Democracy out of control.

Peter Barca, the Democrats’ Assembly leader said  “Our democracy is out of control in Wisconsin, and you all know it — you can feel it.”


Why?  Because the people voted folks into office that differed politically from him?  Really?  No, Peter.  Democracy is out of control when elitist like you decide they know better than the electorate.  I think democracy is doing just fine.

Wiki leaks - Double Standards

Many  are foaming at the mouth at Wikileaks, going so far as accusing  Julian Assange of treason.

By way of disclosure, I'm a conservative.  I'm right of Fox News.  Rush is a liberal in comparison.  But, this is just stupid.

First, Assange is not a US citizen, so he cannot be charged with treason for making public top secret material.  Federal law states

"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." US Code Title 18, part1, chapter 115 paragraph 238

While some may suggest a charge of espionage, he cannot be guilty of treason.

Second, If we, as a nation, put Mr. Assange in jail, we need to do the same to every newspaper and television reporters who has reported "anonymous sources tells us."  In fact, many newspapers have published material which came from Wikileaks! 


Third, this isn't new.  Have you ever heard of "deep throat" of  Watergate fame?  How about the Pentagon Papers?  The Downing Street Memo?  Or remember the thousands of pages of internal documents from a climate laboratory?  Leaking of secrets is not a new phenomenon.

Lastly, Wikileaks DIDN'T LEAK ANYTHING.  Yes, you read that right.  Wikileaks is nothing more than a clearinghouse for whistle blowers, politically disaffected policy wonks, disillusioned ideologues, and troublemakers.

Let me reiterate the point:  Wikileaks does not actually leak anything, but rather, simply provide a safe place where others can do so.


I have no problems with punishing the guilty (e.g. those who actually stole the classified material) to the fullest extent of the law, up to and including execution.  But I think the treatment of Wikileaks in general and Assange in specific is both wrong and stupid.  It is only being singled out for two reasons.  First, they've been successful in landing rather large leaks.  Two, they are new media.  Would Wikileaks have received this treatment if they were a newspaper?

If we, as a nation, are going to target the channels of distribution of the leaked information, we need to do so across the board.  This means going after cable news channels, Newspapers, and magazines, and not just target new media because it's new and unfamiliar.

Manifest Lunacy

As I look at the United States in the year 2010,  I can't help but to feel fearful. Among the facts that give me pause are the following:

• In 2009, nearly half of all Americans will pay no income taxes (Yahoo Finance April 2010), meaning only 53% of American households pay 100% of all taxes.
• The unelected, unaccountable Federal Reserve just printed $600 Billion, and devalued our currency (Quantitative easing ) trying to dig our way out of a hole.
• Our country is becoming risk adverse in the extreme
• The TSA is now patting down grannies and kids (among others) to make sure "every plane is safe" (ABC News)
• We pay much more attention to the Presidential elections than local and state elections, even though we, as citizens, have much more impact at a local level than the Federal.
• Our government routinely ignores its constitution, and we ignore their ignoring.
• Our Federal debt is at an insane level
• We pay far more attention on who is on American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than to the body politic.

In 1845, John O'Sullivan coined the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to give a name to the idea that the American civilization would spread from "sea to shining sea."

I am afraid that our nation has gone crazy.  Will history record us as the nation who stuck its fingers in its ears and said "lalalalala" while everything fell apart?

Why I love my Driod

My lovely bride bought me a Motorola Droid for our anniversary.  The difference between this and my old phone is the difference between night and day.

What I hate!

First, let me tell you what I dislike about it.

• Getting to the camera takes a few seconds more than I like.  There is a camera button on the side, but I can't seem to get it to work most of the time.  While seemingly minor, this means that some of those "just happens" kinds of shots are missed fumbling. with the camera.
• The touch screen gets smudged, and makes it difficult to read.
• You can't read the screen in full daylight, it washes out badly.
• It sucks the batteries very quickly.  The more you do, the faster it goes.  A full charge is gone in less than a day.
• It gets confused at times.  I've had to take the battery out several times to force a hard reboot to clear the confusion.
• The slide out keyboard sucks in a big way.  The keys are much too small for my fingers, and I feel very cramped.  My old phone (LG ENV-3) was far superior in this manner.
• The on-screen keyboard that comes with it also sucks, for much the same reason.
• The OS has no explicit way to terminate an application, requiring the downloading of third party apps to do so. 
• Often, download of data seems very slow compared to my wife's Palm Pre (with the same service provider, same data, her phone seems faster)

But, the thing about this device is that it is so much more than just a phone. I've found that it's become an indispensable part of me.  Actually, you could turn off the phone-portion of the device, and I still would use it every day. 

