Foxes Gaurding the Hen House

I would like to begin by saying what I am not. I am not an anti-GMO nut, I am not an organics freak, I am not someone who irrationally hates technology, progress and industry. Far from it, I hate those who do. But for once in their sad, miserable lives, they actually have a point about something, and I am an engineer.

Regulation has been a crucial part of our industrial society since around 1900, maybe slightly before. Because of regulation, more soldiers in Iraq have NOT died from their rations then enemy fire, as happened in the Spanish American War. The conditions seen in "The Jungle" are now largely missing. People are living longer. Likewise, because of good Intellectual Property laws, America is the best place in the world to do high-tech and tech-sensitive business.

Even before now, Monsanto has, in various rulings and court cases such as Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, worn down our IP shield with such distasteful injustices as punishing a farmer for seed spreading on to his land by the wind. (Monsanto vs. Schmeiser.) Now, Obama, in his typical Chicago Politics fashion, has appointed a Monsanto man to head of the FDA.

As an engineer, I think GMO is a technology with tremendous potential to make new lands arable, make soil more usable, make pests less of a problem, lessen the load on irrigation systems, heal livestock diseases when used in feed, and even make food more nutritious. It may also help us understand, in its research use, the complex chemical interactions that make up nanotechnology and mechanics on the molecular level. However, none of this will happen if, in retaliation for GMO misused, the American public is forever turned against it. Monsanto wouldn't care - by then, they will have found more profitable sectors of commerce, just as before they were a chemical company. GMO doing well helps their competitors far more then it helps them.

Mr. President, you cannot let this irresponsible and dishonest company, with a known history of exploiting what little influence it has had, gain greater influence.

A much wiser idea, now that technology is, as it should be, accelerating, would be creating a corporate version of the RICO law to break up corporations with a known pattern of subterfuge of the democratic system. Monsanto could be broken up in to many smaller companies, each carrying the function of the larger firm with only the mildest of effects on the economy. The IP laws could be reset with additional legislative action, while the FDA could be seriously reformed to handle its responsibilities better. Mr. President, as a chosen representative of the Progressive movement, I ask you not to let one of its better accomplishments go to ruin. Mr. President, Monsanto Delinda Est.

The EPA versus Arlo Guthrie

It is well understood that pretty much all members of the Guthrie family of musicians are staunch liberals, but when listening to Alices Restaurant tonight, I realized that if Obama wanted to know what is wrong with his whole approach to things, he doesn't even have to talk to a conservative, he just has to talk to ole' Arlo Guthrie:

Now it all started two Thanksgivings ago, was on - two years ago on Thanksgiving,
when my friend and I went up to visit Alice at the restaurant, but Alice doesn't
live in the restaurant, she lives in the church nearby the restaurant, in the
bell-tower, with her husband Ray and Fasha the dog. And livin' in the bell tower
like that, they got a lot of room downstairs where the pews used to be in.  Havin'
all that room, seein' as how they took out all the pews, they decided that they
didn't have to take out their garbage for a long time.

We got up there, we found all the garbage in there, and we decided it'd be a
friendly gesture for us to take the garbage down to the city dump.  So we took the
half a ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW microbus, took shovels and
rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the city dump.

Well we got there and there was a big sign and a chain across across the dump saying,
"Closed on Thanksgiving."  And we had never heard of a dump closed on Thanksgiving
before, and with tears in our eyes we drove off into the sunset looking for another
place to put the garbage.

Here you have it, a small naive (and the narrator of Alices Restaurant is VERY naive) gesture of friendship on Thanksgiving, and because no one can be at the dump guarding it, the dump is closed.

We didn't find one. Until we came to a side road, and off the side of the side road
there was another fifteen foot cliff and at the bottom of the cliff there was another
pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile is better than two little piles, and
rather than bring that one up we decided to throw our's down.  That's what we did, and
drove back to the church, had a thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat, went to sleep
and didn't get up until the next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie.
He said, "Kid, we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of garbage,
and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And I said, "Yes, sir,
Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope under that garbage."

Not finding any available bureaucracy, they use their common sense outside of the bureaucracy, and do something that seems reasonable. The officer, never available to help them sort this out at the beginning of the story, is now suddenly very very available to sort them out.

After speaking to Obie for about fourty-five minutes on the telephone we
finally arrived at the truth of the matter and said that we had to go down
and pick up the garbage, and also had to go down and speak to him at the
police officer's station.  So we got in the red VW microbus with the
shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the
police officer's station.

He's available for fourty-five minutes to talk about the "consequences," after the fact, and schedules an appointment to see them in person, having never been available to prevent the problem to begin with. Why? Because it was Thanksgiving, and he's entitled to not talk on Thanksgiving.

Now friends, there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at
the police station, and the first was he could have given us a medal for
being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and
we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have bawled us out
and told us never to be see driving garbage around the vicinity again,
which is what we expected, but when we got to the police officer's station
there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was
both immediately arrested.  Handcuffed.  And I said "Obie, I don't think I
can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on."  He said, "Shut up, kid.
Get in the back of the patrol car."

And that's what we did, sat in the back of the patrol car and drove to the
quote Scene of the Crime unquote. I want tell you about the town of
Stockbridge, Massachusets, where this happened here, they got three stop signs,
two police officers, and one police car, but when we got to the Scene of the
Crime there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest
crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper
story about it. And they was using up all kinds of cop equipment that they had
hanging around the police officer's station. They was taking plaster tire tracks,
foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour
glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.  Took pictures of
the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not
to mention the aerial photography.

