Category Archives: Politics

If You Have to Ask…

Posted on by

…you clearly haven’t been paying attention.


The Political Insider (requires registration for e-mail alerts) is fielding a poll, trying to find out who we want for the next Republican presidential candidate.  It’s all multiple choice, with the usual suspects.  There are some general opinion questions too.  The one that really got me is; “Do you think the tea party represents the Republican Party?”


Oh boy.  First; No, or I sure hope not.  But that’s not the proper question.  The proper question would be; “Do you think the Republican Party represents the tea party?”  The answer is; “Hell No, that’s why the tea party exists.  Get it?”


That, you Insiders, is the problem, and so the tea party is trying to overrun the Republican Party, co opt it, and bring it into line.  The other question I did not see is; “What should be the primary goal of the Republican Party over the next several years?”


The one, simple answer is; “Get rid of socialism and purge the socialists from American government payrolls.  All of it.  All of them.”  We’ve had enough.


They didn’t give us the opportunity to answer in our own words, so I deleted the message.

Following the U.K. medical model

Posted on by

The U.K. didn’t always have socialized medicine. The slide into the abyss started out by a requirement shortly after WW II that everyone purchase insurance. Does that sound familiar?


Here’s what we have to look forward to:



Tens of thousands of lung cancer patients are being denied life-saving surgery on the NHS, a shocking report reveals.


Fewer than one in ten sufferers is being given an operation to remove tumours that is routinely offered in most other countries in the Western world.


Experts say the disease is being spotted far too late so by the time it is diagnosed, it is inoperable.

Quote of the day—George Will

Posted on by

I firmly believe the most important decision taken anywhere in the twentieth century was the decision taken as to where to locate the Princeton graduate college.

President of Princeton Woodrow Wilson wanted it located down on the campus. Other people wanted to located where it in fact is, up on the golf course away from the campus. When Wilson lost that, he had one of his characteristic tantrums, went into politics and ruined the twentieth century.

George Will
May 18, 2010
”2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner Keynote Address” featuring George F. Will
[Via Kevin. Please read the transcript at Kevin’s or listen to the podcast. This is a lot good stuff in there.

To understand this quote requires knowing more than a little about Woodrow Wilson’s “contribution” to the politics of this country. One might give Wilson a little bit of slack because of World War I. But it is probably better explained that WW I gave him the excuse to implement his agenda rather than WWI required the implementation of an oppressive government.—Joe]

Philosophy questions

Posted on by

I moved some pages I had on a different web site to this blog for better visibility and archival. These posts were from 1997 and 1998 which was long before my first blog post (February 3, 2004) and I have given the posts their approximate original date.

 

The pages moved are:

 

 

 

If you want to comment on one or more of those posts you will have to do it on this post as the comments are disable for posts that old.

Quote of the day—George Savile

Posted on by

When the People contend for their liberty, they seldom get anything for their Victory but new Masters.

George Savile
[This seems to be particularly true when the contention is via the ballot box.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Laurel

Posted on by

We have the belief that, through voting, our voice is being heard. How is my voice being heard if the ideas I cherish are defeated, and those I abhor prevail? How have I accomplished anything other than giving my consent to being ruled, potentially by someone my ideological opposite?

Well, I do not consent, and that is my vote.

Laurel
November 2, 2010
Check your premises.
[There is more than a little bit of truth to this but at the current time I’m not seeing “I do not consent” making a big impact or even the potential of a big impact. What are you going to do instead? Vote from the roof top on the day after? The last I heard that hasn’t started yet. Until it does voting seems to me to be the better alternative. And even if you do start applying “Second Amendment remedies” I don’t see voting with paper yesterday being a blocking issue for voting with copper jacketed lead today.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Maio

Posted on by

Sounds like it’s time to put ’em up against the wall. Without the right to vote, there’s nothing left but direct force.

Michael Maio
Sunday 11/22/98 9:37 PM
SOC Libertarian Discussion
Microsoft Public Folder
In response to a report that the Federal Government concealed the results of an election to make marijuana legal for medical uses.
[I was reminded of this by what Alan said.

It’s something to keep in mind on this election day.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Posted on by

The clock is ticking down and this election is very much in play. Those who resign themselves to thinking otherwise are their own worst enemies.

Here it is in simple terms: A vote for someone other than Rossi is a vote for Murray. A vote for Murray is a vote for Schumer.

Any questions?

Dave Workman
October 29, 2010
High stakes for gun owners in Tuesday’s Senate election
[Polls put Murray and Rossi very, very close:

Indeed, Republicans got a good poll in Washington tonight, although it comes with some qualifications. The survey, from Rasmussen Reports, gave Dino Rossi a 1-point lead over Patty Murray, the Democrat. Rasmussen’s previous survey of the state had given Ms. Murray a 3-point lead.

