Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Couldn’t we all just join you at pool side. I tentatively will vouch for most of us, no splashing, no belly dives, no bikinis or speedos.

    JUST KIDDING…AND IF YOU ARE GIGGLING AFTER READING THIS, IT MEANS YOU ARE ON VACATION!

  2. SADIE says

    While Book is at the pool, I thought I’d share this site for those of you living on the East Coast (and yes, there is a West Coast Basin to view as well). Meteorologists and anchors alike seem to be swept up and away reporting on the weather, even if it’s not a direct threat. I have no idea how NOAA chooses names for the tropical storms, other than picking alternate male/female names.

    http://www.stormpulse.com/

    I thought a Sunday list of T.S. names with a political cast to them would be suds of fun.

    I am calling it the Fujita Scale of Justice Tropical Storm Season. You get to decide if it’s a F1, F2 and name it…..and I’ll start with the following and obvious entry and I am sure there are others F5′s and names/descriptions

    F5 category:
    Name of the storm: Nausea, brought on by a windstorm of voters who don’t want Washington’s version of health care reform/insurance.

  3. BrianE says

    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.

    Oh, I thought you meant ts eliot.

    OK,

    Name of the storm: Hillary, lots of sound and fury but lacks power.
    Had potential to be F5, but dropped to F1 before hitting land.

  4. says

    Let’s talk about maturity.

    Start Her Up

    Often we call younger people ‘immature’. Speaking as a former “young person”, I can speak from personal experience that whenever issues of maturity came up, I understood the negative connotations of immaturity but I did not understand the context. Immaturity is bad, yes, but what makes maturity good? How do you even know, if, in this case, you have not yet acquired maturity or even a model to compare it against?

    You don’t know the bad until you get a good hard glimpse of the good. So do just that. Have a glimpse of the good, just a glimpse. Read the link and follow the stories to their ultimate conclusion. I’ll wait.

    So what do you see there? Do you, as our dear Leftists in this nation would exclaim, potential killers, murderers, and accidents waiting to happen? Or do you see, as I do, free, armed, and responsible citizens, men and women, willing to kill and die for their beliefs (which includes the belief that their families have value)?

    And I ask, why do you think Leftists like Helen or other (even LIbertarian) gun control advocates use the argument that limiting other people’s right to life is worthy of laws that attempt to make guns less available in order to reduce gun related crime? Is eliminating gun related crimes such a worthy panacea that it should be traded for in the coinage of basic human rights? Of course not, but what makes armaments such a manifestly human right? Think about this and comment, if you will.

    I have my own opinions, of course, but I’d like to hear the views of others, gun owners or not. Is your ability to choose in what manner your life and the lives of your loved ones will be defended, simply a privilege that the majority can vote away in return for a more convenient conscience and a temporary safety from gun crimes? That’s a loaded question, of course, but we are living in the Age of Obama, after all. It’s wise to be loaded, for bear that is.

  5. BrianE says

    Y,
    I’m always surprised how the left can twist logic to suit there goal of eliminaton of firearms.
    I don’t own a pistol, and have a .22 around someplace, but my nephews have sufficient firepower to compensate, as do my wife’s family.
    I think open carry laws would be therapeutic.

  6. says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colostomy

    This is something that’d be interesting to use on terrorists.

    That was my second thought. My first thought was that it is rather disturbing and drastic a surgery. Which lead to the second thought.

    This doesn’t have much relationship with the former subject, of course. But it does tend to differentiate my thinking process from those of my peers.

  7. Danny Lemieux says

    Re. YM’s comment on guns: I have come to the conclusion that many people, mostly from the cocooned Liberal/Left, are afraid of guns because it reminds them that there are bad things hiding under their bed. They don’t want to confront that bad things can happen to them and want an adult (i.e., government) to make it all better for them.

  8. says

    BrianE, a lot of libertarians, when attempting to describe Bush’s anti-Constitutional acts and unConstitutional laws (Patriot Act), prefer Benjamin Franklin’s quote that “Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither”. Of course, that is what they were told he said. What he actually said was this: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    It wasn’t about any liberty for any security. It was about essential liberties, defined as essential, in return for little And temporary safety.