After the ordeal, we went back to the jail.  Obie said he was going to put us in the
cell.  Said, "Kid, I'm going to put you in the cell, I want your wallet and your belt."

Not only has "Officer Obie" encouraged them to, in the future, lie and cheat when he should've known that without their "kindness" he could have not done his "job", instead of simply giving them a good yelling and telling them to pick it all up, he has to make a scene, bring in all the police cars and airplanes and special teams, do massive investigative work wholly unnecessary to the situation at taxpayer expense, and then, when finished, throw them in jail as a reward for their original honesty and with no seemingly good reason.

And I said, "Obie, I can understand you wanting my
wallet so I don't have any money to spend in the cell, but what do you
want my belt for?"  And he said, "Kid, we don't want any hangings."  I
said, "Obie, did you think I was going to hang myself for littering?"
Obie said he was making sure, and friends Obie was, cause he took out the
toilet seat so I couldn't hit myself over the head and drown, and he took
out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars roll out the - roll the
toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll and have an escape.

Undertaking more rash and unneeded steps, and adding additional uncomfort to the individuals life, for no apparent reason except the "Precautionary Principle," better known as cowardice.

Obie was making sure, and it was about four or five hours later that Alice (remember
Alice? It's a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few nasty words to Obie on
the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back to the church, had a another
thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat, and didn't get up until the next morning,
when we all had to go to court.

After all these herculean efforts and expenditures, for a long time in jail, the fellows are bailed out.

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down.  Man
came in said, "All rise."  We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven
eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye
dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph
on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven
eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of
each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case
of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge
wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the
circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to
be used as evidence against us.  And we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the
snow, but thats not what I came to tell you about.

Having gone to all this trouble to stack the deck against these young lads for his own personal benefit, his mechanations and manipulations fall apart against a single loose cog in the plan - a blind judge who will not be condescended in to sentencing by fancy pictures and paragraphs, quite a metaphor for our current Academic elites and their tendency to use "settled science" (LOL!) to rule anyone who disagrees with them unfit to speak. Thankfully, the judge can't see, much as the American Redneck was never overtaught to overrespect these dishonest manipulations and crass overreaches. "Blind Justice" indeed. In many ways voters are, when you get right down to it, a judge of elected officials.

They got a building down New York City, it's called Whitehall Street, where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected.  I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning.  `Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York, and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."

Not caring one bit what they put people through or the pride or dignity of anyone, government agencies poke and prod and inspect, and says "yea or nay" without any regard to the humanity or sensible value of what they're looking at. They have their quota, and if it kills them, or anyone else, they'll fill it.

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill.  I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill.  Kill.  I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth.  Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."  And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL."  And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

Didn't feel too good about it.

Although his job is to be a Psychiatrist, the shrink at Whitehall Street suspends his duty when he hears what he wants to hear, that being far more important then actually carrying out his job, much like Green Energy and Mass Transit engineers who apply standards and bigotries that would never consider outside of these sectors when analyzing the plans of the environmental left, selling out their professional integrity for the sake of an ideological warpath.

Proceeded on down the hall gettin more injections, inspections, detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff that they was doin' to me at the thing there, and I was there for two hours, three hours, four hours, I was there for a long time going through all kinds of mean nasty ugly things and I was just having a tough time there, and they was inspecting, injecting every single part of me, and they was leaving no part untouched.  Proceeded through, and when I finally came to the see the last man, I walked in, walked in sat down after a whole big thing there, and I walked up and said, "What do you want?"  He said, "Kid, we only got one question. Have you ever been arrested?"

Finally, after having jumped through all the hoops, a single malfeasance is found, a single problem or trouble in something that otherwise fits, much like the Cape Wind project in Massacheuttsets. From the link: "The decision signals further delays for the $2.6 billion project, which was under review for about a decade and which has struggled to find financing."

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the Alice's Restaurant Massacre, with full orchestration and five part harmony and stuff like that and all the phenome... - and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, did you ever go to court?"  And I proceeded to tell him the story of the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and the paragraph on the back of each one, and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, I want you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W .... NOW kid!!"

A couple bad answers and the kid finds himself a virtual pariah, all for the minorest and most senseless of violations.

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.  Mother rapers.  Father stabbers.  Father rapers!  Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!  And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me.

Having given a bad answer, the organization, or individual, finds itself in a category that it does not fit, associating with those far worse then it is.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna- know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing- you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting- officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say", and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there, and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it down there

Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the Healthcare Bill, you know, the one we have to "pass to find out what's in it?" (Madame Pelosi) And then, finally, of all great and horrible humiliations and slanders and acts of true hypocrisy:

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

They have the gall to ask have we fixed ourselves, when they were the problem all along, when they have no right to judge, when they have done far worse things to this country then refusing to buy health insurance or keeping the lights on too long. But it's all us, it's never their fault, they're above being at fault, above the law, above manners and procedures, above morality.

