The smallest minority

Life via Permission

2012-01-30T17:04:00.000-08:00

Anti-freedom is institutionalized in this country...imagine if our laws, regulations and institutions were objectively based on individual rights- and the litmus test for any new law or regulation was 'how does this law protect individual rights'?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/01/28/2-students-face-expulsion-for-sharing-an-asthma-inhaler/

I realize there are certain acts that are so reckless the test wouldn't apply and some level of subjectivity is needed- ie- no one's rights are violated by me going out and getting wasted and then driving home if I don't crash into anyone. The problem is power hungry politicians, bureaucrats and collectivists in general take preventative laws like drunk driving and use the slippery slope to pass laws and regulations aimed at protecting us from ourselves- passing laws which prohibit acts which violate no one's rights, nor are egregiously reckless.

To make matters worse the laws and policies are purposely written to ensure what Ayn Rand would describe as 'context-dropping'; meaning for judges and prosecutors to follow the letter of the law they must cast aside personal reason and rationality. At the highest levels you get cases like the US Marine who was arrested for having a gun in New York City now facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 yrs in prison if convicted (despite the fact that owning a gun is supposed to be a Constitutionally protected right). At lower levels in society you have students facing expulsion for a non-malicious act- an act which not only did not violate anyone's individual rights- but a panicked act meant to help a person in need. And naturally the non-thinking, anti-mind superintendent toes the ill-written school policy line to a 't'.

I think the quote below aptly describes what is happening in America as we descend into a police-state.

“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ~Ayn Rand

How much money does Star Valley AZ make?

2012-01-21T13:17:00.001-08:00

Off of their dual RedFlex radar cams? 56mph in a 45 zone? $211 ticket. Welp, there's money I could have put back into productive sectors of this fledgeling economy- but instead I'll give it to the piece of shit, little truck stop town of Star Valley. Way to help make things worse. Fuck you.

http://www.ci.star-valley.az.us/thecouncil.html

On Soundness of Mind

2012-01-11T14:23:00.001-08:00

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" ~Voltaire

It's 2012; we are living in the most technologically advanced time in human history. Modern science has answered and continues to answer mysteries of life on Earth as well as the basic building blocks of the universe and time itself. Our progress as a species is in thanks not in blind faith, but rather the constant and free pursuit of knowledge guided by evidence based reason, sound logic and adherence to reality.

One of the byproducts of this pursuit, besides the highest quality of life the world has ever known, is a generally skeptical populous- and this is a good thing. People demand logical reasoning, supported by either tangible evidence or sound mathematic or scientific theory before acceptance of a claim or product. This is not to say that everyone is held to the same stringent standards- I give Theo Epstein and Christopher Nolan more leeway in their claims than say someone selling a product that claims to regrow my hair. However in general, we judge not only ideas and claims on their logical merits, but also those who make those views or hold those claims. I also believe this to be a good thing- the more flawed ideas as well as those who ascribe them are challenged, even ridiculed; the more society eschews faulty or even dangerous ideas, and in some cases the hate-mongers and con-men who espouse them.

Unfortunately there is still one bubble of thought where it is still not only perfectly acceptable to cast aside every faculty which brought us to this advanced point in human history, it is also acceptable to hurl vicious labels at those who openly challenge the gleeful ignorance protecting said bubble. Of course I am talking about religion. Question a person's religious views or call them out for being clearly absurd and you are labeled a bigot or accused of prejudice. We are told to look beyond a political candidate's religious beliefs and instead focus on the candidate's platform- that whatever ridiculous belief system they blindly follow is some sort of 'personal' issue. Utter nonsense. If anything these beliefs should be of primary concern when electing policymakers. Beyond offering an insight into a person's upbringing it also offers an insight into the person's mind itself- ie, how willing is this person to knowingly shut it off. A scary thought when talking about electing a high-office.

It's time we stop excluding absurd religious beliefs from scorn and criticism out of fear of being labeled bigots. I wouldn't vote for someone who believed the Earth was flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen so why am I a bigot because I refuse to vote for someone who believes in the writings of a known con-man & pedophile who claimed to be able to see hidden treasure through magic stones? Or someone who believes that years ago billions of people were killed by hydrogen bombs placed in volcanos because a wife & child abusing sci-fi writer said so? Or that the Earth is only 6000 years old and every thing we see was created in 6 days?

You would not call me a bigot if I ridiculed someone who believed the Earth was flat- why then the vile label for calling out the equally ridiculous protected by the blanket of 'faith'?

Beliefs and ideas and those who hold them should be held to a strict level of scrutiny. Willingly choosing ignorance over knowledge is a far worse danger with scarier implications than demanding tangible evidence and logic flowing from adherence to reality- and it's time we cast aside all protections for, and call out all absurdities for what they are, absurd.

28hrs Later

2012-01-10T05:08:00.000-08:00

Saturday morning, 1/7/2012 I woke up just before 5AM in my house in Arizona; 28 hours, 3 warnings, about a dozen energy drinks, protein bars & beef jerky packs, and over 1700 miles later I arrived in Ingleside IL with my two best friends; Mark a friend I've known since I was six, and Xander, a three-year-old terrier mix. It was an incredible and incredibly long drive, not without difficulties, ultimately successful. Driving across the country is an educational experience which I recommend everyone do at least once- you get an interesting, sort of 'hands on' perspective towards America.

The trip started out early in the AM; we did a final walk-through to make sure the house was empty, took the dog for a walk, filled up my 2008 WRX with gas and ourselves with caffeine and optimism and hit the road.

Xander was unhappily restricted to a crate in the backseat and subjected us to crying and whining as we drove north and out of the Valley of the Sun. Lupe Fiasco's Lasers was the start of the trip's soundtrack- I felt it an appropriate mix of regret, nostalgia, potential and optimism; especially when reflecting on the two-and-a-half years leading up to the departure. We drove for almost three hours up past the Mogollon Rim before our first stop to stretch our legs and walk the crying dog- Monster #2 and a Cliff Bar. Arizona is a beautiful state once you get out of the Valley.

The mountainous landscape soon flattened as we headed east towards New Mexico. I pushed the WRX to a smooth and easy 110mph on a flat, empty straight away- I should have kept pushing, that was our best opportunity to really open her up- daylight, completely desolate and no one behind or ahead of me.

Before getting to New Mexico we briefly left the country. Indian Reservations are considered pseudo-sovereign nations; so Navajo Nation technically wasn't quite The United States. What a dump. Most of the dwellings we could see from the Interstate were rusted out trailers littering the desert, surrounded by junk cars and old school busses. Really striking place, I wish we would have taken pictures. Warning #1: I was in the middle lane doing about 89mph in a 75mph zone, quickly approaching the back of a semi-trailer. I moved into the left lane just as we hit a slight crest in a hill, revealing an awaiting trooper in the median; I quickly braked and brought her down to 75 but knew he got me. He pulled into traffic and quickly had me pulled over a few miles down the road. Mark declared to the Navajo Nation Officer that he was carrying concealed weapons, which is completely legal in Arizona but that was of no concern to the Officer- he said he'd be carrying too driving from Arizona to Illinois. I got out of the car while he processed my info and I was informed I'd be let off with a warning- I asked how fast he clocked me but was told he didn't get me speeding but for 'following too close'. Bullshit. There was no one in front of me in the left and he didn't see me until after I passed the trailer. He then asked if he could search my trunk...now it's getting a bit weird. "Well, the glove compartment's locked" I tell him "and so is the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you're gonna need a warrant for that"...wait, that's what Jay-Z said in '99 Problems'- I would have said that but later in the song the officer tells Jay "we'll see how smart you are when the canines come"- since I could see the police dog already in his car I knew I was fighting a losing battle so I just opened the trunk. He started saying something about 9/11 and then told me a story about how he found a dead girl in the trunk on a different routine traffic stop- odd; I showed him my TV and PS3 and we were off. He seemed to be looking for a bit of gratitude that he was letting me off with a warning- I guess he doesn't realize that Navajo Nation has no jurisdiction outside Navajo Nation and there's no way in hell I was planning on paying that ticket anyhow but whatever, we were on our way after a 10 minute stop.

Shortly after hour 4 we were in New Mexico. I wish I had more to say about New Mexico; it's a big, uneventful state, and once east of Albuquerque it is empty, really empty and seems to go on forever. The most interesting thing we saw was a town called Cuevro. Cuevro is literally a ghost town. Not a fake touristy ghost town, but a real everyone's died or moved and have let the buildings rot type ghost town. From the road we saw not only deserted homes, but a hollowed out school and small church- and not new buildings either, old brick structures. It was fascinating; probably very creepy at night and if we weren't on hour 8 of a 28 hour journey and had we not been brainwashed by horror movies to truly believe we would have been captured and murdered in a Satanic ritual we would have stopped to take pictures- instead you can check them out here:

http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/nm/cuervo.html

Another Monster in New Mexico before finally reaching Texas. The worst part about the next leg of the drive, is that starting in Texas we weren't on a major interstate; we were on a 2 lane road which presents problems when that road is filled with semis; plus every 50 miles or so you drive through a town which slows you down considerably. Not much to say about the panhandle of Texas other then it is huge and empty. If anyone ever tells you that we're running out of space in this country because of population growth kick them in the groin. America is fucking huge; there were large stretches of road where we didn't see a single sign of humanity in any direction (besides the road). Meaning you saw nothing in any direction you looked; just flat empty land. It was like this for hundreds of miles. The sun set on our Saturday in Texas- kind of good, there's nothing to look at anyway. A few energy drinks and a turkey sandwich were the highlights of Texas. Xander hasn't stopped crying for more than 15 minutes at a time btw. The GPS also decided to reroute us- so now instead of driving across Oklahoma and up through Missouri, we would drive diagonally across Kansas and through Iowa- an important technological slight of hand come later in the trip. Texas is over after driving through a town called Texhoma. Mark took over driving towards the end of Texas after about 11 hours for me.

Oklahoma was really quick, just drove across the narrow panhandle; no stops, dark, nothing to say. What's the point?

In rerouting us through Kansas we were now about to take the mathematically longest way to traverse a rectangle. Kansas seemed to go on forever- glad it was dark because there was nothing to see i the first place. At around the 17 hour mark, which I believe was at some point in Kansas Xander just started going fucking nuts in his crate- he had cried off and on through most of the trip but nothing like this. He'd had enough and I wanted to try and sleep some myself so I took him out of the crate. After a few minutes of looking out the window he fell asleep on my lap. Soon I was asleep off and on for the next few hours. About 3/4's of the way through Kansas we were on the Kansas turnpike which was nice- smooth road, 4 lane highway, and no stops.

Missouri was kind of a haze as I was in and out of consciousness. Residents call it 'Missoura' so I don't feel a need to devote any more time to it.

We watched the sun rise over Iowa at around 7ish- we had now driven one full day. Shortly after we stopped for gas and caffeine and I took over drive with Mark now holding the dog. Iowa also seemed ridiculously long. Sometime around 9AM Sunday morning things got really interesting. I had set the cruise control for 80mph while the limit was 70- typically you get about that much leeway so I thought I was safe. Pulled over by a young Iowa Trooper. He asks me to get out of the car because the dog is going nuts and its impossible to hear- as I'm walking around he notices Mark's locked case which contained a Glock23 and a Ruger who's model # I forgot. He ask what's in the case and I tell him. Fucking A. Now I'm sitting in the front seat of a squad car and the Trooper is back and forth talking to Mark who's in the car, and me in the squad. He asks me all sorts of questions he really had no business asking but since I absolutely just wanted to get home and were in no position to argue and I thought we might have actually been in serious trouble I just answered honestly. He couldn't understand why Mark would have brought guns and thought he must have somehow smuggled them on to the plane- I'm surprised this dumbfuck even knew what an airplane was. He questioned me for a while and then I found out asked Mark many of the same questions- trying to corroborate our stories I guess. After having the person on the other end of the radio run the serial numbers on the weapons and both of us for outstanding warrants he told me that he had to go to another call and it must be my 'lucky day' because I would get off with a warning for speeding and for having a plate frame (dealer installed). He said something to the effect of 'I'm going to let you guys on your way, whatever it is you're up to'. Well you inbred hick, maybe if you try real hard and don't mistakenly shoot yourself one day you can stop going to work dressed like you're going to invade Poland and you'll make detective and then you can find out what 'we're up to', but until that day comes go fuck yourself and stop harassing citizens...is what I thought anyways. Later in the car Mark, who has his CCW told me the prick asked him what 'gave him the right' to transport a firearm across the country. Evidentially they don't make the bitch farm boys they hire as State Troopers take Civics fucking 101- what a sad state of affairs this country is in, but that's for another post. As it turns out, the officer was completely ignorant to the laws of his own state (what a surprise a cop who doesn't know nor care about the law)- Mark's Utah State CCW had reciprocity in Iowa, meaning we were in violation of absolutely no laws, even with cartridges in the magazine. 30 minute delay or so followed by a solid hour of ranting on both of our parts- had the GPS not rerouted us, we'd have never set foot in that state.

