pages

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

as if I was an allergic person

I was told today, "Stop bitching about your allergies. There are plenty of folks worse off, like people with multiple personality disorders."

To which I replied, "That would actually be great. Chances are one of those personalities wouldn't have allergies."

a thoughtful person...

loves the expression, "Don't pick on nerds - you'll end up working for them one day."

Yes, because most playground brutes end up as research assistants in microbiology labs.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

worse than Watergate simply for the targets

from someone else
"At least Watergate was only targeted at other politicians...The Obama administration through these multiple scandals are targeting ordinary American citizens, a government using intimidation and thug tactics against 'perceived' enemies of 'state'. Did Obama call political opponents enemies? Yes. This is worse than Watergate."

Monday, May 20, 2013

a cleansing moment

It's high time we got all the "Dexter" fans, "Game of Thrones" fans and "Breaking Bad" fans together for a battle royale to thin the herd of the "I won't shut the hell up about my favorite show" crowd.

Friday, May 17, 2013

WWF Tag Teams That Might Have Been #01

Joshua Elder asks
Why did the Undertaker and IRS never form a tag team called "Death and Taxes?" #WWE #MissedOpportunities

Is the Onion's Parody Democrat Too Similar to the Real Thing?

Now this Onion article does describe perfectly well how Republicans view Democrats. I actually have seen real Democrats says this stuff. Now is it all tied together like this in every Democrat's head?
Amid mounting scrutiny over scandals involving last September’s attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, the IRS’ alleged targeting of conservative groups, and the Department of Justice’s spying on the Associated Press, Obama supporter Jake Maynard reportedly devised a perfectly implausible explanation Thursday that frees the president from any blame. “Look, he’s the President of the United States of America; how could he possibly be involved in or aware of every single high-level action taken by the prominent government agencies he oversees?” said Maynard, noticeably perspiring as he explained the completely illogical reason why the President of the United States will emerge from this week’s scandals unscathed. “Let’s watch this thing play out. I have no doubt that in a week, more than enough evidence will come out showing he had nothing to do with any of this. You’ll see.” Maynard, whose voice quavered several times during his asinine explanation, ended his perfectly invalid defense of the president by stressing that this was all politics and that “none of this would even be happening if the president were someone other than Obama.”
I have heard some leftists say that Benghazi simply has no legs, question what "the big deal is" and then near the end tell me about fake e-mails that Republicans created and that Chris Stevens deliberately requested no security. None of this helps me know what is going on.

Why Not End the Federal Reserve?

There is a very good reason not to go with the time-tested cliche uttered by many a follower of Congressman Ron Paul.
Ending the Fed may cause more harm than good. Most "end the Fed" people assume that we'd go onto sound money (like a fixed gold standard or a rules-based monetarist regime), but if the President and/or Congress has the authority to eliminate the Federal Reserve, they also have the authority to alter American monetary policy on a whim. If you think that elected officials would do a good job with monetary policy, remember - they can't even manage basic things half the time.
Michael Fisk, source

That's why! 

Thursday, May 16, 2013

government power is transferable

Frank Fleming says
This week's lesson: Only give the government power you'd be comfortable giving to vindictive, incompetent morons.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Stevens T. Mason


Republicanism and the Adversarial Expectation

I have never been in favor of "gay marriage" the way I hear about it on television (although I do have some ideas that should satisfy all sorts of moralists, libertarians, individuals, and people in love while infuriating social engineers and judgmental folk) and I certainly do not believe blanket amnesty should be absolutely available with the removal and forgiveness of reasonable consequences for illegal immigrants.

Yet despite those thoroughly right-wing stances I reject the notion that Republicans should regard homosexuals and immigrants (legal and illegal) as adversaries nor should any potential voter be treated as an adversary.  It is also true that taking imprudent actions that may lead to people believing themselves to be adversaries is ill-advised.

Certainly a Conservative or a Rightist or a Republican whose actions result in the election of a Democrat may consider themselves complicit in the ill-thought-out policies of a typical Democrat politician in that new position.  I do not consider that always to be the case, but it may be the absolute truth.

So accidental offense may be forgiven.  Genuinely treating someone like an enemy when they would be better off as a friend, when all you have to do is briefly explain a position and find common ground is a horrible crime.

So it is best not to treat people like they must vote against your ideas?

Now I would question why the pro-abortion organizations have a tight alliance with the Democrat political parties.  Why is that so appealing and so partisan?

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Republican Unity Terms

Where does Todd Courser get off preaching about "Unity" when his own conception of Republicanism is bifurcated?

