By Mr. Quarter
Amazing! He does it again! Is Mr. Quarter endowed with the gift of knowing the future? On March 23, prior to The Deuce's pondering, I lamented in this space about the need to change the paradigm for ground transport vehicles. Yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal, GM announced a partnership with Segway to produce a new kind of ground transport vehicle. A sort of hybrid between the Segway scooter and a car. Capable of traveling up to 35 miles, with a top speed of 35 mph, this vehicle will not be a rectangular platform with a wheel at each corner. It will be a rectangular platform with a wheel at each end! Inchworm-like, we make progress forward.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Deuce Ponders II
Things are tough all over. But now we know exactly how tough. The Glorious Leader ( TGL ) has apparently instructed the State Department to shop for gifts for foreign dignitaries at Wal-Mart. First, the British P.M. on his visit to The White House gets a DVD set of American movie classics. Then, on his visit to London for the G-20 swap meet, TGL gives Queen Elizabeth an iPod. TGL campaigned with the mantra, "yes we can." Judging by these cheap and tacky gifts more appropriate for an episode of My Big Redneck Wedding, the new mantra is "well, er, no we can't." Look for TGL to invite Larry the Cable Guy to the next Kennedy Honors event. Now thet right thar is funny...I don't care who ya are!
I'm sure TGL's main squeeze is a wonderful person ( even though she's only been proud of America for a few months now ), and I wouldn't normally comment on Michelle's fashion sense, but I can't help but notice ( thanks to the MSM ) that she goes sleeveless more often than your run of the mill Hell's Angel. What are the odds she's got a tramp stamp? The Vegas line says it's even money. And shouldn't it be TGL showing off his guns? Who's the shot-caller in this crew anyway?
Why are the Obama's looking to adopt a rescue dog when they've already got two lap dogs; Chris Mathews and Steve Olberman? Oh yeah, one of the daughters is allergic to mutts. Not to mention having a dog that gets a thrill down his leg every time TGL is present could get kind of embarrassing.
Here's a joke for you. GM and Chrysler ( among other auto makers ) are now advertising that if you buy a car from them, then lose your job, they'll make your car payments for you for a few months. So, what's the punchline you may ask? They'll be making the payments with money gleaned from the billions of taxpayer dollars given them by TGL. There's no such thing as a free lunch people. In a hilarious related story, the Feds will honor any manufacturer's warranty from said auto makers...again with tax payer's money. Gee, I recently had a three month old Mr. Coffee crap out on me. Where's my bailout? $70 here and there and pretty soon were talking serious cash. Turns out the Mr. Coffee was made in China. I guess I should be thankful it didn't poison me...so far as I know.
Speaking of poisoning, it recently came to light that the managers of the peanut butter processing plant in Georgia knew there was salmonella in their product, yet continued to ship their tainted peanut butter. Several people died and hundreds were sickened...and I didn't have a PB&J for a month. Look, I know that as a nation we're dependent on foreign oil, but couldn't we temporarily be just a little more dependent, just enough to make enough tar so that we could tar and feather these miscreants? Are we dependent on foreign sources of feathers too? Do we make any damn thing in this country anymore besides glutinous bankers and corrupt politicians?
Earlier today yet another freak, this time in Binghamton NY, decided to punch the ticket on his miserable life but didn't want to go alone, so he slaughtered 13 innocent human beings before ventilating his own melon. During the TV coverage on Fox News, I watched a retired NYPD cop discussing how such sickening mass murders could be avoided. Among other things he said, "It's too bad that there wasn't armed security there, or an off duty policeman." Meaning, too bad there wasn't a good guy there armed with a gun who might have been able to stop the shooting and limit the loss of life. What he pointedly didn't say was too bad there wasn't armed security there or an off duty policeman, or an armed citizen. Why wasn't there an armed citizen there? There are a lot of answers to that...here's the one that I think is the most germane. The state of New York is very restrictive on issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. The NRA and other 2nd Amendment rights organizations describe New York as " right restricted-very limited issue." This generally means that a person may apply for a concealed carry permit, but if they can not show a very specific reason why they need to carry a weapon, such as being employed in a job that requires carrying large sums of cash or their job requires them to carry a weapon ( such as private security) or they are a public figure and have had their safety threatened by stalkers or the like, the application for concealed carry will be denied. Most people do not meet those requirements. This is what people like me call victim disarmament.
My response to this despicable act of mass murder? I said a prayer for the dead and wounded and their loved ones; I thanked God for the first responders who may have saved lives; I cursed the shooter and the idiot sheep in New York who continue to work to keep average people from lawfully carrying weapons with which to defend themselves and innocent bystanders; and I went to my local Sheriff's office and renewed my carry permit.
