Thoughts from The Corner Office

New Zealand Diary, Day 7

2012-01-30T15:16:00.000-08:00

Day 7: Top o' the Track
We would be spending the day around the Torrent Bay area, doing some more river kayaking and hiking. After another hearty breakfast, and packing our morning snacks, we were back out at the beach hauling our kayaks down to the water. The tide was just coming in, and as we started around the somewhat massive sandbar, staying close to the shore to avoid the main boating channel, we paddled across some shoals in the lagoon that were shallow enough for our paddles to touch bottom with a normal stroke. We got past the mouth of the river--barely more than a creek--and paddled on up. Just before we reached our destination was another shoal. This time the kayaks' draft was just too deep, and our guides Whitey and Sophie assisted most of the group by dragging the boats across the 5 m length of gravel bed.

Paddling our boats around the bend, we found a shallow beach area surrounded by trees, with a small track visible. We drove our bows up onto the beach, and Whitey tied all the kayaks together and to one of the trees, so they wouldn't float back down the river unoccupied. We started up the track, which followed a small creek and in places was very wet and muddy. Suddenly the track seemed to dead-end, and Whitey led us across the creek and a small pile of boulders to Cleopatra's Pool (which appears on Google Maps).

Cleopatra's Pool is actually a pair of pools near the bottom of the stream it's on, which flows into the creek we had just walked along. Between the upper and the lower pools, the water flows down a crack in the rocks across the face of the wall separating them, creating a natural water slide. Unfortunately, I have no photos of the adventurous ones who went down the slide, but one of our group took some video, including DW. If that video turned out, and I can get it emailed to me, I'll update this post to include it.

When we got back to the kayaks, we could see why Whitey tied them up: the rising tide had caused the beach to all but vanish. As we rounded the bend, it was easy to see that the shoal that we'd been dragged across earlier now had plenty of water to carry the boats. Since we were going downstream, we all took it easy and took in the scenery. As we crossed the lagoon again, we caught an occasional glimpse of the rays, coming up into the brackish water to feed on the mollusks that teemed there.

After a sumptuous lunch of leftover ham sandwiches, leftover cucumber salad, and little tortilla-bowls filled with a sort of custard made with the leftover mixed veggies (they were very good; I had two), we all got our day-packs and hiking boots ready to head up the Cascade Falls track. This is where Whitey had promised us a surprise at the end.

Crossing the creek

We started out by crossing Lagoon Street and walking along Manuka Street, past residences and rentals, and at the inland end of Manuka Street a Department of Conservation (DOC, the agency in charge of National Parks in NZ) campground. We then started up the hill. Whitey assured us that it would be steep for a while, then mellow out. We kept waiting for the mellow part. After a few sets of stairs--some made with boards and posts, some made from the rocks--and a couple of creek crossings, we came to the path that led to Cascade Falls. But that wasn't our destination. Whitey said ours was "just around the corner."

Solitude on the track

Oh, my, but that was a big corner! We climbed some more, and when we got to the top of that hill, Whitey explained a scheme whereby each of us could have about ten minutes of solitude on the track, just to admire the sights and sounds. He had to explain it three times, but eventually we all understood, and Team Extreme was off down the track, losing a member here and a member there until we were all all alone. I took advantage of the first couple of minutes to take a few photos and have some water, but then I just stood there looking, then listening with my eyes closed. It really was a grand experience.

From there it was up the next hill for a ways, until we came to the top of this track--there was a sign informing us that it was maintained no further. We had arrived at another set of pools separated by cascades.

These were larger even than Cleopatra's Pool, and probably about 300 m higher. We decided this was a good spot to have a snack, and for some of us, a swim.

After a few minutes, Whitey picked up a stone and banged it on the rock near the water a few times. It took a little while, but eventually his surprise for us appeared.

That's right, there were eels way up here at 400+ m above sea level! These, as you can see, are very accustomed to humans. They allowed us to stroke them in return for feeding them slices of roast beef. They even raised their heads out of the water to get it.

After feeding three eels what I estimate to be ½-kilo of beef [Correction: I meant ¼-kilo; I was thinking ½ lb.], we started back down the track. In fact, we were running a bit late, as one of the lodge staff who needed to help prepare supper had come with us. We spread out, and for a while I was again alone on the track, but with the knowledge that our guide was behind me, so as long as I stayed on the track I would not be lost.

I had no trouble making it back to the township, but when I got to the intersection of the two streets, I found that I had not paid attention to which driveway belonged to the lodge. Fortunately there aren't that many, and I only made one wrong guess.

After supper we sat in the great room talking, realizing that this was Team Extreme's last night together. Shortly after dark, Whitey came in and asked if anyone was interested in going to see a glow worm cave. For those who haven't heard of this, allow me to explain that there is at least one major tourist attraction on the east coast of the South Island that offers a view of these creatures. We were being offered a chance to see the phenomenon at no charge. Some of the group had already seen them, and opted to stay at the lodge. DW and I had not, so we joined the group of 8 including Whitey and Sophie.

Armed with flashlights, we walked northward up the beach, past the tree swing, and across a muddy flat that would be wet at high tide. There we found a small worn track that led up and over a hill and back down to a beach on the other side. This one was separated from ours by a pile of large and small boulders at the bottom of the hill, so that we could not simply walk around the beach even at low tide. Once on the beach, we turned and walked a few meters, and saw the opening to the cave we were after.

Whitey went in first, and shined his flashlight on the entrance so that the rest of us could find our way in without using our lights. The cave was just about large enough for the 8 of us, not quite tall enough to stand upright. Whitey cautioned us to stay low and not touch the top of the cave, because that's where the glow worms were. Once we were all in and seated as comfortably as we could be, Whitey turned off his light, and we were treated to a clear, starry sky on the roof of the cave. In fact, Whitey even facetiously pointed out (verbally, since we couldn't see him) a couple of constellations.

(If you read the Wikipedia article linked above, you'll understand why I was unable to get any photos of this scene with my cheap point-and-shoot digital camera.)

Whitey told us about the glow worms, how they were the larval stage of on insect that dangled silk snares to catch the prey that was attracted by their bluish glow. He also mentioned that there were in this cave some wetas, a type of cricket, which some people dislike. He turned on his light to show us a couple. They were brown, about 3-4 cm long, with longish legs, but they don't jump or fly.

Once we were done at the cave, we made our way back over the hill and down the beach. A few of us stopped at the lodge, while the rest of us went on to the lagoon side of the sandbar to see the phosphorescence I mentioned in Day 6's post. This is a somewhat more common phenomenon, but for those unfamiliar with it: There is a type of microorganism that lives in the sea water, that emits a bit of greenish light when excited or disturbed. This behavior can be elicited by tossing a bit of sand into the water, thus disturbing a relatively wide swath of the wee beasties. The higher the concentration of the little buggers, the brighter the light. It was only about medium on that night, but still quite an entertaining effect.

After a few minutes, we'd all decided it was time to retire for the night, so back to the lodge we went. The next day we would be paddling our way back to Kaiteriteri to catch the bus back to HQ. I think I was asleep before my head…

New Zealand Diary, Day 6

2012-01-26T17:13:00.000-08:00

Day 6: Tidal Timing

Arawoa Bay & wetland

Christmas Day! This morning we packed our lodge bags to be moved to Torrent Bay, and got ready to walk over the ridge to Tonga Bay, where we would begin our sea kayak trip. We started down the beach in the same direction as the day before, but took a right turn into the bush before we got as far. This track took us up fairly quickly to a view about 100 m above the wetland, then up another 50 m or so to the saddle of the ridge.

At the top

On the way, Whitey pointed out a "Honeydew tree", and encouraged us to sample it. The trunk of the tree had thousands of tiny translucent filaments sticking out of it, each with a droplet of clear liquid. Whitey instructed us to gently gather a number of the droplets on a finger and taste the liquid. Some of us did, and declared it very sweet. Whitey then told us that it's "bug feces." There is an insect which females eat a burrow into the tree's trunk, and the only substance they don't use is the sugar. The filaments are their waste elimination channels, where all that sugar goes.

Tonga Bay and inlet

From the top, it was down a winding track to Tonga Bay, where we faced a rising tide. We could have avoided it--by leaving at 5:00 am. But Team Extreme was undaunted, and we proceeded to remove our shoes, lift our packs over our heads, and wade across the inlet! It was only about 40 m total to cross, after all. Whitey and a couple of the taller guys spread out and found the shallowest parts for the shorter members of the group to use.

Team Extreme!

Sophie supervising

After crossing and putting our shoes back on, or not, we walked down the beach to a campground for lunch and coffee. We also met Sophie, the second guide who would be joining us for our ocean kayak experience. We got our gear and packed our chosen kayaks, adjusted them to our legs, and received instruction on how to use the skirts. We would be more likely to need them on the ocean, as the waves (and boat wakes) could splash over the kayak.

Once we were all ready, we set off paddling past Tonga Island, where more New Zealand fur seals were lounging around or playing in the water next to shore. Whitey told us that the pups were still young enough that they wanted to stay close to mom, but in another month or two they'd be jumping up on the kayaks.

Sailing, sailing

After paddling past Mosquito Bay to about Bark's Bay, Whitey had us "raft up" (where all the kayaks come alongside each other and the occupants hold them together by hand). He broke out a sheet of parachute nylon, and had the two outside rear paddlers tie a corner to each of their paddles. He then gave the other two corners to the outside front paddlers, and after a brief instruction, had the mastmen raise their paddles. Lo and behold, we were sailing! The sea breeze blows southerly along the Abel Tasman coast, which happened to be the way we were going. After 15 or 20 minutes, we had passed Sandfly Bay, and Whitey decided we needed to resume more control of our heading, so we put the sail away and went back to paddling.

We stopped for a snack and toilet break in Boundary Bay, a nice large crescent of a beach. There were a few other people, there being a campground, and some cruisers and sailboats moored, but the closest living things to our group were the gulls and the sandflies.

From there, it was just a short paddle further to Torrent Bay, one of the two planned communities on the Abel Tasman coast, with actual named streets (two). The Wilsons Torrent Bay Lodge is on Lagoon Street near the corner of Manuka Street--not that we could see that from the bay as we paddled in to the beach.

We cleaned up and gathered in the great room of the lodge, with dining tables in the center and a large seating area along the windows. We discovered that we would be joining two other guests already there. Once everyone was there, the staff brought in a huge chocolate cake with a candle on it. Not only was it Christmas Day, but one of Team Extreme's birthday!

One of the new members of the group was a former rock guitarist who now ran a concert equipment company. He told us of a poster he had for one of his old bands' concerts, with the phrase "Special Guest Van Halen" on it.

After cake and some conversation, it was time for supper. The staff brought out a huge whole ham, accompanied by a pasta salad and mixed vegetables. It was served buffet-style because the ham was too large to put on the table. After that, none of us thought we could possibly eat dessert, but we were served Pavlova, which thankfully is very light.

After supper, DW & I took a walk toward the south end of the beach, which wasn't very far. On the way back, we decided to walk to the north end, which is only a little farther. There we discovered a small community park with a rope swing, and took turns pushing each other on it. With darkness growing, we headed back to the lodge, where we met a few others coming out to see the phosphorescence of the sea. We were exhausted and still full, so we went to sleep looking forward to the next day--Whitey had promised us a hike with a surprise!

New Zealand Diary, Day 5

2012-01-24T17:19:00.000-08:00

Day 5: Team Extreme
We arose to the aroma of bacon and french toast. Fuel for the morning's activities! After breakfast, it was out to the front yard to get our gear and familiarize ourselves with the kayaks we would be using that day. They were of a traditional sit-in style, rather than the sit-on-top that DW and I had used before. For today's activities, though, we would not use the skirts, as we would not be in waves. After gearing up and adjusting the foot stops, we carried the boats down to the beach, and set off up the inlet.

After about a half-hour of easy paddling, we beached the boats on a small beach at a bend in the river. Whitey said we could make coffee and have a snack, but he knew of an old grave in the area if anyone was interested in seeing it. Anyone who didn't want to go could stay and have their snack. Nobody wanted to miss this, though, and off we went into the riparian woods.

Bushwhackin' with Whitey

This was real bushwhacking, and some of the bushes were rather prickly. Whitey told us they were gorse, planted by the European farmers for their cattle to eat. On a future day, he would tell us that gorse was considered an invasive species, but it was much less of a problem than others. One reason is that it rapidly grows on cleared soil, such as is caused by logging or forest fire, thus preventing erosion. A further reason is that once it's there, it repels birds that would eat the seeds of native trees and shrubs, and allows those larger plants to establish themselves more readily than if there were no gorse. So it is not hated nearly as much as, say, foxglove (one of which at one point Whitey disgustedly pulled from the ground and threw off the track). But I digress yet again.

After a few pauses to make sure we were going the right way, Whitey announced, "There it is!" We all gathered 'round a roughly 10' x 10' square of rusty iron fence, with a slender tree in the middle of the enclosed area. Leaning against the tree was a 10" x 12" slab of stone with a cross carved on the face. From there, we walked back toward the river about 20 m, where Whitey pointed out the moss-covered bricks of a former small fireplace. While we were talking about the disappearance of the house that was there, one of the group exclaimed, "Look, a skull!" It was an animal skull, about 8" long, with one horn still attached--probably a goat. Whitey then led us on to the other end of the house, most likely the kitchen, where a much larger fireplace had stood.