It's the Apps! 

The Droid is a mobile computer with wireless Internet Access, GPS integration, a five megapixel camera, compass, and a microphone.

• Sticher Radio- is a free streaming podcast service which streams the latest of your favorite podcasts!  I listen to this all the time!
 

• Pandora - a free music streaming service that reads your mind and plays music you like.  Enter a song or a band and a custom radio channel is created just for you.
 

• PDA.Net-Allows you to use the Droid as a wireless modem.  Connect a laptop and you have wireless Internet access!

•  Ebooks-I love to read.  The Android platform has at many ebook readers which allow you to read full books on your phone!  I have used the Kindle app and Nook app (my wife has a nook.)  Both of them sycronize your library to the device, so you can start reading a book on your nook, move to the phone, then back to the nook. Laputa is an ebook reader that also provides hundreds of free ebooks from sites like Blazer.  This is an awesome app!

• Google Calendar is a wonderful thing.  I can view, add and change appointments and tasks on my calendar from the web, my phone or my desktop (I synchronize  my desktop calendar at work with a nifty app from Google.) 

• Social Integration
• Facebook -Facebook has a custom application that runs on everything (Palm Pre, Iphone, Android,etc) and it gives me real time access to my profile.
• Twitter- I can tweet and read other twits' tweets.
• Email access
• Including Gmail and Yahoo mail integration that makes accessing these accounts seamless and easy.
• Internet access
• Google voice integration

There are thousands upon thousands of applications!  Play guitar?  There's a guitar tuner app.  Always forget to feed the parking meter?  There's a Parking Alarm/ Car finder app.

Those applications are the feature that makes this integrate to my life so deeply, and they are why I love my Droid!

All Our Eggs in One Basket?

The Chief Technology Officer of the State of West Virginia is proposing to consolidate and outsource all the state data centers, application support programmers, mainframe computer, and other associated staff.  The State workers in question will be let go from the state and hired by a private company.

While Chief Technology Officer Kyle Schafer was telling legislators that plans for outsourcing Office of Technology jobs are in the very preliminary stages, some OT employees said Schafer advised them it's a done deal, with the RFP for the outsourcing contract to go out by September, with the contract to be awarded before the end of the year - prior to the 2011 legislative session.
Some OT employees have been meeting with representatives of state Public Workers Union UE 170 regarding organizing efforts.  WV Gazette-Mail State House Beat, June 20, 2010

It's true that I am potentially in the group of people to be outsourced, and that may color my opinion.  But am I the only one who thinks that relying totally upon an outside company to host, protect and maintain the states data is not a good idea?

Think about it.  The State Police database, the Medicaid data, birth, death, marriage, data, among so many others will be in the hands of the lowest bidder.

Not to mention that savings are in doubt.  State employees do these jobs now, and most of these workers are underpaid (the state's salaries are significantly lower than the private sector counterparts.  For example, median U.S. Salary for a programmer is about $55,893.  State, $33,036.)  Sure, there are lazy, worthless state employees (just like there are lazy worthless private sector employees.) 

If the state goes this direction, reversing course will be extremely costly and nearly impossible. It's like putting all the state's eggs in one basket, then waving it over your head.

Envy

I had an epiphany today which helped me to understand  about 80% of liberalism's basis. It's envy.

Liberalism, in it's current form, is a offshoot of Marxist theory. At the heart of Marx's ideas is the concept of class struggle. Formally, it's known as conflict theory. In a nutshell, the idea of conflict theory is that people are always going to revolt against upper classes because of inequity.

That, folks, is the crux of the matter. Somebody has something you don't so you're upset. You're not just upset, your mad and willing to fight over it.

Liberalism today seeks equity.  Don't believe me?  Take these few examples.

• The earned income tax credit gives poor people who don't pay income tax needs to get a refund too!
• Affirmative action programs force fairness in hiring, and enforce this fairness by assuming that any differences between the population of the workforce and the population in general are the result of racism.
•  Not keeping score in little league, because somebody will lose. 

Here is a shocking truth. People aren't equal.

Compared to me, some people are smarter.  Others are faster.  Some are healthier.  Lots are better looking, a few are harder working.  No society can ever ignore those differences.

Liberals want to. When they see one person who has more of something than someone else, it causes envy. Envy leads to guilt, so they want to take away that thing.