Now for the qualifications: Rasmussen has had a rather different impression of the state than other pollsters. Since Labor Day, Rasmussen and its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research has polled the state seven times; four of their polls put Mr. Rossi ahead. By contrast, there have been nine polls of the state by companies other that Rasmussen. All nine of them gave Ms. Murray a lead, although usually by small margins.

Murray has never seen a gun control bill she didn’t like. Rossi is a good guy on guns and good on the economic issues as well.

If you are eligible to vote in Washington state please vote for Rossi. Remember how things went for Rossi in his last election. He needs enough votes to make another election theft improbable.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charlie

Posted on by

Having lived for many decades in deeply liberal enclaves and having had many long-term friendly and working relationships with progressive types, I puzzled about the mental diff myself.


What I came up with is that your basic libertarian conservative is an optimist who doesn’t doubt for a second that, left to our own devices, things slowly but surely tend to get better. Your social conservative feels much the same *provided* we are on guard against moral trespass–you can’t get on the right track if you’re living on the wrong track.


Your progressive, otoh, is a pessimist who firmly believes that, left to our own devices, we will surely go astray in mass through greed, ignorance, prejudice and other low motivations. Hence, we need parental-type authority over us. Love of material things, particularly in categories like guns and cars, stands as proof of intent to drag all of society into your own mental hell.


If you point out the march of progress over recent centuries to them, to the extent they reply at all (as opposed to just blowing you off as some idiot), it is to state that that’s all delusion, a bubble that will burst leaving us in worse shape than if we had not pursued the folly of econo-technical progress at the expense of getting our heads right. Almost anything you say to them not from the choir book is mere confirmation that you are hopelessly delusional.


Curiously, most people who come right out and say they are socialists, you can have a debate with. They just think you’re the enemy, a swine, deluded but not delusional.


Charlie
October 17, 2010
Comment to Same Planet different worlds.
[I really like this. I like the way it succulently expresses the philosophical viewpoint of the various camps. Of course it’s possible to construct some gray area between the various camps. For example it’s possible to say the government should stay out of the lives of people but if people want to use public roads it might be okay for government require proof of driving skill.


But the main conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the progressive/pessimist leads themselves into a logical trap. If they are correct that people will “go astray” and need parental-type authority over them then the same argument can used against government. Hence you end up requiring an infinite chain of parental-type authorities. Just like requiring the universe to have a creator—who created the creator? It’s not turtles all the way down and the government can’t be fathers all the way up.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chancellor Angela Merkel

Posted on by

Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.


Chancellor Angela Merkel
October 17, 2010
Angela Merkel declares death of German multiculturalism
[The same could be said of our tolerance of the liberal/progressive/socialist culture.—Joe]

500 per year?!

Posted on by

Via Sebastian we have this bit of nonsense:

Justice Department legal adviser Amid Torres told lawmakers during a public hearing last week that the agency would submit amendments to the weapons law to La Fortaleza that reflect the jurisprudence established by the nation’s top court in McDonald vs City of Chicago this summer. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the U.S. Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.

Puerto Rico will have to ease its stringent firearms code in relation to the acquisition and possession of guns for self-defense.

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.

I’ve gone through this many rounds in an hour of practice. There are very few firearms classes that I have taken which used this few of rounds. This is like telling a journalist they may only publish five articles a year.

A specific enumerated right that is limited to, at best, exercise only one weekend per year cannot stand.

I’ve got a better idea. How about governments can repeal as many laws as they want but they can only enact five laws per year?

Dino Rossi for US Senate

Posted on by

Last Wednesday Senate Candidate Dino Rossi came to Microsoft and I went to listen to him talk and answer questions. I thought he did quite well. The Microsoft crowd has a strong tendency to be liberal. And his incumbent opponent has been considered the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. And as Rossi pointed out that when she has admitted socialists and people like Nancy Pelosi for competition in that contest that says a lot about her. The crowd was polite and listened. Almost his entire point was the financial crisis our country is in. His credentials are a degree in business with successful business ventures as proof. Then he took the lead in getting Washington state’s budget balanced several years ago.

When someone asked what he would do about the tax penalty that the questioner and his partner (it was worded such that it was pretty clear they were a homosexual couple) suffer that married couple don’t. Rossi had what seemed to be a satisfactory answer. He said he hadn’t really thought about it but he certainly would if it came up. And that it is rare that he would turn down an opportunity to reduce taxes so the chances are probably good that he would support something like that.