Then it was back to the boats, but on the way out we passed where the workshed had been; a sheet of steel and an old log-saw blade leaning against a tree attested to that. When we got back to the boats, we discovered that the tide was going out, because there was much more beach exposed than when we arrived. We shoved our boats back into the river and headed downstream. Not quite halfway back, we stopped at a place where there was now some sand exposed. From there, we could see a dilapidated two-room clapboard house about 150 m across a grassy field. As we approached through the gate and made our way up the trampled grass pathway, Whitey explained that this was the site where one of the Wilsons' extended family settled for farming in the last years of the 19th century. Since the area was made a part of Abel Tasman National Park, the homestead was frequently used by backpackers as a hut to sleep in. The tin roof was amazingly still mostly intact. It appeared that the old spring bed had been moved into the front room, and there were magazines and books from the period of the 1920s and '30s when the farm was abandoned.

After spending a few minutes in reverie over the pioneer spirit, or the antiques in the bookshelf/pantry, or the tenacity of certain bits of wallpaper, or the ravages of time, Team Extreme (as Whitey had begun calling us because of our willingness for adventure) headed back to the boats and on to the lodge, where we had to port the boats a bit further to get them up to the yard than to bring them down that morning.

After a delicious light lunch, Team Extreme was off again, this time (now that the tide had gone out) down the beach and around the spit (ack-ptui!) to another, public lodge in the community of Awaroa. This lodge is situated in the small rise of land between the sea and a wetland, which is protected there much as they are in the American West. We were given the opportunity to freshen up at the lodge, then we took the track in back of the lodge to a small deck in the wetland. Whitey leaned down and pattered the water with his fingertips, and soon one, then two sleek, dark shapes appeared in the shallow water.

Eels!

Whitey explained that these eels didn't live in the salt water of the sea, but in fresh water, going to the sea to spawn. Once returned to fresh water, they could live there for 50, 75, maybe as many as 100 years. He estimated the two we saw were 50 or 60 years old. They detect prey--mostly insects and the fry of other fish--by vibrations in the water, which is why they came out when he disturbed the surface. I also suspect that these eels were quite accustomed to humans, and probably to being fed, because they were quite docile when we reached down to touch them. Well, some of us did.

From there, we went back to our lodge via a track that overlooked the wetland. Supper for most of Team Extreme was a hefty, fresh salmon steak. There was one member of the group who is vegetarian, and I don't eat fish; we had "stuffed capsicum" (bell pepper). That happens to be one of my favorite meals, so I was not at all disappointed by my choice not to partake in the regularly planned dish. Dessert was a homemade cheesecake with strawberry sauce. There was actually enough for me to have two slices. I shouldn't have done, but I did.

After supper, some went out to the seaview deck or even the yard for wine and conversation, a bit of exploration, or even just watching the tide come back in as the sun set. Others found a newspaper and began doing the crossword puzzle. Soon the excitement of the day's activities was overcome with a happy fatigue, and we headed off to sleep and dream of tomorrow.

New Zealand Diary, Day 4

2012-01-22T21:30:00.000-08:00

Day 4: Oops!
Today we start our 5-day hiking and kayaking adventure with the Wilsons group. We awake early, get semi-packed (since we'll be repacking for the lodges), and head out for the headquarters in Motueka. We had about 35 km to go, and nearly 3 hours to get there. Piece of cake. First stop, brekkie at a McDonald's in Nelson with a McCafe, where we are given another loyalty card. Now this one, we might be able to use back home.

Onward, forward, to Richmond--less than 5 km away. Nelson and Richmond are sort of twin cities, almost suburbs of each other. In Richmond, there are several roundabouts in quick succession, but I confidently keep following Highway 6 all the way out of town. We travel through a couple of small towns, past vineyards, hops fields, and apple orchards, and even over a small pass. I'm thinking Motueka should be getting close, but wondering why we can't see the sea. After about 45 minutes, I see a sign: Motueka Valley Highway, right turn; Motueka 51 km.

What?! We were now farther away from our destination than when we started? Apparently, at that 2nd or 3rd roundabout in Richmond, I was supposed to take a right onto Highway 60, not 6. Good thing we left in plenty of time.

The Motueka Valley was even more packed with hops and apples, cattle and sheep, with streams and creeks to cross and backpackers to avoid hitting. Beautiful country, but no time for photos, since we now had to find the place with less time to spare.

As it turned out, it really was no problem finding the Wilsons office, and we were packed up and ready to go before their bus was ready to take us. We met the other nine clients in our group, and Whitey, our guide for five days. Onto the bus, and off to Kaiteriteri, where we would board the boat for the ride north to our starting point.

The intrepid group, awaiting the boat. Whitey is in black.

We're on a boat!

You may notice there are more than 11 folks on the boat. It seats about 60 people, and it's used to ferry both people on arranged trips and people out on their own to several points along the Abel Tasman coast. On our trip up, there was a family going to a birthday party in Torrent Bay, where our group would spend the nights of Christmas and Boxing Day.

Split Apple Rock

The first pause--not a stop for loading and unloading --was at Honeymoon Bay, site of Split Apple Rock, a granite boulder about 3m diameter that has been split by water and time. A little over 20 km more, after unloading our lodge bags at Awaroa, we were at the northern end of our journey: Totaranui, named so by the Maori for the big (nui) Totara trees prized for making waka, their dugout canoes.

In Totaranui the group members took a few minutes to introduce ourselves to each other, then started off walking. It was almost 3pm when we started, and we had a little over 6 km to go to the lodge at Awaroa.


Totaranui beach

Hikers in front!

Pikers in the rear.

We walked down a road past campgrounds, then onto a foot track that climbed a short way up to a vista point where we could see the beach where we landed.

Whitey pointing out Rata
vines on a Rimu tree

From there it was back down through the forest, where Whitey told us about a few of the native species. He read a poem about Rimu and Rata, describing a fanciful loving relationship. Rimu is a large, long-living tree of the cypress family, which plays host to several parasites and symbiots, most notably the Rata. Rata starts in the forks of Rimu branches, sending vine-like roots down the trunk. As the Rata grows, the roots begin to intertwine and completely cover the trunk of the Rimu. After a few hundred years, the Rimu dies (whether because of the Rata or of age is not known), and in time rots away, leaving a large, hollow Rata tree.

Down we went to the next beach at Goat Bay, where we saw pied shags (a species of cormorant), black oystercatchers, and a colony of mussels. There were also quite a few jellyfish bodies, sans tentacles, one of which Whitey picked up to show us how harmless they were. We all agreed they looked a lot like breast implants. (Sorry, no photo of the jellies!)


Pied Shags, or Cormorants

Oystercatchers foraging in the surf

Mussels clinging fast

I couldn't resist this pattern.

We spent a little time and had a snack on the beach, then set off again to go over one more point before we got to the Awaroa inlet. Once we got there, I understood why we'd been advised to bring water shoes in our day pack: we had to cross the inlet to get to the lodge! If you've ever walked through the fine silt mud deposited where a river meets the ocean, you can imagine what our crossing was like.

We got to the lodge a little behind schedule, and the appetizers of broccoli-cheese balls were just about to come out of the oven. We climbed the carpeted staircase to our cozy little room and cleaned up, then went down to the deck overlooking the bay for beer and balls. The main feature at supper was a strip steak, grilled over an open fire with just the right spices.

The living room at Awaroa Lodge

After supper, we all gathered in the comfortable living room of the lodge to watch a short video about the family who settled in the part of the South Island that became Abel Tasman National Park. This family eventually became the Wilsons who started with a water taxi and inn, and built up a tourism business from that. They had built a house in Awaroa Bay, and this lodge was built on that same plan (albeit a mirror-image). The story told by the video, and in more detail by a book (both offered for sale by Wilsons), was not without betrayal and tragedy, but in the end it was a story of success. We all considered the day's adventures to be a success, and retired to our rooms to rest up for the next day.

Up next: what does one do in an estuary at high tide?

New Zealand Diary, Days 2 and 3

2012-01-20T16:17:00.000-08:00

Day 2: Tongariro
We continued south along the shore of Lake Taupo until we got to Turangi, where we found a nice little bakery for "brekkie" (breakfast). Bless that English heritage, they had lots of little meat pies to choose from. I chose a steak, bacon, and cheese pie. DW had something less adventuresome, like a croissant with bacon and egg. The people there were so nice, and let us use their phone--several times--for some arrangements we had not yet made.

Just at the far edge of town was the highway that took us through the north fringe of Tongariro National Park: the Te Ponanga Saddle Road. We passed a couple of beautiful lakes (Rotopounamu and Rotoaira), and saw a small outdoor adventure shop. We had heard about the Tongariro Crossing walk, and stopped to find out what we could. They said it took about 6 hours one-way, and offered transportation from the shop to one trailhead, then back from the other end to the shop, for NZ$35/person. No guide, no food, nothing else; just transportation. We thought that was a little steep, so they recommended we drive about 15 minutes into Whakapapa (pronounced Fah-ka-pah-pa) village, which is similar to National Park villages in the US, such as at Yosemite or Zion. They told us that there we would find several smaller loop trails that would only take an hour or two apiece.

When we arrived there, we were a little surprised to find a relatively huge hotel (in the photo below, it's around 1-1½ km away from us), along with the expected information center, café, campground, and souvenir shops. At the info center, they told us the best trail for our limited time would be the Taranaki Falls track. It's about a 6 km loop, estimated for a 2-hour walk. It took us less than an hour-and-a-half.


Ruapehu from its base, looking south

Manawatu Valley, looking west

Silliness on return trail


Me with stream along trail

DW and I admiring a cascade

Taranaki Falls

Upon finishing that walk, we had a look at the café in the village for lunch, but nothing appealed to us. We drove another 20 minutes to the town named "National Park" at the intersection with Hwy 4, and picked up a couple of sandwiches and ginger beers at the convenience store. The brand was Bundaberg, and it is excellent. The label suggests that one "invert gently before opening," to help distribute the bits of ginger.

Cascade in the beautiful
Wanganui Valley

A closer look at the cascade

We went on south, because we had a reservation on the ferry from Wellington to Picton, across the Cook Strait, for the next afternoon. We planned to spend the night in or around Wellington, the political capital of New Zealand. On the way, the highway followed the Wanganui River, at one point in which there was this cascade.

We arrived in Wellington at just about rush hour (lucky us), and drove around downtown for a bit until we reached the harbor and found the ferry terminal so we'd know where it was the next day. We then ventured back north a bit, along a slightly different route that took us a short way up the (Lower) Hutt Valley, to Petone. We started looking for lodging, and drove around the streets until I didn't know which way I was going--although I did know pretty much how to get back. We drove all the way out Seaview Road, which became Marine Drive, which finally turned into Muritai Road in Eastbourne, which ends about 5 km south of Petone. There were a few B&Bs and Homestays in the area, but they were all fully booked. It was a very nice drive, though, even if I did think I was going mostly north.

We ended up at a little motel in central Petone (I said I knew how to get back!): the Settlers Inn, whose proprietor told us was part of a network called "Host Hotels." He gave us a booklet and a stamp, so that if we stayed 11 nights in Host properties, we would get a 12th night free! Of course, there was no way we could use it. So if any of my readers plan to visit New Zealand, let me know and I'll send the booklet to the first one who wants it. It actually has two stamps now--we stayed in a Host property in Nelson the next night.

Day 3: Timekilling, Thai, & Transit
The Settlers proprietor was good enough to recommend a great little place for coffee and brekkie--Caffiend--and it was only a few blocks away, so we walked. They didn't open for another half-hour, so we walked one more long block down Queen Street to the waterfront, passing some charming older houses, some of which had been or were being renovated. The beach walk, or "Esplanade", is very nice in Petone.

Back at Caffiend, we glanced over a copy of the local newspaper. There was a story about a white kiwi chick that had recently hatched, and another headlined "Young Kiwis Migrating to Australia". We at first wondered how the flightless nocturnal birds were getting to Australia, then realized they were using the nickname for New Zealanders.

DW had picked up some brochures at the motel, and one was for a Thai restaurant in downtown Wellington. We were supposed to queue up for the ferry at 1:00, so we decided to have lunch at that restaurant. We saw a lot more of Wellington, and when we finally arrived at the restaurant, we learned they didn't open until 12:00, about a half-hour. So we walked across the street to the New World supermarket to see if there were any snacks we wanted to take on the ferry. Nah.

We went back to the restaurant at 11:55, and they let us in! But they told us they had a large party coming at 12:30, so they'd appreciate it if we could order right away. Hmm. Anyway, we were hungry by then, and we had our 1:00 check-in time at the ferry, so we did order quickly and the food arrived, not quite as quickly as I would expect if they were really rushed. It was very good, though, and other than acting rushed, the staff were very friendly.

We made it to check-in at just about 1:00, and we were in the first one-third of cars to board for the 3½ hour crossing. That didn't mean we were in the first one-third off, assurances by the check-in clerk to the contrary. *sigh* After disembarking from the ferry, we drove to Nelson, the gateway to the Abel Tasman National Park region. We passed vineyards, sheep,

green rolling hills dotted with sheep, mountain passes,

lots of sheep, and even some deer being raised commercially.

We found out some days later that at least one of the pizza chains in Oz and NZ uses pepperoni made of venison. We also found out that what they call "pepperoni" tastes more like what I would call "salami." But I digress.

One of the rivers we had to cross was the Pelorus, which is spanned by a one-lane bridge at the bottom of a particularly steep and winding pass. Unfortunately, it was getting too dark by then to get good photos of this beautiful area. Oh, did I mention the sheep?