Fairness is not the government taking money from one and giving it to someone else.  Fairness is setting the boundaries, and letting the players play the game, using all the talent, skill and work ethic God gave them.

Invention of Lying

Saw the movie "Invention of Lying" this weekend. I rate it a 2 out of 10. I give it such high marks because of the creative and interesting premise the movie is based on.

For those of you who've not yet wasted your money to see this movie (don't by the way), let me give you a plot synopsis.

In a world where everyone tells the truth, all the time about everything, there is no fiction (since it is basically not true), all movies are a retelling of history. The Hero is a not-so-attractive writer for the movies who gets fired (his last two screen plays were based around the black death of the 1300s), then evicted from his apartment because he only has $300 in the bank, and rent is $800.

He has a love interest who doesn't think that he is a good genetic match to her ("our kids will be fat kids with pug noses)

He goes to the bank to close out his account, and their system is down. they ask him how much he has in the bank (nobody can lie, remember) and he says $800. The computers come on, they say "The system says you only have $300, so sorry for our mistake"

The main crux, though, starts when he tells his dying mom, who is afraid of the nothingness of death, that there is life after death. He is overheard by some nurses, and it just goes downhill from there.

Problems
Before the political analysis, I just want to point out some plot holes big enough to drive a bus through.

• In the movie, everyone is both truthful (a good thing), and lacking in any compassion or tact (not quite so good). They will say things that are hurtful, if true, without any concern about what how they are saying affects the other person. I can tell someone the truth without hurting them. Why would people lack the ability to care for each other just because they tell the truth?  If my wife asks me "honey do I look like a supermodel?  I would answer, "To me, you're just as beautiful, but your body type isn't one that would classify as a supermodel", not "No, you're too fat."  Both are true, the latter is hurtful.
 

• It is possible to speak what you think is the truth, but be mistaken. Sometimes, I forget about a transaction or two, so my account balance is not what I thought it was.  Why would the bank assume that that there was no mistake in fact.

• In the movie, nobody believes in God.  They have a comparable level of technology.  That means that speculation is possible, for without it, there can be no possibility of technical advancement.  Even, for the sake of argument, we ignore the fact that God did tell man He existed, why could not someone speculate on the biggest questions man have ever asked (e.g. "why am I here?"  "How did I get here?"  "What is the purpose to existence?" "Do I have a meaning?"  "What happens when I die?")

To say the movie is disparaging to religion is a rather gross understatement.  It makes the belief in God more laughable than Santa Claus. 

The movie, though, shows some thought (at least what passes for thought for pop-culture atheists.)  One point, a magazine shows the title "Finally, a reason to be good", referring to the 'man in the sky' God reference.  It also shows the meaninglessness of life and death in the absence of God, thought it doesn't really dwell on it.

Overall, this movie stunk.  Don't waste your time.

Obama a Socialist?

I made a statement that I believe that Obama is a socialist. That was not meant as an insult to him, nor was I trying to throw verbal firebombs. I am only obectivily classify his belief system.

I will attempt to explain why I say that, but first, let us start with the definition of Socialism. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Socialism is.

1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2. (a:) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
   (b:) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

It is in the manner of definitions 1 and 2b that I refer to President Obama as a socialist.

Since being in office, he's

• taken effective control over many banking companies (Through TARP)
  
• taken control over GM and Chrysler.
• attempting to eliminate surface mining in WV by having the EPA endlessly review mining permits that have already been approved.

These three steps shows governmental control and ownership over the production and distribution of goods.

If the Health Care legislation goes through, nearly 1/6th of the economy will be under either direct or indirect control of the government.



Birds of a Feather
Obama's goal is to make the U.S. like European powers, which are uniformly socialist. The Euro-style socialism is less insane than the Easter European model (U.S.S.R style), and less totalitarian and brutal than the Nazi National Socialists.

This is a telling quote from a communist group

"This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat." from http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama

Or another socialist group seeing Obama as a candidate who can move the nation towards their goals.

DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency... represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. We know that a proactive and progressive government can come only on the heels of a broad coalition for social justice united against a reactionary Republicanism as well as a Democratic neoliberalism. Democratic Socialists of America Statement on the 2008 Election

The ten points of the Communist manifesto sound a lot like the DNC national platform. Here are seven of them. Remember that Communism IS socialism but taken to its logical extreme. USSR stood for United Soviet Socialist Republics

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (EPA routinely goes after private land for 'environmental' purposes)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Read GM)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]

I believe that Obama has good intentions, but what was the statement about the pavement on the road to hell?