While I do not live in a "shall issue" state ( meaning the local county Sheriff or other responsible law enforcement officer MUST issue a carry permit if the applicant has no history of violence or mental illness and successfully completes any required training), I do live in a "may issue" state, which means the county Sheriff MAY deny the application FOR ANY REASON. I'm lucky that my local Sheriff is a reasonable man and to my knowledge will not deny an applicant unless there is good reason to do so.
I live in a small town. The violent crime rate here is very low. The odds of my actually needing a gun to defend myself or others in my community is almost non-existent. I rarely carry my gun in town. However, I live just 20 minutes from a much larger city where I often go to shop or eat out or see a movie. This city has a much greater violent crime rate. I carry my gun when I go there.
In the 13 years I've had a carry permit I've never had to pull my gun. Never even thought about it. Whenever I put on that gun I pray I don't need it...and thank God I've got it. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
I can't help but wonder how many people in Binghamton, NY, or Columbine CO or Blacksburg VA are wishing they had the right to carry a concealed weapon at their job or at their school. After all, where are you truly safe? Events in recent years and common sense should tell us that we never really know when we're safe and when we're not. No matter the time or the place, evil can come crashing down on us and if we're not prepared for it, we're toast.
Question: Why do you carry a gun? Answer: Because cops are too heavy.
Question: Why don't you rely on the police to protect you? Answer: Because when you need the police they're only minutes away, but in a life and death situation you only have seconds.
Question: Why don't you support more stringent gun control? Answer: Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Question: Why don't you have a concealed carry permit? Answer: Guns are soooo icky!
Guns are tools. They are neither good nor evil. It is people, not guns, that are good or evil. Bottom line; the safety of you and your loved ones is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, not someone elses. Stop being a sheep, and start being a sheep dog.
I'm sure TGL's main squeeze is a wonderful person ( even though she's only been proud of America for a few months now ), and I wouldn't normally comment on Michelle's fashion sense, but I can't help but notice ( thanks to the MSM ) that she goes sleeveless more often than your run of the mill Hell's Angel. What are the odds she's got a tramp stamp? The Vegas line says it's even money. And shouldn't it be TGL showing off his guns? Who's the shot-caller in this crew anyway?
Why are the Obama's looking to adopt a rescue dog when they've already got two lap dogs; Chris Mathews and Steve Olberman? Oh yeah, one of the daughters is allergic to mutts. Not to mention having a dog that gets a thrill down his leg every time TGL is present could get kind of embarrassing.
Here's a joke for you. GM and Chrysler ( among other auto makers ) are now advertising that if you buy a car from them, then lose your job, they'll make your car payments for you for a few months. So, what's the punchline you may ask? They'll be making the payments with money gleaned from the billions of taxpayer dollars given them by TGL. There's no such thing as a free lunch people. In a hilarious related story, the Feds will honor any manufacturer's warranty from said auto makers...again with tax payer's money. Gee, I recently had a three month old Mr. Coffee crap out on me. Where's my bailout? $70 here and there and pretty soon were talking serious cash. Turns out the Mr. Coffee was made in China. I guess I should be thankful it didn't poison me...so far as I know.
Speaking of poisoning, it recently came to light that the managers of the peanut butter processing plant in Georgia knew there was salmonella in their product, yet continued to ship their tainted peanut butter. Several people died and hundreds were sickened...and I didn't have a PB&J for a month. Look, I know that as a nation we're dependent on foreign oil, but couldn't we temporarily be just a little more dependent, just enough to make enough tar so that we could tar and feather these miscreants? Are we dependent on foreign sources of feathers too? Do we make any damn thing in this country anymore besides glutinous bankers and corrupt politicians?
Earlier today yet another freak, this time in Binghamton NY, decided to punch the ticket on his miserable life but didn't want to go alone, so he slaughtered 13 innocent human beings before ventilating his own melon. During the TV coverage on Fox News, I watched a retired NYPD cop discussing how such sickening mass murders could be avoided. Among other things he said, "It's too bad that there wasn't armed security there, or an off duty policeman." Meaning, too bad there wasn't a good guy there armed with a gun who might have been able to stop the shooting and limit the loss of life. What he pointedly didn't say was too bad there wasn't armed security there or an off duty policeman, or an armed citizen. Why wasn't there an armed citizen there? There are a lot of answers to that...here's the one that I think is the most germane. The state of New York is very restrictive on issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. The NRA and other 2nd Amendment rights organizations describe New York as " right restricted-very limited issue." This generally means that a person may apply for a concealed carry permit, but if they can not show a very specific reason why they need to carry a weapon, such as being employed in a job that requires carrying large sums of cash or their job requires them to carry a weapon ( such as private security) or they are a public figure and have had their safety threatened by stalkers or the like, the application for concealed carry will be denied. Most people do not meet those requirements. This is what people like me call victim disarmament.