The former candidate for Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party typically spaces out his tirades into chapters, each about one or two sentences and each of these chapters is a separate post on Facebook, typically all sections of one weird self-righteous screed. Typically one of these screeds is phrased in the form of questions, as if he read PLATO'S REPUBLIC a few too many times and got the wrong message from it. The point of these questions is usually a passive-aggressive lashing out at the people that defeated him in his ideological action last February.

Now these usually stem directly from a misguided Republican ideology. While hypothetically we agree politically on almost everything the fact that Courser and his ilk dismiss anything resembling strategy if it only wins a fraction of their overall goals means something. I would never attack Todd Courser as the cause of an issue or as a problem specifically. I value his ability to manifest a particular ideological viewpoint within the Republicans. Yet what he talks about is often troubling. As I said it is not a cause or a true rallying towards anything. It is an articulated symptom of a problem that is growing within American politics.

I believe it can be addressed. I hope Mr Courser appreciates that I use his words to actually facilitate the discussion he claims to wish to have. I don't want to shut him down nor shut him out and I would rather not claim him as an adversary.

(One of my ultimate points that I will effectively make this year is that the people we need to win our own cause are the ones we don't want to artificially cast in the role of adversary).

The following was all taken from my Facebook feed the morning of May 12, 2013.

12:25 AM
GOP establishment is all about unity till they loose a county party to the grassroots. then they boycott every meeting and events? Unity?
12:28 AM
There are county GOP establishment who have lost and they set up competing organizations refusing to attend meeting. so no quorum. Unity?
12:31 AM
In states where a grassroots candidate has won, establishment losers have either stripped the party and/or accounts. Leaving a shell.Unity?
12:33 AM
Is there a situation where the establishment loses the state GOP and works to build a team or are they only about unity when they own it?
12:35 AM
Is the unity thing a one way street? They want unity when they are in charge but when they are not do they take their ball and go home?
The situations he describes accidentally reflect what occurred with my Eaton County Republican Party, albeit from a jaundiced perspective that likely provides a mildly inaccurate narrative of the real events.

So what actually happened and what occurs from there? I will tell you on a day unlike Mother's Day.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Obama DisLawyer

A lot was made at different times about the President attending Harvard Law and being Editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.  It was mentioned that he was a Constitutional Law Professor (which is not true but can be parsed later when his Presidential term is long over).  The funny thing is for all of those important elements of his biographical narrative the President cannot practice law, legally.

My old buddy John Long says so.  He is correct.
 I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel — and that’s a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license... he “voluntarily surrendered” her license in 1993.  Let me explain what that means.  A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something i need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license.  No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something... when I searched for “Obama”, I found this:
Barack Obama law license
“Voluntarily retired” — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too.
This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn’t seem to give a crap about his law license... So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady — who don’t actually have licenses to practice law.
Neat. Why do we not know more?

Friday, May 10, 2013

nationwide fake tea party organization sends out angry fundraising missive mentioning IRS

For Immediate Release
May 10, 2013
TheTeaParty.net to IRS: "Apology not accepted"
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In response to IRS officials today admitting that its agents actively targeted Tea Party groups for increased scrutiny during the 2012 election,  the nation's largest Tea Party group and a subject of IRS inquiries over the past year, issued the following statement:

"What we've long suspected to be the case is now confirmed to be true. The Obama administration has used the IRS as a political weapon. The IRS may claim that it is 'sorry.' But given the damage that has been done, their apology is not accepted," said Niger Innis, Chief Strategist for TheTeaParty.net.

"What would Democrats have done if the Nixon administration ordered the IRS to actively target the National Organization of Women or the American Civil Liberties Union? Nixon had his own enemies list and resigned. These activities are eerily similar, and yet Obama remains in office even in light of Fast and Furious, the Benghazi tragedy, and now the active targeting of his political opposition. We demand a thorough independent investigation into who did what, when, why, and how far up into the administration this scandal goes. We would expect intimidation like this from third-world, tin-pot dictators, not our own US government."


###

Media Contact: 
Lauren Ehrsam 
(214) 995-1714 
Lauren@javelindc.com

Garey Busey heads Abercrombie and Fitch?

Quite an uproar over Abercrombie and Fitch this week. Despite the haters, I believe that "cool" and "attractive" should indeed be defined by a 68 year old man who looks like he was dropped in a vat of acid then beaten repeatedly with a bag of potatoes.