When you embark on a 28 hour trip, the first 2 hours fly by; you are resigned to the fact that you're going to be in the car for a long time and don't think about it. The last 2 hours then are far and away the longest; the end is near but your frame of mind shifts and you realize you really want to get the hell out of the car...it drags. Both tired, achy and smelly we finally made it to Illinois.

Two-and-a-half years, 1700+ miles and three traffic warnings after moving to Arizona I returned home, less the girl I moved out there for and plus a small dog. It was a difficult time for me but one that I value none-the-less. The experience and education gained from my time in the desert as well as the cross country trip with two of my best friends is priceless. That chapter is now over- I look forward to the next.

Land of the Free?

2011-11-17T18:24:00.000-08:00

Descending the Corporate Ladder

2011-06-29T17:55:00.000-07:00

One thing about my new situation at work is that I encounter many more people, employed at many various levels of the organization than I did in my previous situation; this gives me the opportunity to observe, make mental notes, write blogs about, and mock just about everyone I encounter, even if only in my head. It’s interesting to see the lower level employees amble about, compared to director-plus positions power-walking everywhere they go. Just now for example, I saw someone who I regard as a huge tool actually break into an awkward jog. (I was amused and a bit relieved after I saw him later walking out of the bathroom, albeit at a lesser yet still purposeful pace).

All of these observations about workplace attitude lead me to one question; at what age or pay-grade do you become a complete douche-bag? Someone who has gone ‘all-in’ for their company, someone who gives ‘rally round the flag’ type speeches at company events, someone who’ll book a personally inconvenient flight because it saves the company a few hundred bucks & someone who generally talks down to people in lower pay-grades and is an all around dick; someone who actually cares about their shit corporate job and their fucking khakis?

It’s understood that most people care about gainful employment & care about their paychecks and the desire for these things demands that you show a level of care and concern for your job, but that’s not what I’m talking about- I’m talking about really caring about what you do from 8-5 Monday through Friday the way you really care about what you’re doing Saturday night, or how your team is faring in the standings.

For example, I care about getting my work done and not getting yelled at or fired- but I don’t actually care about the work itself, not the process, not the results (so long as I stay gainfully employed). I honestly don’t care if the outcome is $60 or $60,000- it just doesn’t matter to me personally. I do hope to get promoted and make more money but I won’t care about that new work either, just the money and the lifestyle it affords.

As a fresh out of college graduate, I soon came to realize that being a corporate underling sucked and maybe I should have pursued the ‘Aspen Extreme’ career path instead of business. At 22 however, I was sure that by the time I approached the ripe age of 30, I would be making enough money and comfortable enough in myself to really care about what I’m doing- feelings of success and happiness would abound! Well, I turn 29 in two weeks, I make more than double what I made straight out of college and I do consider myself very successful especially for my age- but the caring and happiness elude me. I still have daily lottery fantasies where I don’t show up for a few weeks and then when I do I chuck my laptop through the front entrance glass door from the driver’s seat of my new Ferrari and do a couple of donuts and drive off laughing like Dr. Claw. I still amble around with the same uninterested look, still mentally mock everyone I encounter, and still watch the people who do care with utter contempt and amazement.

I honestly don’t think it’s simply a matter of compensation, at least not base compensation. I think it might have to do with bonuses. Maybe companies give such outrageous bonuses to the higher-ups that the thought of that enormous check sustains them for the 250 or so work days each year between checks?

Maybe it’s about what some would call ‘maturity’, though I’ll drop the misnomer and call a spade a spade, the mundane. Maybe the average person reaches a point in their lives where their individual interests, passions and spirit are extinguished by the realities and responsibilities of adulthood? Soccer practice, baseball camp, association meetings, dance recitals, mortgages, the routine of a spark-less marriage- and everything else that consumes their lives formally known as ‘me time’.

Do people start actually caring about their jobs because they simply need something personal to care about? Because they’ve lost everything else individual and personal?

Does work become an escape from life?

A Better Workplace

2011-06-28T17:59:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking I’d rather sit in a prison cell for 8-9 hours a day than sit at my cubicle at work. It sounds absurd but I think there are some distinct advantages a prison cell offers that a cube farm can’t touch. It’s important to note that when I say I’d rather ‘sit in a prison cell’ all day, I do not mean actually be in prison; so no prison fights, stabbings, anal rape or any of the other quirks about being in prison that Lockdown and Oz have taught us to worry about- I just mean sitting in a 6’x8’ room with a bed, chair and toilet by myself all day long.

Probably the most obvious benefit is that I could do nothing with no fear of reprisal and without the hassle of having to put on the façade of seeming busy when I’m not. The do-nothing benefit is actually two-fold because not only would I be allowed to do nothing, but I’d also be allowed to do plenty of things! I could sleep, read, do push-ups and calisthenics, meditate, do yoga, sleep some more- all things that I cannot do at work in my cube. The thought of how much reading I could catch up on alone seals the deal. Another advantage is privacy. Currently I sit in a cube with 4ft walls and a ‘doorway’ you could drive a tractor-trailer through, there is no privacy. Anyone who walks by, from management to facilities management can have a good look at me and whatever is on my computer screen- this is very unsettling, especially when I’m doing things like writing pointless blogs and reading message boards all day. Plus, even if I am working, its easy to sneak up on me, which I hate. A prison cell however surrounds you with 4 brick walls and one steal cage, no one can sneak up on you and if anything might feel a bit cozy- again assuming you’re not actually in prison and don’t have to worry about being turned into Swiss cheese by a white supremacist. It would also be quiet, which combined with the privacy and ability to do whatever I want would be a huge plus. All day my audible sense is bombarded by idiots around me droning on about shipping modes and availability dates- these things do not concern me at the moment, or ever. What concerns me right now is finding out more about the ‘deadlights’ in It, and taking a nap.

My biggest concern in my new job- sitting in a prison cell all day- would be boredom, but really, I don’t think it could possibly be any worse than sitting in this sterile grey and fluorescent lit office all day long. If I could have the internet it would really be no contest but prisoners don’t have the internet in their cells so neither will I. Right now the only thing that alleviates my boredom at work are the internet, bathroom breaks, lunch and the occasional co-worker stopping to talk or calling me. Easy. The internet is replaced by books and I’d actually be much better off actually reading and learning things than checking Drudgereport every hour and only reading a few sentences of each story. Bathroom breaks are a wash, as my cell would have a bathroom. I’d still have my snacks and my lunch, remember, I’m not spending the nights so I get to come from home first, so that’s a wash. As for co-workers? Seventy-five percent of the time they’re stopping by for something work-related, and as I’ve mentioned I clearly don’t care, not really anyways; and the other 25% of the time? Well, I guess that’s what I’d miss out on, 30 minutes of random, meaningless banter.

The conclusion is pretty clear and the implications are staggering. I’d rather sit locked in a cage all day than be at work. I would be a better person sitting in a prison cell, left to my own devices than coming here sitting at my desk for 8-9 hours a day. I think it should be concerning to many an HR ‘professional’ that in the quest for productivity they’ve designed workspaces that are LESS APPEALING THAN STATE PENATENERIES- the place where society sends murderers, rapists and people who share music!

I understand everyone can’t have an office and the higher-ups want the ‘window-seats’. With this in mind I’ve decided to create a better environment for work, to at least satisfy some of our primal human needs. My current workplace is currently laid out like a children’s petting zoo- a big grid with low walls and the animals seated in the corners, backs to the openings. This is dehumanizing as it’s designed to leave you as vulnerable as possible, with no sense of privacy, readiness or security. Does a hibernating bear face the inside of his cave? No. Or I don’t think; he faces the entrance to ensure preparedness. The current design does nothing to empower employees and turns us into quivering, scared little rodents.

My proposal features octagonal groupings of workspaces, where 8 employees are essentially back to back, facing outward, separated by high walls on three sides (back and both sides). The computers and wires could sit inside the inner room of the octagon, created by the backs of each employee’s individual workspace. This alignment is comforting, as it creates a sense of security by preventing anyone from sneaking up on you. It is also empowering as any visitor must walk up to you, face to face, and speaks with you with your desk between you- putting the cube dweller in a perceived position of safety and power, plus there would be a natural place for a visitor’s chair on the other side of the desk. Under the current layout, upon being snuck up on, employees have to swivel in their chairs to face a looming standing visitor face-to-crotch, creating the illusion of smallness and the perception that the visitor is dominant over said cube dweller. Also, the color gray would be banned and natural hued light would be used.

I realize not much can be done to help in my quest to do nothing all day and I in all likelihood will never like going to work. I’m just looking for a little bit of common decency and dignity from the people who design the place where we spend far too much of our lives; because present state? I’d take a prison cell; and I haven’t even shared a song.

Stop Scott Andringa

2011-01-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

reason.com/archives/2011/01/03/scott-andringa-for-judge

John Pistole hates America

2010-11-20T21:36:00.000-08:00

John Pistole is the head of a major terrorist organization almost 67,000 strong- their goal? Destroy fundamental American rights via flagrant, institutionalized sexual-assault.

John Pistole is a terrorist, and the TSA a terrorist organization.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Ayn Rand

Abolish the TSA

2010-11-12T20:41:00.000-08:00

Does anyone actually believe we're safer with these fucking idiots in charge? We weren't safe before, but at least we could maintain dignity.

Here's a novel idea, screen everyone who has ever been to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Iran...you get the idea.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111

Netflix

2010-09-28T18:17:00.000-07:00

A few months ago I decided to subscribe to Netflix after paying my final $6 to the now (and appropriately) bankrupt Blockbuster to rent one DVD. In 2010, I decided, this is ridiculous, and I scurried home to subscribe to Netflix.

Today, one full season of HBO’s ROME, and a handful of DVDs later I couldn’t be happier with the service, and am still discovering value which far exceeds the $8.99 monthly fee. Not only does Netflix have an impressive collection of DVDs, any of which can arrive at your mailbox within 2-3 days, it also solves an awkward social nicety which has plagued me for years- and I’m not talking about having to deal with video clerks.

I’m someone who happily describes myself as both discerning, and cynical in just about every aspect of my life- ESPECIALLY when it comes to movies, music and literature. This combination means I make snap judgments on a thing’s value to me and I generally won’t believe you, & will judge you if you tell me something to the contrary. Take the following hypothetical conversation as an example:

Me: “The new Nickelback CD is sure to suck”

Civilian: “Actually it’s really good”

Me: “You’re an idiot.”

I used Nickelback for sake of demonstration…you can replace ‘Nickelback CD’ with ‘Olive Garden entree’, ‘Jerry Bruckheimer movie’, ‘Democratic Healthcare Bill’…you get the idea.

As one might imagine, in polite society it’s hard to make or keep friends when you voice your opinions in such a manner. This often leads to a conversation more like the one below:

Me: *Sarcastically “Nick Cage sure does pick winning roles”

Civilian: “Actually ‘National Treasure’ was really good, you should rent it, in fact, you can borrow it if you like. I own it!”

Me: *sighs* “Sure”

Fortunately for people like me (jerks), Netflix forever fixes this problem, and they even have a mobile app! Rather than begrudgingly agreeing to borrow the DVD, I simply say ‘sounds great I’ll add it to my queue’! For those of you who don’t know, when you subscribe to Netflix, you create a list of movies you’d like to watch and then they go down the list mailing you movies and sending the next on the list when you mail the previous one back. Now the beauty of it all is that you control the order in which you receive the movies and can adjust the order at any time- meaning, countless bad movies idiots recommend can spend an eternity at the bottom of your queue! You just have to make sure you keep your queue updated so the movies never ship. Inevitably, the recommender will ask you if you’ve seen the recommended bad movie yet, to which you simply reply ‘its on my queue’. Another problematic situation solved by the marvels of free-market ingenuity…or simply making it easier to be anti-social. However you look at it, well worth $8.99 per month.

'The Town' Nun Mask

2010-09-10T19:46:00.000-07:00

Get your very own at www.zagonestudios.com & use the code "kat1" before Oct 1 to receive 5% off total purchase & free shipping!

Gov Christie- Absolutely Owns Teacher/Union Apologist

2010-09-09T20:45:00.000-07:00

Wow...Bravo.