On the next day, we would begin our grand adventure in Abel Tasman National Park! We were excited, but exhausted from another day of travel, so when we found our Host motel in Nelson (and got our stamp), we went straight to the room to freshen up. We made a short trip down to the city center, featuring a pretty square on the hillside and lots of little shops and cafés that were mostly now closed, to pick up some spaghetti and garlic bread to take back to the room to eat. It was delicious, and with full tummies, we fell fast asleep to dream of hiking and boating.

Kia Ora! A New Zealand Vacation: Day 1

2012-01-19T00:00:00.000-08:00

Over the Christmas & New Year 2011-2012 holiday period, my dear wife (DW) and I spent 15 days vacationing in the beautiful island nation of New Zealand. I will present a series of posts about our experiences there--a sort of diary, but no promises that the posts will be daily. I hereby commence with:

Day 0: Travel
We began our relaxing vacation in near panic, attempting to ensure our luggage conformed to the international carrier's weight restrictions. Fortunately, our flight left late in the day, so we were able to arrange our things and get our luggage checked in several hours before the flight, so that we didn't have to be at the airport quite so early for the flight itself. We flew on an Embraer Regional Jet to LAX, where we were bused from the "commuter terminal" for such small airliners to Terminal 5. Once there, we learned we would have to exit the terminal and walk over to the (Tom Bradley) International Terminal--about 100 yards. The frustrating part was that we were then told we had to wait in line to check in at the international carrier, and go through security again. The good part was that I found a Pink's Hot Dogs in the terminal, and the prices were not much more than I would expect to pay at Pink's itself. Mmm, Polish dog with kraut!

After that, it was the old story of passing security, waiting in the gate area, and a long flight where we could sleep uncomfortably. That flight landed in Nadi (pronounced Nahn-ji), Fiji, where we again had to verify our check-in and pass security. A few hours later, we finally landed in Auckland and made it to the hotel, where we promptly crashed until the next morning.

Day 1: Tolls
We started with the included continental breakfast, and were then shuttled to the car rental shop where we picked up our beautiful, sparkling white 2002 Hyundai Accent 5-door hatchback, with a 5-speed manual transmission. Don't get me wrong. It had four wheels and air conditioning; what more did we need? There was even plenty of room in the covered boot for all our luggage!

When we were planning, we had decided to visit the Goat Island Marine Reserve for some snorkeling. We told the rental clerk about our plans, and he said, "There is only one toll road in New Zealand, and you're going to be on it." It cost NZ$4 to go up and back, and then we learned there was a way to go to avoid the toll. It's just that it probably would have taken another hour each way.

Our lunch attracted some attention

When we reached the portal beach to Goat Island, we had a look at the dive shop where we'd planned to rent snorkel gear. We then drove the 1.5 km out to the park on the bluff at the end of the road to have a look at where we would go. We had brought our lunch with us, so we ate it while considering what we wanted to do.

Nice weather for ducks, though!

We decided the day was a little cold and windy for us; wasn't it supposed to be summer? We'd seen a couple of wineries on the way to the area, so we decided to visit one or two of them rather than snorkeling. They were small operations, very friendly people, but overall very similar to wineries in the Napa and Sonoma valleys of California. We didn't taste any of the wines.

After heading back south on the toll road we'd already paid, we traveled through Auckland, after which the Motorway (freeway) turned into regular two-lane highway, which became a 4-lane boulevard as we passed through Hamilton. We were on our way to take a ferry across the Cook Strait in two-days' time, so we didn't linger long in any town until the evening approached, when we arrived in Taupo.

Now, Taupo both sits on the shore of the largest lake on the North Island, and is a college town. You can just imagine the row of little cafés, restaurants, and bars at the corner where the highway meets the lake and turns to follow the shore. We found one where the music wasn't much too loud and the food wasn't much too overpriced. DW had fish and chips, and I had a steak sandwich: an 8 oz. rib steak, grilled medium well, on a French roll with lettuce, onion, and mushrooms. It would probably have been best to eat it with knife and fork, but I was ravenous and picked it up like any old sandwich. Delicious!

After supper, we went looking for lodging. Nothing near the lake was as inexpensive as we wanted, so we started driving down the shore. When Highway 5 turned east away from the lake, we took the right fork, Highway 1, to stay on the lake, as we were headed for Tongariro National Park south of Lake Taupo. About a half-hour out of town, we came across a little fisherman's lodge where the rates were reasonable, run by a very nice older couple. It consisted of an L-shaped row of rooms on an elevated platform, with parking spaces underneath. The room itself was simple and spare, but very warm and comfortable. After all, Lake Taupo is a mountain lake, and even in summer it gets quite cool when the sun goes down.

Not too long after sundown, we heard some noise from the room next door. We poked our heads out, and found out a couple of teenagers decided instead of staying in the room with their parents they would carry their large air mattress down to the back of the pickup truck they were traveling in and sleep there. We helped them to negotiate the stairs and load it into the truck, laughing all the way.

The next morning…ah, but that's another day, and shall wait for another post!

URL UNAVAILABLE

2012-01-18T00:00:00.000-08:00

THE WEB SITE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO VIEW HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. ACCESS TO THIS WEB SITE WILL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE. CHECK BACK IN, OH, ABOUT 3-5 YEARS.

Today, 18 January 2012, many sites on the internet are participating in a protest of the so-styled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) legislation being considered in Congress. This post is my participation in the protest.

Just imagine if a site you really liked (not mine, one like TMZ or ESPN) were suddenly unavailable because they used a clip from REMEMBER THE TITANS, or THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, and someone accused them of piracy. Please contact your Representative and Senators and tell them SOPA and PIPA are bad legislation, and should be defeated.

What's the Latest Buzz?

2012-01-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

Last week on Twitter, there was a link to an article about researchers discovering a virus that may be responsible for the drastic population drop in honeybees in the last few years. Then, as I was driving to work today, I saw a car with the personalized license plate "BEELACK". It was a black car, so that's probably what the plate refers to, but it could also be read as "bee lack". Just a few minutes later, there was a truck trailing a boat that was named "Bye-BEE", as shown by the word "Bye" and the picture of a bee--although it looked more like a bumblebee than a honeybee--painted on the stern.

Have any of my readers heard any news of the current state of honeybee colonies? Please leave a comment on the blog or on Google+, or send me a link on Twitter.

The GOP Candidates are Either Lying or Ignorant

2011-10-26T17:19:00.000-07:00

OK, I chose that title for sensationalism, but here's what I mean:

In the past few weeks, I've seen reports that candidates are saying they'd "boycott" or "not participate in" the Nevada GOP precinct meetings, AKA caucuses, if the date were moved into January. I've asked what this means, and no one could give me an answer other than "It means they won't participate."

The source of my confusion is that I attended the 2008 caucus, and helped with the 2010 caucuses for my area of the county. I know how they worked then, and I also got the skinny on how they're going to work in 2012. For your edification and amusement, I hereby present

The 2012 Nevada Caucus Primer*

The precinct meetings are designed for party organization.
The chief responsibility of the precinct meeting is to select delegates to its county convention. In Presidential election years, there is also a "straw" or preference poll for Presidential candidate. More on this later.
The county conventions in turn select delegates to the state convention, which selects delegates to the Republican National Convention. A second duty of the state convention is to establish or modify platform planks for the Nevada Republican Party.
The National Convention, of course, nominates the Republican candidate for President.

In 2008, the delegates to the National Convention could vote for whichever candidate they wished. I'm not absolutely certain how it works, but I imagine one or two candidates are eliminated in each round until one candidate reaches the required number of votes to be nominated. I also recall seeing on TV that generally in what is expected to be the final round, a state's delegates all agree to support one candidate.

In 2012, the rules are a bit different. Remember that preference poll I mentioned? Let's say the results, statewide, were something like Cain 35%, Romney 25%, Paul 15%, and the rest split the remaining 25% (see, I can count). In the first round of voting at the National Convention, Nevada's delegates will be divided proportionately: 35% will vote for Cain, 25% for Romney, 15% for Paul, etc. After the first round, the delegation is no longer bound and the delegates may vote however they choose.

So you see why I am mystified by what the candidates mean by threatening not to participate in our caucuses. They already do not participate, except as names on a sheet of paper in an informal poll. What do they propose to do, demand their names be taken off the sheets of paper? All that would do is ensure they get no votes in the first round of voting at the Republican National Convention. I don't see them intentionally doing anything that would lead to that result.

All this is, of course, likely academic. The Nevada GOP will most likely set a February date for the "caucuses", according to this AP story. I plan to participate again this cycle, and this time around I will try to be selected as a delegate to the Washoe County Convention. I believe it would at least be a good learning experience.

*Source for the information not in italics is Phyllis Westrup, Secretary of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee.

Riding a Pale (Dark) Horse

2011-10-20T22:23:00.000-07:00

Jon G. (@ExJon) on Twitter Thursday night announced a mini-rant about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) phenomenon and how it relates to Barack Obama's campaign for reelection. With his permission, here are his tweets (with minor editing):

OWS isn't about today, it is about Election Day 2012. Here's the political strategy behind it (IMHO)...
Leftists saw how Tea Party incubated over a year before delivering an election. Stunned by Tea Party's success, the Left wants to mimic it.
...by starting 13 [or 14] months out, OWS is merely prepping the battlespace for November 2012.
To have any chance of winning, Obama must 1) deflect blame for the economy to a scapegoat. 2) portray himself as the only man who'll fight it.
Obama has long expected Romney to be the GOP candidate. Of course, Romney famously led Bain Capital which is identified with Wall Street.
So the economic scapegoat was obvious: Wall Street. These financiers will be demonized through next November with an ever-growing negative drumbeat.
If and when Romney gets the nomination, Obama and the MSM will make him the personification of the reviled, despised, and marginalized Wall Street.
QED, Obama's "miraculous" re-election victory. Granted, it's a Hail Mary play, but it's the only play Obama's got.
The Dems want to cast this election in stark, black-and-white terms: Are you with Wall Street or are you with Obama and the forces of light?

I have no way of knowing if this analysis is correct, but it does fit the facts as we know them: Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, is instrumental in creating the Day of Rage which turned into OWS; the ranks of protestors (no pun intended) are being filled out by union thugs and leftist groups; the target of their demands--the ones that seem to have been settled on--are large financial institutions rather than educational institutions and bureaucratic programs that have worked to make them unemployable in private industry.

So assuming the analysis is correct, it is apparent that one way to defeat this ploy is to nominate a candidate other than Mitt Romney. Since the protest is not aimed at government in any way, it would be a bonus to nominate a candidate who has been involved in government as much as or more than private business. That could be Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or even Ron Paul. Hmm, seems like I'm missing someone. But who?

Of course: Newt Gingrich!

In the past, I have discounted Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate because when I visited the website for his now-defunct "American Solutions" group, about 8 of the 12 proposed solutions were some sort of government program. I flashed back to John McCain's campaign stop in Michigan when he said he would move money from programs that didn't work so well into other programs that work better, or may work better. My thought was, why not just stop taking the money from us in the first place, and let us make it work for us? But I digress.

I have seen so many tweets during and following the debates to the effect of, "Man, Newt really says the things I like to hear, and he'd be great debating Obama! Too bad he can't win." Why not? I seem to recall the same thing being said of Barack Obama--that he couldn't win. And others on Twitter like to point out that the same was said of Ronald Reagan. Who can forget the iconic image of Harry Truman holding the newspaper with the inaccurate headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"? Sure, Newt has some baggage, but most of the GOP candidates do.

I have not decided on a candidate yet. I do plan to participate in Nevada's precinct meetings (caucuses, about which I plan to write more later), so I'm considering my choices. And the more I consider Newt Gingrich, the less biased against him I become.

Update: Since I posted this, I have learned from World Wide Words that "dark horse" originally meant a race horse that very little was known about, making it difficult to handicap. In this sense, that certainly does not apply to Newt Gingrich. Ignore my title.

Everyone Else is Doing It!

2011-10-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

In Kerry Picket's story regarding Solyndra in the Washington Times yesterday is this statement from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:

Mr. Chu added that Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and China are also supportive of seeing renewable energy be developed through government spending, so the United States should be as well.

I guess Secretary Chu's mother never said, "If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you, too?"

Leaders

2011-09-30T13:52:00.000-07:00

I read a tweet today that associated being President with being the leader of the American people. I realize I'm in the extreme minority taking the Constitution literally, but I really don't see the President (whoever it may be) as our leader.

According to Article II of the Constitution, the President is the Chief Executive of the General Government (Sec. 1.1). That means he ("he", referring to the President as an Officer, regardless of whether the office-holder is a man or a woman) is responsible for ensuring that the laws of the United States General (Federal) Government are executed as passed by Congress. He has a few powers enumerated in Sec. 2:

Commander in chief of the Army and Navy, and by extension the entire military.
Demanding reports from the Department Secretaries, as any chief officer may do.
Granting pardons, as part of his enforcement responsibility.
Making treaties, with 2/3 Senate approval.
Appointing Federal officers, with Senate approval.
Appointing Federal officers while the Senate is in recess (with certain restrictions).

None of these indicate that the Office of President is to be that of a leader of all the people. Rather, the people, through their representatives in Congress, should be leading the policies of the General Government. (See my earlier post on my argument that our Representatives, once in office, should not spend too much time listening to their constituents.)

Cherokee Nation v. BIA: National Implications

2011-09-15T13:44:00.000-07:00

Apparently Rush Limbaugh was talking about this situation on his show on Thursday. I will try to lay out events chronologically, and present some analysis and conclusions.

In 1866, a treaty was signed between the United States of America and the Cherokee Nation. One of the provisions of this treaty was that the Nation would admit as citizens certain "Freedmen", or freed African slaves.