The Great Confusion - a critique of "socially-conscious" enterprise

Wind farm in the Techape Mountains, CA, by Stan Shebs, license c.c. a.s.a 3.0 unported

Whether its renewable energy, microlending in Asia, or low-income housing, we end up hearing "socially-conscious" or "social entrepreneurship" frequently enough to nauseate. As I look through the news, at "socially minded entrepreneurs," I cannot help but notice just how insignificant they really are. For all of their "changing the world," only microlending appears to have changed much, and microlending was not started as "social entrepreneurship" but rather adopted by the figurative guild of "social entrepreneurs" later.

One of the great dangers of social entrepreneurship is the tendency to treat profit as a hurdle instead of an objective. Whereas standard business aims to sell enough at a good enough price to justify its existence, expand and attract others to compete, social entrepreneurship does just barely well enough to exist. Worse, sometimes it doesn't even do that, but rather siphons off funds from the taxpayers through government edict that could be put to better use. In the end, this destabilizes governments and entire economies, as America is only now finding out.

Sometimes people claim that social entrepreneurship can fulfill aspects of true progress that standard entrepreneurship could not. This, simply, is a lie. Take green energy for example. The claim is that we cannot create carbon-free/pollution-free energy without some kind of government investment, but the reality is that we already have such things. We have at least two extremely profitable carbon-free power sources: hydroelectric and uranium-based fission nuclear. We also have a moderately profitable one called Geothermal. Detractors will argue that uranium creates nuclear waste, hydroelectric floods land and threatens biodiveristy, and geothermal takes land in natural areas like the Valles Caldera. And yet they advance wind, which takes up far more land in natural areas then geothermal ever would, and hydro would in some cases, and harms biodiversity by destroying migratory birds, and solar, which, like all semiconductors, requires dangerous chemicals and chemical wastes in the production of solar panels, or else, in the form of solar-thermal, takes up vast land and destroys entire habitats like wind, while taking astronomical costs to build and in the end not being sustainable for the simple and basic reason that nothing built can last forever.

Another claim is bringing third-world countries out of poverty, but alas, every first-world nation was once a third-world nation, and every one of them was brought out of this condition by the expansion of private business. And today, in India, Brazil, Russia, Rwanda, Uganda and China, private business is bringing a few more home. Does this mean there is no role for government or charity? Hardly, this is all collectivist we have not even looked at taking care of individuals yet, but it does mean that your "social entrepreneuers" are wrong about precisely what that role is.

And then there's the matter of precisely what profit is. When most people here the word, they think of some fat guy in a suit who already has too much money (in this day and age, that more accurately describes politicians.) Most business today is done by a combination of ma and pa business and joint stock ventures, depending upon the sector. Indeed, "fat suit guy sole proprietor" has not been the dominant model since the late 1800's.

Joint stock ventures are made up of 1,000's of investors of every social status, both wealthy seeking more wealth and workers seeking a retirement through 401K's, putting money towards a limited liability venture that they are not in control of but still suffer the gains and losses of through stock price and dividend. When you create profit for your joint stock venture, that's a larger 401K for a soon to be old man as well as a larger portfolio for a serious investor (who is not always, but usually is, rich.)

But that's not all profit does! Profit also means that a large enough number of people will contribute a large enough sum to your product to make it more then worthwhile to produce. It also creates new investor groups, both ma and pa and joint stock, to create more production of the desired thing. This virtuous cycle puts out WHAT PEOPLE WANT IN THE GREATEST SENSE, instead of what is desired by a small "ecologically friendly" elite. Indeed, it is far more democratic then democracy, as democracy only considers yes or no and not the degree to which something is desired. Democracy is like a net of thick rope with 4 inch gaps and the free market is like the finest of satins - its holes nearly invisible.

Profit too prevents the waste of resources - if building space, workers and raw materials are demanded by a more profitable enterprise, the price will increase until finally the less profitable either go out of business or rearrange their assets, freeing up the building space, workers and raw materials. As our society decided "getting off of foreign oil" was the highest of all goals, E85 drove up the price of food to cause many of our poor to starve by taking tons of corn and turning it in to small quantities of motor oil. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise astronomically, and a few foolish legislators suggested increasing Ethanol content beyond what engines can take without corrosion.

The reality is that profit is a very lofty and socially honorable thing, that very much does empower all of society, and create the best world the given conditions can create for the common man. Treating it as a problem, instead of a solution, will lead to hubris and a small elite dictating things as "the right thing to do" instead of allowing nature and the common man to decide amongst themselves. There is no one so ignorant as one who thinks he knows what's good for his neighbor, and so much of the 20th century has been ruled and ruined by such men.

Full Extent of the Pacific Electric Railway, circa 1920. Public domain work of US Federal Gov't.

We've Gone Too Far

"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.

"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.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Does it sound like a dream? It shouldn't. It's the first 10 amendments of your constitution, the Bill of Rights from the American Constitution, the Federal Constitution, the limits and powers of your supposedly constitutional federal government. When read like this, it's pretty clear what it says, but we never read it like this. We read the amendments by themselves, and thus we don't get it. We don't. We zero on one little piece, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

I realized this when I was looking at the Ninth Amendment (the ninth paragraph above) just now. It seemed so vague, so out there, so pecuiliar and unclear, but it talked about an "enumeration," which may not technically be a pronoun, but might as well be. It occurred to me that, while they may have been passed as 10 amendments, it is ONE bill of rights.