Some other good links
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-12.asp

The One Part of Obamacare I agree with

It is no secret that I am not a rabid Obama supporter. I feel the man is not qualified for the job he holds (no, I'm not a birther. I am simply alluding to the fact that he has very little experience for the most powerful executive position in the world.)

But, that being said, one aspect of the proposed medical reform package actually makes some sense.

A lifetime ago, I used to sell heath insurance. I know a little about this.

Ever wonder why most people get their insurance through their employer? The reason is 'adverse selection '. Insurance is about risk. We buy insurance to cover us for the chance something bad will happen to us that would be devastating financially (house burn down, we get sick, etc) . By pooling large groups of people together, the insurance company can run statistics and perdict about how much claims will be, and can figure out how much everyone has to pay to cover the claims (and a make the company a profit).

Sick people are more likely to want to buy health insurance than healthy people. If you try to buy health insurance on your own, the chance that you are healthy and being careful is small, but the chance that your sick and want them to pay your bills is large, hence a larger bill.

Group insurance (like the policies sold to employers as part of a fringe benefit package), though, covers the healthy and the sick. The reason the people are being cover is because of where they work, not their health status. Thus, group policies are way, way, way cheaper than individual polices.

Part of Obama's idea (if you can call a bill originating in the House or Senate Obama's Idea) is to mandate health coverage. This would reduce the amount adverse selection, and allow individuals to start getting much rates.

While it makes sense, I do worry about the government saying "you must buy a product, even if you don't want to."

Marvelous design

I am astounded at the marvel of God's creation!

While doing some study on spiders, I learned a great deal about their circulatory system (they don't really have one in the same manner as we), and read how their systems, while much simpler and less efficient than ours, fits perfectly with their needs.

On one hand, the sources (mostly Wikipedia) talk of the design and explain its complexities and how well it fits the animal, then talk about how it all occurred by chance.

I don't get it. How can these very bright people look at something so complex, so well suited to their environments, and more efficiently engineered than the best sports car and say,
"It all happened by accident. Just chance. There is no designer of this design."

Prayer

Normally, if I blog about my faith, I do so here in my other blog, but this is a political reflection.

There has been a serious change in this nation since the 1960's, thanks mostly to the ACLU. Yes, our friends, who champion removing God, promoting homosexuality, protecting child porn, and pediophiles, have been bringing law suites against schools in which prayer is offered by a non-student. They cite the crystal clear line of a wall of separation between church and state as their motivator.  This wall of separation is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights.

For those who may not be familiar with the Constitution, it would seem the issues was clear cut.  After all, doesn't the Constitution say that government and religion should have no interaction whatsoever.  As oil and water, government and religion can't be mixed.

The Text
The text is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The text in question is ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is rather dense. In this one amendment we have freedoms of press, of speech, assemble and petition.  Let's uncompress it a bit, since were interested in the section dealing with freedom of religion.  That section reads.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since the words of the Constitution do not magically change when the Supreme Court reads them, let's try tor understand what this is saying.  It forbids the Federal Legislature, i.e. Congress, from either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

At the heart of the debate of student-led prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments, the hosting of Nativity scenes on the court house lawn and a million other issues is that little word "establishment."

At the time this was written, nearly every nation had an official religion, supported by taxes, and imposed on the people against their will. Usually, the religion of the monarch was the official religion of the land, and those who practiced something else were either at best, taxed to support the State religion, while their own beliefs were tolerated, or at worst, hunted down and killed.

The establishment of religion actually can be rephrased as

"the government shall not create, nor fund an official church"

Please Notice the second clause. Congress cannot prevent the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. This is co-equal to the first clause. They are both valid. They both are talking about FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

We have now come to a place where the "FREE EXERCISE" of religion is squelched in order to preserve the fallacy of "separation of Church and State"

Jefferson said

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, ... that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The intent was not to be hostile to the expression of religion!  It was not to prevent religion from having any impact on government.  It was to keep the state out of the matter of the church, as he said "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god."

Furthermore, this limits ONLY THE CONGRESS, not the courts, not the executive branch, nor the states!  See the phrase "Congress shall"?  Look at the wording of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 The key, dear reader, is that the Second Amendment was written such that the Federal, State or Local governments could not infringe on this right.

