Just wrong

Yet another example of the level of callousness we have reached in this country is some networks treatments of the pummelling of the South by Katrina.

I was watching the NFL Network the other night and heard something I literally didn't believe I'd heard. I turned and asked the roomies if I was imagining it or not. We all heard it and were all just speechless. The anchor was talking about the damage to the Superdome where people were sheltering from the storm. He spoke about parts of the roof being torn off and flooding on the lower levels. Now, most people would be asking where the refugees within the dome would be evacuating to or if they'd just try and stick it out. Instead, this individual asked if the damage to the Superdome would delay the Saints home opening game next month. I'll repeat that in case it didn't sink in. This anchor completely ignored the people who were currently homeless and living in the dome and asked about a FOOTBALL GAME!!!

Now, I realize that this anchor was on the NFL Network which is a football oriented channel(shock and surprise) but when you're dealing with a natural disaster that has essentially wiped out an entire city is it really appropriate to ask about whether or not a football team can play a game? Have we really reached the point where we are so desensitized to the people around us that we're more concerned about a game?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge football fan. I watch as much as I can when it's football season, but I realize there are things more important than the game. If there's a wreck outside my house I'm gonna go help the people out. The game isn't important at that point.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy. He does work for the NFL Network after all. I just think that the degree of detachment he displayed by asking that question is disturbing.

Unreported Terrorist Attack

Recently we had a terrorist attack within my place of business. Here are the applicable communiques from/with the terrorists. Names have been removed to protect co-workers from vicious retaliation from these....well, vicious pen-nappers.


I am looking for a very special item. It may look ordinary to you, but it is very special. There has been a misplaced pen that needs to come home. It is a black and mostly silver Zebra mechanical pen. If you found it laying about, or if seen it as it ran across the floor, please bring it back to me. I would be most grateful.

Thank you for your assistance,


As you can see it all started with a simple request for the return of a missing loved one. This heartfelt cry resonated through the office sparking an energetic search for the lost pen. Gasps of horror wear heard across cubicle walls upon receipt of the following e-mail.

Never!! The capitalist pigdog pen must be sacrificed to show the solidarity of our cause. Down with evil ink pens and their imperialist masters. Long live the fighters.

Your friend,

Mohammed Atta-boy bin Il Jong

Fearful of any harm befalling the innocent and far too young pen the company decided not to involve the police and requested the safe return of their beloved writing utensil.


Please let the pen go!! It's only been on this earth a short time and deserves a chance to live till it's ink has run out. Imagine if it were your pen. Would you want to see it taken in such a manner? Please send it back and we can treat this like a bad joke


The reply left no doubt that we were dealing with deadly serious, though misguided, individuals.

This is not a joke. The revolution lives on. We will be releasing a tape of the de-capping of the pen along with our demands......wait, if we've already de-capped the pen how can we demand anyth......Damnit. Brother Abu Hugo al bin Zaraqwi Chavez go get another pen to sacrifice.

Hugo?

He's dead?!? You idiots!! Robertson said kill Hugo Chavez, not Abu Hugo al bin Zaraqwi Chavez!! That's it!! No soup for you!

To the heathen owner of the evil Zebra, take consolation in the fact that your pen, though an infidel, died for a much higher cause. I can't tell you what that cause is because we can only do that with appropriate press coverage but it's a very high, noble cause. Think Krispy Kreme's for all level of cause. You fat Americans should understand that.


At this point the people around the office started nodding in understanding for they did know the glory that is Krispy Kreme and did agree that it should be available for all on demand. With such a strong case before them the cubicle dwellers returned to their desks with a better understanding and feeling of comradeship with the nappers of the pen.




Epilogue

As there was no press coverage for this incident and no law enforcement involvement(surprising considering the donuts involved) the perpetrators of this insidious scheme were never apprehended. The owner of the lost pen has mourned her loss and moved on. She's even recovered enough to purchase a new pen(she had to get a Bic as she couldn't look at a Zebra yet). And, to prove they weren't such bad guys, the terrorist kidnappers sent her a box of a dozen glazed Krispy Kreme's to show they had no hard feelings.

The moral of the story is something that visionaries like Michael Moore and Jane Fonda have been saying for years. The terrorists aren't bad guys once you get to know them. Just don't be American, non-Islamic, and above all, don't buy Zebra pens. They really hate those.