And then something else occurred to me. This amendment, this ninth amendment, is a direct response to exactly what the current "health care reform" is trying to do. There are people out there who want you to think that the founding fathers were playing a game of Simon Says, that because they didn't specifically say that you have right not to buy something, that the powers of "regulating commerce" could extend to every walk of your life, that the constitution is naught but a game of trick questions like those on an IQ exam. But the Founding Fathers, here's what they said:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is what you call a rebuttal, a rebuke.

When we cross the line of deciding that we may decide what people buy, not to support something else that they own as in the case of environmental requirements against power plant owners or even accident insurance for car owners, but simply because they, the government, have "the power to regulate commerce," which to them means all your money, property and labor, not any freedom of yours, not any individuality of yours, just the all important interstate commerce. No life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for you, just the Commerce Clause. What will come next? What will come next? Will they order us to spend money at the mall during deflation? Will they order you to buy stocks and bonds when the market tanks to avoid "panic?" Will they force people to buy calculators to make checkout lines run faster? Will they force consumption at failing shops and restaurants? Will they make us burn our money and delete our bank accounts to counter inflation?

And when will it end? What happens when they decide that a baby cannot be born because a genetic defect would hurt the economy through the cost of caring for them?

We've gone too far. We need a new amendment. We need to strike down the commerce clause. Obviously the courts cannot be trusted to understand the intricacies of our own bill of rights, their sacred duty, so we must give them something plainer, something easier, something that they'll get, something that doesn't require the intelligence they appear to lack. Here's an idea:

"In the realm of commerce, the Federal Government may regulate only transportation and only those actively transporting goods or state agencies and for-profit businesses that deal directly with them and in no manner indirect."

This has gone too far. We are about to cross the line to unlimited government power, in the name of money, money, sad worthless money, not life, not happiness, not freedom or even decency, but money.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 4: The 'Tudes

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

Blessed are the poor, for they shall receive random roads in places they never go to,
Blessed are the meek, for they have not noticed what DC is doing in the past few months,
Blessed are the lowly in heart, for repeating "yes we can" makes them instantly happy,
Blessed are the bankers, for they shall inherit the earth,
Blessed are the malleable, for they shall change easily,
Blessed are the merciful, for I shall mention them briefly in a speech,
Blessed are the elderly, for they shall inherit huge amounts of government spending and by the time we're ready to pay, they'll be dead,
Blessed are those who agree with me, for I will listen to your praise.

But woe to you manufacturers, for ye shall be enslaved by congress,
Woe to you rich, for ye shall be taxed,
Woe to you proud, because I'm the only one allowed to be egotistical,
Woe to you consumers, for health has been declared a voluntary activity like driving,
Woe to you strong, for ye shall struggle,
Woe to you merciless, because by the time this is done, you'll have killed somebody,
Woe to you young, for ye shall hunger,
Woe to you who do not agree with me, for ye shall burn in anger.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 2: Parable of the fruits and the nuts

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"And when the Republican Candidate for Governor of California comes, on the second of November, carried on the backs of lobbyists and wearing a tacky turtleneck sweater, she will divide the Californians, and in her bowl will be the fruits, and in her mouth will be the nuts.

"And she shall sayeth to the fruits as they look on in their simply fabulous sunglasses while their gay partner holds their hand and massages their left shoulder, "curse you oh fruits, for I was hungry, and you cancelled my welfare checks, I was naked, and you let me escape prison for streaking, I was in the hospital, and you cut my Medicaid, I was in prison, and you caused the prison library to be sold to Half Price Books."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you overspent at the ballot box, you did it to me."

"Then she shall sayeth to the nuts as they hold their combined King James Bible and AK-47 maintenance manual, "curse you oh nuts, for I was trying to break the strikes, and you stopped me, I was trying to lower taxes, and you increased them, I was trying to build a fence on the border, and you turned the ground in to quicksand."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you made yourselves look ridiculous, you made me look ridiculous."

"And then everyone, including Meg Whitman, shall inherit a hell called modern day California. There shall be 20% unemployment rates and a considerable number of ruined political careers, and even the wild animals shall consider them an abhorrence and a disgrace."

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 1: Lazarus and Obama

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"There was once a very succesful politician who feasted sumptuously on the contributions of political lobbyists everyday. Outside his door was a politically hated Leper named the Republican Party. The Leper was very sick, and had nothing to eat in years since he was deemed unclean by the entire population of the world 4 years ago.

"Everyday he waited outside of the succesful politicians doors, asking only for the scraps given to the Europeans and Iranians. Worse, the Europeans and Iranians, after eating said scraps, licked his sores and called him a nitwit. Later that year, he caught a terrible case of Teaitis, and passed away. Teaitis is contagious, and so the succesful politician caught it too, along with a bunch of Illegal Immigrants in Arizona, and was laid to rest in a healthcare plan.

"The Leper was carried to the bosom of Sarah Palin, to a supremely comfortable midterm election with lots of lobbyists to provide them with everything they want, even Learjets! Meanwhile, the succesful poltician was burned over and over again in Political Hell by his own Death Panels. He cried out "Mother Palin, have mercy on me! Come send the Lazarus person with a large batch of Earl Grey to put out these flames all over me and make me think I still have Arugula money!"