Now, I am not advocating for Catholic Priests teaching catechisms in public school.  Nor am I suggesting that Mormons, Muslims or Baptists do the same.  As a Christian, I believe in the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."  We should show respect for other's beliefs while expressing our own.

And student led prayer is free exercise of religion, with is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.  (Sort of.)

Immigration Stupidity

I was reading this article today, and had to comment on the stupidity therein contained.

The author kept using the euphemism "Undocumented immigrants." That's like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe a bank robbery!

Mr. Koulish's position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated wholesale, and it seems his position is that we should ignore the violation.

If the laws are wrong, fine, change them. No nation of laws can exist by ignoring the laws it finds inconvenient. By doing so, it devalues all laws.

Furthermore, his statement about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions" ignores that they are already lawbreakers by being here illegally. If I robbed a bank, and then got picked up for littering, does it mean that the police should ignore the bank robbery charges?

Finally, he stated that '"securing the border" is indefinable, unmeasurable". This is hogwash total, ridiculous pig's bath water! How about we define securing the border 'preventing unauthorized border crossing'? How about measuring it by the number of legal interdictions?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Illegal immigration is a topic neither party wants to deal with, and this creates a de facto slave class, which is so wrong I could just scream. It is not fair for lower-income Americans, it's not fair for the Mexican, it's not fair to the community asked to bear the burden of the influx of low skill, low income, poorly educated people. It needs fixing, but I doubt I'll ever see it.

Hypocracy

Folks, we conservatives aren't known for protesting. Sure, we'll vote, and complain, and sometimes even pass out literature. But protest..?

Now the liberal line is that the recent protests during town hall meetings as fake, 'astroturf' is the term.

They say that the protesters are not everyday people. They say that these people are planted. They say that there is an organization. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer even said it's unamerican. 

Oh, you filthy hypocrites!  It is you, fair-minded liberal, who said that protesting is the highest form of patriotism!  It is you, members of the far left, that have  bussed in protesters by the hundreds all over the nation!  Lefties, you are the ones who have done everything short of paying people to protest to drum up support for your cause!  And you have the gull, the unmitigated audacity to complain about us?

Sure, I know our side is hypocritical as well. We've criticized the wackos from code pink and act up for being rude and interrupting events, while we sit back and cheer when the red-faced tea partier screams down a senator.  But our level of hypocritical behavior pales in the face of your past stances, dear liberal.

What does the following people and organizations have in common?

• Code Pink
• Act Up
• Cindy Sheehan
• ACORN
• Jane Fonda(who is now a born again Christian as of 2001.)
• most unions
  

The common thread is that each of these people or organizations have protested, organized, spoke out, and attempted to influence both elections and public policy. These efforts were heralded by the media as wholesome and fully American.

When the SAME EXACT behavior occurs from our side (although, usually, it's much more sedate and mannerly.  We Conservatives like to follow rules, even when protesting.  We pick up our trash too, afterwards.) you point your crooked fingers at us, foaming at the mouth, and stammer out baseless accusations such as racism and call us unamerican.

Suck it up, stop your whining, pull up your big boy underwear, and deal with it! 

For decades, our side has been mostly silent and passive, while yours has been loud and aggressive. 

What's good for Code Pink is good for the tea parties, and it's about time you got a taste of your own medicine!

Obama's Birth Certificate

Ok, I admit that I don't like Obama. It's not personal. I'm sure he's a great guy to hang out with, but his socialist policies are too much for me.

That being said, there is some chatter about Obama's birth certificate. There are statements that he's never produced one showing that he was born in the USA.

The U.S. Constitution requires a man to be a natural born citizen in order to serve. There are two ways to become a natural born citizen. First, be born within the borders of our nation, and second, to be born from at least one U.S. citizen.

In other words, say Barak was born in Kenya. So what, his mom was a citizen, so he would be as well.

Also, I did see a birth certificate produced by his campaign. It is an abstracted certificate from the state of Hawaii. It looks legit to me, and I do know birth certificates (I work for Vital in WV)

Fussing about something stupid does not help the cause to push back his policies, it just makes our side look like kooks.

Why?

If there is no media bias then...
Why is every movie about a president picture the Republican as

• stupid
• greedy
• insensitive
• brutish
• immoral (or at least amoral)
  
• uncaring
  
• for 'evil corporate concerns'
  

while the Democrat is

• loving
• kind
• smart
• whity
• moral,
  
• cares for the poor
  
• for the 'working man'

Don't belive me? American President. Dave. Swing vote, need I go on? West Wing, MASH, etc.