Book it

For the record, I am a bookworm. I read just about everything I can get my hands on. Normally, this takes the from of fiction. More specifically it's usually sci-fi. However, there are the occasional exception. I'm currently reading 3 different books and none of them are sci-fi.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

So far this has been an amazing read. In the past my choices of literature about WW2 were usually confined to stories about specific battles or operations. This book is something I would say everyone should read at some point in their lives just for the history that you wouldn't normally get from a textbook. More on this when I've finished it.

The Elder Gods by David and Leigh Eddings

I've only read one other book by these two and have found it near impossible to read anything David wrote solo. The other book they wrote, and I enjoyed immensely, was Redemption of Althalus. These are quick reads due to the simplistic writing style but the story and characters don't suffer for it. They are people(or gods) that you can identify with and understand. A similar example would be just about anything John Ringo writes. Very simple writing but solid story and fantastic characters. The Elder Gods is just book one in what is, so far, a three book series. Hopefully the continue through the series with the same success.


Battle Royale

Warning, this is not a book for the squeamish or easily offended. Some of my favorite authors are H.P. Lovecraft and Clive Barker so graphic violence or psychological suffering are par for the course with me. This import swiftly became one of my all-time favorites so I'm reading it yet again. The basic storyline is that there's an Asian country where the state has a mandatory 'Lord of the Flies' style program. They take a class of junior high students to an isolated area and force them to kill each other until only one is left. Phenomenal characters and just a great overall story. I highly recommend this book but with the above warning as my qualifier. Don't read it and then complain to me how it was too bloody or disturbing. If you liked the book, the movie was pretty good too. Not sure if it's available in the states or not(thank god for bittorrent).

Anyway, these are just what I'm reading right now. I'll probably have them all done before Sunday and move on to something else. For those interested, here's my list of favorite authors.

Robert Heinlein
Stephen King
Clive Barker
H.P. Lovecraft
David Wingrove(Chung Kuo series is incredible)
Ayn Rand
Anne Rice
George R. R. Martin(finish the series damnit)
J. R. R. Tolkien(duh)
Douglas Adams
Michael Moorcock
Frank Miller
J. Michael Straczynski
Neil Gaiman


Have fun people. Remember to put down the remote or Xbox control every now and then and go read.

Elephants

Well, better late than never. I used the lefties as my whipping boys the other day and now it's on the right-wingers.

People used to believe in the Republican party as the small government, lower taxes, lower interference party. Well, thanks to this administration those feelings have fled the vast majority of citizens. The Republican party has only manged to prove one thing while they ran things: that they were no different than the Dems. You have instituted the creation, not expansion but brand spankin new creation, of a so-called Homeland Security Dept which constitutes the biggest addition to government bureaucracy in decades. You have lower taxes but not cut spending so that our deficit is getting worse. I know the CBO projected a lowering of the deficit, but that was also short term. They project a sky-rocketing deficit down the road.

My biggest issue with the right side of the political sphere right now is not the beginning of Homeland Security or the fiscal mismanagement. Those are both areas where they had help from the Dem's but can still be corrected if we ever got some responsible politicians. My major issue with the right wingers right now is your inability to understand that I may actually be capable of making my own decisions. You are making the exact same mistake that people like Hillary Clinton make. You think that you can tell us what to do because it's for our own good. Guess what? I am fully capable of choosing what is and isn't for my own good. I don't need you to tell me what guns I can buy, what video games I can play, or what movies I watch. If I do something stupid and get hurt then it's my fault. Not yours. You can keep your hands and your principles out of my life. Thanks, but no thanks. For a party that professes to believe in liberty and personal determination you are making yourselves out to be liars.

The elephants are also just as guilty of partisan attacks as the donkey's are. They have no problem engaging in personal attacks for political gain. This obsession with eradicating the political opposition has become the hallmark of modern politics and it's doing no good for anyone.

Bottom line, both parties are nearly identical. The differences are superficial at best and currently, both are bad choices for anyone who believes in the ideals of personal responsibility and the liberty that goes with it.

Let this be an example to you

Okay, I know I said I was gonna take on the Republicans yesterday but due to circumstances beyond my control, that didn't happen. It's not going to happen today either as something that I feel is more important has cropped up. I will get to those elephants though, don't worry about that.

Today though we've been starting to see some of the results that come from giving in to terrorist acts. Israel has begun their pullout from Gaza. This has been the purported goal for Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, and just about every anti-Israel group out there...well, one of their goals anyway but killing all Jews just isn't on this weeks agenda. Anyway, what's the first thing to happen when the pullouts begin? Do these groups say, "Thanks, that's all we wanted." Nope. In fact, they're already making noise about how this pullback is just Israel's way of making borders "without negotiation."

Considering that these groups are now saying "First Gaza and we won't stop till Jerusalem" I'm interested in what 'borders' these people would want and why they think Israel needs to negotiate. Did the Arab nations try to negotiate borders after the British withdrawal in '48? Did they try to negotiate before staging a multi-national attack in '56? No and no. Get this through your skulls people, Israel is there and is not going anywhere. For that matter, you got what you wanted so shut the hell up and sit down.

What will truly be interesting is how those who cry about Israel's 'atrocities' and 'illegal occupation' will say now that they got what the wanted but the Palestinians still want more. Will they say to the Palestinians, "You got what you wanted you need to stop and leave Israel alone" or will they find some new way to justify demanding Israel give up more land and security? This is what's called a suckers bet.

To those who feel that Israel has been the bully in this situation I have a question for you. When is enough? How far out into the sea do you need to push Israel before you can say they've given up enough? They are surrounded by countries that would love nothing more than to see them dead. They are vastly outnumbered by their enemies in that region. They have suffered through decades of suicide bombings and vicious, unprovoked attacks on their country. What would you have them do?

They have, in my mind, actually responded with amazing restraint. How long do you think it would take the Israeli military to level every Palestinian dwelling in Gaza or the West Bank? I give it 2 to 3 weeks and that's if they took their time. How many of your family members or neighbors would you be willing to watch die before you decided to take the battle to the enemy attacking you? If you are of the Jane Fonda/Michael Moore school of thought you don't need to answer, you would've been destroyed in the first "illegal" or "unprovoked" or "reckless" or "(insert word used to describe Israel in the media here)" attack on Israel back in '47.

Wake up people. Giving the terrorists what they demand only gives them reason to ask for more. This war with terror isn't about Afghanistan or Iraq. It's been ongoing for decades. The Palestinians response to getting what they wanted is indicative of all terrorist reaction; "You gave in on this, now give us more."

When will we ever learn?

This really doesn't surprise me at all. It's just another example of a regime using the negotiating table to buy some time. North Korea anyone? Will the politicians ever begin to learn from their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it.

Granted, this recent incarnation of political idiocy was the EU's baby but the problem is the same on our side of the pond. Politicians have become more obsessed with defeating their political rivals than with dealing with the enemies of their respective countries. George Galloway is a perfect example of this, as is Howard Dean. Both of these 'gentlemen' resort to personal attacks against their political opponents but rarely say anything that actually deals with true issues. Until the politicians become more interested in their country instead of themselves we'll have problems like this.

We currently have several nuclear nations in the world and, so far, the US is the only one to use them in anything other than testing. The reason that DPRK and Iran are so worrisome though is because they are both countries with no reservations about selling their weapons on the open market. Iran is already supporting the terrorists in Iraq with shaped charges and high yield explosives. What makes people think that they wouldn't be willing to give the terrorists nukes and then point the finger at the US? Or for DPRK to sell nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah to use against the US or Israel? Far-fetched? Maybe, but still more than possible enough that we should be concerned especially when a country enters into good faith negotiations with no intention of accomplishing any form of compromise.

The most troublesome thing on the domestic front is how the left is looking more and more like the EU in regards to negotiations and giving people a second chance...and a third and fourth ad infinitum. It shouldn't be surprising considering their approach to various social issues(throw money at it) or education(more government oversight) or crime(disarm citizens). None of their approaches have ever been proven to work. Quite the opposite in fact. The ares in the US with unarmed populations have higher murder and robbery rates. The education programs with the most government intrusion are the worst when it comes to graduating kids and the social programs that they keep throwing money at are getting more and more in debt. If they're willing to ignore the history for their own choices at home, why would they act any differently when dealing with foreign powers? As this most recent flap with Iran shows they didn't.

So why is it typically one side of the political spectrum that errs over and over in this same way? Pretty much it's how they view people at a fundamental level. If you look at the Dem's in the US you'll see a constant pattern of politicians believing the people are good at their basic level. That given the opportunity we will all make good. Silly things like facts and history don't interest them because they 'know' that they're right and these people are really not bad. Sound familiar? It should. There's another group that says the same kind of thing: abused spouses. Regardless of how much evidence is given they will still defend the person abusing them because "they really don't want to be that way. They really want to stop and be good."

I know that I'm gonna get blasted for equating people on the left to victims of abuse but the same pattern hold true across their policies for the last 4 decades. Until they realize that the world is not the happy place they want it to be and deal with reality as it is they will not break out of their cycle. The sad thing about their mentality is that it's a self-perpetuating delusion. If anything bad happens to the US then it was cuz the other guy was provoked by the right. If anything good happens then it just reinforces their view of humanity. Who needs truth when you can manufacture your reality?

For the Repub's cheering me on right now, make sure you come back tomorrow when I deal with your party. We'll see if you change your tune.

You have the right to remain silent...

Unless you happen to be a nominee for the Supreme Court. If that's the case then you have no rights whatsoever....or so certain publications and people would have you think. This nomination of Judge Roberts has garnered some rather surprising treatment. Rather, I should say some hypocritical treatment. There are certain media publications that are trying to get certain records pertaining to Judge Roberts personal life and these actions are being applauded by many on the left.

The ironic thing is that these people who think that Judge Roberts has no privacy rights are the same people who maintain that the Constitution has a guaranteed right to privacy. This is the logic they use to defend the SCOTUS ruling on Roe vs Wade. So basically we have a group of people who feel that privacy is guaranteed by the US Constitution but it doesn't apply when they want to know details of someone's personal life. What kind of approach is this? You choose when and where to apply your 'guaranteed' rights. There's a word for that kind of philosophy: HYPOCRISY!!

If you are can only apply your principles when you feel like it then they aren't principles. They're not standards. They're not even decent ideas. They're simply wastes of all our time. To be honest, I don't care if you agree with me or not on various points but at least be consistent within your own worldview. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Rights vs Privileges

Stephen at Fearless philosophy for Free Minds has run a series of posts recently on the rights of children as he sees them. I'm not going to address his individual points as his comments section has already seen to that. What I'm going to talk about is the apparent confusion these days about the difference, if any, between rights and privileges.

Usually the easiest way to tell if words are fundamentally different is to just look up the definitions. A privilege is defined as "a special advantage, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a certain class, caste, or individual." The definition for a right is listed as "something due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Even though I may quibble about the wording of the definitions these still appear, to me, to be very straightforward in their differences. To make it clearer though, I'm going to see if which definition we can apply to one of the more contentious of issues when it comes to this argument: healthcare.

In order for healthcare to be a right, it would have to be due to a person thru law, tradition or nature. Well, the first is easy. There is no law that grants a person the right to healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare just pay for it they don't grant any rights. There is no tradition in our civilization that says healthcare is a right for any of us so that's out. How about nature? Well, an argument could be made that healthcare and modern medicine are actually against nature. If you get sick, it's a natural process and by taking antibiotic to get well you are not working with your natural immune system so there is no way healthcare can be labeled a right due to nature. Breaking the definition down, healthcare fails to be a right on all counts.

But is it a privilege as some people, including sometimes myself, have labeled it? It's definitely an advantage or benefit but is it only available to a certain class, caste, or individual? With the various government programs out there it's availability is not restricted to any particular class or individual
within this country. Because the quality of healthcare available to Americans is not a pattern for the rest of the world then a case can be made for it being a privilege.

I've gotten to the point where I feel there needs to be an addendum to it being listed as simply a privilege though. It goes a step beyond getting rock-star parking when you make partner at the firm. Healthcare involves the delivering of a service in return for compensation. With that extra bit thrown in it becomes a commercial privilege. If you have the means with which to compensate the provider for their services then you can utilize this privilege. This is a privilege that requires the recipient to enter into an agreement with someone in order to receive the benefits the privilege entails.

This argument over healthcare being a right or a privilege comes back to that idea of personal responsibility. With the erosion over the past few decades of the idea that a person is accountable for themselves and their actions it's a logical progression to the idea that healthcare would been seen as a right. If there is no personal responsibility then there is no need for a patient to pay for the services they've received and healthcare becomes something due to the citizen instead of something they just have access to.

This started off as a contrast between the ideas of rights and privileges but ended up more of a rant on many people's notions on healthcare and whether or not it's something due to people. As you can see above healthcare is a commercial privilege so that the only time that you are due healthcare is when you have compensated the provider for it. So even with the mild tangent this still works as a solid example of the difference between rights and privileges. Hopefully we can get rid of some of the confusion surrounding these two concepts because as long as people see privileges as rights we will continue on the slow downward spiral that we've been in for the past few decades.