Run Lola Run

2010-09-06T18:53:00.001-07:00

As anyone can tell from my last post; I am unhappy with my current position in life, and am at least beginning to ask myself what I think to be the right questions & to at least in my head put together a plan to achieve the successes I've always dreamed of. Continuing along said 'awakening' is the realization that I am in no way living up to my full potential working 60 hr weeks as an analyst for a company I've grown to hate. This is still America, right? Still the 'Land of Opportunity'? I cannot even start to pretend that I'm making the most of the most prized opportunities which are out there for those bold enough to grasp them; I am, rather, treading water hoping for a raise of a few percentage points at year end, and a measly promotion. To add, neither of which will bring me any sort of joy nor great financial comfort, and will certainly do nothing to bring balance back into my life.

So, back to America, the Land of Opportunity & the title of this post. 'What if' I thought, 'what if someone put a gun to my head & said that you have 10 years to make $10 million, and if you don't, I will kill you on your 38th birthday?' After thinking about this unlikely situation I came to the conclusion that I would be very confident I could do it. I don't know how I'd do it yet, but I know how I wouldn't do it; climbing the mythical corporate ladder, hoping for promotions & 8% pay raises every few years. That would be suicide for sure. Thinking about these things leads me to think, why then is that futile path the one I'm aimlessly treading down now? Shouldn't I still pursue the 'dream big, plan big' path with the same vigor and devotion as if my life depended on it? Because after all, doesn't it?

They say an animal is the most dangerous when it's cornered; I'm starting to believe that we as humans are capable of remarkable things when our backs are against the wall, when we're cornered. The problem that I've had and that most others have is that putting your back up against the wall means abandoning your own relative safety.

I titled this post 'Run Lola Run', after the 1998 film about a girl who has 20 minutes to get $100000 before the mob kills her boyfriend. With her back against the wall, do you think she went to work to clock-in and collect a paycheck?

Work-life Imbalance

2010-08-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman

Working multiple 80 hour weeks, pulling all-nighters, and flying back and forth across the country doesn't leave much time for thought or personal reflection, and the thoughts you do have time for are usually along the lines of 'my life sucks'. During this hellish span a few things dawned on me, yet ultimately left more questions than answers; but it's about time I start asking the questions.

Two questions above all have vexed me over the past few months, 'why' and 'what for?' As in 'why have I wasted the prime years of my life in a cube, staring at a computer?' The simple answer of course is 'to make money', but such an answer is unsettling and only leads to the inevitable 'what for?' As in 'what do I need money for if I'm going to spend all of my time at work?' Or how about a combo, 'why do I continue to slave away at work when I don't even know what I'm working for'? Is the purpose of life to make a lot of money, or to be happy? Right now at least, I'm failing at both; and working a 'few Saturday mornings' is not the answer.

I've come to realize that the greatest con ever pulled by Corporate America is the concept of 'work-life balance'. 'Work-life balance' is an empty cliche tossed around by Human Resources people to divert your attention away from the fact that out of 254 business days a year, you get to take 10 of them off; and the over-time you give is time they will never give back.

The trickery of it all is right there in the term itself, for everyone to see but no one alert enough to realize: 'work-life balance', doesn't 'life-work' balance make more sense? After all, is life the primary or is work? This is the root of the question above 'what's the point of money if I spend all of my time at work'?

So, here I am, writing a blog on a Monday evening, after a 12 hour day at a job I care nothing about beyond the amount deposited into my checking account on the 1st and the 15th of every month, for a company who's product I couldn't care less about, asking questions I don't have an answer for. I am certain of one thing though; that spending your life working at a job you hate for something you care nothing about will bring you neither happiness nor great sums of money. And that happiness will be exponentially and inversely impacted more than your salary with every late night, worked weekend, or missed occasion.

I may not have many passions, but I know what I'm not passionate about, and supply-chain is at the top of that list. I'm open for new ideas, pathways and musings, because the phrase 'work to live' presupposes a life- and 'achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death' ~Ayn Rand.

This Sums it Up Nicely...

2010-08-07T16:55:00.000-07:00

Hopefully I'll start blogging again soon...mentally exhausted.

http://www.dilbert.com/2010-08-07/

The Powers of Government

2010-03-07T10:17:00.001-08:00

"Government is a social creation, and society consists of individuals. Any powers of government, therefore, must derive from those of the individuals who create it"

~Leonard Peikoff

In general, as a civilized nation, we have come to agree that individuals do not have a moral claim to the life or property of other individuals. For this reason, theft and fraud, are illegal (and justly so). And, fortunately, the intent of the looter is irrelevant in the eyes of both the courts, and in general, society. The law remains fairly objective when it comes to individual acts, and society for the most part agrees, theft is theft, fraud is fraud, and A is A. Were this not the case, every criminal tried for theft would be convicted only after the question 'what did he intend to do with the loot?' was answered. Did he intend to keep the stolen TV for himself, or did he intend to pawn it and donate the money to charity? Such cases would not only be impossible to try, but also lead to subjective value judgments in every court case, and arbitrary sentencing. How virtuous is the charity he planned on donating to? Does he stand to personally gain from the donation? For the most part, such is not the case. This is the reason that while often vilified, the rich are not under constant attack from modern day Robin Hoods. The law doesn't allow it, and Robin Hood would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

How can we, as a nation agree that if we are to be a prosperous nation of laws, that individual Robin Hoods cannot be allowed to steal at will, yet at the same time condone, and in many cases, encourage the government to do the exact same thing? To take what they have no moral claim from certain individuals & turn around and give it to others? If I steal from my rich neighbor to give to my poor neighbor, I'm seen as a criminal, and I'm put in jail. If I run for office and and pass a law which redistributes wealth, and does the exact same thing, it's praised as public welfare, and I'm seen as compassionate (by the left certainly, and depending on how it's framed by the right as well).

This double-standard of values is not simply immoral, but ultimately the first step on the path to complete statism (whether Fascism, socialism, Nazism, or any other of it's forms). By granting government power not derived from the source of government, the individual, we are placing government as the primary; an entity which holds special authority to subjugate any who oppose it, to take what it chooses, via force and coercion. Government, like any other organization has no rights. Rights are individual in nature. A person can neither gain new rights, nor lose rights by joining a group. There is no such thing as 'collective rights'. By accepting, whether explicitly or implicitly that government has special rights above the individual rights of it's members, we are in affect, accepting the whims of said government, and inviting oppression at its hand via it's legislative power.

If we are to truly prosper as a nation, we must be a nation of laws (not of men) & we must reverse our current path. We must realize the the purpose of government is to protect freedom, not grant entitlements. We can correctly identify and prosecute theft when it's done on an individual level; it's time we start identifying and prosecuting it when it's done en mass. No one but you has a moral claim to your life, liberty or property, being voted into office does not change this fact. Wrong is wrong, and theft is theft, whether at the hands of a common street thug, or your local Congressman.

Beauty in the Eye of the Guitar Holder

2010-02-25T18:54:00.000-08:00

I realize (or I've been told) that I shouldn't waste much effort trying to understand the female mind. Intricacies as small and vast as quanta, interconnected though seemingly completely random, and at times seeming to violate physical, natural, and epistemological law, I cannot even know where to start. While I certainly don't buy-in to the sexist popular media dogma that men are essentially bipedal Labradors who's sole condition of survival is sports, beer and scantily-clad women (preferably on the sideline at a sporting event, and/or bringing man beer), certain observations on the fairer sex turn me to that Labrador struggling to understand the implications of the double-slit experiment (nerdy 2nd reference to QM).

Like a yellow lab in physics class, yesterday was one such instance.

Let me for the record state, that I do not, have never, and will never watch American Idol. American Idol is to music what a silicon enhanced cocktail waitress is to the PGA Tour -short-term amusement at the expense of overall quality.

With that said, I am not immune, nor do I pretend to be above keeping abreast of pop-culture. Combine that with the fact that I'm from the North Suburbs of Chicago, and it becomes inevitable; I'm aware of the existence of an American Idol contestant. His name is Lee DeWyze. I don't know much about DeWyze, and up til a few days ago when my Facebook news feed exploded with wall postings, I'd never heard of him. One such posting yesterday, and corresponding replies is where my confusion begun.

The poster was a fan of the 24 year-old, expulsion-prone paint salesman (I learn quickly), and that was understandable as everyone likes a 'hometown hero', (besides yours truly, but that's another post). What absolutely befuddled me was when one of the comments stated that he was 'VERY nice on the eyes', and a response agreeing, and qualifying that comment even further (and I won't repeat what was said, as children might read this). My curiosity was piqued, especially considering that my girlfriend went to HS with the young crooner. I decided to see for myself what the hype was about (I'm secure). As I perused a few Facebook photos, one of the comments said something to the effect that his face was 'brilliantly beautiful'. Here is a photo of Lee DeWyze.

poponthepop.com/images/gallery/lee-dewyze-american-idol-audition_450x280.jpg

Now, I don't consider myself arrogant or full of myself when it comes to my appearance, but if this kid is 'very easy on the eyes' and more so, 'brilliantly beautiful', then I'm Brad fucking McConaughClooney Pitt. Now, be honest ladies (HA, I do make arrogant assumptions that women besides my mother and girlfriend read this blog), if you were at your local Sherwin Williams and he was your paint salesman, you wouldn't give him as much as a whisper of a second look, and the only thing you'd describe as 'brilliant' would be the periwinkle blue on the color sample strip.

The same can be said for countless rock stars, rap stars, athletes, etc. I spoke with my girlfriend about this fascinating phenomena, and she replied 'well first off, any guy is immediately attractive if he can play guitar' - as evidenced by the number of Jason Mraz douchebags littering college campuses everywhere, and the trixies who follow them around and sleep with them because they're 'sensitive'. We discussed the phenomena, and it was also concluded that being on TV almost immediately makes a man more attractive.

What's so interesting is that you never see this in men. There is no 'rockstar effect' with female musicians. Not to sound like the aforementioned Labrador, but attractive is attractive. Maja Ivarsson is one of my favorite female musicians/rockstar, and yes, I do find her very attractive (see link at bottom). She also has a cute face, a hot body with great legs, performs in very little clothing, has an accent, and is bisexual -all things that I happen to find attractive in non-rockstar women.

With guys, physical attraction is just that, physical. And to the extent you can 'know' someone you see on TV, that's all it ever can be. Other attributes be damned. Fact is, whether singing, playing the guitar, solving the world energy crisis, or inheriting $6 billion, Kelly Clarkson is still a few drinks from attractive- unless of course she's bringing me a beer at a Cubs game.

http://b6.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00017/68/10/17380186_l.jpg

Sick to my stomach

2010-02-07T15:21:00.001-08:00

...I don't even know where to begin with this one

God Bless America. LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_sp_ot/us_census_super_bowl

Repeal IL Red Light Cameras

2010-01-26T17:23:00.000-08:00

The following is an email I received from IL Senator Dan Duffy, I urge you to get involved and email your legislature if you live in IL.

Have you had enough of Red Light Cameras? If you want them all
removed, I need your help! You must get ENGAGED if you want the law changed.

Thank you very much for contacting me. Thank you for supporting my
bill, Senate Bill 2466. SB2466 calls for the repeal of all red light
cameras in Illinois. The bill does NOT repeal cameras at construction
sites or railroad crossings. To view complete details of this and
other bills, please always refer to www.ilga.gov. This is the same
web site the legislators use to research bills and all information is
available to the public.

SB2466 has been filed and is currently sitting in “assignments”. Once
it assigned it will be moved to a committee. It must pass out of
committee to go to the senate floor for a vote. It will not pass
without your HELP! The bill will have to pass both the House and
Senate to become law. We need to build as much support as possible
for SB2466. I need you to send at least one email, EVERY WEEK, to
every legislator in the General Assembly (please see email list below
for every legislators email address). Legislators read their emails
and gauge the priority they put on bills based on the number of emails
and calls they receive. The more emails, the more support for SB2466
there will be.

Here is a sample email you can use. Please feel free to “cut and
paste” this sample email and send…or write whatever you would like.
The emails should not be too long. Main point to highlight is that
you SUPPORT SB2466 and will hold all legislators accountable who do
not support the bill. Always list “SUPPORT SB2466 – Repeal Red Light
Cameras” in the subject heading of your email. Cut and paste all
email addresses and re-send to all legislators at LEAST once a week.

Please forward this email on to family, friends and associates who
will help us in our effort!

Sample email:

I strongly support Senator Duffy’s bill, SB2466 – Repeal of all Red
Light Cameras. Ohio and Minnesota have already repealed these cameras
and Illinois must do the same. These cameras have proven to be all
about REVENUE and not about safety. Since the cameras have been
installed, studies have shown that accidents have actually INCREASED
in the intersections where cameras are located.

Over 90% of tickets issued by these cameras are from turning Right on
Red. If that is a problem in certain intersections, shouldn’t towns
first install “No Turn On Red” signs at troubled intersections?

Corruption is a serious problem in Illinois and these cameras are
making a bad situation worse. Elected officials (legislators, mayors,
village administrators) are making deals with camera companies without
consulting their constituents. Politicians are receiving large
campaign contributions, towns / villages are receiving piles of cash
from these cameras AND camera companies are receiving 30-50% of every
ticket issued! That is a clear "conflict of interest". Camera
companies are making millions of dollars a month from hard working
Illinois citizens.

We all are Innocent Until Proven
Guilty. However these automatic tickets make us Guilty Until We Prove
We Are Innocent. For a $100 ticket citizens must pay over a thousand
dollars to hire a lawyer, take time off work and go fight a camera.
There is also NO uniformity in the law as to how these tickets are
issued. Every town sets their own criteria regarding “how” and “when”
red light tickets are issued. That “inconsistency” from town to town
is a violation of Illinois state law.

Please join me in SUPPORTING SB2466. I will be watching to see how you vote.

Thank You

Email all Legislators once a week – 118 House members and 59 Senators;

District State Representative E-mail

1 Susana A Mendoza (D) staterepmendoza@gmail.com

2 Edward J. Acevedo (D) Sylvia_idrovo@sbcglobal.net

3 Luis Arroyo (D) repdistrict3@gmail.com

4 Cynthia Soto (D) maria.zarate08@gmail.com

5 Kenneth Dunkin (D) kendunkin@msn.com

6 Esther Golar (D) esthergolar@sbcglobal.net

7 Karen A. Yarbrough (D) karenyarbrough@ameritech.net

8 LaShawn K. Ford (D) lkffdr@gmail.com

9 Arthur L. Turner (D) inezc@reparthurturner.com

10 Annazette Collins (D) annazettec@sbcglobal.net

11 John A. Fritchey (D) mystaterep@aol.com

12 Sara Feigenholtz (D) staterep12@aol.com

13 Greg Harris (D) greg@gregharris.org

14 Harry Osterman (D) HJO17@aol.com

15 John D'Amico (D) johnd@ilga.gov

16 Lou Lang (D) reploulang@aol.com

17 Elizabeth Coulson (R) coulson@earthlink.net

18 Julie Hamos (D) juliehamos@gmail.com

19 Joseph M. Lyons (D) jsmith@hds.ilga.gov

20 Michael McAuliffe (R) Mmcauliffe20@yahoo.com

21 Michael J. Zalewski (D) michaelz@ilga.gov

22 Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D) mmadigan@hds.ilga.gov
fax preferred
773.581.9414

23 Daniel J. Burke (D) illhouse@aol.com

24 Elizabeth Hernandez (D) ehernandezsprint02@earthlink.net

25 Barbara F. Currie (D) bfc15@aol.com

26 Will Burns (D) repwillburns@att.net

27 Monique D. Davis (D) Mdavis2147@yahoo.com

28 Robert Rita (D) robertbobrita@aol.com

29 David E. Miller (D) repdavidmiller@aol.com

30 William Davis (D) repwilldavis@sbcglobal.net

31 Mary E. Flowers (D) mflowers@hds.ilga.gov

32 Andre Thapedi (D) thapedi@sbcglobal.net

33 Marlow H. Colvin (D) repcolvin@sbcglobal.net

34 Constance Howard (D) staterep-constance-a-howard@comcast.net

35 Kevin Joyce (D) repreitz@egyptian.net

36 James D. Brosnahan (D) JDBrosnahan@aol.com

37 Kevin A. McCarthy (D) Kevmac37@sbcglobal.net

38 Al Riley (D) Representative.riley38@sbcglobal.net

39 Maria A. Berrios (D) rep_berrios@yahoo.com

40 Deborah Mell (D) dmel@hds.ilga.gov

41 Bob Biggins (R) bobbiggins@comcast.net

42 Sandra M. Pihos (R) community@sandrapihos.com

43 Keith Farnham D) krfarnham@gmail.com

44 Fred Crespo (D) fred@fredcrespo.com

45 Franco Coladipietro (R) franco@il45.com

46 Dennis M. Reboletti (R) dennisreboletti@aol.com

47 Patricia R. Bellock (R) Representative@pbellock.com

48 Michael Connelly (R) repconnelly48@gmail.com

49 Timothy L. Schmitz (R) ilrep49@sbcglobal.net

50 Kay Hatcher (R) info@kayhatcher.us

51 Ed Sullivan, Jr. (R) ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net

52 Mark Beaubien, Jr. ® strepmbeaubien@sbcglobal.net

53 Sidney H. Mathias (R) SIDNEYMATH@msn.com

54 Suzanne Bassi (R) repbassi@aol.com

55 Harry R. Ramey, Jr. (R) staterepramey55@aol.com

56 Paul D. Froehlich (D) statereppaul@sbcglobal.net

57 Elaine Nekritz (D) enekritz@repnekritz.org

58 Karen May (D) Karne@repkarenmay.org

59 Kathleen A. Ryg (D) Kathy@kathyryg.org

60 Eddie Washington (D) washington60th@aol.com

61 JoAnn D. Osmond (R) reposmond@aol.com

62 Sandy Cole (R) representativesandycole@comcast.net

63 Jack D. Franks (D) jack@jackfranks.org

64 Michael Tryon (R) Mike@Miketryon.com
65 Rosemary Mulligan (R) repmulligan@usa.net

66 Mark Walker (D) repmarkwalker@gmail.com

67 Charles E. Jefferson (D) staterepchuck67@aol.com

68 Dave Winters (R) repwinters@aol.com

69 Ronald A. Wait (R) repwait777@aol.com

70 Robert W. Pritchard (R) bob@pritchardstaterep.com

71 Mike Boland (D) ilrepmikeboland@aol.com

72 Patrick Verschoore (D) pverschoore@qconline.com

73 David R. Leitch (R) DavidLeithch@ameritech.net

74 Donald L. Moffitt (R) moffitt@grics.net

75 Careen M Gordon (D) staterepgordon@sbcglobal.net

76 Frank J. Mautino (D) Patti76th@ivnet.com

77 Angelo Saviano (R) skip@skipsaviano.com

78 Deborah L. Graham (D) st.rep.deborah.graham@sbcglobal.net

79 Lisa M. Dugan (D) lisadugan@sbcglobal.net

80 Anthony DeLuca (D) repdeluca@sbcglobal.net

81 Renée Kosel (R) rkosel@ilga.gov

82 Jim Durkin (R) kanadyF@housegopmail.state.il.us

83 Linda Chapa LaVia (D) lindachapalavia@aol.com

84 Tom Cross (R) tom@tomcross.com

85 Emily McAsey (D) repemily@gmail.com

86 Jack McGuire (D) Jmcguire86@sbcglobal.com

87 Bill Mitchell (R) repmitchell@earthlink.net

88 Dan Brady (R) dan@rep-danbrady.com

89 Jim Sacia (R) jimsacia@aeroinc.net

90 Jerry L. Mitchell (R) repjmitchell@insightbb.com

91 Michael K. Smith (D) repmikesmith@gmail.com

92 Jehan Gordon (D) repjehangordon@gmail.com

93 Jil Tracy (R) jiltracy@jiltracy.com

94 Richard P. Myers (R) repmyers@macomb.com

95 Mike Fortner (R) Mike.fortner@sbcglobal.net

96 Darlene Senger (R) sengerstaterep@gmail.com

97 Jim Watson (R) jimwatson@localnetco.com

98 Betsy Hannig (D) betsyh@ilga.gov

99 Raymond Poe (R) poer@housegopmail.state.il.us

100 Rich Brauer (R) Brauerr@housegopmail.state.il.us

101 Robert F. Flider (D) bobflider@repflider.com

102 Ron Stephens (R) ron@repstephens.com

103 Naomi D. Jakobsson (D) naomi@naomijakobsson.com

104 William B. Black (R) wbblack@sbcglobal.net

105 Shane Cultra (R) Shanecultra105@yahoo.com

106 Keith P. Sommer (R) sommer@mtco.com

107 John Cavaletto (R) john@johncavaletto.com

108 David Reis (R) david@davidreis.org

109 Roger L. Eddy (R) Reddyunit1@aol.com

110 Chapin Rose (R) ls@chapinrose.net

111 Daniel V. Beiser (D) dvbeiser@sbcglobal.net

112 Jay C. Hoffman (D) jayhoffman@charter.net

113 Thomas Holbrook (D) Thomas.holbrook@att.net

114 Ed Lee Jackson, Sr. (D) Bbsty205@aol.com

115 Mike Bost (R) Representative.bost@hotmail.com

116 Dan Reitz (D) repreitz@egyptian.net

117 John E. Bradley (D) repjohnbradley@mychoice.net

118 Brandon W. Phelps (D) bphelps@yourclearwave.com

District State Senator E-mail

1 Antonio Munoz (D) amunoz@senatedem.ilga.gov
2 William Delgado (D) repdelgado@aol.com
3 Mattie Hunter (D) senatorhunter03@sbcglobal.net
4 Kimberly Lightford(D) statesenatorlightford@comcast.net
5 Rickey Hendon (D) hendon@senatedem.ilga.gov
6 John Cullerton (D) john@senatorcullerton.com
7 Heather Steans (D) hsteans@senatedem.ilga.gov
8 Ira Silverstein (D) isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov
9 Jeffrey Schoenberg(D) senator@jschoenberg.org
10 James DeLeo (D) jdeleo@senatedem.ilga.gov
11 Louis Viverito (D) lviverito@senatedem.ilga.gov
12 Martin Sandoval (D) msandoval@senatedem.ilga.gov
13 Kwame Raoul (D) raoulstaff@gmail.com
14 Emil Jones,III (D) ejones3@senatedem.ilga.gov
15 James Meeks (D) senmeeks@sbcglobal.net
16 Jacqueline Collins (D) jcollins@senatedem.ilga.gov
17 Donne Trotter (D) senatortrotter@yahoo.com
18 Edward Maloney (D) ed@edmaloney.com
19 Maggie Crotty(D) jdowis@senatedem.ilga.gov
20 Iris Martinez (D) ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net
21 Dan Cronin (R) senatorcronin@aol.com
22 Michael Noland (D) richj@noland.org
23 Carole Pankau (R) carole@pankau.org
24 Kirk Dillard (R) senator@kdillard.com
25 Chris Lauzen (R) admin@lauzen.com
26 Dan Duffy (R) dan@senatorduffy.com
27 Matt Murphy (R) senatormattmurphy@gmail.com
28 John Millner (R) johnjmillner@aol.com
29 Susan Garrett (D) ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net
30 Terry Link (D) senator@link30.org
31 Michael Bond (D) info@michaelbond31.com
32 Pamela Althoff(R) palthoff@mc.net
33 Dan Kotowski (D) dan@senatorkotowski.com
34 Dave Syverson (R) info@senatordavesyverson.com
35 Bradley Burzynski ( R) senatorbrad@verizon.net
36 Michael Jacobs (D) senatorjacobs@sbcglobal.net
37 Dale Risinger (R) senatorrisinger@yahoo.com,
38 Gary Dahl (R) senatordahl38@yahoo.com,
39 Don Harmon (D) dharmon@senatedem.ilga.gov,
40 Toi Hutchinson (D) thutchinson@senatedem.ilga.gov,
41 Christine Radogno (R) cradogno@sbcglobal.net,
42 Linda Holmes (D) senatorholmes42@sbcglobal.net,
43 A.J. Wilhelmi senatorajwilhelmi@sbcglobal.net,
44 Bill Brady (R) billbrady@senatorbillbrady.com,
45 Tim Bivens (R) senatorbivins@grics.net,
46 David Koehler (D) senatorkoehler@grics.net,
47 John Sullivan (D) senjohn@adams.net,
48 Randy Hultgren (R) rh@senatorhultgren.com,
49 Deanna Demuzio (D) ddemuzio@senatedem.ilga.gov
50 Larry Bomke (R) senatorbomke@yahoo.com,
51 Kyle McCarter (R) mccarter51@att.net,
52 Michael Frerichs (D) mfrerichs@senatedem.ilga.gov,
53 Dan Rutherford (R) danrutherford@danrutherford.com,
54 John O. Jones (R) johnojones@sbcglobal.net,
55 Dale Righter (R) drighter@consolidated.net,
56 William Haine ((D) whaine@cbnstl.com,
57 James Clayborne (D) jfc87@norcom2000.com,
58 David Luechtefeld (R) sendavel@midwest.net,
59 Gary Forby (D) senatorforby@yahoo.com,

Thank You,

Dan

The Worst Creative Drought of My Life

2010-01-11T18:56:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted anything in 2 months, which is sad. I think it has to do with my new job, which is considerably more difficult and stressful than my previous job. I think it wears me out mentally. I've also been reading 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand', which is pretty heavy reading, thereby adding to my brain drain. Here is some randomness:

How I ended up seeing Paranormal Activity in a crowded theater is simply a byproduct of the times we live in. A recent post on secureimmaturity.com details how your opinion of a movie can vary depending on the level of hype surrounding it. A movie that few have heard of, and even less have talked about can be objectively decent, but completely blow your mind because you didn't expect much. On the other hand, a movie can be hyped, and overhyped so much that anything short of Citizen Kane looks like an ad for an erectile dysfunction drug. (Truth be told, I found Citizen Kane to be a victim of it's own hype. Rosebud.) Unfortunately, Paranormal Activity falls into the latter category. I'm not a big horror movie buff, but I do get caught up in viral marketing quite easily. Such was the case with Paranormal. In short, Paranormal Activity is absolutely terrifying if you are absolutely terrified of things like slamming doors. It's not that the movie didn't have it's genuinely creepy parts, which it did; it's that the movie was hyped as one of the scariest movies ever. I've seen trailers on youtube which have scared me more than PA (seriously). To top it off, Steven Spielberg ruined what would have been an appropriate (and creepy) ending, with a Hollywood, CGIBS ending, turning an otherwise 'original-if-nothing-else' picture into 'I am Legend'.

On the opposite end of the entertainment spectrum, from disappointing to mind-blowing was the season finale of Showtime's 'Dexter'. The final episode of season four was gutsy, thrilling, and shockingly disturbing, I loved every minute. When I'm not dreaming of 'going Galt'...I dream of 'going Dexter'...

There are only two songs currently playing on popular radio, 'Empire State of Mind' by Jay-Z, and 'Bad Romance' by Lady Gaga. Today I heard a song sung by a chipmunk, who is evidently a 15 y/o boy nowhere near approaching puberty. The song was followed by a Young Jeezy song. Radio fucking sucks.

Support an American Business and Free Enterprise

2009-10-20T19:16:00.000-07:00

The 'illegal alien' costume sold at Target was offensive. Not for any immigration-based reason, and certainly not because it violated any rights (I don't think the groups protesting even know what a right is) rather, it offended my Halloween sensibilities with it's overtness.

This mask is much more clever:

www.emasks.com/asp/iteminfo.asp?I=ZGM8001&R=&H=

The right is almost as clueless as the left!

2009-10-13T18:03:00.000-07:00

The other day I got an email forward from a friend of mine. I usually just read political forwards and smirk, but I felt compelled to reply to this one. Below is the email forward, with my response in italics.

I Am the Liberal-Progressive s Worst Nightmare. I am an American...

I am a Master Mason and believe in God.

I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles and believe in American products... You mean the same Harley Davidson that cried to the US government (and won) in the early 80's that Japanese imports were of high quality and being sold at such a low cost, they (Harley) felt they couldn't compete, so good ole 'champion of the free-market' Ronald Reagan imposed a 45% tariff on all Japanese bikes over 700cc, thereby giving HD an unfair and artificial advantage, and virtually creating a monopoly? Sounds like a winner to me!

And 'you believe in' American products? Why? Because they are of better quality, or sell for a better price? Clearly that's not the answer as we know you pay a premium for a lesser quality motorcycle. Or is it because of some misguided national pride? You're alluding to nationalism and it's dangerous. It is just another form of collectivism, which is born of altruism. I believe in American products when they offer the best value based on rational self-interest. When they do not, I believe in the products that do, regardless of nation of origin.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it. Good for you!

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican! I agree.

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way! Congrats.

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American. Perhaps.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it! Agreed but let's stop with all of this 'minority/majority' stuff. Racism is a form of collectivism. We are all minorities. The smallest minority on Earth is the individual.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English..Hhmmm...you are contradicting yourself...above you said that a societal demographic does not entitle you to anything, yet in the very next edict, you announce that you are entitled to be served your fast food in English! And this entitlement is based on a social demographic!What you are saying is that you have a right to be sold a Big-Mac in English. By making this claim, you are saying that McDonalds (a private enterprise, mind you) is obliged to hire employees who speak English to your standards. You are subjugating the individual and private owner, to your collective, English speaking standards. This is ultimately based on the same premise as universal health care. McDonalds has a right to hire whomever they wish, and legislating who they can hire based on language is a free-market restriction. If you don't like it, don't eat there. Big Macs will make you fat anyways.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to. Yes, assuming you have a right to be at that place in the first place. You cannot come into my house uninvited and start chanting hymns of prayer.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson that makes the Awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles. Two actors and a baseball player? Okay. That is your right, but keep in mind what I said about HD.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. Good for you!

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already. You have a right to rant, but others don't?

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! DANGEROUS NATIONALISM ALERT!!!

This is? AMERICA ?...We like it the way it is! "We"..."We like it the way it is". Who is "we"?

If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.

What if I don't like it because I feel collectivists like yourself jump at the chance to legislate and further erode individual rights? Where do I go then? Your arguments are no different in principle than the liberal progressives you chide; it's just the different side of the same coin. You are 'pro free market' when it suits you, or when you can slam a leftist, but when it comes to ordering your Big Macs you're entitled to have it in English. You're pro free-market until I want to hire someone from another country who is voluntarily willing to work at an agreed upon wage, then you want to build walls and keep these people out, violating their rights AND my right to hire whoever I want. You're free-market until I want to buy or sell marijuana, prescription drugs, or vascular stents You're free speech as long as it's in English, and fits your Judeo-Christian, pseudo-capitalist agenda, if not, then you feel people should 'just shut up'. Where then do you suggest I go?

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. These clowns are part of the problem, but so are you.

Can I get an AMEN on that one? So be it.

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are. And if you aren't breaking the law???

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good.....Is this really a major concern in this country? I agree, that your face should be on your license. And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money. -Alright.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years. Well, no comment I suppose. I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause. Why? They have a right to do so. It doesn't matter that you don't like it. Roll up your window.

Get a Job and do your part!

This is exactly what I mean when I say you're just the other side of the same coin. "Do your part"? For whom? Because I don't think you mean 'do your part for yourself'. You again allude to collectivism. Do your part for yourself and do what is in your own, rational self-interest, just don't come to me when you act stupidly or on whims and expect a bailout.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents. Agreed.

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think. It's this type of apathy that stifles forward progress. I'm glad that throughout our history, and the history of the world that there have been those who have acted to change the laws, and not simply said 'the law's the law'.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA ! Now you're just being silly. Who are you to decide what I can own? If the money you make is yours to do with what you like, why isn't the money I make mine to spend on an Irish flag? Or French? Or Chinese?

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American. Certainly misguided on what the founders intended for America.
If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

We want our country back! There's that word again 'we'.

We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!

You know, the Taliban says the exact same thing about Afghanistan. So do the mullahs in Iran, and the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Different side of the same coin!

May the best car win? WTF?

2009-09-14T19:30:00.000-07:00

Note to Ed Whitacre regarding GM's new 'May the Best Car Win' ad campaign, and I'll try to make this as simple as possible. You've already lost. GM now stands for Government Motors, meaning that the brand you so arrogantly and shamelessly hawk as being 'the best' has failed. Somewhere in an alternate universe, exists an America the way our Founding Fathers intended, small government, with it's hands completely out of the cookie jar that is free enterprise; an America which has held to its values of freedom, and individual rights, an America which repelled the false prophets of Keynesianism, Socialism, and Fascism. In this America, the natural, healthy, and ultimate morality of competition reigns supreme. Citizens are free to purchase, or not purchase, what they choose. Free to trade their hard earned money, their value, for goods and services of their choosing; things that they find value in. In this America, companies which do not or cannot provide value fail, freeing up resources for innovators in cost, quality or service. This alternate America demands nothing but the best, it demands that you 'sell your talent to their reason' and that you buy 'not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can buy. In this America Mr. Whitacre, GM doesn't exist.

Unfortunately for those who believe, as I do, that companies should compete freely, offering their best against the best of others, your company Mr. Whitacre has been thrown an unfair life-saver. A life-saver taken from us, the tax payer, without our consent.

I decided not to purchase a GM, I never have and likely never will, I don't find value in GM's products. Sadly however, our government has decided for me that what I do with my money is not my own business. That a portion of my money will go to keep your company afloat. My right not to buy a GM was violated.

I understand that GM still has to try to sell cars, but please, don't insult us with this 'may the best car win' campaign- you've already lost.

The worst commercial of all time

2009-08-24T21:23:00.000-07:00

I'm going to go out of my way to NOT buy Febreeze simply because of this awful commercial. First off, it's just a poorly thought-out concept, but worse than that is the red-haired kid. This kid has to be the worst actor in the history of people temporarily pretending to be other people or things. If I ever have a kid like that, I'll ship him to Abu Dhabi in a crate. I couldn't embed it without it monopolizing everything on the blog...another reason it sucks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7FVVMhxde4

Comic recommendation

2009-08-24T21:09:00.001-07:00

Since I'm in a prop-giving mood, here's something else everyone and their families should check out.

www.basicinstructions.net

It's freaking amazing. If you don't find it funny, don't fret, it's probably because you're just not smart enough.

Blog recommendation

2009-08-24T20:49:00.000-07:00

I really respect people like Scott Adams, creator of the immensely true to life, 'Dilbert' comic strip. I don't think people give comics and serial columnists or even bloggers enough credit. As someone who struggles to post an original blog post once a week, I can tell you, it's not easy. About 90% of the time I have writers block, and simply can't come up with anything that I feel is worth posting. The other 5% of the time I'm simply too drained from work/the gym/life to care enough to sit down and put thoughts into words. The remaining 5% of the time is where my blog posts come from, and typically this equates to at most, 10 posts a month. If I were to even try to post daily, it would be the blogosphere equivalent of a Bush/Obama stimulus package; a rampant spree at first, followed by hyperinflation, where my once valuable blog posts would be reduced to coarse single-ply toilet paper...and that's before the Chinese dump all of the postings I've lent to them all over the internet, but I digress. Writing original blogs on a regular basis is hard, and for people who can do it, kudos to them. I recently found one such blog. I've found it highly entertaining and feel my 6 readers would enjoy.

I'm hoping that a few of my 6 readers will read his blog, and I will get some of his 6 readers, it's like a nerd venn diagram. Anyhow, I've read a few posts today and found them enjoyable. The author is a good writer, better than me. I know this because the prose quickly confuses me, but I read on, entertained and intrigued, kind of like what happens when I read articles on mises.org. He also seems to post a lot, which is impressive. It's not really about politics from what I can tell, and the author seems to watch a lot of movies. Enjoy:

secureimmaturity.com/

Trauma

2009-08-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

NBC also has a "new" show called 'Trauma' debuting this fall along with Mercy. The show is about first responders, you know, firefighters, EMT's, cops, etc...remember when that show was called 'Third Watch', and it was the exact same fucking thing? Man, NBC writers are really on a roll here recycling their old shows. I bet there's a new Law and Order in the works too, like 'Law and Order: Insurance Law', or 'Law and Order: Personal Injury'.

How about hiring original writers? There are original shows out there, comedies, dramas, etc, but evidently NBC is too scared to hire any of those types of writers.

Original NBC Show!

2009-08-22T19:33:00.000-07:00

Oh my God, I just saw a preview for a new show starting this fall on NBC that looks incredible. I don't usually watch too much TV, but honestly, I'm not sure there's ever been a show with a premise like this one. The show is called 'Mercy', and it's about...wait for it...wait for it...a HOSPITAL! I mean, how do the writers come up with such original shows? I mean, a show about nurses and doctors? That's never been done before.

ER
House
Chicago Hope
Gray's Anatomy
Third Watch
St Elsewhere
Scrubs
Hawthorne
...a slew of others which didn't make it past a season...

I can't wait for Mercy though, I hope that the writers come up with something just as original after the success of Mercy; like a show about cops, or lawyers maybe!

Leaving

2009-08-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

Preparing to move across the country when you've lived in one area your entire life is a strange experience. It didn't really start to hit me until things started to vanish. First it was my car, loaded and departed Thursday. Then my employment at the place I've worked for the past four years. Then all of our stuff left yesterday afternoon. Late last night into this morning I started to feel like friends started leaving too, saying goodbye and knowing it would probably be Christmas before I see them again. It's a stark reminder of the pending move; something that's loomed on the horizon for so long, but always seeming out of reach, not real, now eminent. Having dinner tonight and more family will leave when it's all over. I'm the one who's 'vanishing' though, closing a few chapters of my life, and starting a few new ones. It's the most bittersweet experience of my life so far.

A Short Story by Frédéric Bastiat

2009-08-05T13:13:00.001-07:00

I've often referenced the parable below, but think that with the recent 'cash for clunkers' craze it is worth posting in it's original form. Read the story and think about the implications in today's world.

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Dead City

2009-08-03T07:51:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most interesting sites I've seen in a while. The pics are of Detroit.

Check out the photo galleries under 'the disappearing city'

http://www.jamesgriffioen.net/index.php?/prairies/feral-houses/

Some like it hot

2009-07-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

My previous two posts may have seemed a bit strange, but I didn't want to jinx anything or announce anything too early due to having to give proper notice at work et al, but I've accepted a job in Tempe Arizona, and me and my girlfriend will be moving out there on August 10th!

I'm really excited about the move, Arizona looks great and from what everyone says the weather is absolutely perfect 9 months out of the year, and is a convection oven for the three summer months. Central air is one of mankinds greatest achievements.

Moving is a very stressful process. I had no idea that moving companies were such a shady bunch. The process has gone like this, first, we entered in our contact info to a site which specializes in helping people move. Then you wait a few seconds and your phone starts ringing and your in-box fills to the brim with hundreds of quotes. Don't worry if you can't answer right away, they leave messages...and call back...and leave more messages. We finally settled on a national 'you-pack we-drive' firm. Also part of the stress is that I have to have my car shipped out there because I'm an idiot and have a lease and am already well past where I should be on mileage and cannot afford to put 1500 miles on my car over 48 hours. My little car will be nestled on one of those huge car transport trucks. I've heard that cars get beat to hell on those things but I found a product called 'Road Wrap' which I'm going to try for $30.

Finding a company to move my car was also stressful. I was on the line with one company, about to hand over my credit card info when I stumbled across horrible reviews on the BBB.org, as well as horrible reviews on epinions.com. Click. Screw those guys...That's what I love about capitalism and the free-market. Francisco D'Anconia says of money in his famous speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value."

Value for value...companies and individuals who try to trade value for non-value will ultimately perish, just as this company lost my business.

Ugh...facebook

2009-07-27T19:23:00.000-07:00

Well I finally caved...I got a Facebook. I'm moving across the country very soon and figured it actually is a good way to keep in touch with friends so I got one. More to come...

Endless Summer

2009-07-23T13:25:00.000-07:00

Waiting

2009-07-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

I think I hate waiting more than anything else in the world -possibly even more than traffic. I have no patience for things I'm concerned with, I want to know the outcome, good or bad, and I want to know now. I think it says something about my personality that two of my biggest pet peeves (waiting and traffic) are things I have no control over. Anyhow, I don't care what it says, I just know I hate it. It drives me crazy and I just end up completely over-analyzing every tiny variable of the situation until I'm ready to be committed. Anyhow, I fucking hate waiting.

Highway robbery

2009-07-14T07:35:00.001-07:00

I'm glad Quinn approved a $31B public 'works' package, because now union construction companies can hire more people to hold 'SLOW' signs on the side of the interstates. They don't even flip the signs to 'STOP', they just stand there and hold the sign. I counted 8 one day on a 6 mile stretch of 294N. Here's a novel idea, PLANT THE SIGN IN THE GROUND OR WEDGE IT BETWEEN THE CONCRETE BARRICADES!

By the backwards logic of today's politician, why do we have road signs at all? Think of the jobs that would be created if we tore down all road signs and hired people to hold them!?!?!

On top of that the Illinois pols have the audacity to install construction zone speed cameras, fining drivers $375 for even 1mph over the speed limit and claim it's about 'safety'. Want to make the roads safer for construction workers? Don't have them standing every half mile doing nothing but holding a 'slow' sign.

Politicians don't give a fuck about 'work zone safety', if they did they wouldn't allow the unions to rape the citizens of this state by employing scores of people to hold fucking signs.

This is a union payoff, nothing more. The unions want to keep their scores of sign-jockeys employed and unionized because it means more power for them. They want to keep them safe, so they lobby the government, who, never wanting to pass up an opportunity to bend you over, passes outlandish, unreasonable laws and installs 'speed cameras' in work zones, fining you $375 for as little as 1 mph over.

On top of that, they spend our money to ADVERTISE on tv/radio/internet, telling you to go slow in work zones.

Illinois leaders have sold us out to big labor, plain and simple. Shame on all of them.

Someone's going to have to clean up these broken windows!

2009-07-14T05:37:00.000-07:00

Gov Pat Quinn is an idiot. I don't think he's a diabolical madman, hellbent on further destroying the Illinois economy, it's just that I don't think he's particularly intelligent. Unfortunately, we Illinoisians will continue to pay the price for ill-thought out economic policies.

Yesterday, Illinois Gov Pat Quinn signed a $31billion statewide public 'works' package. Quinn said he is 'betting on the future' of Illinois, and made the Obamaesque, ever vague prediction that it would 'create or keep in place' 400000 jobs over the next six years. (Well isn't that something, if 400000 jobs are lost over the next six years Quinn can make the claim that it would have been 800000 if it weren't for this package). What Quinn fails to realize is simple, that government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it.

The $31 billion has to come from somewhere, and when government needs money, they can get it in one of a few ways. They can raise taxes (Quinn already proposed doubling the IL State income tax). They can issue bonds, (essentially borrowing it from the population), or they can simply create it, letting the hidden tax of inflation pay for it.

In this instance it appears Gov Quinn has decided to raise taxes. He's raising taxes on liquor and 'beauty products' as well as legalizing video poker and taxing those. In all fairness to the Governor, video poker should be legal anyway, but then again, it shouldn't be taxed, so I take that credit away from Quinn.

The problem with this, and any public works package designed to stimulate the economy is called the 'broken window fallacy'. I've described this before, but to reiterate, the broken window fallacy says that the vandal who smashes your window is actually doing the economy a favor because now you will have to spend money to have the window fixed, and the window repairman will now have money to buy other things, and so on and so on. Classic Keynesian thinking. What the person who buys into this thinking fails to realize is that by destruction, my money was now forced into non-productive consumption. It was diverted from either savings, or a productive purchase to pay for something I already paid for in the past. While the window repairman may have my $50, the tailor does not, as I will have to sacrifice a new shirt for the repaired window. Wealth was not created, it was simply diverted, or in case of the government it was redistributed.

What's happening now in Illinois is the same thing. Quinn sees the $31B as a way to create jobs, and to fix the economy, while all that's really happening is money is being diverted from one productive area of the private sector, to a non-productive public one.

Ohio thoughts

2009-07-01T17:17:00.000-07:00

I'm on a business trip in Ohio right now, bored in my hotel room. I just had dinner with a group of people on the team I'm involved with. Through the course of conversation, I was able to ascertain that one of them was a huge Objectivist, someone who's lived through the 'riches' of 'central planning', what a pleasant surprise, and I'd just assumed the trip would be completely void of exciting and intellectual discussion. It's nice to find others who know the answer to 'Who's John Galt', though my dinning partners seemed to agree...we're fucked.

On the flight in, I finished reading George Orwell's 1984. What a fantastic, well-written, prophetic yet depressing book. Orwell wrote it as a warning, the road of 'central planning', the road to collectivism leads to nothing but despair, to 'doublespeak' and 'thoughtcrime', to the complete and utter destruction of the self, of the individual.

What book to read next? I plan on continuing 'The Virtue of Selfishness' by Ayn Rand, but I'd like something fiction as well. 'Animal Farm' maybe? 'We the Living' perhaps? Any recommendations? I need to find a bookstore before getting to the airport tomorrow.

I'm watching 'Oceans 13' right now, what a silly movie.

Ohio has a concealed carry law...I didn't realize this after I landed and was on my way to the hotel, weaving through traffic at 90mph, wondering why everyone was driving so slowly.

Undeniable

2009-06-27T11:19:00.000-07:00

Say what you will about Michael Jackson, but his music was amazing. RIP

Pure Michigan

2009-06-23T18:16:00.000-07:00

Just got back from some much needed time off in the U.P. It really is as great as Tim Allen claims in those wonderful ads. Yes, that's Tim Allen's voice, check out the video after the few pictures and try not to get misty eyed.

Responsibility

2009-06-23T12:02:00.000-07:00

It seems people who are fiscally irresponsible have become fair game for ridicule (and rightfully so) in polite society. If a couple is barely getting by and they go buy a nice new car, people will criticize their irresponsible decision. Same can be said for a new house, or flat screen TV. How come the same scrutiny isn't applied to the decision to have kids? I've heard people remark 'how the hell are they going to afford that new car?', but you rarely hear 'how the hell are they going to afford that new human?', it's all smiles and elation.

You see people all of the time who can barely feed themselves having kids. Even seemingly responsible people will properly make long-term plans for big ticket items like cars, homes, etc, alongside where they plan to be financially, but when it comes to kids, make the decision based on 'being ready'. How come emotional readiness trumps financial readiness?

When the time comes for me to have kids, the question I'm asking is 'What's the NPV of this baby?'...just kidding, kinda.

Yaron Brook talks to some Republicans

2009-06-11T18:25:00.000-07:00

It's long, but worth watching.

http://arc-tv.com/republican-party-of-virginia-2009-state-convention%E2%80%94opening-breakfast-address/

No, it's pronounced "eye-gor."

2009-06-11T12:38:00.000-07:00

Here is a picture of Astro's outfielder Hunter Pence:

And here's a picture of Igor from 'Young Frankenstein':

I saw Pence grin after making a catch last night and burst into laughter.

A-Rod

2009-06-10T05:58:00.000-07:00

It's no wonder people hate this guy. What type of man brings a date to a bachelor party. What an asshole.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0906/pop.culture.hot.list.0609/content.7.html

Scabs

2009-06-08T08:42:00.001-07:00

What draws us to pick scabs? Is it the pain? That it hurts enough to give us a little rush, but not enough to actually hurt? Why do we find it fun? After you pick a scab, do you look at it? Kind of bend it a little bit between your thumb and your index finger? What's the deal there? I also do this with dead skin, the bigger the piece I can pull off the better I feel about it. Once it's off, I'll try to pull and stretch it before throwing it out.

I think one thing is clear, people enjoy picking stuff off of their bodies.

I've doubled in popularity!

2009-06-08T07:02:00.000-07:00

Over the past month, I've gained two new blog 'followers'. This makes me very happy, maybe I should actually start posting things. It feels like I'm in a some kind of creative drought (BNL reference).

Last weekend I watched about an hour of a movie called 'New World Order', or something like that, about Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist responsible for the prison planet website. Alex believes that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the US government in a brazen attempt to usher in socialism (or facism depending on which of his followers you listen to), and that Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama are all elitists working for some hidden Wizard of Oz with aims of world domination. First off, while the government has used 9/11 to take more power, as well as go to war, I do not in any way think that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. 9/11 was orchestrated by AQ and Osama bin Laden.

Secondly, the Bushes, Clintons and now Obamas are not part of some illuminati-esque ultra-elite conspiracy for world domination, and if the US does one day end up in full out socialism (which I believe is where we're heading) it won't be because of some far-fetched scheme (evidentally hundreds of years in the making spanning multiple generations -according to the loons), it will be because that's what we voted for.

In my opinion, the Bushes, Clintons, and Obama are not evil masterminds, but unprincipled populists. True, Obama might lean further left than GW, but ultimately our current crop of politicians are in the business of government; of staying in power and levying their own pocketbooks. Obama has already proven that he will change his tune to not offend the masses (check his views on gay marriage), and GW Bush expanded government to never before seen levels (until now of course). And as far as economics are concerned do the two major parties really disagree on things like stimulus packages and government spending? They only disagree on the scale, in the end, they're both Keynesian.

We get what we deserve. The majority of voters in America have been rased on the welfare state. Voters of both parties have become drunk on special interests and despite what they may claim have forgotten the only proper role of government; to protect individual rights. The parties are too afraid to offer up principled candidates, out of a fear of alienating the largest segment of Americans, the wishy-washy middle of the roaders. The nation has become too reliant on government. The democrat will see a poor person and demand the rich man serve him, the republican will see a nipple on TV and demand the unconstitutional FCC restrict more of the free-market and take away more freedoms of speech and expression. We need to strike the phrase 'there oughta be a law' from the national lexicon.

Today's democrat (voters not politicians) will talk about balanced budgets and reduced government spending, right up to the point where you talk about cutting funding to one of their special interests. Today's democrat will talk a big game about free speech when it comes to gay pride parades, but then will label Rush Limbaugh 'hate speech' and take steps to limit his speech.

Even the staunchest republican will scoff and laugh at me when I push on the issue of roads, schools and fire departments. "These are not roles of government" I will say, the response I get is usually something along the lines of 'the job is just too big for anyone but the government'. Is this how a nation crumbles? Roads, schools and fire departments were once all private, but today the 'free-market party' will laugh at the thought of private roads, or private schools. I wonder if 20 years from now the next crop of republicans will laugh at the concept of private healthcare, it's 'just too big' for anyone besides government to handle.

I have a 'Who is John Galt?' bumber sticker on my car, in hopes people will be curious and go google the name 'John Galt'. The nation has become lulled into a state of apathy and reliance. It's not that people are lazy, it's just all they've known. All I know that until Americans start firmly standing on their own principles of individuality and self-reliance in ALL aspects of life, there is no way we can expect such virtues in our politicians.

Everest

2009-05-26T06:07:00.001-07:00

"It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend [it]." ~Ferris Bueller.

Decor from the 80's (seriously, you could rename it 'Dorsia' and fool Patrick Bateman) but an absolutely exquisite experience. Fantastic service, great view and unbelievable food. I started with the New York State Sauteed foie gras, followed by the filet of venison with wild huckleberries, braised pear and alsace knepfla. For dessert I had the terrine of chocolate crepe and bananna brule with maple cap mushroom syrup. You get plenty of food and will not leave hungry, don't worry though, you might gain a little weight but your wallet will be considerably lighter after your meal, but it's well worth it.

http://www.everestrestaurant.com/

Mancow waterboarded, says 'It's torture'

2009-05-23T10:43:00.000-07:00

Mancow has more balls than Sean Hannity.

Prolonged Detention

2009-05-22T21:27:00.000-07:00

A question of parental rights, self-interest, and the role of government

2009-05-19T17:20:00.001-07:00

"Warrant issued for mom of boy resisting chemo
Teen and mother skipped court hearing; doctor testified cancer has spread"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/

I welcome any feedback on this topic, especially from fellow Objectivists.

This is an interesting topic that I've been struggling with recently. On one hand, obviously no person or government should ever be able to lay claim to another's life or body. We, as individuals have the right to put anything, or not put anything into our own bodies, per our own values (drug laws violate this right). Under any circumstance the government has no moral right to dictate what steps its citizens must take to ensure their own health and life. However, protecting individual rights is a proper function of government, and I believe a function of that role is to protect children, who, I think do not have fully developed faculties needed to 1) make decisions in their own, rational self-interest, and 2) the physical faculties to care for themselves (obviously). This includes protection from active abuse, such as violence, and passive abuse, such as neglect. (I say active and passive, because active involves an action to abuse, whereas passive requires inaction).

Because of these realities, children must depend on their parents, who are trusted to make decisions for the child, which they believe to be in the child's best interest. It is the role of the parent to decide what is best for the child, not the government. This definition of the role and rights of parents does not come without limits; the child still maintains basic, primal human rights which are protected by law. This is why, despite parental beliefs, parents cannot beat, abuse or neglect their children. The question then becomes, are the parents neglecting their child by denying the child medical treatment, in this case chemo therapy?

The child himself has said that he does not want to undergo chemo, but based on the circumstances I do not think the 13 y/o is in a position to act in accordance with his own values, in his own rational self-interest. A person with Stockholm Syndrome will claim they do not want to be rescued, to illustrate my point.

If a child is being neglected at home, in the form of starvation or malnutrition, the government will take the necessary steps to protect that child's life. Starvation will ultimately result in death if no action is taken, it is a clear form of neglect. Lymphoma will also ultimately result in death if no action is taken. By going against everything modern medicine dictates, and refusing treatment for their child, is this also not a form of neglect?

On one hand, I have serious reservations about society and judges using force to administer medical care. On the other hand it is proper for government to use force to stop child abuse and child neglect in more traditional forms.

Is this a form of neglect?

Thank you Senator Duffy!

2009-05-19T16:48:00.000-07:00

A rare case of government doing the right thing.

Just over a month ago I posted a letter I sent to, along with a response from Illinois State Senator Dan Duffy regarding a proposal for 'speed cameras' in Illinois. Here is a link to that post:

http://ennuiandobjectivism.blogspot.com/2009/04/letter-to-state-senator.html

Well, my efforts and the efforts of the fine Senator did not go unrewarded. Today in a local paper, I was thrilled to read this headline:

"The state Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have allowed using cameras to automatically measure speed in school, park and hospital zones and issue tickets to speeders. The plan failed with 13 senators voting in favor and 35 voting against it."

I was even more thrilled to read this:

"State Sen. Dan Duffy, a Lake Barrington Republican, said all camera enforcement is unconstitutional and that in addition to voting against speed cameras he plans to push for the removal of existing red light cameras in Illinois."

Hmmm...mentioning the constitution? I'd like to think my letter had something to do with his strong statements.

I sent Senator Duffy a personal thank you note!

Missing link?

2009-05-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

This is huge.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Suburban traffic

2009-05-15T05:16:00.000-07:00

I hate traffic. When I say that, I mean I really, really hate traffic; I loathe it with every cell in my body. Unless I'm in a car wash, if I'm in my car and traveling less than 5 miles per hour, chances are I'm miserable. Until recently the majority of traffic I'd encounter would be on the way into Chicago, or on streets in Chicago itself. More recently though, I've had to deal with suburban traffic. I find suburban traffic more offensive.

Believe me, I despise city traffic too, and think that there are plenty of ways city traffic could be reduced, but I realize it's a more complex problem. Yesterday, sitting in a line of cars about a mile long on a country road, slowly crawling towards a 'T' intersection, the light allowing 6 or 7 cars through at a time before changing, I was thinking about exactly why suburban traffic is more insulting than city traffic. Readers of this blog can probably guess my conclusion -government failure.

Under normal circumstances, traffic occurs for primarily one reason, there are a lot of cars, going a lot of different places, with a limited number of ways to get there. Imagine a factory with a limited number of production lines, and a virtually limitless amount of unique products, all needing to be produced at the same time; this is essentially the system that comprises our infrastructure. The cars are the raw materials needing to be produced, and the roads are production lines. As you can imagine, a factory trying to operate in these conditions would have a difficult time, it would be slow, tedious, confusing, and there would be alot of bottlenecks- same thing with traffic. Of course private factories are motivated to, and have found ways to fix these types of problems.

Breaking down the root cause even further it boils down to people vs space, and this is why suburban traffic is more offensive. Cities are stuffed to the brim with people and buildings, they have loads of people, with no free space, and the existing roads are what you're stuck with. The suburbs on the other hand, especially where I find myself driving, have few people and nothing but space. In fact, the road I found myself stuck on was surrounded on each side by wide open farm fields.

Staring out across the acres of open farm field, and looking at my GPS ariel map of the area, I thought of how much a nice straight road through this farmers field would alleviate the traffic situation. The next thing I thought was, 'this farmer could make alot of money'.

If we lived in a truly free-market, this farmer (or an enterprising venture capitalist) could build a road connecting the two existing roads. I guarantee he would have hundreds of cars using his road each and every day -and traffic on the over-burdened existing roads would be reduced by say 33% or so. I'm not sure how exactly he would make money, maybe at first by setting up a toll, maybe eventually by snapping photos of the plates and sending out bills, or maybe by selling ad space -he could use the road itself as a giant billboard. Since it would be his road, it would be up to him to determine the speed limit, not the state, and he could decide how to enforce the rules of his road. Seeing as how he would be concerned with making a profit, I'd be willing to bet that his road would always be the most neatly plowed road every snowfall, as well. The farmer makes money, the burden on existing roads is lessened, and I get home quicker.

Unfortunately we do not live in a free-market. Government unjustly thinks that they have a right to say what you can and cannot do with your own property. I'm not going to take the time to list the merits and challenges of privitized infrastructure, but wanted to use this example to encourage new ideas and ways of looking at things such as government and the way things are vs the way things could be. Far too often even people who claim to be free-market capitalists break down and fall back on government reliance when faced with a challenge such as infrastructure or education, thinking it's 'just too big', or that it 'needs' to be done by government or 'the private market can't handle that', my question to the doubters is 'why not?'. When has government ever done something more efficiently and effectively than private enterprise? Private enterprise, due to competition and the selfish drive to produce and profit is constantly looking for ways to improve, innovate and save money. Look around, do you honestly believe government cares about improvement, innovation and (I can't even say it without laughing) saving money?

Bottom line: People need to think outside the government provided box and realize there are other, better ways to do things. It will require an ideological shift to break away from the welfare state we've been raised on and do for ourselves. Ultimately, to get past the altruistic ethics we've been brainwashed on.

John F. Kennedy said 'Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'. The thinking that will save this country is 'Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself'

The Trouble With Republicans

2009-05-12T07:42:00.000-07:00

Fantastic article from a pro-capitialism blog!

The Trouble with Republicans

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 11:53 AM
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2009/03/trouble-with-republicans.htm

“There has long been an element of the Republican Party that has felt a need to distance themselves from people who stand up for conservative principles, whether those with principles have been Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, or whomever.”

So observed Thomas Sowell on March 17 in his latest Townhall column, “The Republican Civil War.” Sowell is one of my favorite political commentators, together with Walter Williams and a few other conservative/“libertarian“ columnists. Author of many books that explode contemporary political and social fashions with bomb-squad precision, Sowell wrote what I consider the best critique of Marxism, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (1985), in which he shreds the doctrine into countless specks of chad. And his columns can be depended on for their cogently piquant criticisms of what passes for modern political and social “received wisdom.” It is doubtful that any of his book titles will be found on President Barack Obama’s bookshelf -- if he has one.

His latest column, however, points up the main problem with the Republican Party, and with Sowell’s argument, which is chiefly that conservatism, as an ideology or a set of principles, is utterly bankrupt. Its adherents can only try to out-shout the Democratic Party that they could do a better job of “managing” the country and the economy, when the best solution is to get the government out of the economy and back to its Constitutional mandate of protecting individual rights. But such a solution is as abhorrent to the Republicans as it is to the Democrats. It would entail a relinquishment of power and the repudiation of not only the welfare state, but of the roles of God, family and other “traditional” values in the GOP platform. Any other course of action will guarantee a sentence of irrelevancy of the Republican Party.

Sowell takes the Republican Party to task for being bankrupt, citing its current infighting over whether or not to side with Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and other outspoken religious and secular conservatives. It is not so ironic that most Republicans wish to distance themselves from the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter, who regularly launch broadsides against liberals and the Democrats from their flip-flopping religious/common sense convictions. It is exactly those convictions on which the Republicans once campaigned and legislated.

The Republicans behave like private citizens cowering in fear of a roaming street gang, and seek to protect themselves by paying moral and political protection money to the gang -- the gang in this instance being the Democrats.

Sowell, however, does not name those principles, nor does he offer a constructive solution other than that the Republicans should stick to their principles and stop indulging in what novelist Ayn Rand called “me-too-ism.”

“There has even been an undercurrent among some Republicans of a sense that it is time to move away from the image of Ronald Reagan, to update the party and court newer and less embarrassing segments of the voters than their current base.”

One can wholeheartedly agree with that observation. The two Reagan administrations made no serious attempt to abolish or reduce the welfare state. Reagan did nothing to nip the Islamic jihad in the bud (remember the Marine barracks massacre in Lebanon?) when forthright and terminal action against our enemies, chiefly Iran and Saudi Arabia, would have spared us 9/11 and the two futile and costly Iraq wars under the Bush administrations. One is at a loss to understand why Reagan is upheld by conservatives as the template of “good government.” He is credited with making tax cuts. But what the government gave during his terms of office, can be taken away just as easily, as Obama and a Democratic Congress are eager to do.

And, of course, let us not forget that the Republicans, under both Bush administrations, were responsible for the largest expansion of the welfare state and intrusive government interventions, which the Democrats happily obliged them with, and which the Obama administration wishes to surpass FDR-style.

Jared Seehafer, in his article of March 17, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis,” argues that if the Republican Party wants to regain Congress and the White House in the next election, it must abandon the religious foundation of its principles and discover and advocate capitalism. He also argues that conservatives largely recognize the value of capitalism and seek to ensure its existence, and that the Republicans must realize that religion and capitalism, as moral systems, are irreconcilable.