From 1976 to 2003, the Tahlequah, OK-based Cherokee Nation's constitution contained a provision that required the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), part of the Department of Interior (DoI), to review changes to it. In early 2003, the Nation approved an amendment removing that requirement from the constitution. Then in March 2003, they approved a measure excluding the Freedmen (descendants of the original slaves) from Nation citizenship.

In an election on May 25, 2003, Chief Chad Smith was re-elected. Chief Smith seems to be in favor of excluding the Freedmen. According to a May 2007 statement by Asst. Secretary of the Interior Carl Artman, the Freedmen were not allowed to vote in that election (which is logical under the March 2003 law). The Freedmen sued the BIA and DoI over this election (Vann v. Salazar, filed Aug. 11, 2003). The suit was later expanded to include the Nation by Judge Henry Kennedy, citing the 1866 treaty and the 13th Amendment. I'm not sure what the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery, has to do with anything, as the original Freedmen had already been freed, hence the name.

The BIA reportedly reviewed the election issues in 2003, and at first said it would not accept the election due to the exclusion of the Freedmen, but reportedly later changed its decision to accept the election. It was this decision that the lawsuit challenged.

On May 21, 2007, associated with the above-mentioned statement, Artman sent a letter to Chief Smith about the DoI's final decision that it was rejecting the 2003 amendment, thus invalidating the law excluding the Freedmen from citizenship and voting.

Perhaps worth noting is that in June 2007 the Nation held an election for Chief. Opposing Chief Smith was Stacy Leeds, a former judge in the Cherokee Nation who had previously ruled that the Freedmen could not be excluded from Nation citizenship. As of today, Smith is still the incumbent Chief.

On Sept. 9, 2011, the Obama administration DoI's Asst. Sec. for Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk, wrote a letter to Acting Chief Joe Crittenden stating that the DoI has never accepted the "disenrolling" of the Freedmen, and if they are not allowed to vote in the Sept. 24 election (with Smith running for re-election), the Department will not accept it. Of course, this hasn't stopped Smith from remaining Chief since before the constitutional change in 2003.

Now the monkey wrench to throw in the middle of all these works is shown in this AP article published in July 2009. At that time, Mr. Echo Hawk sent a letter to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma in which he stated that they were "not the historical Cherokee tribe, which…no longer exists as a distinct political entity." Ms. Leeds, at that time the director of the University of Kansas’ Tribal Law and Government Center, said that the decision outlined in the letter stated the opinion that "reorganized tribes in this century [are] not necessarily the historic nations that the treaties are with."

It appears that Judge Kennedy (or another federal judge) must now decide whether that opinion is legally valid. If it is not, the result is a victory--albeit relatively minor--for the Cherokee Nation in the matter described in that AP article.

If, on the other hand, that opinion is vald, the courts should remove the Nation from the Freedmen's lawsuit, since their inclusion was based on the 1866 treaty. Also, if that treaty is no longer in force because one party no longer exists, it seems to me that the Nation can decide for itself who its citizens are--just as the United States defines laws for naturalization.

What's Good for the Goose

2011-08-21T22:24:00.001-07:00

In his first segment tonight Geraldo Rivera remarked that people in Libya were celebrating the imminent end of power of Moammar Qaddafi (using the Fox News spelling), marking the end of the 40-year reign of a dictator who controlled every aspect of their lives. (I do not recall the exact quote, but it was very close to that phrasing.) Later comments by Geraldo seemed to indicate he believes this is a good thing.

If it's a good thing to end a government that controls every aspects of its people's lives, wouldn't it be even better not to allow such a government in the first place?

Ron Paul and Han Solo

2011-08-16T13:26:00.001-07:00

No, I'm not saying they do or do not have anything in common. I had two thoughts occur to me in quick succession, and wanted to share them.

First, I wonder if the Ron Paul fans are falling into the trap of taking seriously anything Jon Stewart says? I suspect that any motive Stewart may have of highlighting media treatment of Dr. Paul would lie more along the lines of firing up the vocal minority of Paul supporters to cause noise and disruption, rather than having anything to do with affinity for any of Paul's positions.

Second, Han shot first. Think about it. His character development in the story is from being someone who cares about nothing but himself to being someone who realizes there are things bigger than the individual worth fighting for. When we first meet him, he's basically a good guy, but he would have no scruples regarding a "kill or be killed" life. It's only after his experience with the rebels that he is willing to risk himself for others.

Crisis Theater

2011-08-03T07:40:00.001-07:00

Now that the so-called "debt deal" has been enacted, and the alleged crisis has been averted, I wonder what is really in the legislation?

For instance, I saw on Twitter yesterday that members of Congress who voted "no" would not be allowed to participate in the joint committee the law establishes to determine further action. I asked one of the people who posted that claim, and that person believed that prohibition was actually in the law. (If it is, wouldn't that be ex post facto, because the law would in effect be punishing an act committed before it were enacted?)

Remember the analysts and contributors on the news programs saying that even if a deal was reached by Sunday, it would take a lot of work to get it written into legislation by Tuesday? Never mind that legalese is probably one of the larger problems with our laws. I'm beginning to think that this legislation was already written and sitting in someone's desk drawer, just waiting to be introduced. When the PPACA (Obamacare) theater--er, debate was going on, Rush Limbaugh speculated that act was the Hillary Clinton plan that had been sitting in Steny Hoyer's desk for 15 years. It could be that those analysts' claims were red herrings.

I hope some people (who can read legalese better than I can) analyze this legislation, and we see the reports on Twitter. What is really contained in there?

Redirection

2011-07-19T12:57:00.001-07:00

A tweet from @meredithdake brought a funny thought to my head. Her tweet was:

Rather than focusing on Obama, anchors are forcing GOPers to explicitly talk about their nuanced theology on homosexuality.

I thought a good response would go something like this:

Anchor Dave: So tell me, would you rather see homosexuals interned in prison camps, or just outright slaughtered?

GOP Candidate: Well, personally, I don't care if you're gay, Dave, but President Obama does. He wants to treat you differently from everyone else. He wants to create special programs and grant special favors to you. That is, if you're gay, Dave.

Use the Power of Language

2011-06-29T16:07:00.000-07:00

I was reading recent posts on The Gormogons' site today, and this one by GhettoPuter got me thinking about the terms we use.

I realize that the media have to a large degree established a standard vocabulary for political discussion, and it's easy to use that familiar vocabulary. However, I advocate breaking free of the warped definitions they promote.

I'd like to suggest that we stop using the word "government" at all. What we really mean by that is usually one of two things: either the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA), or the people of the United States. (After all, as my former boss likes to say, we are the government.)

Therefore, when referring to the agencies who execute the powers of government, I suggest using the word "bureaucracy", if not "SBA". When referring to who pays for the execution of those powers, including sending checks to beneficiaries of subsidies and social programs, I suggest the phrase "the rest of us."

For instance, the phrase "it's the non-taxpayers who receive government benefits" would become "it's the non-taxpayers who receive benefits from the rest of us." The later paragraph about "government-run economies" would instead speak of "SBA-run economies".

One advantage of using "SBA" would be its connotation of a gargantuan, unresponsive, corrupt, heartless entity. An advantage of using "the rest of us" would be to drive home the fact that it is each and every one of us who do not receive more than we pay, who are paying for that "more" going to those who do.

Now could you all just go back and edit all your blog posts to conform to these suggestions? I'd really appreciate it.

Chris Christie: Man of the People, or Ruling Class?

2011-06-22T15:14:00.000-07:00

Many praises have been heaped on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie by liberty lovers and opponents of the Obama administration. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that what attracts people to him is his blunt and unyielding manner in dealing with critics in the press and other generally left-leaning groups.

Christie drew fire recently for using a State-owned helicopter to travel to his son's baseball game. While family is important, his son was happy he could come, and a State spokesman said the helicopter would be in use for training at the time anyway, it still has the appearance of impropriety.

Now there's a report that Christie has ordered flags in the State of New Jersey to be flown at half-staff on Thursday, to honor deceased saxophonist Clarence Clemons's contributions to the state and its people. Personally, I don't mind honoring Clemons as a great and popular musician. On the other hand, such an order is beyond the provisions of federal law.

The federal law regarding "Position and manner of display" of the United States flag is contained in Title 4 USC, Ch. 1, Sec. 7. Subsection (m) lists the situations in which the President or a Governor may issue a half-staff proclamation. Note that "death of a popular musician" isn't one of them.

Of course, the report doesn't say that the US flag will be flown at half-staff. It may be only the New Jersey State flag, and that may be entirely consistent with law.

After all, isn't a consistent application of the rule of law something all lovers of liberty would want?

Huntsman: the Un-Republican

2011-06-21T17:17:00.001-07:00

It appears the title of this article has been changed, because the title in the URL is "huntsman-to-enter-presidential-race-as-un-cola-republican-in-2012-field". Under the 4th subtitle down, "'No Mainstream Politician'", Mark McKinnon (why does that name seem familiar?) is quoted as saying, "He's the un-cola of the Republican candidates…."

I found the link to that article in this piece by James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal. A bit before the Bloomberg article is linked, Taranto discusses how Huntsman apparently believes in global warming--not necessarily human-caused--as reported in Time magazine by Alex Altman.

I had seen some discussion of Huntsman on Twitter, including the opinion that the simple fact of his working for the Obama administration was not sufficient cause for disqualification as a Republican candidate. After all, he speaks fluent Mandarin. I expect the reader to decide for himself or herself, but I don't think that I could work for this administration, no matter how well-qualified for a particular job I may be.

For what it's worth: another tweet I saw recently stated that one of the MSNBC anchors (I believe) said he preferred Huntsman to Romney.

Update: It wasn't a news anchor. It was Harry Reid, as reported in a tweet from @GayPatriot.

My Take on What Newt is Doing (vs. Rush's)

2011-05-17T10:04:00.001-07:00

On his show today, Rush Limbaugh stated that Newt Gingrich is making statements that are disliked by the Constitutionalist base and by "tea party" activists, but that are exactly what "establishment" or "ruling class" Republicans want to hear. Rush is speculating that Newt is doing this because he knows he won't win the nomination, but he wants to get "in" with the establishment, and possibly obtain a lucrative position at a think tank, if I've interpreted what Rush said correctly. Therefore, Newt is moving from a Constitutionalist position to a more establishment position.

I disagree. I don't think Newt is moving; I believe he did that some time ago. I believe Newt already has an inside-the-beltway, establishment mentality. I've said before that when I first looked at his "American Solutions" website a couple of years ago, his 12 solutions included about 8 that were bureaucratic programs or subsidies.

Newt isn't saying these things just to curry favor with people who might employ him. He's saying these things because he is one of those people.

Viewing the Brain the Right Way

2011-04-09T19:43:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted from The Landmark Report (see link in previous post).

On Thursday, the online specialist journal Current Biology published a study that indicates the brains of Big Government proponents ("lefties") and the brains of Limited Government proponents ("righties") are actually physiologically different. Most of the other pieces I've found about this study are either re-postings of the pretty neutral Agence France Presse article, or lefties' trumpeting it as proof that righties are irrationally fearful and agressive. This article will attempt to present the right perspective.

The study's authors cautioned that it did not show a causal relationship. They don't know whether the affected areas were larger, and therefore cause lefty or righty behavior, or whether environment encouraged certain behavior, causing growth in those areas. Keep that in mind.

The stories state that lefties tend to show more mass in an area of the brain that "monitors uncertainty and conflict." The study says this means it is "conceivable" that lefties "have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts…." Well, duh. The lefty universe is a mass of conflict. I often hear and read fellow righties wonder how lefties can possibly reconcile all the conflicting, seemingly hypocritical positions they claim to support. I've done it myself. This study seems to indicate how that is possible. Lefties may recognize that there is conflict, but they don't mind.

Tolerating uncertainty can be seen in the recent "budget battle", and the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to draft, let alone pass, a budget for FY 2011. What can be more uncertain than a whole nation not knowing whether its federal bureaucracies will be funded to continue intruding on our lives?

The righties in the study show more mass in an area of the brain that "processes emotions related to fear." This leads to righties' being "more sensitive to disgust" and "more sensitive to threatening facial expressions." Those who lean right also tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression". This explains a whole laundry list of things.

The lefties are interpreting the first statement to mean that righties are driven by fear. Just the opposite is true. Righties have greater capacity to process fear and related emotions, and come up with a rational solution to counter the perceived threat. Also, righties will be less hesitant to implement such a solution or respond with aggression. I submit that since lefties have lesser capacity in this area, they are the ones who are more subject to acting irrationally out of fear.

It also offers insight into why certain wealthy families produce left-leaning progeny. After all, if a family is wealthy enough, they can hire bodyguards, accountants, and attorneys to handle their responses to threats for them. It helps explain the arguments surrounding ownership and use of firearms. It sheds light on the current administration's promotion of outreach and apology to those who would see us dead. The sensitivity to disgust manifests itself in righties' vs. lefties' reactions to political corruption and sex scandals.

One last point is that if, in fact, it is a habit of behavior that causes growth in the relevant brain region, it explains why Marxism was not developed until the Industrial Age. Up until that time, people were too busy doing the things it took to live. With industrialization came more and greater labor-saving devices, and more time devoted to leisure, as well as greater political stability and fewer attacks to fend off, at least in Europe and North America. This gave people the time to embrace less focused, more conflicting ideas. It opened our minds to the manipulation of those who would wield power over us.

Please Visit my Other Venues

2011-04-09T01:18:00.000-07:00

I apologize to those of you who subscribe, follow, or otherwise regularly read this blog. I accepted the opportunity to write for The Landmark Report, and it seems I have managed to write only one post per week for three weeks now.