"But Mother Palin replied, "Son, you had nothing but good things a couple Novembers ago, while he had nothing but bad, but beyond that, we would love to help you Dem man, but a great Gulf of Mexico has been fixed between us, so that anyone who goes there is considered an asshole, and anyone who comes here is considered a paranoid freak who most assuredly is far too paranoid and radical to do anything irresponsible with free money, I mean, campaign funds."

A Very Special Conversation

Image by Andrew Braithwaite, license cca 2.0 generic

This is a conversation I've been tracking from the Politico community and one other source:

Obama [1]: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."

Then Dodd talks about his "long, rugged path":

Senator Dodd [2]: "My patience is running out, I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort." (para. 2)

[They are spreading] "outright falsehoods” [which are] “now being repeated by people who should know better and frankly do know better." (para. 3 end)


Then these comments come flying at Dodd, and at the commenters:

Commenter 1: "Democrats...THE PARTY OF NO." [3]

Commenter 2: "Why not cut them out of the loop entirely on all issues? Their stated intransigence is equalled only by their political ignorance in condemning themselves to a long spell of superminority irrelevance."

Commenter 3: "The American people are sick and tired of the GOP's refusal to GET TO WORK."

Commenter 4: "Dodd is both a crook, and in charge of this bill."

Commenter 5: "D-day (roasted rats) is coming at a poll near you 11/7 !"

Commenter 6: "The Republican Party is not interested in governing unless it calls the shots."

Commenter 7: "How can anyone take the GOP seriously when all they're doing is trying to block reform be rehashing the same stale GOP talking points they used with health care?"

Commenter 8: "SORRY, THE PARTY OF NO LABEL BELONGS TO REPUBLICANS SOLELY!

NO TO AMERICANS BENEFITS

NO TO HEALTH CARE REFORM

NO TO BANKING REFORM"

//Caps make the world a better place.>>

Commenter 9: "REALITY BE DAMNED!"

Commenter 10: "These people aren't interested in facts, WWE. They lie, even to themselves. To recognize what Republicans are doing woudl be, for the Republican minions, the same as recognizing their own gullibility and stupidity. They MUST ignore the facts. If they didn't, they'd lose whatever little self-esttem they have left after lifetimes of being left behind and walked over and ignored because they are too stupid to understand the world."

Okay, this isn't the entire discussion, but you get the idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

Feel free to question the use of any source or context of any quote from source:

[1] Obama Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 7-9, source: CNN.com; http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/index.html

[2] Carrie Burdoff Brown, "Chris Dodd threatens to cut GOP out of financial reform talks," http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html, 4/14/2010

[3] Message board for [2], http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html#commentsform, first 20 comments

Patriotism - What's the Point?

Flag courtesy of Wikimedia. Public Domain

I was speaking with a liberal awhile back and, while I can hardly remember what the discussion was about, one particular argument he made right towards the end has stuck in my mind ever since. He said:

"Conservatives have already shown that they will not do what's right or effective on principle. They always base their decisions on what America is, which is always changing!"

I don't know exactly how true that statement is, but I'm hoping not as true as he thought it is, for if we truly have no principle, what are we fighting for? What's the point? Why should, someone who believes as this man believes, be heartless enough to ask somebody to give up their life, their happiness, their property, even a moment of joy for a big fat nothing.

Liberals like this fellow always talk about how patriotic they are, but if they feel this way about their country, how can they be patriotic? How could they have the heart to be? If your nation is truly nothing, represents nothing, stands for nothing, why should anyone care? And even if, for practical reasons, patriotism is useful, don't you think you owe the people who have been so good to you more then a big fat nothing in return for their service?

Lehman Brothers Burns in Hell

In honor of the mighty fall of a mighty bank, almost exactly (less one day) a year ago. Dedicated to the way the very fabric of our society has been torn to tatters by these and similar rogue companies. And dedicated to all those who have suffered or will suffer as a result of this tragedy of human hubris and pain intolerance.

Image Courtesy of David Shankbone, cc SA 3.0 & GNU 1.2 Licenses under condition of attributing the artist and share alike.

I read an article in the NYT the other day about how Lehman Brothers had to die for the financial sector to live. The crux of the argument is that without Lehman there would've been no federal bailout. This is certainly true. But, did the federal bailout really help us in the end?

Not long after the federal bailout was authorized, AIG gave huge bonuses to their executives. They apparently did this with the full-hearted agreement of certain not-to-be-named Obama cabinet members (okay, it was the Treasury Secretary), and mystified many, who saw this as rewarding the very people who started the crisis. The companies, under intense pressure from the President, underwent the supremely hypocritical and politically caniving action of demanding that the executives give the bonuses back (?) as if they have the right to ask such a thing when it was the company's own sleaziness that distributed the bonuses to begin with. Notice any trends? Perhaps a little systematic incompetence and corruption? A particular AIG exec, Jack DeSantis, wrote a rather impassioned letter pointing out the supreme level of hypocrisy and irresponsibillity involved in such a transfer of blame, especially when his sector of the company was one of the few strong points, and was derided at by a hyperbolically riduclous American public who could not see beyond the size of his bonus. Which brings us to our next point.

What was the very intention of the bank bail-out? What was the point? What's the big idea? Well, Obama said they were "too big to fail" and that rather then letting nature take it's course on these corrupt, tyrannical, unclean, and generally absurd willfully sinning banks, we should come in and save them, both financially, and from themselves.