He didn’t mention guns at all. It’s probably just as well—particularly in that venue. He should let others tell that story. Here is an example of what his opponent says about guns. No one has ever accused her of being smart.

Here is what the NRA has to say about Rossi:

Update: I just heard a survey result on the radio. Rossi leads by 1%. In a state where King County (the Seattle area which is very liberal) sometimes reports more votes than registered voters this isn’t a big enough lead. Even in a fair election this margin is in the noise. We need to increase the margin. People will start voting in a few days (everyone votes by mail in Washington State) and the time is now to help Dino Rossi. See also the comment here from Boyd.

Quote of the day—George Mason

Posted on by

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the People, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.


George Mason
June 12, 1776
Virginia Declaration of Rights
[The U.S. Constitution was heavily influenced by the Virginia Constitution. Remember, James Madison, the main architect of the U.S. Constitution was from Virginia. And Mason had his share of input to the Constitution as well.


The entire political philosophy of our country is based on government deriving it’s powers from the consent of the people. Hence I always find it a little irritating when someone refers to a politician as a ‘leader’ when they are actually servants.


It is more than a little irritating when the servants tell the People they are the only ones allowed to own and carry certain types of personal weapons.


And when the servants use the People’s credit to run up a massive debt giving money to people and organizations which they had no constitutional authority to give it it too it’s time to fire them and perhaps prosecute them.—Joe]

Firearms Freedom Act news

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign has very little to feel good about these days so they are doing a lot of crowing about the Federal district court judge who dismissed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case.

While most observers agree that we will not win this case that doesn’t mean it is a losing action. As I said in the comments over at Say Uncle’s place:

From the Missoulian

“We’ve believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent,” Gary Marbut, MSSA president, said in a statement. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light, the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process.”

The Brady Campaign may ultimately be able to claim victory but not without more work. They are crowing now because it will be a while before they can crow for a real victory.

…

I don’t think “restrictions are defeated before they start” via lots of guns is a workable strategy. As an example look at machine guns. There were lots of them in private hands prior to 1934 and now there aren’t. Also consider legislative attacks such as trigger locks, “safe storage” laws, restrictions on carry that start with schools and public buildings then progresses to banks, parks, churches, vehicles, and “public spaces”.

While the Firearms Freedom Act has a low chance of ultimate success it is an integrated part of the SAF firearms civil rights judicial strategy.

I used to play a lot of chess which gives us a way to view this. Suppose you have a slight material advantage say 15 pieces to their 12 pieces. You increase your odds of winning by trading down an equal number/quality of their pieces for yours. When the odds are 3 to 1 in your favor you are far better off than when you were at 15 to 12.

Think of it this way–we have far more money than the anti-gun side. Suppose we have 10 x as much money and resources as they do. Suppose they need to spend half as much as we do on each front as we do in order to defeat us. The more fronts we attack on the less they have to spend on any one front. Even if we attack on a front they can easily win they must spend resources on it. This makes it easier to win on more fronts.

By forcing them to divide their resources we can create much better odds for success on each of the individual attacks because we have sufficient resources that our multiple attacks do not suffer from division.

There are other reasons as well but discussion of those in public would not be in our best interests.

Please add to that what Idaho Governor Butch Otter said about the ruling:

Governor Otter said that decision is consistent with Molloy’s wolf ruling, and together they highlight the lack of regard that the judge has for states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.
“We’re hopeful that we’ll find some relief from the appellate court,” he said. “But if not, we’ll keep fighting to protect our right to self-determination.”

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

What if it was required political donations were anonymous rather than transparent? If the donations were collected by blind trust (or some such thing) anyone could say “I gave you X dollars.” Who the politician owed their loyalty to would be unknown to the politician!


It may be the problems of such a system would be fewer and less severe than those of complete transparency.

Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

Posted on by

The press is the only weapon with whose aid the Party every day speaks to the working class in the language of the Party.

Joseph Stalin
Contribution, Pravda, c. 1917
[From The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) .

Stalin was referring to the Soviet press but it generalizes quite well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Byrne

Posted on by

The problem is a literal inability to distinguish reality from fantasy in certain contexts.

In their world, there is no distinction between intention and result. No distinction between symbol and reality. No distinction between attempt, and accomplishment.

These idiots who go to meetings to “raise awareness”, genuinely believe they have accomplished something; because in their distorted reality, there is no difference between talking about something, and doing it.

To a liberal it doesn’t matter if what they do doesn’t work, because the INTENTION was to do something good, and intentions are the same as reality.

You can show them all the numbers, all the facts, all the reality of it that you want, they just don’t care.