I encourage you to go read The Landmark Report. It's much more balanced than this blog is, and covers a wide range of topics, including entertainment and dating advice. My contributions are:

The Myth of the Responsive Legislator
It’s For The Children™
Looking at the Brain the Right Way (Coming soon, assuming my editor approves it.)

If I get an itch to write just a paragraph or two, it'll most likely go here. Otherwise, you can also see my Miracle Blog, my YouTube channel, or my Twitter stream (including TwitPics).

Update: My Miracle Blog no longer exists, since Posterous turned into a Tumblr wannabe. However, I have since joined Google+.

Follow the (Dirty) Money

2011-03-02T00:19:00.000-08:00

It is way too late and I'm tired and cranky, so please forgive me if the tone of this post gets a little brassy. I couldn't sleep without getting this out, though, so here we go.

It hit the news Monday that the "eco-friendly" water-saving low-flow toilets that have been installed in San Francisco--heavily promoted by city/county government--have resulted in a backup of waste material in the city's sewer systems. This is because there isn't enough water flow, now, to push the sludge through the century-plus-old system before it sticks to the old sludge that's there. The backups cause a stench to rise to the streets, especially during the summer when it's warmer. If you've been to a Giants game at AT&T park, you probably know what I mean.

In both those articles, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission is quoted as saying that water consumption has been reduced by "about 20 million gallons", as if that is a significant amount. There is no mention of the total consumption, or what part of the total 20 million gallons represents.

Well, over at Lew Rockwell's blog, Jim Brownfield has references and shows his work, and comes up with a figure of 0.08%. Let me say that again. Water consumption in San Francisco has been reduced, since the installation of low-flow toilets began, by 8/100 of 1%, or 8/10,000 of the entire consumption. And that's rounded. The actual figure is around 0.078324%.

I'd also like to point out that Jim uses consumption figures from 2007-2008, which, if you still want to claim the low-flow toilets have had any effect, may already have been reduced. That means the actual reduction percentage would be less than what he calculated.

There could be any number of factors contributing to the reported reduction. It's been wetter than usual here in western Nevada the past few years, and the storms generally come through the Bay area first; maybe people just aren't watering their lawns as much. Or maybe people are getting sick of the nanny-city, or can't find work or afford the taxes, and are moving out. Maybe the toilets really have contributed to the reduction, which is statistically insignificant.

Oh, the articles also mention that over $100 million has been spent so far on sewer system upgrades, with more likely to come. I wonder if some of the same manufacturers or distributors of those low-flow toilets also supply sewer system parts? Or if some of the same people own large shares of companies that supply both?

DOMA: My 2¢ Worth

2011-02-24T16:51:00.000-08:00

Edited and reposted from my Posterous, since people still seem to be getting it wrong.

I firmly believe that a homosexual relationship should not be called "marriage". It may be a commitment; it may last longer than many heterosexual marriages. I may yet be convinced otherwise. But for now, I wish to stick with tradition.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the definition of "marriage" is beyond the power of the US Congress. As of this writing, as it has been for decades (if not centuries), the individual States issue marriage licenses. The counties record marriages, but the State sets the criteria for licensing. My true belief is that civil government really has no business in marriage at all, but that's the way it is now--tradition.

It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether they agree with one or another definition. Having made that decision, they can then decide to live in a State whose definition they agree with. So if, say, Vermont wants to define a woman-woman-dog relationship as a marriage, the people who want to take advantage of that definition (and their dogs) can move to Vermont.

In short, I believe the DOMA is unconstitutional, even if I agree with its intent. Therefore, I agree with the decision for the US DOJ to stop defending it against Constitutional challenges.

Pondering

2011-02-04T23:40:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking about this today, and I can't wrap my head around it.

The Bible says drunkenness and extra-marital sex are wrong, and Christians generally tend to avoid those behaviors, or at least agree that they should avoid them.

The Book of Mormon (I've been told) says that "hot drinks"--meaning coffee and tea--are bad and should be avoided, and the Mormons I know do avoid them. Many of them avoid caffeine altogether.

The Q'uran says to avoid alcohol (of the vine or the grain, according to The 13th Warrior), and devout Muslim do not drink alcohol.

Even outside of the realm of spiritual religion, people who believe that fast food is bad for them generally avoid it. Vegetarians avoid eating meat, and vegans (how is that pronounced, anyway?) avoid all animal products, including dairy, eggs, and animal oils used in foods.

So why is it that people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) use electricity? Unless it's generated by nuclear or water power--both considered by many to be environmental hazards themselves--virtually all electricity is the result of burning fossil fuels. Isn't it hypocritical for people to use computers to write about how we should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels? What about going on television? I can't even imagine the power consumed by television cameras, studio lights, transmission towers, let alone all those big-screen plasma sets to tune it in. I'm not even going to mention those who travel the country, or the world, in gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and in jet aircraft, to rail against the very civilization that gave them those tools, for using those tools.

Why don't people who believe in AGW go live on a self-sufficient plot of land far away from electrical transmission lines? Maybe some Amish in Pennsylvania would be willing to sell part of their land.

Rep. Cohen's Goebbels Reference was Not Inappropriate

2011-01-20T20:27:00.001-08:00

At the risk of angering some of my Twitter followers, I wish to disagree with what most of the pundits--professional and amateur--are saying about Rep. Steve Cohen's speech. Fox News has played the relevant part of the speech several times, and it seems to me there was no comparison made between opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or Republicans) and Nazis. Here's what I heard:

Opponents are lying.
Like Goebbels famously said, if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will believe it.
This was done with the recently-in-the-news "blood libel" in times past.
This was done by the Nazis to justify the actions that became the Holocaust.

Rep. Cohen may not have stated his points in the best way, but I prefer not to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity--or in this case, clumsiness of speech. I may be wrong, as I've heard reports that he has not tried to clarify his statements or retract his words. But it seems to me the "big lie" is something a member of the national socialists' party would know all about.

Er, the Socialist Democrat party.

The socialistic Party of the Democrats.

You know what I mean.

An Idea Whose Time has Come: #TeleCongress

2010-12-10T16:51:00.000-08:00

I've seen this idea mentioned a few times on Twitter and ever so briefly discussed on TV: With today's technology, there is no good reason for Congress to gather in one geographic location. The fact that they still do leads to corruption, because they are generally away from the people who elected them, and away from their families, and can be more easily swayed by lobbyists and other influence-wielders.

I believe when the District of Columbia was established, it was never intended to have "residents". The whole idea of a "citizen Congress" is for a person to be elected, serve a term, then go back to work in his or her regular business. Where that went wrong is a subject for another post (or 12), though.

With the money it takes to get elected these days, the winner could easily buy a netbook computer and headset to participate in Congressional proceedings from home. I would even be pleased to see States to set up one or several meeting places for their elected Federal representatives to use for the purpose. At the very least, the lobbyists' resources would be spread much thinner.

Just think of it: when you want to call your Representative or Senator, you can dial a local number, and maybe even get a chance to speak to the officeholder! Also, people who aren't near a TV with C-SPAN could watch proceedings on their office computers, by Congress providing a public URL for read-only access.

The more I think about this, the more advantages I can see. I'd better stop now so I can post this. Let me know what you think!

Andrea Mitchell Asked a Great Question

2010-12-07T15:47:00.001-08:00

I didn't read the article, but this headline was tweeted:

NBC's Mitchell to Republican: How Do You Justify a Tax Freedom for Those Who Don't Need It?

"I'm glad you used that phrase, Andrea. You've admitted that taxing is equivalent to enslaving. Freedom is always justified. Any more questions?"

How's that?

One Word

2010-12-01T22:03:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Paige Worthy for making me aware of the #reverb10 project. Paige is a wonderful writer; check out her blog here. I have not formally enlisted to participate in #reverb10, because I'm not sure I can commit to writing a blog post for every one of their "prompts." Commitment--or lack thereof--notwithstanding, the first prompt immediately inspired me. Therefore I now present the first prompt, and what I was prompted to write.

December 1: One Word.
Encapsulate the year 2010 in one word. Explain why you chose that word. Now, imagine it's one year from today. What would you like the word to be that captures 2011 for you?
(Author: Gwen Bell)

2010: Reclamation
2010 was the year that Americans started to reclaim the policy direction of our cities, counties, states, and nation from the Marxists, statists, and collectivists. The various tea party activists and their fans nationwide made huge strides toward this end, and had huge effects on elections all over the country. Constitutionalists are even affecting the Republican Party leadership races that are now underway.

2011: Restoration
My hope is that with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we can begin to restore some semblance of government of the people, by the people, for the people, rather than of the nation, by the ruling class, for the groups that got them elected. I don't expect everything to be done in a year--especially with the collectivists still in control of the Senate and the White House--but I'd like to see the repeal of some of the more heinous legislation of the past two years, and some talk about ending or privatizing social programs like SCHIP, Federal food stamps, Medicare Part D, Part C, and Part B, and Social Security.

I'll even go one word and one year farther, and give my hope for 2012: Rededication. I believe we need to rededicate our nation, by way of ourselves, to pursuing God, by pursuing the life he wants us to live. The founders recognized that a Republic such as is described by the Constitution cannot be maintained if its citizens have no moral compass. We must realize that we need not be compelled to do what the collective society demands, if we are by nature--or supernature--inclined to do what individual relationships require to succeed. Let us begin in 2011 to learn how to be our best to each other, so we may dedicate ourselves to the pursuit in 2012.

Weird, Wacky, Radical Tenthers Need Not Apply

2010-09-29T13:57:00.000-07:00

(for Democrats' Approval)

Please read this very good post by Michael Tanner. I have a few comments:

In this post, "Democrats" = "Totalitarian Statists". They likely exist in every party, and certainly outside of any organized party.
Of course they want the courts to decide if any given piece of legislation should be enforced. They've packed most of the courts with Statists.
Rather than the phrase "federal government", we should call it what it is: the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA). Government is instituted to protect individuals so they may be free to produce and enjoy their value. The SBA's purpose is to control people and steal their production, so that people who choose to produce nothing of value can enjoy some of it. Of course, the redistributors--the "brokers" if you will--take their cut and enjoy much more than the average subject.
We have more to show for the SBA's growth than debt. We also have a culture of dependence. The American Declaration of Independence was written by revolutionaries 234 years ago. The American Foundation of Dependence was laid about 100 years ago, by "Progressive" evolutionaries.
I think Mr. Tanner is confusing Conservatives with Fascists. (More likely, he is using the term in the way he does in his book.) He alludes to a conservative's "idea of a good federal program." I can't think of one "program" that the SBA should run. If national defense is a program, then maybe that is a proper federal government role. I'm actually in favor of each state being able to defend itself, and the federal role being simply that of coordination. I am certainly not in favor of any government--federal, state, county, municipal, or home-owner's association--being empowered to enforce morality.

OK, look:

2010-09-24T13:04:00.000-07:00

Now that the primary elections are over (as they are in most places), put your support behind the Republican candidate. Unless there is an insurmountable point of disagreement, just hold your nose and vote for that (R) candidate! This year especially, it is just too important to not let the Marxists win. No candidate is unelectable if we can get enough support behind him or her.

At the very least, don't be like some here in Nevada who just can't stand Sharron Angle and see Harry Reid as their only alternative. Vote for a libertarian if you must, or an "Independent". Please, please, don't vote (D) just because the others don't have a chance of winning!

A Patriot by Any Name Should Still be Free

2010-09-24T12:56:00.000-07:00

I grow increasingly disturbed by discussion regarding "conservative" and "libertarian" as two different things. I see them as the same thing. We want maximum freedom for the individual, and the most limited government that can protect us and our freedom.

The distinction I see is between the secular libertarians (SL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt anyone else", and the (for want of a better word) god-fearing libertarians (GL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and I want to never do anything that God would not want me to do." I was taught that God's direction for us is to have as our main motivation our love for him, and by extension for all other people.

Let's look at marijuana as an example. The SL says it is not wrong to use marijuana, even habitually, if it hurts no other people. The GL says that it does indeed hurt other people. If the user is married or has children, the spouse and children may not be getting the best from the user. Even if the user is unmarried, the effects of that use may hurt his parents or siblings, or in extreme cases the rest of society. In these cases, the motivation is clearly not love for others. Therefore, both the SL and the GL would argue against government proscription of marijuana use, but the GL would promote self-directed abstinence.

Of course, the same goes for alcohol, or video games, or involvement in social media, or any behavior that can become addictive.

It Stands to Reason (Part 1)

2010-06-22T12:08:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press reports (via Breitbart.com) that lawyers for the nation of Mexico have submitted a brief in support of a lawsuit asking to declare the newest immigration law in Arizona unconstitutional.

I believe it is precisely because they know that the law will not lead to racial profiling that they don't like it. They know that most of the people who will be turned over to ICE by local law enforcement, and potentially deported (whether to Mexico or some other nation), are criminals. Because the law stipulates that only another legal incident will result in legal status verification, most of the people subject to that verification will have been involved in a crime of some sort. That's the whole reason they don't want this law to stand.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!™

The 28 Principles of Freedom

2010-06-08T14:43:00.000-07:00

These principles were condensed from over 150 volumes of writings from the Founding Fathers. This list was prepared by the National Center for Constitutional Studies (www.nccs.net). NCCS is the publisher of The 5000 Year Leap, which is Part I of a 27-lesson course called "American Government and U.S. Constitution". Please visit their site. Again, I receive no compensation for this post.