And here's the big dilemma: if we don't do interfere in their affairs, the natural corruption and self-congratulating nature of these banks up way past their bedtime will cause this to happen AGAIN. And if we do interfere, these mediocre, socialistically controlled banks will stifle all competition and innovation in the financial sector by way of their immense government investments and protections, removing one entire potential for American growth, stunting the development of financial cities like NYC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago and Dallas, and making us completely dependent upon London & Frankfurt for the financial side of our growth. In particular, we can kiss the supremacy of the Dollar goodbye - now it'll be the Euro that's the world's chief currency! Just like rent controls pushing the development out of historic Manhattan to the edges, this bailout will, by way of similar controls, push financial innovation and new markets to other continents.

If we had let these banks fail, there would've been no liquidity in our economy and the price of taking a loan or converting assets would shoot through the roof. Ah, but here's the good news: the high price of loans and low price of assets would create a massive incentive, a veritable gold rush, on the part of private investors to build their own banks. It would also stimulate small business, as new companies could still acquire financing (and through it cheap assets) through selling their original stock on the NASDAQ. Just like how San Francisco, within two years of it's great 1908 earthquake, had rebuilt the city completely (though rents did briefly shoot through to three times their original price), our financial sectors own immense price gouging would rebuild Manhattan, both literally and figuratively, and in the end create a more stable, meritocratic, compartmentalized, dynamic, innovative, and small-business geared economy.

New banks, new financial centers, new small business, new great cities, and new organizations that no longer work on the handshake, wink wink, nudge nudge system. That would be America's financial future. But not now - now that Banks are too big to fail, the market is too crowded to succeed! We've got ourselves a corporate traffic jam, and all 12 lanes on this freeway are packed with old clunker cars that are twenty-feet long, weight 100 tons, and crash every five feet, so prepare for a slowdown and eventually being overtaken by Europeans riding horses.

Maybe part of the problem is we don't appreciate Hell enough. Don't get me wrong, Heaven's great, but sometimes you just need a trashcan or a cattleprod, and hell serves both these. Fear can be quite stimulating, and sometimes things just reach their condemnation. Like Pharoah in Exodus, they run out of chances, their heart is too hard, their actions too geared along the track of evil, destruction is the only place they can go, and if we do not put away "the evil from among us," it will corrupt the hearts of us all who are left and put us in a position where we can't be righteous even if we want to (like Jack De Santis). I was thankful to see this happen with Lehman's, and regret that more unrepentant sinners did not find their demise. Even worse, by not punishing or threatening in any credible way bad behavior, those who have already begun to take this road will never fork off of it, but take it straight to it's scarlet conclusion, destruction, for them or all.

It is obvious that the NYT wants to make Lehman Brothers Christ, but these, these banks, they be willful sinners, the unrepentant kind, the rebels without a cause, the apostates. We should've sent these guys to HELL!!!!

Courtesy of The Immaculate Heart, image shown by Our Lady of Fatima in 1917

Teaching Cowardice - The Gruesome Morality of ObamaCare

I had a suicidal thought today. As I lay waiting in the 16th floor lobby of a G-I specialty institute at Emory Atlanta, I looked out the window, saw the great height, and for a moment, longed to run and jump to my death. I cringed at horror at the vileness of my own mind, and in reflection, I realized why.

I've always considered myself a tough, strong person. I've always considered myself a survivor, a child of the frontier and the high north, an adventurer. And on a level I am. But there is something about a condition that had troubled your life for as long as my ulcer that was supposed to go away 2 months ago and now you face the possibility of a much grimmer prognosis. There is something that destroys your very image of yourself, cuts your own roots, salts your own soil, makes you shrivel before the threat in front of you and takes away even those whose faces should be in front of you.

But I withheld myself. I remembered my God, and his will, and certain prophecies I had inherited, and I knew it was not my time, nor would my God ever let me die that way but either through the process of nature, or natural consequences, or the dignity of good martyrdom. I withheld myself and held strong in my seat. And it's good I did, and God was righteous to avise me beyond and teach me once again who I was, a strong young man in his hands, a reasonably okay servant, but still a servant nonetheless, and beyond that, someone who had, one way or another, touched the lives of many people, and would defile the affections and loyalties of many if I were to take my own life. See, I am a human being, a real living person, who has friends, relatives, classmates, churchmates, a cluster of loving people all around me. I don't appreciate them enough, not nearly enough, if I had this horrid thought would've never come to my mind, but God was there for me, even as I was alone there, and pulled me through it through his righteousness and justice.

I also realized that, if I had betrayed God like that, I would not just receive Hell, I would deserve it.

But there are some who would want me to jump. There are some who are worried about cost, and see me as a number, an expense, not a familiar face or a friend or a family member. There are some who, for the sake of the economy, want me to give up.

Of course, then again, this is too narrow of a view, because in general (healthcare cost being, perhaps, the only exception) all sectors of the economy do better with people who don't give up but have iron resolve. Adventurers. Conquerors. Goldminers. Frontiersmen. These are the people who built cities, and, to a point, still build them. Those outcasts who parouse the streets in their cockeyed hats with a stint in their step, a smirk on their face and a dream in their eyes, the people who don't fit all the "roles" that society has for them but forge their own trail. You know, the guys (and Annie Oakleys) who can face the freezing cold and through their own innate toughness, stubbornness and everything not societyness, make it back to camp with their own honor and life in their hand, and can head 1500 miles west from home against the better advice from all their friends and build the Golden State.