    If restricting guns from the arsenal of citizens would decrease all crime and do so permanently and for everyone, that would be a permanent security worth the limitation on liberty, on choice.

    But… well, that’s not the case, of course. And it also isn’t the case because people won’t argue the case. And they won’t argue the case because they don’t care about ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential’ liberties. They want it all. They want what they want, and they want it now.

    Libertarians believe that any sacrifice of liberty is invalid. But permanent security requires the restriction of liberty. That’s what “Need to Know” means. That’s what “OPSEC” means. That’s what “Top Secret” classifications require. They don’t require Full and Total liberty, giving everybody the choice on anything and everything.

    Instead of arguing about what is valid or invalid concerning the restrictions on liberty, they just point to Bush and the Patriot Act and say that because they restrict liberties they are invalid or un-Constitutional.

    Intellectual weaklings, really. Then again, that’s probably why they ape and support so many Leftist propaganda points in the last 4 or 6 years of the Iraq war.

    As for the Left, well you don’t want to get my started on the Left. It might not end.

    I bring this issue up, because Libertarians, or simply those in the middle who are either light Democrats or those like Ozzie (stuck on a fence not willing to go either way, while proclaiming one’s moral superiority over both houses), are notably one of the most consistent populations when it comes to conveniently sacrificing essential liberties for little and temporary safety.

    Not to portray people’s beliefs inaccurately, but the Libertarian party, which speaks for at least half of what Libertarians believe and act upon, would not support the liberation and security of 50 million Iraqis because it inconvenienced them at home. This is not promoting liberty. This is promoting temporary safety at the cost of really vital liberties. Somehow supporting Saddam’s liberties became all important, when it became time to consider the inconvenience of supporting a man like Bush.

    If that’s not a perversion of Franklin, I can’t quite imagine what would be.

    And they still have his quote wrong. Because they, like the rest of their Leftist allies, only know history because of what they were told. And they weren’t told anything particularly useful.

  9. BrianE says

    TS Eliot – The Hollow Men
    A penny for the Old Guy

    I

    We are the hollow men
    We are the stuffed men
    Leaning together
    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
    Our dried voices, when
    We whisper together
    Are quiet and meaningless
    As wind in dry grass
    Or rats’ feet over broken glass
    In our dry cellar

    Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

    Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
    Remember us – if at all – not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men.

  10. says

    RE: Danny’s 8.

    Fear is a major and vital component, in my opinion. The human mind, as opposed to an animal mind, is capable of imagination and thus, can feel the fear born of that imagination. A horse with its head covered in darkness can run right over a cliff and it will be in bliss, because it was ignorant. Until it hits the ground, that is.

    Humans, however, fear darkness. We fear being blinded. We fear, not because we know what can get us, but because we imagine what can get us. And what we imagine is usually far worse than what we actually know about or have experienced. The human mind is designed to deal with problems, to inquire and to resolve. When given an actual experience, an actual memory or problem, we get cracking on it. We don’t give up. But give us darkness, give us something born of our imagination, and we become unmanned due to fear and uncertainty.

    That’s how human nature is. And we can only hope that children who are afraid of the dark will learn to temper and discipline their feelings. But there’s more than one way to do this. You can ignore the fear, displace it or deny it, and act as if nothing has happened. This tends to happen with post traumatic shock patients. Or you can learn to deal with the problem and become empowered in the knowledge that however unknown or unfriendly the future may be, you have what it takes to deal with it on your own terms.

    The gun, in American culture, symbolizes the later. Cradle to Grave welfare, healthcare, and economic care symbolizes the former.

    It isn’t a surprise that people who accept and take firearms training no longer fear guns the way they did before. What they feared wasn’t an object. It was something born of imagination. It, essentially, did not exist. By having people look at reality and to learn how to deal with it, through training and education, you dispel their prejudices, their fears, and any rash reactions that may have resulted from that fear (villages in the past lynched strangers since it was easy to blame problems on them or ‘witches’).

    I don’t want people to live in fear, forever controlled by such emotions. I want them to break free of the shackles of human flaws. I want them to control their own lives, by their own beliefs and goals.

    I don’t think that is too much to ask, to demand of a truly civilized and good nation and government. But for Obama and his Legions, it is inconceivable.

  11. BrianE says

    II

    Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
    In death’s dream kingdom
    These do not appear:
    There, the eyes are
    Sunlight on a broken column
    There, is a tree swinging
    And voices are
    In the wind’s singing
    More distant and more solemn
    Than a fading star.

    Let me be no nearer
    In death’s dream kingdom
    Let me also wear
    Such deliberate disguises
    Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves
    In a field
    Behaving as the wind behaves
    No nearer -

    Not that final meeting
    In the twilight kingdom

    http://www.artofeurope.com/eliot/eli2.htm

  12. BrianE says

    Interview with Ian Wishart
    Vox Day interviewed Ian Wishart, author of Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming, on August 9th, 2009.

    VD: How did you end up deciding to write a book about the science of global warming? You’re in New Zealand, after all, which few would consider to be at the forefront of the debate.

    IW: New Zealand is a perfect example for Americans of where this global warming issue is headed. The UN lobbyists pushing for a comprehensive emissions cap and trade scheme desperately want agriculture included in the mix, which is why the IPCC announced last year that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture outweighed all of the industrial CO2 emissions caused by humans. However, the lobby groups know that they’ll never get American farmers herded into that particular pen unless the rest of the world is lined up first, and unless America first surrenders its national sovereignty to an overarching international governance organization like the UN. That’s the blunt description. The more ‘nuanced’ and diplomatic description is that first there has to be an agreement under international law that all participants bind themselves to – which is Copenhagen 09 – and the fine print of which allows recognized international agencies such as the World Trade Organization or others to impose sanctions, tariffs or other enforcement provisions against non-compliers with the full weight of the UN behind them….

    Much more here:
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/

  13. colorless.blue.ideas says

    Ymarsakar, thanks for your comment re libertarianism and the liberation of Iraq. I’d never looked at it in that way before, and will have to reflect on it.

    Bookworm: I appreciate your blogging very much, especially your reports of encounters with more statist types. I always have the worry that a form of groupthink will envelope this group, too, like it has with, e.g., the doctor you encountered. Thanks again.

  14. says

    I’m sure the lawyers here can make a case arguing for the other side. Just pretend they are your client.

    For other people, that kind of empathy and enemy analysis, getting inside their heads, can be accomplished with basic psychological warfare methods.

    And even if you exclude all of the above as measures against groupthink, there is always spycraft. Get people to pretend to be for the opposition, as evidenced by various satirical attempts posted here.

  15. suek says

    Here’s an interesting link – it sets out the “rules for radicals” by Alinsky, and also the link between the protesters and industry that libs keep talking about. I hadn’t seen any evidence, but it was being claimed – I think this is the basis for it. Pretty flimsy, imo, but there it is. Once again, the conservative quits his paid position, and the liberal – Tom Daschle – continues in his. At least Daschle isn’t _officially_ in the government. Not that he isn’t the source of much of the Health care plan…

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/08/rules-for-radicals-dick-armey-mexican.html

  16. Mike Devx says

    BrianE #10 The Hollow Men

    I haven’t run across that poem in a few years. A worthy reminder!

    Ymar said:
    > And I ask, why do you think Leftists like Helen or other (even LIbertarian) gun control advocates use the argument that limiting other people’s right to life is worthy of laws that attempt to make guns less available in order to reduce gun related crime? Is eliminating gun related crimes such a worthy panacea that it should be traded for in the coinage of basic human rights? Of course not

    The interesting thing I have noted is that the vast majority of gun violence is committed by those who will not just give up their guns as a social panacea.

    There was a story in our news here in Dallas a few days ago. Two young brothers and sisters were near a store when young punks drove up and got into an argument with them. They shot the brother dead. She was in tears in the interview. But the story was about a program where people would turn in their guns for $50 of free groceries, and she thought it was a great idea because it meant that people like her brother would no longer die so tragically.

    I have news for her. Those young punks are *not* giving up their guns for $50 of free groceries. A grandmother will give up the guns because her beloved (and gun-loving) husband has recently passed away. The father of a family will decide it is safer to do so. And so on. The young punks? Never. This program would not have saved her brother from the unfortunate encounter.

Leave a Reply