The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.
All men are created equal. [My emphasis.]
The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not [to] provide equal things.
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of Divine law.
The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
The United States of America shall be a republic. [Not a democracy.]
A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers [I prefer "leaders"].
Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.
The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
The government should be separated into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution. [And that constitution is followed!]
Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.
Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.
A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.

Smart Grid Features Available Now!

2010-05-28T16:21:00.000-07:00

In Wednesday's mail (2010/05/25) was the scariest piece of literature I've seen in a long time. No, it was not a piece of political campaign literature, although our primary is less than two weeks away. (I voted early, as soon as the polling place opened on the first day of early voting, so I simply throw away all candidates' mailings I receive.)

No, this was an offer from the utility company to participate in the "Cool Share" program. Just for signing up, we would be supplied with a "web-programmable thermostat"! These thermostats "can cut your cooling and heating costs by as much as 10% annually", according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. And they allow me--and who knows how many bureaucrats--to manage my home's energy use. Remotely. From the internet. Regardless of how I've set it.

Now, they are careful to point out--on the reverse side--that these thermostats "do NOT allow [the utility company] to 'control' your home temperature". They say nothing about other organizations, such as the Department of Energy.

Of course, one of the bullet point advantages of these thermostats is that they "help…Reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

In a sidebar on that side, there is an explanation that in the Cool Share program, when it is very hot (104°F and above), the air conditioning unit will be placed in "conservation mode" for generally no more than three hours. They claim that this would typically happen only on weekdays, not weekends or holidays, except in case of…wait for it…"emergency."

As an additional enticement, participants can get $1.00 for each of these "conservation period[s]", up to a maximum of $29.

UPDATE 2010/06/12 I received a card in the mail explaining that this program is available only in Southern Nevada. That explains the references to 104° temperatures.

Here (was) the Deal

2010-05-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

If you got here by clicking "The Corner Office" at the bottom of one of my tweets, thank you! In order to get the free software to brand your own tweets, please visit my friend Kay Ballard's blog, New Media Martini.

Be aware that this software runs on Adobe AIR. I understand there is an AIR environment available for Windows, Mac, and Linux, so you should be covered.

While the software itself is free of monetary charge, you will be asked for your email address twice: first by New Media International (they won't bug you much--just let you know when new products or websites are launching); then by the publisher of the software. I think it's worth it.

UPDATE 2010/06/23: I've been told the publisher of the free TweetBrand software has stopped supporting it. If you follow the steps, you may or may not be able to download and install it, but there will be no upgrades.

Wisdom from Carencro

2010-05-13T16:53:00.000-07:00

Marc Broussard (@MarcBroussard) tweeted this: "The Left is better than the Right at the game of politics, or, commanding gov $'s with an ideological policy platform. Ask me why."

I did ask why. I haven't seen his response yet, but here's what I think (you knew that was coming).

Statists believe that society as a whole owns all the resources and products, and it's the State's responsibility to distribute (spend) them. They know that they can buy some people's support, so they want to spend those resources and products to gain more and more power. They have no compunction in doing so.

Liberty lovers, on the other hand, know that whatever I produce is mine, and they have no right or power to confiscate it to use for their own purposes. It goes against their grain to spend public funds for political ends.

So you see, it is true that the "Democratic Party" (their name) is the party of "Yes (as long as you will vote to reelect me and my kind)", and the Republicans (followers of the Constitution) are the party of "No, you can't be taken care of on the public's dime, you must earn your own."

Update: as Mr. Broussard puts it: Basically, the Left, "We'll take care of everything." The Right, "We'd like to protect you."

Social Security and Medicare in the 21st Century

2010-05-12T23:11:00.000-07:00

If you're age 55 or over, nothing changes. You get full benefits and continue paying the Social Security and Medicare (SS&M) taxes as under the current contract, or law.

If you're age 40 to 55, you have an option:

pay 67% of current SS&M taxes and receive 50% benefits, or
pay no more SS&M taxes, get a one-time refundable tax credit of 50% of those paid so far, and receive no benefits

If you're under age 40, you get a one-time refundable tax credit of all the SS&M taxes you've paid, and you are released from the contract. No more SS&M taxes, no benefits.

The percentages can be tweaked, but these seem pretty fair to me, and we all know that, even now, the benefits payable under these programs bear no relationship to the revenues collected as payroll taxes.

Major League Baseball Fans, Please Read

2010-05-03T10:57:00.000-07:00

I'm not really sure what this is all about, but I promised a Twitter friend I would participate.

Apparently, Keith Olbermann has some kind of employment relationship with MLB's website. Please visit the link and decide for yourself if you agree with the folks at RespecttheGreatGame.com.

Collectivists Live by Projection

2010-04-22T11:49:00.000-07:00

I've touched on this idea in this space before. Here now are a couple of short posts I sent to Posterous, combined into one place for linking purposes.

Collectivists live by projection.

If they are violent, they accuse Constitutionalists of violence. If they are racist, they accuse me of racism. If they want to shut down free speech, they accuse me of wanting to shut them up. (I want them to say exactly what they believe.)

If they are blindly following some Marxist leader, like George Soros, John Podesta, or Andy Stern, they accuse me of having no intelligence of my own and blindly following someone like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. On the contrary: O'Reilly is not conservative enough for me; Rush and Glenn simply echo my beliefs. Sometimes, even they do not go far enough. (See my post with my "precinct card.")

I believe in the Constitution, and I will oppose you even if I don't hear one national voice with my viewpoint! In fact, if the current few voices are silenced, you will hear the voice of MILLIONS against you!

(Part 2)

As I write this, Rush Limbaugh is finishing up his coverage of the story of a woman with cancer who was on Medicaid, scheduled for a transplant. The Social Security Administration contacted her, offering disability benefits for her 3-year-old son. She accepted, and the disability payments caused her to be ineligible for Medicaid. They've canceled her coverage, and the hospital will not do the transplant because of liability issues.

Earlier this morning Fox News featured a short bit about effective tax rates going up in 2011, including a mention of the Death Tax phase-out (so that the estate tax rate is 0 this year) expiring at the end of the year. Estates of decedents who die in 2011 could face a tax rate of 55%--that is, the State Bureaucratic Apparatus will take OVER HALF of what someone has EARNED during his or her LIFETIME. That is on top of whatever taxes were paid on that money when it was earned.

All this reminds me of Alan Grayson's placard presentation, claiming the Republicans want you to die quickly. It's obvious that it is in fact the COLLECTIVISTS who want that. In effect they're saying, if you're going to die in the next couple of years, and you want to preserve your estate, you had better die in 2010--in a word, quickly. If you have a chance to get a transplant to extend your life a bit, but you're going to be on public assistance for the rest of your life, anyway, we'd rather you don't get the transplant, and die quickly.

When a collectivist accuses a conservative of something odious and despicable, it's nearly always projection.

An Interesting Opportunity for Nevada

2010-04-08T10:42:00.000-07:00

A news story I just heard stated that my U. S. Representative, Dean Heller, expressed concern over Sen. John Ensign's behavioral issues, but stopped short of calling for him to resign.

That got me thinking. We know Harry Reid is in trouble, and may lose to a Republican challenger. But which one? I personally like Sharron Angle. I've heard noises of some opinions that she is "too conservative." (I say that's impossible.) Right now, Sue Lowden is the front-runner, and the young Danny Tarkanian seems very popular, too.

I don't know right now if Nevada has a Gubernatorial Appointment process or a Special Election process for replacing a U. S. Senator mid-term. I will do some research to see if I can determine what the process is. But in any case, I think it would be beneficial for Nevada to have one Senator from each of two major regions: North and South. According to Sen. Ensign's website, he was raised in the North up until high school, but now considers Las Vegas his home.

Even if Lowden or Tarkanian wins the Republican primary, I will fully support the GOP effort to defeat Harry Reid in November. I would then also love to see Angle chosen to replace Ensign should he resign. I have no problem with Ensign in the Senate. He seems to be conservative enough. But should he be pressured to resign, I believe Sharron Angle would be an outstanding choice to take his place.

That's No Extremist; That's My Accountant!*

2010-03-31T16:36:00.000-07:00

During the week of 22 March 2010 (I think it was Tuesday the 23rd), Glenn Beck tried to explain on his television show why the radicals in and around the Obama administration--including their accomplices in the media--are trying to label the Tea Party supporters as extremists. He had a diagram something like this:

Johnson and Nixon Pictures?

American Family Picture

=========================================

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

Beck explained that during the radicals' youth in the 1960s and '70s, they felt the sting of ridicule because they were separated from mainstream America by their radical beliefs and actions. They perceived the people at the top as having sway over America, rather than their "superior" ideas ruling the day, because they were being marginalized.

Beck then took down "The Man's" pictures (as he called them), and put the radicals at the top, so it looked somewhat like this:

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

American Family Picture

=========================================

Tea Party Pictures

Beck explained that this is what the radicals are attempting to do by claiming the Tea Party folks are extremists, racists, violent usurpers, etc. But guess what?

IT WON'T WORK!

Why? Because I believe most of America sees the picture more like this:

Collectivist Radicals

=========================================

American Family

Tea Party

*With apologies to Michael Graham, author of "That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom".

Hunger is Inevitable

2010-03-26T12:44:00.000-07:00

We just had a volunteerism promotion meeting at the office. The organization promoting it provided a sign to hang on the wall that reads:

Hunger is defined as, "The physical and mental condition that results from not eating enough food, due to insufficient economic, social, and community resources.["]

It doesn't say who defined hunger that way, but the inclusion of a "mental" component leads me to believe it involved some modern, non-religious, perhaps collective ideology.

Now remember that the collectivists' chief aim is to guarantee the same outcomes for all people. But look at that definition. What is "enough"? The same amount may be enough, or more than enough, for some, but not nearly enough for others. If every person has the same amount, there will still be some who have plenty, and others who are hungry. This applies in the figurative sense, as well as the literal, food-related sense.

Therefore, it is better to allow each individual to attempt to earn what he (or she) can. Those who earn more than they need, especially in America, are very likely to give willingly to those who need more than they earn.

On a side note, I am glad to see that whoever authored that sign used the serial comma.

It's So Simple

2010-03-18T11:47:00.000-07:00

I call on conservative legislators at (at least) the Federal and State levels to introduce legislation to this effect:

It shall be unlawful for any agency of the Executive branch of government to establish or enforce policies and regulations not explicitly included in Acts passed by the Legislative branch.

This would stop, and even reverse, the power grabs and un-Constitutional social engineering by agencies like the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the BATFE, etc. The TSA might disappear overnight! The IRS's "rulings" and "opinions" would matter no more than mine.

Liberty vs. Anarchy, or, You Want to Legalize What?!

2010-03-10T20:44:00.001-08:00

Glenn Beck recently asserted on his TV show that there are two branches of Libertarians: one that really advocates anarchy, or as close to it as we can get; one that advocates a return to the small, limited government as established by the Constitution. I'd like to suggest that this second branch really represents what I call Constitutional Republicans, like me.

I'm no Bible thumper, and I don't want to turn people off by making this blog sound preachy, but I believe that to follow the Constitution requires people of this nation to have the kind of firm morality that comes from training and practice of Judeo-Christian religion.

The first branch of Libertarianism often puts forth the argument that they should be able to do what they want at home--such as use marijuana--as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I submit this article for your consideration.

The main point of the article, in case you didn't read it all the way through, is that young people who have used cannabis longer have a much greater tendency to exhibit psychotic symptoms, or even fully develop psychotic disorders. While this study only covered young people, I think it's likely that it's the length of time of use--rather than beginning age--that is to blame for these ill effects.

So what if these young people now cannot complete a higher education, get a good job, support themselves and a family, and help to create wealth? How does that hurt the rest of society? Oh, and by the way, they won't be able to build up a good retirement savings, so they'll be depending on their children--and yours, and mine--to give them a pension.

So much for anarchy.

It is a Religion: More Evidence

2010-03-02T13:09:00.001-08:00

"What is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."--Al Gore

Never mind the idea that God has provided for our redemption through Jesus Christ. It is environmental law--and socialized medicine, and all the other means of controlling the people of the world through laws and regulations, no doubt--that will provide redemption for humans.

It is the notion that man can be perfected if given the proper indoctrination and training by other men that drives these nutcases to their leftist ends. They have rejected the idea that man is imperfect by nature and can only be perfected by the Grace of God. So there must be something to fill the void, and they believe it is they and their rule that will do it.

Even if you don't subscribe to the Christian beliefs, do you really want these people prescribing your behavior? I certainly do not.

To Those Who Insist on Compromise

2010-02-17T08:11:00.001-08:00

No!

The first memories I have of being told that compromise is the best way to get things done are from Sesame Street. The children's "educational" program. On public television. Run by progressives, I must assume.

Compromise is the best way for progressives to get bits of their agenda done. That's why they push it so much.

Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to stand up for what we believe; to defeat the progressive agenda; not to allow "a little bit more"; to insist on doing what's right.

This is Why Polar Bears Attack People

2010-02-10T22:23:00.000-08:00

NewsBusters® posted an article with this video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, along with the quote below it. Their quote is longer, and has emphasis on his conclusion. I wanted to emphasize a few words in his argument.

"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said.

He said first, "warmer", then "higher", then insists on it being "any temperature." Which is it? It can't be both.

This kind of inconsistency knows no bounds in progressive speech. If people were actually taught to think, like in the private school I attended, nobody would believe any of it.

Compromise? I Got Yer Compromise!