My response to this despicable act of mass murder? I said a prayer for the dead and wounded and their loved ones; I thanked God for the first responders who may have saved lives; I cursed the shooter and the idiot sheep in New York who continue to work to keep average people from lawfully carrying weapons with which to defend themselves and innocent bystanders; and I went to my local Sheriff's office and renewed my carry permit.
While I do not live in a "shall issue" state ( meaning the local county Sheriff or other responsible law enforcement officer MUST issue a carry permit if the applicant has no history of violence or mental illness and successfully completes any required training), I do live in a "may issue" state, which means the county Sheriff MAY deny the application FOR ANY REASON. I'm lucky that my local Sheriff is a reasonable man and to my knowledge will not deny an applicant unless there is good reason to do so.
I live in a small town. The violent crime rate here is very low. The odds of my actually needing a gun to defend myself or others in my community is almost non-existent. I rarely carry my gun in town. However, I live just 20 minutes from a much larger city where I often go to shop or eat out or see a movie. This city has a much greater violent crime rate. I carry my gun when I go there.
In the 13 years I've had a carry permit I've never had to pull my gun. Never even thought about it. Whenever I put on that gun I pray I don't need it...and thank God I've got it. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
I can't help but wonder how many people in Binghamton, NY, or Columbine CO or Blacksburg VA are wishing they had the right to carry a concealed weapon at their job or at their school. After all, where are you truly safe? Events in recent years and common sense should tell us that we never really know when we're safe and when we're not. No matter the time or the place, evil can come crashing down on us and if we're not prepared for it, we're toast.
Question: Why do you carry a gun? Answer: Because cops are too heavy.
Question: Why don't you rely on the police to protect you? Answer: Because when you need the police they're only minutes away, but in a life and death situation you only have seconds.
Question: Why don't you support more stringent gun control? Answer: Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Question: Why don't you have a concealed carry permit? Answer: Guns are soooo icky!
Guns are tools. They are neither good nor evil. It is people, not guns, that are good or evil. Bottom line; the safety of you and your loved ones is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, not someone elses. Stop being a sheep, and start being a sheep dog.
Monday, March 23, 2009
And Now for Something Lighter
By Mr. Quarter.
My fellow bloggers and I have used this space to vent, comment and, sometimes, rage over current political and world events. This post will contemplate what I consider one of the great shortcomings of our modern technology. I give you - the wheel, or more specifically the paradigm of the four wheeled land transport vehicle.
According to several sources that I consulted, the earliest evidence of four wheeled transports comes from Sumerian clay tablets depicting sketches of a sledge with four solid wheels. Basically a rectangular platform supported by a wheel at each corner. Capable of transporting people or goods over relatively smooth terrain with much less effort and higher velocity than dragging or pushing, and greater capacity than on the back of an animal or on oneself. Date? 3,500 B.C.
Fast forward 5,500 years. Men have walked on the moon, harnessed the very power of God in the nucleus of an atom, transplanted the internal organs from one person to another, created a web of communications that allows instantaneous transmission of images, sound and text around the world in a millisecond. How do we move goods and people over the ground? Basically a rectangular platform supported by a wheel at each corner. Capable of transporting over relatively smooth terrain with much less effort and at higher velocity than dragging or pushing, and greater capacity than on the back of an animal or on oneself. Date? 2009 CE.
The puzzle to me is that in over 5,500 years the paradigm for ground transport has not changed one iota. We have improved the basic paradigm by adding more power, more wheels, achieving greater velocity, extending the range and variety of terrain it can cross. We have even added audio and video entertainment to enjoy during the trip and air conditioning for added personal comfort. And don't forget the rich Corinthian leather! But, after 55 centuries of engineering and untold treasure spent on product development, and yet no one has come up with a new paradigm that significantly improves on the original idea.
Why is that? Was/is this the best and only concept for a land vehicle? To believe that, one has to embrace the notion that 55 centuries ago, someone stumbled on to the greatest idea in all of history and that there is no other paradigm that could be an improvement. Or, is it because we have become intellectually paralyzed to the extent that any attempt to visualize other means of land transport always reverts back to the existing paradigm?
Many of our human creations are inspired by models we observe in nature. The obvious example is an aircraft. Looks and works pretty much like a bird. I suppose that 5,500 years ago, some Sumerian looked at all the beasts of burden and deduced that they were basically rectangular platforms with moving parts in contact with the ground that created locomotion, and that that model would work if only to come up with a reasonable facsimile of the moving parts. Thus, the application of the potters wheel to the problem of providing locomotion.
I don't know the answer nor the reason. However, it seems to me that the current paradigm is stale. Perhaps there are other models of locomotion we can build upon. That's what they did in Star Wars!
My fellow bloggers and I have used this space to vent, comment and, sometimes, rage over current political and world events. This post will contemplate what I consider one of the great shortcomings of our modern technology. I give you - the wheel, or more specifically the paradigm of the four wheeled land transport vehicle.