But back to the point. So I didn't give up, and my friends couldn't be happier. So what about this VA Death Book we keep on hearing about? I know many consider it to be encouraging the self-destruction of the weak and disabled -how very Spartan- and I will say, while in general the pamphlet does aim to be non-partisan and balanced (maybe,) there are some suggestions in it (like requesting to not be revived with CPR, which causes no harm and has no cost later on) that seem odd and out of place and a few lines of logic (like "Even if you are conscious, you will not be able to talk very well or at all."(35) Ever heard of writing and typing? Worked well for Steven Hawking all these years!) that are just plain stupid and perhaps even manipulative. Perhaps "If you have a terminal illness, a mechanical ventilator will only prolong dying." (35) is the most cynical line of all. How about "prolong living"!

While there is no single quote that you can point to in this book and say "this advocates giving up," the basic attitude of anybody finding simply having to write instead of talk reason to give up wanting to live another few weeks is disgusting. Further, as any good English student knows, putting this phrase, "even if they might not have wanted it" (34), after a comma is an element of irony, telling the reader that this is not a good situation rather then letting him decide for himself. In fact, really, it's not aiming to be non-partisan and balanced, it's aiming to look non-partisan and balanced while, discreetly and quietly, handing them something completely different under the table, "even if they might not have wanted it." (34)

Healthcare Co-ops - The Third Option

On healthcare, the debate is set on extremes. Do we continue a private healthcare system with EVEN LESS regulation to drive down cost, or do we create public healthcare, either by edict, by government advisory board, or by trojan horse. Is it going to be for-profit businesses, or a theoretically non-profit (though the very nature of democracy would seem to suggest otherwise, the "profit" should be different but equally self-serving) public health board/organization/government corporation/service. But why must it be one or the other?

Why not do for healthcare what groups like the BECU (Boeing Employee Credit Union) have done for banking? Have non-profit heatlh NGO's that sell premiums, administer care, and have their guidelines, procedures, rationing (if any) and exact benefits dictated democratically through the election of "board members" by the people who own the plans? Why must, to avoid for-profit business, we resort to government rationing and tyranny? Why must it be either a corporate beaureacracy or a government beauracracy that manages our care? Why not put it in the hands, to the maximum extent possible, of the premium holders?

People flee countries like Canada and England to nations like the United States that have private healthcare when they become truly sick. Some folks will try to fool you in to believing that our healthcare sector acheives worse results then those of other nations using statistics like life expectancy as indicators. Problem is, those "indicators" are indicative of forces outside of the system, forces like genetics, cultural habits like eating and transportation, and our large immigrant population, that affect life expectancy by way of the entire general public more then the occasional cancer victim. Fact of the matter is, most Americans (85% insured in 2006, US Census, probably dropped a little since then but likely [unemployment 4% -> 10%, 6% change] still above 75%) do very well under our current system, and because of existing regulations, if you have the insuracne, most things will be covered.

Now I understand the problem of the other 25%, and yes, we do need competition for the corporations to bring prices down and hold them accountable. But why does it have to be the almost always tyrannical hand of government? Why not more charitable, credit union type organizations, that can still receive some government start-up funds to compensate for their lack of size (just as the BECU received funds from Boeing) and then be governed not by some far away beaureacrat but instead by the very people who hold the plans? And if you're not pleased with your group, you can find a new coop. We could have a different coop for every kind of need!

Trash Trash Trash

Image courtesy Nick of Canberra (Wikipedia username dsfrg.msc)

I was walking down 68th Street from Alki Beach in Seattle, when I saw the most trash next to a sidewalk I'd ever witnessed. Coffee lids, napkins, beer bottles, various varieties of broken glass, very used straws, food and slightly decomposed food containers, all lined the street and in some cases were underneath the tires of cars. The worse part is that a public trash can was available, slightly under a block away.

So you literers out there, tell me, why must you deposit trash? Why must you leave your mark on every neighborhood like a little doggy? Why do your legs seem unable to carry you an extra 50 feet to that nearest trashcan? Is there any kind of service, like little kids on bicycles with a big trash bin on their front, that we could provide you with to make fulfilling the law slightly easier? Do you just plain hate the city? If so, are there any buildings, services or roads we could remove to make you hate the city less?

If so, please call the city police immediately, notify them you are a literer interested in changing the city, give them your address, your phone number, precisely when & where you littered last, and, just to prove it, the name of a few people who were with you and they'll handle the rest. Trust me, this kind of stuff makes their day!

Classic American Cities - Seattle

Downtown Seattle from Gasworks Park (Mine,public domain). Above: Pioneer Square, 1917, C.F. Todd

I grew up just across Lake Washington from the mighty metropolis of Puget Sound. This city, renowned for it's coffee, it's hippies, and it's software and businesspeople, has a complex personality at once laid back and pretentious, hot-headed and calm, Western and modern, rebellious and traditional, and both outspoken and quiet.

Courtesy of National Parks Service. Public domain.