2010-02-08T21:28:00.000-08:00

Tonight, the Governor of Nevada gave a State of the State address, and called for a special session of the legislature to address a nearly $900 million dollar deficit. Also tonight, Glenn Beck asked both Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore what would be the first thing they'd cut spending on.

If I were asked that, I would answer without hesitation, "education!" Propose not just to cut, but to eliminate all public spending on education.

Gov. Gibbons said in his address that he wants to improve the quality of education in Nevada. And how do conservatives maintain that the quality can be improved in any field? Get government out of it!

Besides, when you can no longer stand the yelling and screaming and whining and puling of people who mistakenly believe that education is an entitlement, you can always offer to trade. "Would you rather have your welfare check, or education for your children?" "Would you rather have the state provide habitat for the desert rat, or buildings and furniture for schools?" "OK, so you don't want to give up funding for education; what government agency money pit would you rather give up?"

Of course, the people may decide that education can be sacrificed for rats, and that would suit me just fine. Have the private sector provide real education, and stop funding progressive indoctrination centers with my money. We can always stop feeding the rats later. Or is it the same thing?

The End of Yucca Mountain Does Not Mean the End of Nuclear

2010-02-01T13:55:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin has a recent piece on her blog, which seems to suggest that the fact that Obama's budget provides $0 funding for the Yucca Mtn Nevada nuclear waste dump means that his administration lied about wanting to pursue nuclear energy in America.

My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"

Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.

The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!

The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.

What are Conservatives For?

2010-01-27T20:34:00.000-08:00

On the Sean Hannity TV show one night in January 2010, Bob Beckel said something to the effect, "Republicans [or conservatives] are against all these things Barack Obama is trying to do. What are you for?" They ran out of time on that show, but I believe that's a fair question and deserves to be answered. Here are just some of the things I am for:

Reduction of the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA)--the "government"
Elimination of programs that are tantamount to the transfer of money from earners to non-earners
Lowering taxes, which should be a direct result of these first two items
Ending the creation of, and in fact reducing or eliminating, the intrusive regulations created by the SBA
Giving individuals the freedom, and allowing them to keep what they earn so they will have the means, to build their own success
Ending the ridiculous notion that the State Agencies that we do have must not acknowledge any religions, or especially must avoid any references to Judaism or Christianity

I'm sure I've only touched on the highest profile things that I think conservatism stands for. Please leave a comment and let me know what else you advocate for as a conservative.

More Misdirection?

2010-01-27T14:25:00.000-08:00

Article from the Washington Examiner:

Republican's bill killed last week, exact same bill passes unanimously today with Democrat sponsor

OK, so partisanship exists. OK, so a bill sponsored by one party fails, while the same legislation sponsored by another party passes.

SO WHAT?!

What does this legislation say? Why is the U. S. Congress passing any kind of legislation about the treatment of water rights completely within one state? It sounds to me like this legislation is un-Constitutional, and should never have been proposed at all.

UPDATE
I didn't mention this because of my haste to post this at first; but the first time around, there were 4 Republican Congressmen who voted against this (God bless 'em!): Kevin Brady (TX), John Linder (GA), Ron Paul (TX), and Joe Wilson (SC).

However, as the WE article states, Roll Call 22 for H.R. 4474 passed 415-0, with 18 members not voting. This bill authorizes expenditure of an unnamed amount of money for building a right-of-way across "non-Federal land", and for potential "reconstruction" of some sort of "facility". Sounds like a nice slab of spareribs, at the very least.

What Does Scott Brown's Victory Really Mean?

2010-01-21T16:38:00.000-08:00

I suppose y'all must be wondering--the four of you who read me, thank you--where my post is celebrating the Republican win in Massachusetts? I have so many conflicting thoughts about it, it's hard to form a post. So here goes some rambling.

First, the candidate for the Republican party has won a U. S. Senate seat in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3 to 1. Congratulations! It's a little surprising the Kennedy in the race didn't do better.

Second, in Mr. Brown's victory speech, Major Garrett noted that did not use the word "Republican" prominently, if at all. Perhaps that isn't surprising, given that much of his support came from voters who identify themselves as "independent." Just what does this indicate about how he will represent the Commonwealth in the Senate? The MOOP did point out that Mr. Brown voted along GOP lines 96% of the time; but did he introduce any measures that were actually conservative?

Next, I read somebody's claim that Mr. Brown actually supports a state-run, universal health care system. Does that mean he just doesn't like the one described in the current bills? Or if it gets the right amendments, he'd support it? Or was that person wrong?

Then there are the campaigns. Mr. Brown did an excellent job of getting his message heard, and got a lot--an awful lot--of help from social media. For the last week of the campaign, it seemed that 2/3 of the tweets in my stream were promoting him. Granted, I follow mostly conservatives, but that's still a pretty big proportion. And a large part of those folks were advocating (and giving) donations to his campaign from all over the nation, maybe even the world.

Mrs. Coakley, on the other hand, seemed to have a message mostly of blaming George W. Bush and trying to associate Mr. Brown with Bush's policies. I believe most independents reject that argument now. Also, she did not use the new media well. Some would argue that she didn't use the old media very well, either. I have not seen any reports of her war chest.

I was going to add more about the messages, but this is rambling too much already. I guess the bottom line is, Scott Brown is relatively conservative, for Massachusetts. He successfully campaigned to the idea of independence and against one-party control. We now have two years to see how he behaves in the Senate. I, for one, will be paying attention.

Update 2010-02-22: Apparently, Mr. Brown has disappointed many of those who didn't know much about him by voting for the so-called "jobs" bill, a.k.a. Stimulus II. Sounds like a Romney-like move to me.

Oh, and I now have 6 readers. Woo-hoo! Thank you all.

Who Does the Congress Think it is, Anyway?

2010-01-10T12:56:00.000-08:00

I wrote a piece some time back about how I thought if the FCC started to impose tyrannical regulations (more than they already do?), that the best thing for the radio owners to do would be to ignore them. I guess that they would really need some legal authority to do that, though.

Well, it appears that others have thought the same thing before. American Thinker has a piece that says what I've been trying to say, just more eloquently. Please take the time to read it.

Case Closed

2010-01-07T23:03:00.000-08:00

For those of you who've missed it, Glenn Beck has spent this first week of the new year showing how his, and his team's, research has produced enough evidence to settle the questions he's been asking for the past months. The self-styled "progressives" in America have been building their utopia for over a hundred years, and they are just about to cause the Republic to collapse so they can replace it with their centrally-planned, centrally-managed, all-controlling system--the State Bureaucratic Apparatus, or SBA, as I call it.

What I'm wondering is, will they really be able to force some measure of compliance like in the former Soviet Union? Or will the American people, to use a much-maligned phrase, just say no? And will the American military, true patriots to whom we owe so much, side with us, the people?

I, like Glenn, am very hopeful about our future. We are building a sense of community, with the tea party movement, and the grass-roots energizing of the Republican party getting back to Conservative principles. Let's keep it going strong throughout this election year, and all the way through 2012. We are fired up now!

How Did Fox Miss This?

2010-01-07T15:35:00.000-08:00

From the World Wide Words newsletter, a "Sic!" item:

CNN's Political Ticker reported on 28 November 2009 about a basketball
game that President Obama attended in support of his brother-in-law
Craig Robinson: "Robinson, who coaches the Oregon State Beavers,
was cheered on by the President, who snacked on popcorn, the First
Lady, Sasha, Malia and the girls' grandmother Marian Robinson."
Thanks to Joel Gardner for that unsettling image.

With an appetite like that, one wonders how he stays so thin

Con-se... Wait, What?

2009-09-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

People who are raised learning there are no consequences for their actions cannot even fathom that any consequences ever exist:

Radical: "Tax the Rich! Take all their money and give it to the poor!"
Common-Senser: "And when that's all gone, what then?"
R: "Tax 'em more! Take all their money!"
CS: "It's all gone."
R: "Then take more from them!"
CS: "No, there is no more to take. It's all gone."
R: "Oh. Then we won't need money! Everyone will just trade. You know, barter."
CS: "You can do that now. You don't need to take money from anyone else."

This post inspired by "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After, specifically the lines "Tax the rich/Feed the poor/'Til there are no/Rich no more."

Why I am Not a Revolutionary

2009-08-27T20:51:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong. I am sick and tired of the "progressive" agenda. I am frustrated with the current crop of Congresscritters. I would like nothing more than to see the massive bureaucracy from Washington eradicated, and nearly every law passed since 1870 repealed. (That includes the 16th and 17th Amendments, and even portions of the 14th, by the way.)

However, I do not advocate revolution. First of all, the word brings to mind armed uprisings, bloodshed, treason (on both sides), and all manner of unpleasant things. Mostly, though, I believe that the revolution has been taking place for close to 150 years, and the evils mentioned above are the result of that revolution.

What I want to do is put down the collectivist revolution. The best way is in front of the ballot box, not behind the ammo box. We have the truth and common sense on our side. We must convince our neighbors who don't normally pay attention that they need to start, and they need to seek common sense answers. As Glenn Beck (and Thomas Jefferson) puts it, question with boldness. Hold on to the truth. Speak without fear. Become a counter-revolutionary, by countering the half-truths and empty promises of the collectivist revolution with truth, common sense, and resolve.

Why Be Hatin' the Birthers?

2009-08-11T20:50:00.000-07:00

Let me be clear: I couldn't give a hoot in hell where Barack H. Obama Jr. was born.

That being said, I do have questions. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 uses the phrase (as I'm sure has been pointed out ad nauseum) "natural born citizen". I have seen one definition of that term, credited to a contemporary of Jefferson et al., as a person whose "parents" were both citizens of the country in question.

The point here is that this definition requires both parents to be citizens of the same nation. As I have stated in the past, young Barry is truly an African-American, where Jesse Jackson (for instance) is not. Both of Rev. Jackson's parents were American citizens. One of Mr. Obama's parents was an African, a citizen of Kenya; the other was an American. This, therefore, fails the above definition.

I'm not saying that this is the only definition of the term, although it's the only one I've seen. But I do believe that people whose job it is to uphold and enforce the law--and the last I knew, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land--should be interested in making sure we all know the correct definition.

And I just haven't seen any of that.

Postcards from the Rim, Conclusion

2009-07-15T22:42:00.001-07:00

Part two, the conclusion of pictures taken on trails around Lake Tahoe, plus an epilogue.

On Thursday 9 July, we took the lower part of the Mount Rose Summit Trail. First, though, we went around the opposite way for a bit to try to get to the lake in this picture, Tamarack Lake. It is the immediate source of Galena Creek.

The Summit Trail starts at around 8,900' (2,713 m) elevation, and climbs to the very top of Mount Rose, at 10,776' (3,285 m). Partway up that trail, I saw this boulder resting in the forked trunk (3 or 4 trunks) of a tree. I assume the tree grew up around it.

At the end of the lower part of the Mount Rose Summit Trail (c. 2.6 mi.), there is a cascade. In July, there was just enough water coming over it to make a nice sound and a decent creek. I can imagine in March or April, after a good winter's snow, it's quite a torrent.

The Summit Trail goes on for another nearly 7 miles to the summit. We are not in good enough shape to go that far at that altitude in one day, so we went back down from there.

On Saturday, 11 July, we drove to one of the many pullout parking areas on NV SR 28, on the East side of Lake Tahoe. Our goal was a small cove called Skunk Harbor. We learned that this "trail" was actually an old road that led down to an abandoned stone building on the shore of the cove. The road is still maintained as a fire road, so it was a very easy hike.

While we were putting our boots back on after wading in the lake, a couple of chipmunks came down to see if we had any food for them. We didn't, but I got a picture anyway!

Epilogue

On Saturday, 4 July (Independence Day), we went to a presentation about photographing trees as art, in a city park in Reno. It was a part of the Artown activities.

While we were standing around the first tree getting an orientation, I noticed a couple of robins flitting around, and it looked like one was carrying a worm. So I started looking up in the tree and found a nest. It took me a few minutes to realize that there were two chicks in it.

Finally, earlier this summer I happened to pass by a small pond near our power company offices. I noticed a goose family out for a stroll, so I pulled over (across the street) and snapped a few pics. This is the best one of the proud parents and their six goslings.

I hope you've enjoyed seeing some of the sights near my home.

Postcards from the Rim, Part 1

2009-07-14T22:38:00.000-07:00

The week following Independence Day (2009), I took time off work. I went hiking with a friend on a few trails in the Lake Tahoe basin (including parts of the Tahoe Rim Trail, or TRT, hence the title). The next few posts will exhibit a few of the photos we took. I had planned to put them all on one post, but I've learned that getting pictures where you want them is not the easiest thing to do with Blogger, so I'll break them up.

The first trail we took was the Big Meadow trail up to Anderson Pass, at the junction with the SE part of the TRT. It was only two miles, but it was all uphill, so we were very pleased when we got to the top.

On the way down, we saw things from a different perspective--and it was easier going--so I took more photos. Here is a mountain Sequoia that has been charred in the middle.

This is a dead tree that, from a distance, looked somewhat like a woman gathering her children into her skirts. I'm not sure how well that shows up in the picture.

We also saw some wildlife that was more shy when we were going up. This is probably a common bird in the mountains, but unfamiliar to me, perched in a big Aspen.

Then a bit further down the trail, we saw what I believe is a Sage Grouse hen and her three chicks foraging, pretty much ignoring us. Of course, we were a few yards away. I only got a good picture of one of the chicks. Mom's on the left, chick's on the right, if you can't tell.

Finally, my friend noticed this scene as we crossed a creek: a branch with a few leaves on the end casting a sharp shadow on a rock in the stream.

