Turns out that the owner of a basketball team made a racist comment. Punishment must be swift and painful. Take his team away from him! Magic Johnson might want to buy it, and the owner doesn't want his girlfriend hanging around with such people.
Except that it isn't illegal to be a racist. Yet.
Even if the fact of his racism means you would be perfectly entitled to decline to shake hands with him, turning your back to him and holding him in open and obvious contempt
It is, however, illegal to discriminate unlawfully based on race.
So far as I've heard, the owner is okay with whatever racial characteristics basketball players have provided they have talent, and he pays them appropriately to their value to the team and in proportion to the pay of other basketball players in the league. And probably all out of proportion to their real contributions to society and western civilization
And we don't have thought crimes punishable by Big Brother.
Yet.
Except that it isn't illegal to be a racist. Yet.
Even if the fact of his racism means you would be perfectly entitled to decline to shake hands with him, turning your back to him and holding him in open and obvious contempt
It is, however, illegal to discriminate unlawfully based on race.
So far as I've heard, the owner is okay with whatever racial characteristics basketball players have provided they have talent, and he pays them appropriately to their value to the team and in proportion to the pay of other basketball players in the league. And probably all out of proportion to their real contributions to society and western civilization
And we don't have thought crimes punishable by Big Brother.
Yet.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Great Nevada tortoise standoff
It's been not so widely reported that a Nevada rancher pissed off the federal Bureau of Land Management so much, that there were as many as 200 armed agents surrounding the area, with helicopters and hired cowboys who were going to round up and confiscate the rancher's cattle and kick the rancher off the land. It was also reported, even less widely, that the action was motivated to aid the desire of a powerful majority leader in the Senate, to make a deal to let a Chinese outfit set up some sort of operation on the lands. The BLM says it is necessary to get the cattle off the land to protect a coupla dozen land tortoises.
I'm not certain how much of the reports to believe, but there certainly were hundreds of armed agents focusing on one American rancher family. The feds set up a little fenced in "first amendment" area, where, if somebody wanted to say something covered by the first amendment, they had to go to the little first amendment area, or else risk arrest for obstruction.
Anyhow, quite a few citizens from several states, near and far, showed up with guns and megaphones and arranged themselves in opposition to the federal agents. Nobody wanted to take the first shot, but . . .
No shots were fired, but blog speculation had considered the event to be a possible beginning of a civil war and tossed around speculations about Ruby Ridge, and Waco. The backdown happened coincidentally almost immediately after the reports of the Chinese desl were published.
So what happened? The feds backed down and went away. Cattle have been released, except for some that the BLM says it intends to sell, and pay something to the rancher who owns the cattle. The government announced that it was abandoning the operation in Nevada, but it intended to continue to pursue the issues "legally;" presumably that means in the courts.
Here's my question. If the government intends to pursue the matter in the courts, well, why wasn't that the first plan, not the backup plan? Oh, and if the government now plans to pursue the issue "legally", isn't that an admission that their coercive actions up to this time have been extra-legal, or illegal?
Just sayin'
I'm not certain how much of the reports to believe, but there certainly were hundreds of armed agents focusing on one American rancher family. The feds set up a little fenced in "first amendment" area, where, if somebody wanted to say something covered by the first amendment, they had to go to the little first amendment area, or else risk arrest for obstruction.
Anyhow, quite a few citizens from several states, near and far, showed up with guns and megaphones and arranged themselves in opposition to the federal agents. Nobody wanted to take the first shot, but . . .
No shots were fired, but blog speculation had considered the event to be a possible beginning of a civil war and tossed around speculations about Ruby Ridge, and Waco. The backdown happened coincidentally almost immediately after the reports of the Chinese desl were published.
So what happened? The feds backed down and went away. Cattle have been released, except for some that the BLM says it intends to sell, and pay something to the rancher who owns the cattle. The government announced that it was abandoning the operation in Nevada, but it intended to continue to pursue the issues "legally;" presumably that means in the courts.
Here's my question. If the government intends to pursue the matter in the courts, well, why wasn't that the first plan, not the backup plan? Oh, and if the government now plans to pursue the issue "legally", isn't that an admission that their coercive actions up to this time have been extra-legal, or illegal?
Just sayin'
Friday, April 11, 2014
I used to be a skeptic, but now I'm just cynical . . .
I've frequently pointed out that all government and law is, at bottom, a prediction or warning of the application of force, or the actual application of force. The only difference between force applied by the government and the thug who threatens your life if don't hand over your cash or belongings, is that government claims a moral right, and the governed generally concede that the government's application of force is moral. Otherwise, force is force, and it doesn't feel good if you are on the wrong end of it.
Danfromsquirrelhill supplies a list of 634 instances of immoral government.
If the source of immoral force is your enemy, then -- our government is our enemy. The only distinguishing factor is whether or not you, in particular, have been singled out for government action.
Danfromsquirrelhill supplies a list of 634 instances of immoral government.
If the source of immoral force is your enemy, then -- our government is our enemy. The only distinguishing factor is whether or not you, in particular, have been singled out for government action.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Multnomah County, Oregon,Tax Suckers . . .
Once again, we have to deal with the Multnomah County, Oregon, Arts tax. We are assured that this tax is permanent, and that this tax is not an unconstitutional head tax.
The tax is to hire extra arts teachers in the public schools, because there isn't enough money for teachers after first supporting a bloated, over-staffed administration. That's half for teachers. The other half if for "the arts."
Oh, we are also assured that this tax was approved by voters, many of whom earn little or no money and therefore won't pay the tax, because of the unemployment circumstance here, or because their college degree is in stuff like Phony Studies, or Communications, or -- Art, none of which degrees are known for an abundance of employment opportunity. You can't get a job in a Phony Studies company, for example. All such degrees are not really intended to increase the information available to the student, or to increase their fitness for the world they will face after graduation. The purpose of such degrees is to make the student feel good about themselves.
I guess if you have such a degree, your only hope is to get a job with some outfit that doesn't have to bring anything valuable to the marketplace -- such as government, where revenue is all taxes.
As you know, taxes are primarily intended to support the pet project of politicians -- that is, that portion of tax revenue left over after taking care of political cronies.
Last year, at about this same time, I suggested we should have a similar "math" tax, which would hire math teachers. Soon thereafter, there appeared a thunderous lack of interest in such an idea.
The tax is to hire extra arts teachers in the public schools, because there isn't enough money for teachers after first supporting a bloated, over-staffed administration. That's half for teachers. The other half if for "the arts."
Oh, we are also assured that this tax was approved by voters, many of whom earn little or no money and therefore won't pay the tax, because of the unemployment circumstance here, or because their college degree is in stuff like Phony Studies, or Communications, or -- Art, none of which degrees are known for an abundance of employment opportunity. You can't get a job in a Phony Studies company, for example. All such degrees are not really intended to increase the information available to the student, or to increase their fitness for the world they will face after graduation. The purpose of such degrees is to make the student feel good about themselves.
I guess if you have such a degree, your only hope is to get a job with some outfit that doesn't have to bring anything valuable to the marketplace -- such as government, where revenue is all taxes.
As you know, taxes are primarily intended to support the pet project of politicians -- that is, that portion of tax revenue left over after taking care of political cronies.
Last year, at about this same time, I suggested we should have a similar "math" tax, which would hire math teachers. Soon thereafter, there appeared a thunderous lack of interest in such an idea.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Because culture belongs to everyone . . .
So the government moved in and seized a collection of artifacts from a 91 year old Indiana man. Read about it. The motive is to catalog the stuff. one by one, and find out where the owner got them, in hopes that they may find out it's something he shouldn't have, even if it was legal to acquire it when he acquired it. Or some such.
Did they amend the constitution to eliminate the Fourth Amendment sometime while I was out of town, and nobody told me? Shouldn't there be a search warrant involved in this mess, somehow, which would indicate what probable cause exists to think a crime had been committed?
Or is it just that goons are exempt from constitutional limits and anything they do will be blessed by judicial authority on the assumption that everything the government does must be reasonable, somehow, by definition?
What can we learn, here?
Better not own any stuff that has some cultural significance, whateverthehell that means. Cultural stuff is collective property because it is cultural, meaning that it belongs to the collective and government has the right to say who gets and who can't have what.
I just want to say that I, for one, am glad that our government masters are monitoring all communications, including this one, and that I'm glad our government overlords are looking out for the collective good of all when it comes to private collections of cultural artifacts. Everybody knows that private ownership of property deprives all the non-owners of the use of that property and is therefor unfair.
Did they amend the constitution to eliminate the Fourth Amendment sometime while I was out of town, and nobody told me? Shouldn't there be a search warrant involved in this mess, somehow, which would indicate what probable cause exists to think a crime had been committed?