They hate us, passionately, because we cause injury to their world view. We negate their sense of accomplishment. We prevent them from feeling the enhancement to their self esteem and self regard they wish to feel by “doing” whatever it is they are talking about.

Chris Byrne
September 25, 2010
Comment to A process failure.
[Yes.

As friend Jim G. once told me when I asked why was it that there are so few (or zero) mass demonstrations, marches, sit-ins, press conferences, etc. in support of our side? “It’s not our currency”, he said. Our currency are facts, reason, and votes. Their currency is emotion, intimidation, and ridicule.

With the Internet we are now in a much better position to take one piece of their currency away from them and use it for ourselves. Ridicule. Since they are frequently incapable of determining truth from falsity ridicule can be ours. Seize it. Use it.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Repeal of NFA ‘34 in its entirety isn’t viable in the near future. Not via courts and not via legislation.


But many parts of NFA ‘34 probably are vulnerable. Short barreled rifles and shotguns would seem to be at the top of the list with suppressors not too far behind.


In the next legislative session we should attempt to repeal some of these nonsensical restrictions. It may not be as cool as getting access to new full autos but it is probably a weak spot in the anti-gun defenses. And anytime you can cause the opposition to spend resources defending a losing battle you should give serious consideration to engaging them on that front. It also somewhat reduces the power of the ATF.


Even if it costs us twice as much (in dollars and political capital) as it does them they have far less than one half as much to spend. Every backward step they are forced to make brings them one step closer to the cliff of oblivion.

Disconnect from reality

Posted on by

Earlier this week I heard someone on the radio say something about, “The Bush unfunded tax cuts.”

My head nearly exploded.

Tax cuts are not “funded”. That is unless you think of all the money that belongs to the taxpayers actually belongs to the government and a tax cut, from their viewpoint of reality, means they are giving the taxpayer money.

Either the people that say such a thing are incredibly stupid or they have an entirely different view of reality than most people. In either case they have no business in politics or commenting on politics.

Quote of the day–Moshe Ben-David

Posted on by

It would be fun to coin a single word that describes Mark’s condition. Ignorance can be a temporary condition that can quickly be overcome with a little education. Stupidity can be organic or physical in nature. So, what shall we call it when you encounter a human who seems to have enough cognitive ability to function in society and even seemingly pass for having reasonable intelligence and yet beneath it all engages in the grossest forms of cognitive dissonance, and worse, willful ignorance? I don’t want to call it Markism because it would be too easily confused with Marxism, even though Marxism seems to be the logical reductio ad absurdum result of Markism.


Moshe Ben-David
September 23, 2010
Comment to My New Favorite Flag
[Via Kevin.


I know the basics of why this happens from the neurological side of things. Pathways in the brain that are repeatedly stimulated are turned into “information superhighways”. Nerve conduction can speed up by as much as a factor of 200 over those pathways that are seldom used. This applies to all pathways. As this happens less and less thought is required to arrive at the end result. This is why you can walk without thinking about it. You don’t need to think about every single muscle movement in order to take a single step without falling over. When you learn to ride a bike, form a habit, accept a religion, fall in love, or memorize the multiplication tables you are building those frequently used pathways. It becomes very, very difficult to deviate from those “superhighways”. You “just know” without having to think about it.


That other people don’t “know the obvious” or “accept the truth” is difficult to understand because it is comes so naturally, easily, and transparently to the speaker. The don’t understand themselves why they think that. “It just is”.


This is why I sometimes ask, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” It should, but frequently doesn’t, put up a road block on that “superhighway” encouraging them to carefully walk that same path examining every single step for legitimacy. Your thoughts are not limited by reality. You can believe things that are not true. You can believe things that are not even possible. You can believe things that are not even internally consistent. You can believe things that don’t even make sense (a square circle). If those pathways are sufficiently traversed the person will believe it without reservation.


I think it is a little unfair to put this burden all on Mark or to ridicule him excessively. I know people, including myself, on my side of the political debate have similar pathways formed. It is only by careful examination, frequently stimulated by spirited debate from those opposed to my belief system, that the pathways are formed over a solid foundation in reality. The real question is, “What is the best way to put up a ‘roadblock’ such that the leaps from realities are examined and rejected?” I don’t know the answer to that question beyond asking “How do you determine truth from falsity?” If that doesn’t work then there isn’t much that can be done other than, as Kevin is doing, using them as an example for others.


As a side note, I would like to point out that it has been almost a month since I asked ubu52 that question. Still no answer.


Update: ubu52 has a broken elbow and has to type one-handed. I’m giving her a two month pass.–Joe]