Scott's #followfriday recommendations

2009-06-19T20:41:00.000-07:00

This post has been replaced with a page. Visit it here.

Drug Deals

2009-06-18T15:54:00.000-07:00

John Stossel recently published a blog item positing that a "War on Drugs" inevitably begets a "War on Guns". He concludes that anybody who opposes gun control, to be intellectually consistent, must also oppose the "war on drugs".

I agree, and I do. In my opinion the "war on drugs" is a waste of resources. It has not only raised a furor over the armament of the drug gangs, it's led to avarice and corruption. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the bright idea of confiscating assets used during illegal activity. These assets are then generally auctioned to the public, creating revenue for the governments. The more they confiscate, the more revenue they bring in.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for drug legalization. Like the author of a comment on Mr. Stossel's blog, I see where making drug use, sales, and distribution illegal can be useful--even helpful--for society. The question is how aggressive enforcement should be. I have a proposal (surprise, surprise).

Drug crimes should be like seat belt crimes: a secondary infraction. When a person causes an accident, robs someone, or murders someone, and drugs are involved, the drug charges would serve to make the penalties worse.

Localism: Fairness Lite, or Fascism?

2009-06-02T14:27:00.000-07:00

Localism, as you probably know, is the name of a tactic the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA) may try to use to curtail or eliminate the national syndication of radio talk shows. If you're not familiar with localism, here is a recent article about it from Broadcasting & Cable Magazine.) Since most successful shows of this sort feature conservative commentators, localism is viewed by conservatives as a method of squelching dissent to the collectivists and Progressives (represented by the Democrats). Localism would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Why does the FCC have the power to grant, refuse, or revoke broadcast licenses for radio stations? I'm fairly certain the chief purpose of the FCC originally was simply to ensure that two broadcasters in one locality were not attempting to use the same frequency. Perhaps decency guidelines were also part of the original mission. With modern popular music recordings, though, that's pretty much out the window. The FCC has probably been construed to have much more power because of the "interstate commerce clause" doctrine.

There has been an attempt recently by a number of states to try to push the SBA back out of the lives of citizens, by eliminating the invocation of the insterstate commerce doctrine. Montana's "in-state firearm" law is one example. If a firearm is manufactured, sold, and used entirely within the state of Montana, this law exempts it from any federal regulation. Perhaps broadcasters can similarly use the concept of "local" to their advantage.

Radio stations, at least those not streaming on the Web, are local businesses. They serve a limited number of cities around their offices & studios; they accept advertising from other local businesses; they broadcast programming and advertising to a local market. Their product is made, sold, purchased, and consumed all within one local area. These are exactly the characteristics that localism intends to exploit for the SBA's purposes.

Wouldn't it be the pinnacle of localism for the radio stations to say, "The city or state has granted us the authority to broadcast on this frequency, simply because there are no other stations trying to use it. Our market is completely local, INTRASTATE, and therefore the FCC regulations do not apply to us."

Why I Am (Still) a Registered Republican

2009-05-30T22:34:00.000-07:00

I have seen several statements--on fliers, on television, on Twitter, on blogs--about becoming a Republican, or turning conservative. Many people have said that they've been a Republican since the Reagan years, or even because of Ronald Reagan. Others, like Dennis Miller, moved toward conservatism because of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. I respect that. Growing and changing one's mind is part of living.

There is a quote I've seen attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like, "A young man who is conservative has no heart; an old man who is liberal has no brain."

Apparently I'm heartless. I'm sure you've heard tales of the "heartless conservatives." I guess I'm one of 'em. I have always believed in individual achievement bringing rewards, self-reliance, all those conservative ideals. I cannot remember ever wishing that some powerful entity would take wealth away from, for instance, Howard Hughes and give it to me.

Like many others, I am totally disgusted with the Republican party. There is a sizable portion of the party that seems to be for lowering taxes, but not for shrinking the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (what many people call "the government"). They believe that lowering tax rates will result in increased revenue, which they can then spend on their pet programs rather than the Democrats' pet programs. These people are not truly conservative.

So to the title of the post: Why I am (still) a Registered Republican. The fact is that there are two major parties in the United States, and anyone not running as a member of one of those two parties is not at all likely to win an election. Of the 535 voting and half-dozen non-voting members of Congress, only two identify themselves as Independent (and Joe Lieberman is listed as "ID", which I suppose means "Independent Democrat").

In the general elections, I have endeavored to find the candidate whose philosophy and positions most closely match my own. Most candidates that run as Democrats have a philosophy nowhere near my own. I have voted for Republicans, and for Independents (mostly the American Independent Party), and even for a Libertarian or two. But my county does not hold a primary election for independent and minor-party candidates.

I register as a Republican so that I can vote for the most conservative candidate in the primary elections. I have also started attending local "town-hall" meetings at the county's GOP headquarters. That gives me a chance to hear what our Assemblymen and State Senators are doing, and perhaps express my position for their consideration.

The Test of Tolerance

2009-05-21T22:22:00.000-07:00

The following quote was tweeted by a fine educator:

“The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”--Ralph W. Sockman

If conservatives are indeed in the minority, as the collectivists claim, the majority's "test of tolerance" has been failed time and time again.

Intolerance of George W. Bush. Intolerance of Dick Cheney. Intolerance of Rush Limbaugh. Intolerance of Carrie Prejean. The list goes on.

A correspondent tells me of a recent election where he/she, upon leaving the polling place, picked up a pamphlet from a table staffed by Republicans. There was, of course, a Democrat-staffed table there as well. Two of the Democrats accosted him/her, demanding that they be given equal time. They could not tolerate someone who had his/her mind made up, that did not agree with them.

Collectivists and statists realize that when given a choice, and an opportunity to think, most people reject their views. They know that they will never be able to control the masses if any other opinion exists. That is why they cannot tolerate the individualists' opinions, and will do everything they can to heap ridicule upon us.

I do not actually believe that conservatives are the minority. I believe that individualism and self-reliance are part of human nature, just as is the willingness to work to make one's own life, and the lives of his children, better. I thank God that I was born in a time and place where we can do just that, and I will do everything I can to preserve that for myself and the next generation. That is my test of courage.

The Solution to High Healthcare Costs

2009-05-12T21:17:00.000-07:00

Competition.

"But," you say, "there is competition already! We are free to choose whatever provider we want to see." Are you, really?

If you are not self-employed, it is likely that your health insurance is provided as a benefit of your employment. It is likely that your policy has a list of providers contracted to provide services at an agreed price. The phrase "usual and customary" really means "the price that the insurance company agrees to pay and the providers agree to accept." In other words, all the providers available to you effectively charge the same price. There is no competition there.

To bring true competition back to the health care marketplace, I propose as a first step that we do away with employer-provided health insurance. Insurers can still offer group plans, including some like the so-called "affinity" plans for social clubs, university alumni, and the like. People can choose to join one of those, or buy an individual policy as some insurers are offering now. The differentiators would be in what is covered and the limits.

To improve those options, I propose that we strongly discourage, if not prohibit, the price-fixing that is now called "usual and customary charges." In fact, I think price-fixing is illegal, and that is precisely what this practice constitutes. People could then shop around for providers they like that charge affordable prices. I realize that many people, especially younger people, make so few visits to the doctor as to make this difficult to do. Sure, one could ask prices over the phone, but that's only part of the story. Talking to friends and coworkers could help, or even referral services.

Please comment on this. And I hope you'll send all your ideas (they must be better than this) to your Congress-critters.

Orwell Would be Proud/Humbled

2009-05-04T22:18:00.000-07:00

Good/bad old/new Doublespeak!

Thanks to @hotairblog, from the Business & Media Institute comes this post about the "crackdown" on legal tax avoidance by U.S. corporations. It contains a couple of sentences about President Obama's speech Monday:

In his late morning speech, Obama condemned “corporate loopholes” and said that such practices “cost taxpayers” billions of dollars.

Obama also claimed that his changes would save taxpayers $210 billion in the next 10 years.

The President asserts that when American businesses use legal means to avoid providing revenue to the State, it costs taxpayers money. He also apparently said that forcing the businesses to provide revenue would save taxpayers money.

That's like saying, "Your Uncle Frank baked and sold a wedding cake for $100, and only gave me $30 instead of $35, so that costs you $5. If we force him to give me $35, it will save you that $5." Never mind that you will be forced to give me $25 regardless of what Uncle Frank does. Never mind that I'm not really doing much at all to benefit either you or your Uncle Frank. Never mind that I'm going to keep $15 for my own uncle and spend $45 buying a couple of Shamwows for somebody you don't even know, who doesn't produce anything or ever give me anything except votes. Your Uncle Frank is obviously a cold-hearted misanthrope who doesn't care if children go hungry.

Doublespeak at its finest/worst.

Prevention or Persecution?

2009-04-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

There was a story today about the government of Egypt deciding that, in order to prevent "the spread of swine flu", they would destroy all the hogs at hog farms across the country.

Now, many of you may be thinking, "Wait a minute. Aren't hogs 'unclean' to Muslim*? Why would an Islamic nation even have hog farms?" Well, according to the story, the hog farms are owned by, and produce pork for, the roughly 10% Christian minority in the country.

When I first heard the story, I thought, "This sounds like an attack on Christians by certain Muslim." There was no mention of possible remuneration for destroying these business owners' (hog farmers) stock in trade. Only that the hogs would be destroyed, leaving the hog farmers with no hogs to farm, and no way to continue business.

Update
Thanks to @infidelsarecool, who posted this story while I was writing this blog entry. The people who collect the garbage to feed the hogs are protesting in the streets because they are among Egypt's poorest, and they will be devastated if there is no market for their product. There is mention in the story of compensation for the farmers, of 1,000 Egyptian pounds (120 GBP, or about $177) per animal. But it's also stated that the farmers have "little confidence" they'd ever see any of it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but given that the consumption of pork does not cause this "swine flu", and in fact the H1N1 virus has never even been found in swine (as stated in the 2nd story), it seems to me that this so-called pandemic is being used as an excuse by governments around the world to accomplish objectives that have nothing to do with the health of their citizens.

Update 2 (2009/04/30)
I saw some tweets about Massachusetts passing a bill to authorize martial law in response to a pandemic emergency. While that is not explicitly stated in this bill, the proposed Section 2A, Paragraph (b) authorizes the governor to activate the "comprehensive emergency management plan" in case of a "public health emergency". It is unclear† whether this could include martial law.

*Because in Semitic languages, the -im suffix indicates a plural, I use "Muslim" as a plural rather than "Muslims".
†By "unclear", I mean I didn't bother to look it up, since I don't live in Massachusetts.

They Just Don't Get It

2009-04-24T21:57:00.000-07:00

Tea Parties: They just don't get it.

Even some people who are sympathetic to the idea of lowering taxes and shrinking the bureaucracy don't understand them. I think it's because these people suffer from the "beltway" mentality.

Bruce Bartlett is a Forbes.com columnist. He has written a book titled Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Mr. Bartlett recently wrote a piece for The New Majority about what he calls the "tax tea parties." In this piece, he writes:

In my opinion, these tea parties had little, if anything, to do with current or projected tax levels.

I happen to agree with that opinion. However, Mr. Bartlett goes on to conclude that the protests were simply partisan Republican gatherings, and were designed to increase ratings for Fox News and radio hosts.

They just don't get it.

Maybe it's our fault. Maybe because of the nature of the protests--that they were real grass-roots, locally organized efforts, with no celebrity national spokesman--they just didn't pay attention. Or they got mixed messages. There were, after all, several themes to the signs even in the relatively small Carson City, NV protest.

For me, and for many others, we have just reached a point where we are sick and tired of the Statist Bureaucrats making plans and decisions about how we are to live our lives, and inserting their out-of-touch plans into our personal business. I did hear a very few folks in the media expressing this; Glenn Beck springs to mind. But it seems they were drowned out (if you can believe that) by the myriad voices intent on ascribing tax-only or partisan motives to our protests.

They just don't get it.

What's my point? I guess that maybe we just need to consolidate our message. I think that the TaxDayTeaParty.com website was a great resource for those gatherings. It is associated with the Don't Go Movement (follow Eric Odom on Twitter), and also Smart Girl Politics (Founded by Stacy Mott and Teri Christoph).

Maybe next time, they'll get it.

Saving the Environment

2009-04-23T16:55:00.000-07:00

In conjunction with "Earth Day", my company displayed signs about things to do that were environmentally responsible. Each was titled:

SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT
ONE CHOICE AT A TIME

with the "O" in "ONE" represented by a little planet--centered on Australia, of all places!

This got me really steamed, so I wrote the little piece that follows. Since it would probably not be a wise choice to post it in my workplace, I decided to start a blog and present it here.

“SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT”

As opposed to what?
Spending it?
Abdicating it?
Relinquishing it?
Wasting it?
Ruining it?
Killing it?

How arrogant must one be to think we humans could accomplish any of these?

People who want to control your lives are counting on your emotional response to this language. They want you to give up your personal decision-making freedoms in favor of being told what’s good for everyone. They want to subject you to everyone else, which in reality will subject you to their will. They will decide what you can do based on whether it’s “good for you.”

Please think. Think what the logical consequences of this behavior must be. Think about what they say will happen, contrasted with what is actually happening.

On the first “Earth Day” in 1970, speakers quoted scientists as saying that:

Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in just the next few years alone.
By 1980 the life expectancy of all Americans will be 42 years.
By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by 1/2.

Since 1970, U.S. population is up 50%. Miles driven has increased by nearly 160%. Life expectancy? Well, you may be dead and not know it, according to those folks in 1970.

Saving the environment? How about saving our freedoms?

Please think.