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Mike Huckabee on Barack Obama and 15-year-old girls

from Huckabee's Facebook page
Same-sex marriage isn’t the only issue where President Obama’s opinion has “evolved” to the opposite side. He announced that he’s now “very comfortable” with the FDA’s decision to make the Plan B-One Step morning-after birth control pill available to girls as young as 15 without a prescription. Previously, he’d said it should remain prescription only for all girls below 17, and that he was uncomfortable with minors being able to buy morning-after birth control pills alongside batteries and bubble gum. But even that flip didn’t flop far enough for his liberal base. Critics on the left are slamming his Justice Department for appealing a judge’s ruling that the morning-after pill should be available to all girls with no restrictions, regardless of age, to protect contraceptive rights.

I think they’re overlooking something important. The FDA has approved a lot of things that later turned out to be harmful and had to be withdrawn. In light of that, is it really a great idea to start handing out any powerful adult drug to the very young without a parent’s permission or a doctor’s supervision?

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

the Marketplace Fairness Act is unfair

This is not mine.
The so-called Marketplace Fairness Act was designed to cure a problem that doesn’t exist. Currently, states and municipalities that levy a sales tax on their inhabitants can force those merchants residing within their borders to collect their taxes. However, they cannot touch merchants outside their jurisdictions. Naturally, locals avoid these levies by using the internet to buy their stuff sales tax free, leaving the tax collectors fuming and fussing. It should not be considered a problem when tax collectors are unhappy.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would require businesses grossing more than a million dollars a year to start collecting taxes for all these states and municipalities for free. In other words, it takes small businesses and forces them to spend their time and money doing the dirty work of hundreds of different state and municipal entities. How could that possibly go wrong? The high tax states and cities love the idea. It gets them a nationwide army of tax collectors working for free to rake in more money which these entities can then squander.

Who else wants it? Brick-and-mortar retailers in high tax localities want it too. Anything that makes internet shopping less attractive – like jacking up the price of web buying with sales taxes – is a-ok with them.

But why do the big companies love the idea? This law is just another exercise in manipulating the government to tilt the playing field toward the behemoths. Big corporations can easily hire the extra staff and pay the additional costs of doing the sales tax collecting – but it’s a huge deal to their competition. The little companies that the internet made possible can’t just hire a bunch of folks to do all the uncompensated work associated with processing the paperwork for the benefit of far-away localities.

Small businesses only have a handful of employees -- they don’t have economies of scale. They spend most of their time trying to ensure they have a profit at all.

Making small businesses do free collection work for faraway government entities makes them even smaller. The giant companies don’t want free enterprise. They want regulations, regulations they can easily comply with (by passing the costs on to us) but which kill their competition. And who is the competition? The victims of this Act will be the kind of small businesses that people boycott Walmart to "support."

And who else gets hurt? Well, ordinary American families who like to shop via their laptops. They get hit with a giant tax increase, which is all that the Marketplace Fairness Act is. The Senate passed it today. President Obama says he supports it. Hopefully, the House of Representatives says no and protects small business and the average American consumers.
A counterpoint:
For free...no, they would be like any other company that gets to keep a percentage of the tax they collect.

Also, I pay use tax every year on my Michigan Tax Return for purchases my family makes on the Internet. Everyone should also. But they don't, instead they see it as a discount.

The current Michigan law states that use tax is do if you buy anything and have not pay sales tax somewhere. It's pretty simple, but people always try to find ways to skirt the law.

Buying stuff on the Internet and not paying sales or use tax of 6% is against Michigan law.

Again, as I stated before, it is not a new tax. It is a bill that closes a loop hole in the tax law and we should all be in favor of closing ALL loop holes and not just the ones that don't affect us.

I already pay my tax for Internet purchases, because I owe it. Now it is everybody else's turn. If people would be ethical and pay what they owe then we wouldn't need "An army of tax collectors working for "free"".

Taxes are never fair.
You have 3 options of remitting the sales tax collected on behalf of the State of Michigan. They are:

1) If you remit your sales tax by the 12th of the month you get a discount in the amount of:

Your sales tax collected × .6667 (the discount is only
on the original 4%) × .0075

2) If you remit your sales tax by the due date on the 20th you get a discount in the amount of:

Your sales tax collected ×.6667 × .005

This is to offset some of the cost of collecting the sales tax for the State of Michigan

3) If you pay late then no discount.