According to several sources that I consulted, the earliest evidence of four wheeled transports comes from Sumerian clay tablets depicting sketches of a sledge with four solid wheels. Basically a rectangular platform supported by a wheel at each corner. Capable of transporting people or goods over relatively smooth terrain with much less effort and higher velocity than dragging or pushing, and greater capacity than on the back of an animal or on oneself. Date? 3,500 B.C.
Fast forward 5,500 years. Men have walked on the moon, harnessed the very power of God in the nucleus of an atom, transplanted the internal organs from one person to another, created a web of communications that allows instantaneous transmission of images, sound and text around the world in a millisecond. How do we move goods and people over the ground? Basically a rectangular platform supported by a wheel at each corner. Capable of transporting over relatively smooth terrain with much less effort and at higher velocity than dragging or pushing, and greater capacity than on the back of an animal or on oneself. Date? 2009 CE.
The puzzle to me is that in over 5,500 years the paradigm for ground transport has not changed one iota. We have improved the basic paradigm by adding more power, more wheels, achieving greater velocity, extending the range and variety of terrain it can cross. We have even added audio and video entertainment to enjoy during the trip and air conditioning for added personal comfort. And don't forget the rich Corinthian leather! But, after 55 centuries of engineering and untold treasure spent on product development, and yet no one has come up with a new paradigm that significantly improves on the original idea.
Why is that? Was/is this the best and only concept for a land vehicle? To believe that, one has to embrace the notion that 55 centuries ago, someone stumbled on to the greatest idea in all of history and that there is no other paradigm that could be an improvement. Or, is it because we have become intellectually paralyzed to the extent that any attempt to visualize other means of land transport always reverts back to the existing paradigm?
Many of our human creations are inspired by models we observe in nature. The obvious example is an aircraft. Looks and works pretty much like a bird. I suppose that 5,500 years ago, some Sumerian looked at all the beasts of burden and deduced that they were basically rectangular platforms with moving parts in contact with the ground that created locomotion, and that that model would work if only to come up with a reasonable facsimile of the moving parts. Thus, the application of the potters wheel to the problem of providing locomotion.
I don't know the answer nor the reason. However, it seems to me that the current paradigm is stale. Perhaps there are other models of locomotion we can build upon. That's what they did in Star Wars!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
They're not Undocumented - they're ILLEGAL - part 2
In my last post regarding this subject, I left you with two essential questions....
First, if we as a society are going to pick and choose which laws we're going to obey and which we'll not, then by definition, we are living in anarchy. My question is, "is this what our government wants us to do"?
I want to believe the answer is "no", but I think in light of our recent election, the answer is undoubtedly "yes'' - at least with regard to immigration law. You see, the vast majority of these ILLEGAL ALIENS benefit significantly from being here. They enjoy our healthcare system, our education system, our social services, driving, and an many other benefits that we are paying for. By "we", I mean LEGAL CITIZENS. Our support systems are financially failing because we're providing services to literally millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS who contribute nothing toward the cost of these services. This has to stop, but don't count on that happening. For as long as we continue to provide these services at no charge, more and more ILLEGAL ALIENS will cross the border to take part in our wonderful society. So, our immigration laws mean virtually nothing. We could stop it, but we choose not to. Could it be because these ILLEGAL ALIENS are viewed as future DEMOCRATIC voters? I'm thinking that has a significant part in this folly. As a result, I'm in the process of deciding which laws I want to ignore....more later.
The second question I asked is, "what do we do with the millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS that are already here"? This really isn't as difficult as our government would make it sound. In an effort to show my humanitarian side, I'm going to suggest the following approach be taken....
First, all ILLEGAL ALIENS must register with the government by May 1, 2009. This shouldn't be too difficult, as they're not on vacation for goodness sakes - they're here, allegedly working, so they shouldn't have too much of a problem making themselves available. In an important note, this registration does NOT change their status to LEGAL.
Second, any unregistered ILLEGAL ALIEN found after May 1st, will be immediately deported back to their country of origin.
Third, any company after May 1st found to be employing unregistered ILLEGAL ALIENS will be fined $25,000 per day until all offenders are registered. Should any company violate this provision more than once, the fine will increase to $100,000 per day.
Fourth, any registered ILLEGAL ALIEN that commits a crime will be immediately imprisoned and prosecuted. If convicted, they will immediately begin serving their sentences without the possibility of parole. Once the sentence has been served in full they will be deported. If found in the US again, they will be imprisoned for life - no parole - no exceptions - and NO CABLE.
Fifth, all registered ILLEGAL ALIENS will immediately begin paying income taxes, state taxes, social security, medicare, etc. Their employers will pay all appropriate taxes for these employees. The ILLEGAL ALIENS will begin serving a 3 year probationary term during which they must not commit any crime or violate any provision of any local, state, or federal law. If they do, they will be deported immediately after serving their appropriate sentence or paying their fines. If they succeed, they may apply for citizenship through normal diplomatic channels and be subject to acceptance or rejection by established federal guidelines. If rejected, they must leave the country within 10 days. Any effort to evade deportation will result in conviction and be administered by the provisions of condition four above.
Finally, we must commit to border security - real border security - and severely punish those who seek to violate our nation. We should not be hesitant to warn potential ILLEGAL ALIENS that they risk being killed by any number of methods in efforts to invade our nation. We should not build a fence - it's a waste of money and will easily be compromised. We need to build a mote - 150 feet across and 150 feet deep across our southern border. The mote will be stocked with a variety of creatures that will act in accordance with their natural instincts should they find potential food sources in the water.
Sounds crazy? That's because I'm trying to solve a problem - not perpetuate one.
Conservative Ken
First, if we as a society are going to pick and choose which laws we're going to obey and which we'll not, then by definition, we are living in anarchy. My question is, "is this what our government wants us to do"?
I want to believe the answer is "no", but I think in light of our recent election, the answer is undoubtedly "yes'' - at least with regard to immigration law. You see, the vast majority of these ILLEGAL ALIENS benefit significantly from being here. They enjoy our healthcare system, our education system, our social services, driving, and an many other benefits that we are paying for. By "we", I mean LEGAL CITIZENS. Our support systems are financially failing because we're providing services to literally millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS who contribute nothing toward the cost of these services. This has to stop, but don't count on that happening. For as long as we continue to provide these services at no charge, more and more ILLEGAL ALIENS will cross the border to take part in our wonderful society. So, our immigration laws mean virtually nothing. We could stop it, but we choose not to. Could it be because these ILLEGAL ALIENS are viewed as future DEMOCRATIC voters? I'm thinking that has a significant part in this folly. As a result, I'm in the process of deciding which laws I want to ignore....more later.
The second question I asked is, "what do we do with the millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS that are already here"? This really isn't as difficult as our government would make it sound. In an effort to show my humanitarian side, I'm going to suggest the following approach be taken....
First, all ILLEGAL ALIENS must register with the government by May 1, 2009. This shouldn't be too difficult, as they're not on vacation for goodness sakes - they're here, allegedly working, so they shouldn't have too much of a problem making themselves available. In an important note, this registration does NOT change their status to LEGAL.
Second, any unregistered ILLEGAL ALIEN found after May 1st, will be immediately deported back to their country of origin.
Third, any company after May 1st found to be employing unregistered ILLEGAL ALIENS will be fined $25,000 per day until all offenders are registered. Should any company violate this provision more than once, the fine will increase to $100,000 per day.
Fourth, any registered ILLEGAL ALIEN that commits a crime will be immediately imprisoned and prosecuted. If convicted, they will immediately begin serving their sentences without the possibility of parole. Once the sentence has been served in full they will be deported. If found in the US again, they will be imprisoned for life - no parole - no exceptions - and NO CABLE.
Fifth, all registered ILLEGAL ALIENS will immediately begin paying income taxes, state taxes, social security, medicare, etc. Their employers will pay all appropriate taxes for these employees. The ILLEGAL ALIENS will begin serving a 3 year probationary term during which they must not commit any crime or violate any provision of any local, state, or federal law. If they do, they will be deported immediately after serving their appropriate sentence or paying their fines. If they succeed, they may apply for citizenship through normal diplomatic channels and be subject to acceptance or rejection by established federal guidelines. If rejected, they must leave the country within 10 days. Any effort to evade deportation will result in conviction and be administered by the provisions of condition four above.
Finally, we must commit to border security - real border security - and severely punish those who seek to violate our nation. We should not be hesitant to warn potential ILLEGAL ALIENS that they risk being killed by any number of methods in efforts to invade our nation. We should not build a fence - it's a waste of money and will easily be compromised. We need to build a mote - 150 feet across and 150 feet deep across our southern border. The mote will be stocked with a variety of creatures that will act in accordance with their natural instincts should they find potential food sources in the water.
Sounds crazy? That's because I'm trying to solve a problem - not perpetuate one.
Conservative Ken
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Deuce And A Liberal SF Author
I read quite a bit. Some of what I read is Science Fiction. Good SF is hard to find, and you often have to ignore the politics of favorite SF authors in order to enjoy their work. What's really interesting is it can be difficult to judge an author's politics by their novels. John Scalzi is a good example of this.
Scalzi is the author of Old Man's War and several sequals occuring in the same universe. I really enjoyed Old Man's War which has led me to read most of Scalzi's other works. Once I started reading Scalzi I discovered his blog and have read it routinely ever since. His blog is a source of good information regarding other SF authors and their books, and what's going on in the world of SF in general, but it also freely exposes Scalzi's politics, which I find surprising, and distasteful.
His blog entry, The Ripper Owens Syndrome, appears to be a drug induced ( at least one paragraph ) screed regarding the GOP and conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh's role in the Republican Party.
Below is my response to this post.
John, I really enjoy your SF, but this…
“The real problem with Limbaugh is not his political positions, which are the bog-standard GOP sour mash of once-upon-a-time genuine conservatism denatured through three decades of 100 proof Will to Power, which makes sense because it’s not like Limbaugh is interested in or capable of generating original political thoughts on his own. The real problem with Limbaugh is at the end of the day he’s an entertainer, and his shtick relies on political division and dissension.”
…did this actually make sense to you when you wrote it? Me thinks the ganja was talking, not you.
As far as “…generating original political thoughts on his own.” Conservatism is a strict adhearance to the original ideas of the founding fathers as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the individual state constitutions written in the same era. Hardly original to Mr. Limbaugh or any other conservative of the 20th or 21st Century, but not a rational reason to vilify those conservatives, including Mr. Limbaugh. But then modern lliberalism, especially Obama’s extreme version, isn’t original either. But liberalism doesn’t come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, does it? I think you’re probably smart enough to know where it does come from.
Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, I don’t have to hope that Obama’s bailouts, takeovers and trillion dollar budgets will fail to right America’s economic ship. I KNOW they will fail. Why? Because they fail every time they’re tried. Socialism, and make no mistake that’s what Obama’s ideology is, always results either in abject failure, like that experienced by the Cubans for the last fifty years and the now extinct Soviet Union, or in a slow torturous demise as is now being played out in western Europe.
Double digit unemployment is the norm in most of western Europe. Roughly speaking, five to six percent is the norm in America. National health care in Britain is virtually bankrupt, to the point that health care is starting to be rationed. And how many Canadians come to the U.S. every year for their health care needs? And why do so many Canadians find it necessary to come to the U.S. for medical care? The answer is national health care, which used to be called socialized medicene.
Conservatism IS free-market capitalism. Obama’s policies are not. Obama’s policies are to print money, say the debt will be paid back in the misty future by our children and grandchildren, and use the printed money to infect as much of the American private economy as possible so as to increase governmental control of that economy. Control of the economy is control over the people who make their living in that economy.
Where does this overwhelming need to control everyone and everything come from? Examining history, it’s pretty easy to figure out. Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the triumverate of liberalism in America, actually think they are so intelligent that the power to control all is not only their right, but their duty. They believe that the lion’s share of American people are too stupid to run their own lives; to make their own living; to raise their own children; to practice their own faith; to decide how best to use their own income.
Mr. Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party. Mr. Limbaugh does not even call himself a Republican, though I'm confident he generally votes that way. He calls himself a conservative. He’s a conservative, as am I, because I don’t want to control everyone; because I do believe that I, and most Americans, are fully capable of making our own decisions as how best to exercise our God given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, with the full knowledge that equal opportunity does NOT guarantee equal results. And we’re good with that. We’re good with that because it was exactly those beliefs that created the United States of America, and made the U.S. what it is.
Obama does not believe as I do, which is to say he does not believe in the rights and the capabilities of the American people. And so, like Mr. Limbaugh, I hope Obama fails and is quickly dispatched to the ash heap of history along with Lenin, Stalin, Castro and all the others who thought they knew better, and were willing to enslave millions to prove it.
Scalzi is the author of Old Man's War and several sequals occuring in the same universe. I really enjoyed Old Man's War which has led me to read most of Scalzi's other works. Once I started reading Scalzi I discovered his blog and have read it routinely ever since. His blog is a source of good information regarding other SF authors and their books, and what's going on in the world of SF in general, but it also freely exposes Scalzi's politics, which I find surprising, and distasteful.
His blog entry, The Ripper Owens Syndrome, appears to be a drug induced ( at least one paragraph ) screed regarding the GOP and conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh's role in the Republican Party.
Below is my response to this post.
John, I really enjoy your SF, but this…
“The real problem with Limbaugh is not his political positions, which are the bog-standard GOP sour mash of once-upon-a-time genuine conservatism denatured through three decades of 100 proof Will to Power, which makes sense because it’s not like Limbaugh is interested in or capable of generating original political thoughts on his own. The real problem with Limbaugh is at the end of the day he’s an entertainer, and his shtick relies on political division and dissension.”
…did this actually make sense to you when you wrote it? Me thinks the ganja was talking, not you.
As far as “…generating original political thoughts on his own.” Conservatism is a strict adhearance to the original ideas of the founding fathers as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the individual state constitutions written in the same era. Hardly original to Mr. Limbaugh or any other conservative of the 20th or 21st Century, but not a rational reason to vilify those conservatives, including Mr. Limbaugh. But then modern lliberalism, especially Obama’s extreme version, isn’t original either. But liberalism doesn’t come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, does it? I think you’re probably smart enough to know where it does come from.
Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, I don’t have to hope that Obama’s bailouts, takeovers and trillion dollar budgets will fail to right America’s economic ship. I KNOW they will fail. Why? Because they fail every time they’re tried. Socialism, and make no mistake that’s what Obama’s ideology is, always results either in abject failure, like that experienced by the Cubans for the last fifty years and the now extinct Soviet Union, or in a slow torturous demise as is now being played out in western Europe.
Double digit unemployment is the norm in most of western Europe. Roughly speaking, five to six percent is the norm in America. National health care in Britain is virtually bankrupt, to the point that health care is starting to be rationed. And how many Canadians come to the U.S. every year for their health care needs? And why do so many Canadians find it necessary to come to the U.S. for medical care? The answer is national health care, which used to be called socialized medicene.
Conservatism IS free-market capitalism. Obama’s policies are not. Obama’s policies are to print money, say the debt will be paid back in the misty future by our children and grandchildren, and use the printed money to infect as much of the American private economy as possible so as to increase governmental control of that economy. Control of the economy is control over the people who make their living in that economy.
Where does this overwhelming need to control everyone and everything come from? Examining history, it’s pretty easy to figure out. Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the triumverate of liberalism in America, actually think they are so intelligent that the power to control all is not only their right, but their duty. They believe that the lion’s share of American people are too stupid to run their own lives; to make their own living; to raise their own children; to practice their own faith; to decide how best to use their own income.
Mr. Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party. Mr. Limbaugh does not even call himself a Republican, though I'm confident he generally votes that way. He calls himself a conservative. He’s a conservative, as am I, because I don’t want to control everyone; because I do believe that I, and most Americans, are fully capable of making our own decisions as how best to exercise our God given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, with the full knowledge that equal opportunity does NOT guarantee equal results. And we’re good with that. We’re good with that because it was exactly those beliefs that created the United States of America, and made the U.S. what it is.
Obama does not believe as I do, which is to say he does not believe in the rights and the capabilities of the American people. And so, like Mr. Limbaugh, I hope Obama fails and is quickly dispatched to the ash heap of history along with Lenin, Stalin, Castro and all the others who thought they knew better, and were willing to enslave millions to prove it.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Senator Kerry, Just Shut Up!
by Mr. Quarter
In today's Wall Street Journal, the most esteemed Senator John F. Kerry opines in a short article that eastern Europe needs our help. It also appears that Senator Kerry has few reservations about plagiarizing Mr. Quarter's posts! As I pointed out in my post a couple of days ago, central and eastern Europe is in dire financial shape due to mortgage lending in foreign currency. Most of their banks are foreign owned, so much of western Europe is looking at their investments swirling around the bowl - so to speak. The good senator then goes on to make his case that we cannot possibly let this happen as it will throw 20 years of alliance building down the drain. My questions for the good senator would be:
In today's Wall Street Journal, the most esteemed Senator John F. Kerry opines in a short article that eastern Europe needs our help. It also appears that Senator Kerry has few reservations about plagiarizing Mr. Quarter's posts! As I pointed out in my post a couple of days ago, central and eastern Europe is in dire financial shape due to mortgage lending in foreign currency. Most of their banks are foreign owned, so much of western Europe is looking at their investments swirling around the bowl - so to speak. The good senator then goes on to make his case that we cannot possibly let this happen as it will throw 20 years of alliance building down the drain. My questions for the good senator would be:
- Just who do you think is going to step in, since every country world wide is in the same economic boat. The Russians? Their stock market is in the tank. The Chinese? They are trying to prop up their own economy.
- Why is it the responsibility of the US to come to the rescue. Western Europe has the biggest interest, invested heavily there, and should be spending their resources to help their recovery. After all, isn't it they who will profit financially from a eastern Europe economic recovery?
- Your guy Obama just dropped a $3.7 trillion bomb on the the US taxpayer, of which almost half is deficit spending - that we have to borrow first. And the projection is for $800 billion deficits well into the future (if Obama is successful in "cutting the deficit in half") So what makes you think this country has the capacity or the will to spend one cent to save another country's economy at this point in time or for the foreseeable future?
Senator Kerry, you are a wanna be looser. You are essentially irrelevant, so get over it and move on. Oh, and do all of your fellow citizens a favor. Simply shut up!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Mistakes and the Lies
by Mr. Quarter.
This post will discuss two issues that I have found interesting information on recently. The first is the underlying causes of the current economic problems and the second is the Obama budget and tax program proposed last night.
The causes of the current economic problems? Two foundation events that I have identified. The first event was alluded to in my post of February 20 where I quote Phil Gramm on the effects of the Community Reinvestment Act, a Democratic boondoggle that forced banks to make mortgage loans to customers that were unworthy of the loans. In that article, Mr. Gramm points out that in 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized, but by 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The second event was illuminated in this article published in Wired Magazine online on the 23rd of February. In 2000, while working at JP Morgan/Chase, a young man named David X. Li published what became widely recognized as a breakthrough mathematical model called the Gaussian Copula Function that allowed hugely complex risks to be modeled with more ease and accuracy than ever before. Because of its elegance, it was widely adopted by financial and investment houses up and down Wall Street. Mr. Li's formula represented an ingenious way to model loan default correlations without even looking at historical default data. Basically, he accounted for this with a sort of coefficient that assumed that prices would not go down. As a result, banks and investment houses developed more and more complex financial instruments, slicing up bundles of mortgages, trading, insuring for default - all based on a formula that assumed no decline in prices. Guess what happened?
Incidently, Mr. Li. he now works in Beijing and heads the risk-management department of China International Capital Corporation which is the China sovereign wealth fund. He is currently unavailable for comment. One wonders whether this was a stealthy attack on America from within by a mole.
On the the Obama budget outline and tax increases. Mr. Obama is proposing a budget of $3.94 trillion with a $1.7 trillion deficit. Not to worry says Mr. Obama, much of this is paid for by increasing the income tax rate on those making greater than $250,000. Says Obama, "No one with an income under $250,000 a year will pay $1 more in taxes." Well, lets examine that a bit more. According an article the Wall Street Journal today, the IRS reported for 2006 (the most recent year this data is available) that income tax filers reporting over $200,000 annual income paid $522 billion in income tax at the top rate of 35% (this group is 7% of all tax payers and pays 57% of all income tax). Obama has indicated that his program will raise the top rate to 39.6% and that he will add another 2% through elimination of certain itemized deductions that are now claimed - so lets make the top tax rate an even 41%. We will have $1.75 trillion deficit and we need to come up with the money to close that gap. Well, through the magic of algebra (thank you Mr. Schwab) we can at least see in approximate terms how much tax revenue would be generated by increasing the top tax rate to 41% - about $104 billion additional. In fact, as the WSJ points out, if you raise the top income tax rate of all filers with income over $200,000 to 100%, the total revenue generated would be $970 billion - still not be enough to cover even the deficit. So where do you think that Obama is going to get the rest? That's right Mr. and Mrs. Oppressed Middle Class. He will be coming to your wallet next.
This post will discuss two issues that I have found interesting information on recently. The first is the underlying causes of the current economic problems and the second is the Obama budget and tax program proposed last night.
The causes of the current economic problems? Two foundation events that I have identified. The first event was alluded to in my post of February 20 where I quote Phil Gramm on the effects of the Community Reinvestment Act, a Democratic boondoggle that forced banks to make mortgage loans to customers that were unworthy of the loans. In that article, Mr. Gramm points out that in 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized, but by 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The second event was illuminated in this article published in Wired Magazine online on the 23rd of February. In 2000, while working at JP Morgan/Chase, a young man named David X. Li published what became widely recognized as a breakthrough mathematical model called the Gaussian Copula Function that allowed hugely complex risks to be modeled with more ease and accuracy than ever before. Because of its elegance, it was widely adopted by financial and investment houses up and down Wall Street. Mr. Li's formula represented an ingenious way to model loan default correlations without even looking at historical default data. Basically, he accounted for this with a sort of coefficient that assumed that prices would not go down. As a result, banks and investment houses developed more and more complex financial instruments, slicing up bundles of mortgages, trading, insuring for default - all based on a formula that assumed no decline in prices. Guess what happened?
Incidently, Mr. Li. he now works in Beijing and heads the risk-management department of China International Capital Corporation which is the China sovereign wealth fund. He is currently unavailable for comment. One wonders whether this was a stealthy attack on America from within by a mole.
On the the Obama budget outline and tax increases. Mr. Obama is proposing a budget of $3.94 trillion with a $1.7 trillion deficit. Not to worry says Mr. Obama, much of this is paid for by increasing the income tax rate on those making greater than $250,000. Says Obama, "No one with an income under $250,000 a year will pay $1 more in taxes." Well, lets examine that a bit more. According an article the Wall Street Journal today, the IRS reported for 2006 (the most recent year this data is available) that income tax filers reporting over $200,000 annual income paid $522 billion in income tax at the top rate of 35% (this group is 7% of all tax payers and pays 57% of all income tax). Obama has indicated that his program will raise the top rate to 39.6% and that he will add another 2% through elimination of certain itemized deductions that are now claimed - so lets make the top tax rate an even 41%. We will have $1.75 trillion deficit and we need to come up with the money to close that gap. Well, through the magic of algebra (thank you Mr. Schwab) we can at least see in approximate terms how much tax revenue would be generated by increasing the top tax rate to 41% - about $104 billion additional. In fact, as the WSJ points out, if you raise the top income tax rate of all filers with income over $200,000 to 100%, the total revenue generated would be $970 billion - still not be enough to cover even the deficit. So where do you think that Obama is going to get the rest? That's right Mr. and Mrs. Oppressed Middle Class. He will be coming to your wallet next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