Or is it just that goons are exempt from constitutional limits and anything they do will be blessed by judicial authority on the assumption that everything the government does must be reasonable, somehow, by definition?
What can we learn, here?
Better not own any stuff that has some cultural significance, whateverthehell that means. Cultural stuff is collective property because it is cultural, meaning that it belongs to the collective and government has the right to say who gets and who can't have what.
I just want to say that I, for one, am glad that our government masters are monitoring all communications, including this one, and that I'm glad our government overlords are looking out for the collective good of all when it comes to private collections of cultural artifacts. Everybody knows that private ownership of property deprives all the non-owners of the use of that property and is therefor unfair.
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Poor Baby!
Have you seen that ad where the actors complain that they could only afford to travel on one vacation a year?
Aw. Poor baby! lots of people can't afford to do even one, even if they get a vacation, and lots of people don't have jobs to take a vacation from, let alone rent hotel rooms and buy airline tickets. And these people, aided by their travel company, exult because they vacay twice a year.
Hey! They aren't even politicians, let alone the politician-in-chief.
Aw. Poor baby! lots of people can't afford to do even one, even if they get a vacation, and lots of people don't have jobs to take a vacation from, let alone rent hotel rooms and buy airline tickets. And these people, aided by their travel company, exult because they vacay twice a year.
Hey! They aren't even politicians, let alone the politician-in-chief.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
And now, on top of everything else, the Ukraine is a challenge to . . .
The presidential response to the Russian incursion into the Ukraine is basically, that there's nothing we can do about it, now. Before the incursion, we had that fine, time-tested strategy of endlessly talking about it. This administration calls that diplomacy. Just keep talking until both sides in conflict come to some sort of agreement, the terms of which are immaterial. For example, we talked and talked with the masters of Iran about our sanctions imposed to impede Iranian nuclear bomb development, until we finally mutually agreed to end the sanction in return for the Iranians continuing to pursue nuclear erasure of Israel. Ain't diplomacy cool?
But as for the Russian armed entry into the Ukraine, like the Islamist armed entry into Begahzi diplomatic offices, we couldn't do anything, so we did nothing -- except to try to minimize the perception that the combination of a basic ineptitude with a big head leads to one bad event after another. But ultimately, as Hillary said, what difference would it make? The one trying to make a difference is the same person with the same character that made the mess more likely in the first place.
So, we can abandon the Ukraine with our sense of self intact, because, basically there's nothing we can do about it, now that we've downsized our military (look it up) because we weren't going to use it anyhow. Our modern diplomacy (see Iran) is, after all, so much less muscle headed.
We used to have nations that were our friends, and we used to have nations whose friendship could be relied upon because it was bought and paid for. Now, what nation feels it could rely on our friendship, or our promises? After all, the Ukraine gave up its atomic bombs in return for our promise that it wouldn't need them because we would protect them from being re-absorbed into the Russian hegemony to come.
But, there's nothing we can do about it.
A question comes to mind. Exactly why is it there's nothing we can do about it, and who is to blame for our current impotence in world affairs?
Hint: the source resides in the halls of government and academia, and in the newsrooms, and is supported by a large number of unelected tools, and under-informed stooges.
But as for the Russian armed entry into the Ukraine, like the Islamist armed entry into Begahzi diplomatic offices, we couldn't do anything, so we did nothing -- except to try to minimize the perception that the combination of a basic ineptitude with a big head leads to one bad event after another. But ultimately, as Hillary said, what difference would it make? The one trying to make a difference is the same person with the same character that made the mess more likely in the first place.
So, we can abandon the Ukraine with our sense of self intact, because, basically there's nothing we can do about it, now that we've downsized our military (look it up) because we weren't going to use it anyhow. Our modern diplomacy (see Iran) is, after all, so much less muscle headed.
We used to have nations that were our friends, and we used to have nations whose friendship could be relied upon because it was bought and paid for. Now, what nation feels it could rely on our friendship, or our promises? After all, the Ukraine gave up its atomic bombs in return for our promise that it wouldn't need them because we would protect them from being re-absorbed into the Russian hegemony to come.
But, there's nothing we can do about it.
A question comes to mind. Exactly why is it there's nothing we can do about it, and who is to blame for our current impotence in world affairs?
Hint: the source resides in the halls of government and academia, and in the newsrooms, and is supported by a large number of unelected tools, and under-informed stooges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)