Here is a website.

www.michigan.gov/documents/taxes/78_255401_7.pdf
I don't believe I like the "use tax" either.  I don't care for sales tax.  I don't like income tax.  I like taxes in general but our methods of taxation are far too invasive.


the Rules of Violence

I read this article, told in the form of a chronological narrative, discussing a father raising his son and the need to curb and direct a male's natural violent instincts.  The question arises and is answered as to when the application of violence is moral.  The ideal of eliminating violence itself, entirely, is unrealistic and in certain circumstances outright immoral. As a father he instituted proper rules.
what about my stance against violence? I had grown up with violence in my home. I had taken a strong, philosophical stand against using violence in any form as a way to solve problems. How could I allow this with my sons? Shouldn’t I be telling my boys that no violence is acceptable? After all, I’d always told them their rough and tumble play was okay as long as no one got hurt.
But then I realized I was not being completely honest. I did believe in violence in some circumstances. In fact, I expected and even demanded violence. Particularly from men. For instance, if a man is with or near a woman or child who is being threatened or harmed, I fully expect that man to step in to defend her or the child. If he did not, I would have no respect for him as a man, or even as a human being. Harsh, but true. I expect myself to be violent with anyone who would attempt to harm my child. The Mama Bear. I expect that of most mothers as well.
So, instead of simply forbidding violence, I decided to teach my sons the rules of violence:
  1. You may harm someone who is harming someone small or helpless
  2. You may harm someone who is harming you
  3. You may harm someone who is harming a female
  4. Do not strike first if at all possible
  5. Use the least amount of force necessary
I let them know, that these rules apply to them no matter where they are. I did not care if the school had different rules. They are human beings with the same rights to safety, self-defense and the defense of others, as every other human being. I would defend them to the bitter end if they decided to step in and do the right thing. After all, I would allow myself to strike someone who hit me. Why should my child have any fewer rights?
Well there are reasons to allow a child fewer rights, contextually. The fact remains though that at some point we must trust the judgement of our children. This is not generally a discussion of when to use lethal force, after all, but when to strike a human being on supposedly equal ground.

For all practical purposes this is about how to treat bullies, and how our children should treat their intended bullies.
One day, I got a call at work from the principal. He told me my son had attacked a boy in the locker room for no reason and would be suspended for a week. I didn’t believe that for a second. I demanded to speak to my son. Adrian was afraid of being a “rat” so he hadn’t told the whole truth. I promised him whatever he said would be kept in confidence, so he told me the real story.
Outside, during gym class, three boys were taunting him. He ignored them, so they ramped it up, ultimately informing him he would be “jumped” sometime during or after school that day. So, my son decided he was not going to live with that threat, and when they went into the locker room to change, he attacked the boy who threatened him, punching him hard in the head.
The boy who got beat up wasn’t very happy about it because he lost the fight. He told on my son and of course, left out the part about threatening to jump my son. My son had refused to tell that part, too.
When it was brought to the principal’s attention, he believed the original story. But no one else did. Every teacher and the counselor said that it couldn’t have happened that way because they knew my son was a well-behaved and respectful kid. I agreed.
I went to the school and advocated for my son. He ended up with a one-day, in-school suspension. I agreed he deserved a punishment of some sort because he did, after all, throw the first punch. I understood why he did it. I might have done the same thing. But he certainly didn’t deserve anything drastic. It was still, after all, self-defense.
When my son came home that day, I told him I supported his decision. I explained the error he made in hitting first and instructed him on calling the bully out. I told him, If a boy says he’s going to jump you, just tell him to do it right then and there. Then, if he tries to hit you, you can hit him back.
Since that day in 6th grade, not one single boy has ever bullied my son in any way
This is an example of how rules can be freeing, instead of restrictive.  Application of a just rule eliminates confusion and fear that would otherwise would curb a just action or reaction.  The fact is that bullies usually don't like violence either, they just desire power.

This sort of clarity that a contextual and conditional structure brings allows growth to the full and prevents fear from ruling our expectation, our reactions, and thus eliminates possible inaction.
I think that instead of teaching our kids NOT to be violent we need to teach them HOW and WHEN to be violent. We have so many stories of people standing around watching others getting assaulted or verbally attacked and we don’t know why. We have thousands of self-defense classes all over the country. We have anti-bullying programs that tell us to stop bullying but offer no concise steps telling us how. Honestly ask yourself, if you don’t know that you can physically defend yourself, would you really step in to verbally confront someone who is being physically and verbally threatening? I know I wouldn’t.
If we are to raise boys who are willing to step in when a girl is being attacked or fight back when a boy is being vicious, we are going to have to admit that we DO expect violence in some scenarios and teach them the fine lines to walk within. Why wait to learn self-defense as an adult? Why not let them learn it, as they are growing up, with the guidance of their parents? Maybe not all is violence is so bad after all.
It is probably best to read the article yourself, and in full.  If nothing else it is a tad more heart-warming.

Although an alternate route of spreading the same message is to quote a contemporary children's cartoon character: