Don’t Talk About That!

I am so tired of hearing that.

Different people care about different things. That’s part of what makes us, well, different.

You may not care that young Barry Soetoro ate dog meat, but his campaign is attacking Mitt Romney for transporting the family dog in a protected carrier on the roof of a crowded car.

You may not care what Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is.

You may not care about an alleged attempted bribe of someone who was perceived as capable of harming a Presidential campaign 4 or 5 years ago.

But some people do.

In fact, some of those people may not even be hurting badly because of the economy. They may be wondering why all you rugged individualists are whining about lost jobs, rather than going out and making your own job. (I expect that you are.)

My point is that if the left wins by creating distractions and playing up picayunish “sins” of their opponents, then it’s obvious that people respond to that nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad for the right to engage in a little of it. Or a lot.

That’s why I will not be telling people, “Don’t talk about that.”

URL UNAVAILABLE

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.

Weird, Wacky, Radical Tenthers Need Not Apply

(for Democrats' Approval)

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

1. In this post, "Democrats" = "Totalitarian Statists". They likely exist in every party, and certainly outside of any organized party.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

A Patriot by Any Name Should Still be Free

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.

More Misdirection?

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.

Localism: Fairness Lite, or Fascism?

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."

The Test of Tolerance

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.

Orwell Would be Proud/Humbled

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.