The downtown area of Seattle was originally a tideflat with islands. In the center of the above picture is a triangle of three streets, known as the Denny Triangle. That triangle was an island that the first part of downtown Seattle was built off of. Today, you have to walk several blocks to the water and the docks. Garbage and landfills were used to fill the tideflats, depositing additional land off of the triangle for more city to be built. In addition, Seattle, in 1907, destroyed a hill and deposited the dirt that was contained in it across the lowpoints. Denny Regrade:

Public Domain. Courtesy of Wikimedia

The hotel in the background still stands, known as the Josephinum, at 1902 Second Avenue. To this day, the attitude of being able to shift mountains and proudly, perhaps even foolishly, see no obstacle is a major part of Seattle's character.

The University of Washington has been a part of Seattle since 1861. It's original campus was on University Street in Downtown, although it is now located near the Montlake Cut about 5 miles Northeast. The University, according to William Spiedel in his book "Sons of the Profits," was fonded off of leasing a land-grant contianing nearly the entirety of the Lake Washington shoreline. The land was leased out for building of industrial facilities too large for a homestead, and lead to the development of Seattle's Eastside off of industry (of which almost none remains today, except at the North and South ends, Kenmore and Renton.)

Ballard is a Scandinavian ethnic neighborhood to the Northwest of downtown.

Ballard from the air, Walter Siegmund. Gnu License 1.2

To this day, the Ballard high school mascot is the Vikings, and many Ballardians are commercial fishermen. The area has a very different social ambience to it, a feeling more down to earth then the rest of Seattle, very welcoming, and very humble. The scandinavian immigrants are part of why Western Washington is different from any other Western State, and you will find them throughout the state, but make sure, when you are in Seattle, to take a trip to Ballard, the epicenter of it. And don't be surprised when you hear hymns in Norwegian at church.

One of the many fine Scandinavian traditions carried over to Seattle is celebrating Midsummers Day, also known as the summer solstice. In Fremont, a traditionally hippyish neighborhood near Ballard, they have a nude bicycle race every summer solstice.

Seattle does have a tradition of Seattle Nice, and Washington State being partially Scandinavian and partially Scots-Irish, it can be considered roughly a mix of Minnesota and Colorado. The very happy side to their nature is they do tend to be welcoming and open. The dark side to their character is they have a tendency to expect people to be perfect and emotionless. And their "nice" does not cover you when you say extremely stupid things, or what they pereceive as such - nor does it prevent them from trash talking. They do have a sense of honor, however - witness people working in Seattle and you will see some of the most dilligent and motivated workers you have ever seen. And despite their tendency to trash talk, both aggresively and passive aggresively, they And they can be very free-spirited and entrepreneurial, though some of that is now disappearing.

Seattle is, unfortunately, effeminizing right now as every shop and business has decided that if they paint the walls pastel, create a painting of a wineglass somewhere and sell tacky merchandise they will make more money. Add to this some recklessly bad transportation policy (like charging $6 to get in to the city from the Eastern Suburbs, and wasting billions on a rail system expected to carry 20,000 passengers) and it comes down to this: If you want to Seattle, hurry, it may not be there tomorrow.

They will learn eventually, though. :(

What good are scientists anyways?

I know it is cliche these days to say such and such has been proved by science. But science doesn't actually prove anything. To prove, you have to avoid all fallacies, all holes in logic, but there is one very critical hole in logic that science cannot ever avoid, the fallacy of induction. If something works in one place and one time, it therefore works in every place and every time.

Now I'm not saying that scientists are actually worthless, but I am saying that we should ask ourselves, what are they for? What do they do? What are they responsible for? How do they know? And we should ask it because we ourselves are losing touch with reality.

What is a conservative?

Note: We are working exclusively with the Anglo-American and Sino-Korean conservatives (they are nearly identical) and not the European or Islamic kinds, which may be very different. Likewise, we are working with Anglo-American liberals.

People tend to look at liberal and conservative as simple bullet points of policy. This makes no sense. It makes no sense because that is not the way people view the world. It takes the extremely cynical (and extremely wrong) view that people find a random set of issues to vote a certain way on and follow through with them, or that each group just watches the same news channels, but people look for the news channel that agrees with them.

Kathleen parker nailed it when she wrote this article: "Mars and Venus Collide." Liberals also nail it when they call themselves "progressives," Conservatives when they call themselves "strict constructionists." These are not lies, there is more truth to them then nearly anyone can know.

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is the difference between ideals and opposing goods. A liberal believes that there is a goal, a hope, a specific place that we should shift our entire society and everyone in it towards, while a conservative believes in a natural balance created by our competing desires, motivations, and intellects, opposing opposites, and leaves ideals for individuals. Your right-winger believes that if everything in society (including government) is in the proper place in which it fits, and those in power essentially keep their hands off, we will find tranquility, prosperity, and enlightenment (scientific progress) on a higher level then the liberals foolhardy extreme, and then the individuals can step forward with their own ideals, and shift themselves among the boxes as they please and their abillity allows them. Conservatives may still believe in ideals, but they are individual ideals, and NOT goals for society.

Now keep in mind that not everyone who is a Republican is a conservative, and that Democrat and liberal are not interchageable either, for the political parties truly are just policy points (as they would be, since they need to win elections and stay in a pack for power) and you would find in the Republican tent many libertarians, populists, moderates, Christian theocrats (who may be a different kind of liberal), et cetera. In the Democrat tent you would find labor unionists (who may be a different kind of conservative), anarchists, moderates, and environmentalists who may or may not be liberal.