I agree with that evaluation, except that, from my experience and observations, I do not think the conservatives actually value capitalism. It is a secondary matter to them. But, Rand put it best in her 1973 article, “Censorship: Local and Express”:

“The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories -- with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals [the Democrats] see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe -- but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.”

Further on, she notes:

“…Each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises…..‘Control,‘ to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.”*

Sowell raises the issue that Republicans could easily win more black voters to their party by charging the Democrats with the horrendous and ongoing debacle of their welfare state and educational policies.

“No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population. The teachers’ unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism. Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.”

All that is true. But what Sowell fails to grasp is that, for reasons of altruism, the Republicans largely endorse the programs that Democrats advocate and enact, but say that they would do a better job of it, just as left-wingers claim that Soviet communism would have triumphed if only it had been guided by “better men.” The Republicans are not going to garner any significant support by implicitly endorsing Obama’s aggressive takeover of the economy by bickering over such minor issues as the amount of pork in the stimulus legislation or by harping on whether or not Obama and the new Treasury Secretary “knew” about the AIG executive bonuses before taking an 80% ownership in the company.

(Abetting both the Democrats and the Republicans in that exercise in fascism are the news media, which continue to report the lie that American taxpayers “own“ that 80%. I have heard no Republican point this out. Nor have I heard any conservative warn the nation about the peril of forcing AIG executives to return their bonuses, which would be an assault on contract law via ex post facto taxation, regardless of those executives‘ culpability in the subprime mortgage fiasco. No Republican has upbraided Congressman Barney Frank for demanding a list of those executives‘ names, which he would hand over to a Congressional lynch mob.)

Seehafer is correct to ask what Sowell did not: What principles does the Republican Party uphold, other than religious-based ones, which Sowell does not even mention in his article? Another question to ask is: What intellectual leadership could cure the Republicans of their bifurcated political policies and persuade them to adopt a moral advocacy of capitalism?

It certainly will not be the Sermon on the Mount, nor even Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. It must be John Galt. It must be a philosophy of reason, or Objectivism.

*In Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Signet softcover (1982), p. 187

Graduation

2009-05-11T06:00:00.000-07:00

After 3 years in a part-time program, I'm finally done! I wrapped up my MBA program this past Thursday night with my last Strategy class. My gamble not to study a drop for the final paid off, as the professor surprised the class by announcing the final would be optional at the start of class. Some people, including professors would criticize my decision not to study, but if anything I think it shows business accumen. A simple cost-benefit analysis was all it took for me to make my decision. Being as I only trade value for value, the value I would have had to put in to study for the final was simply not equal to the value I would have gotten out of getting an 'A' on the final, it would have been a sacrifice on my part. The fact that the final was made optional, and I ended up with an 'A' in the class was just a bonus. Oh well, I'm happy to be done.

Racist St Louis Cardinal fans

2009-05-06T05:17:00.000-07:00

Can't say I'm surprised. Thanks to JBTF for this.

Drug Decriminalization

2009-04-30T12:16:00.000-07:00

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

Download the full report here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

Hey Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito...GO FUCK YOURSELVES

2009-04-30T06:07:00.000-07:00

What a sad state of affairs when the United States Supreme Court, ie, those tasked with upholding the Constitution, flagrantly discard it in favor of populist government censorship. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a federal prohibition on the one-time use of explitives, stemming from live-tv outbursts, similar to the ones Bono and Cher have made at award shows. This means the the non-elected FCC can continue to fine broadcasters whatever they choose for explitive 'slip-ups'.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." Sounds simple enough, but evidientally Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, thought otherwise. They seem to think that the government CAN pass laws abridging the freedom of speech in cases where someone might hear something unpleasant. These justices call themselves conservative? I thought conservatives were for smaller government? Yet here they stand united against the most important amendment in favor of collectivism.

This is what Antonin Scalia had to offer on why he is willing to ignore the document he was sworn to uphold:

"Even isolated utterances can be made in … vulgar and shocking manner, and can constitute harmful first blows to children...At one point, Scalia, in rejecting the broadcasters' contention that the FCC failed to provide evidence that one-time expletives harm children, said, "It suffices to know that children mimic behavior they observe."

I thought conservatives didn't think government should play the role of parent?

It should be pointed out that the United States taxpayers pay approximately $3.4 Billion dollars a year to be 'protected' by the FCC.

If we are to have free speech, the FCC needs to be abolished, and Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should be stripped of their positions and tried for crimes against the Constitution.

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-28-scotus-fcc-expletives_N.htm
www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0430chapmanapr30,0,3178237.column

Don't forget Mom!

2009-04-27T07:06:00.000-07:00

Mother's Day is Sunday May 10th.

CNN reports on surging 'Atlas Shrugged' sales

2009-04-27T05:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/04/27/ayn.rand.atlas.shrugged/index.html

Why we shouldn't trust Government with our money in one quote

2009-04-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

This is from today's tribune, on a proposed transportation hub in the West Loop:

"The action plan calls for spending $1.5 billion for express trains to O'Hare International Airport and Midway Airport. The idea is being advanced even though it never resulted in a successful business model..."

Can you imagine if a CEO of a private company announced this course of action? Stock prices would plummet and the institutional holders would have his head on a stick.

Chicago is going to knowingly and happily throw $1.5 billion down the drain. Politicians are idiots.

Stop relying on government

2009-04-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

This is a fantastic article I found on another message board. Enjoy...

Potholes and the Crisis of Confidence

by Michael Kleen

April 16, 2009

Early in April, a group of neighbors on Chicago ’s West Side purchased eight bags of cement mix and a push roller, gathered their shovels and rakes, and set to work fixing the potholes that plagued their street. The whole operation cost under $200.

On the other side of the country, on Hawaii ’s Kauai Island , frustrated residents donated time and equipment to repair Polihale State Park , which had been damaged by flooding. The endeavor, which the state’s Department of Land and Natural Resources estimated would require two years and $4 million, was completed in a surprisingly rapid eight days. “Just like everyone’s sitting around waiting for a stimulus check, we were waiting for this but decided we couldn’t wait anymore,” Ivan Slack, a local business owner, told CNN.

These two instances—uprisings by fed up residents, if you will—expose the ineptitude of governments that are put in power to help the people, but when it comes down to it, never seem to get around to doing their elected job. For the residents of Chicago ’s West Side and Hawaii ’s Kauai Island , help never came and they decided to take matters into their own hands.

If business owners and volunteers on Kauai Island can finish repairs in eight days at minimum cost, repairs that the state government grossly overestimated at two years and $4 million, that begs the question: Of what use is the state government? If the islanders had waited for help to arrive, their businesses that depended on tourism to the state park would have gone belly up.

In the same vein, every winter the roads in Chicago literally crumble under the weight of traffic. Taxes continue to increase, but the city can’t seem to keep up with the demand for repairs. Frustrated residents ask, where is all that money going? The situation is an embarrassment for the city council and the mayor, who predictably aren’t happy with the actions of the do-it-yourself minded citizens.

It should be an embarrassment, because government bureaucrats all over the United States (not to mention the world) justify their paychecks by continually planning for and responding to problems they never intend to actually solve. Why is it that the Ming Dynasty was able to build a wall that lasted for over 2,000 years, yet our local and state governments cannot build roads that last for one?

Worse yet, as in the case of the Daley Machine in Chicago , these governments continually complain about a lack of funds, which supposedly prevents them from effectively responding to the infrastructure crisis. But we know that funding isn’t really the problem. In March, Kentucky Fried Chicken offered to fix potholes for free, as long as they could stamp “Refreshed by KFC” over the patch. Chicago refused the offer, saying that they do not allow printing on city streets. It seems to me that if the budget was really in a crisis, a few stenciled notes would be worth the savings.

Chicago ’s refusal, however, has little to do with paint and everything to do with a government demanding the exclusive right to solve problems in public spaces. After all, if a company can fix potholes at no cost to the taxpayer, and a few neighbors can get together and clean up a state park, why do we need the government and its bloated agencies? Its ineptitude calls into question its legitimacy.

At the end of the classic movie “Clash of the Titans,” after Perseus’ triumph, one of the gods asks, “What if courage and imagination become everyday mortal qualities? What will become of us?” To which Zeus replies, “We would no longer be needed.” Likewise, I can imagine the bureaucrats in Chicago asking each other, “What would become of us if everyone starting fixing the potholes themselves?” Unfortunately, as Zeus adds, “For the moment, there is sufficient cowardice, sloth and mendacity down there on earth to last forever.”

Until more people join the ranks of the citizens in Kauai or on Chicago ’s West Side in solving problems for themselves, we will be stuck under the yoke of comedians who say they need $4 million and two years to fix a park and, for some reason, continue to be taken seriously by the general populace. It is time for us to turn our backs on the bureaucrats and seek solutions elsewhere. If the residents of Kauai would have waited, they would have lost their livelihoods. We can no longer afford to surrender time and money hoping for someone else to come and save us.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/kleen/kleen2.html
Accessed 4/20/2009

US Judge endorses Rand's philosophy

2009-04-16T06:01:00.000-07:00

Bravo!

The Montana dissent

For the first time in American legal history, a judge has explicitly endorsed important principles of Ayn Rand’s political theory in a published appellate opinion.

Judge William Nels Swandal’s passionate dissent in the case of Buhmann v. State, decided by the Montana Supreme Court, concludes as follows (beginning at page 94):

Ayn Rand correctly observed that the right to life is the source of all rights–and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. These principles are embodied in the Montana Constitution in Article II, Sections 3 and 29. I invite the majority to read them. The fundamental rights to acquire, possess, and protect property are not even given lip service by this Court. Under the majority’s opinion, the State suffers no consequences for the exercise of coercive and unreasonable power in destroying these businesses. There is no serious effort to balance benefits and burdens. It may be too early to start asking, “Who is John Galt?” but more decisions like this will seriously impact all private property and business owners in this State.

I strongly dissent from the majority opinion.

In a footnote explaining the John Galt reference, Judge Swandal wrote: “In Ayn Rand’s work Atlas Shrugged, the phrase becomes an expression of helplessness and despair at the current state of the novel’s fictionalized world.

It’s not my intention to analyze, endorse, or criticize the merits of Judge Swandal’s overall opinion in this case. The dispute (which centers on whether the State of Montana must compensate owners of game farms for economic damages resulting from a legal ban on fee hunting) raises several technical issues of legal interpretation that would require careful analysis.

But I think it is important to commend this particular judge, not only for his intellectual perspicacity in relying on Ayn Rand’s ideas, but for his professional courage in being the first to openly and explicitly apply principles of Objectivism to identify the fundamental issues at stake in a published appellate case.

(Note: It proved too difficult to find a one-click link to the court’s opinion, but it is accessible by a series of steps. Click on the Montana Supreme Court’s main page, then choose “opinions” in the horizontal row, then search for Supreme Court Case No. 05-473, then click on “Wallace v. State,” and finally click on “opinion/order.”)

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-montana-dissent/

Real music, by real musicians

2009-04-15T16:59:00.000-07:00

Miley Cyrus vs non-manufactured, real musicians, with real talent

2009-04-15T13:28:00.000-07:00

Miley Cyrus isn't qualified to clean the spit off Thom Yorke's microphone, much less claim to be capable of 'ruining' one of the greatest, most innovative bands of the past 25 years. Radiohead craps out and flushes more talent on a daily basis than the entire Cyrus family has ever dreamed of having.

Billy 'pimp of the year' Ray should keep his 'employee' on a leash when it comes to bashing rock royalty.

www.usmagazine.com/news/radiohead-miley-2009133

Altruism 101

2009-04-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago my girlfriend gave a presentation on philosophy for one of her college classes. The purpose of the presentation was to discuss some aspects of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, compared to the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. She said the presentation went well, but her professor was ‘not an Ayn Rand fan’ (surprise surprise a college professor at a Catholic school doesn’t like Ayn Rand). I asked what his rebuttal was, and it was something along the lines of ‘who is Ayn Rand to put the individual above society’? Classic disintegration, though ultimately her professor being religious was simply posturing for misintegration.

I wish I could have been there.

I told her that her professor was not only wrong, but insulting at best, and dangerous at worst. The first question I would have asked her looter professor is ‘what is society?’ The simplest answer is ‘a group of individuals’. I will use ‘society’ from this point forward, because it’s shorter, but anytime you read ‘society’ think ‘a group of individuals’, it makes it easier to see why the professor’s line of thinking is wrong. A more detailed definition of society would be ‘a group of individuals who interact with each other’, and the purest definition of society as it pertains to people who hold the views of the hapless professor is ‘a group of all individuals who interact with each other, who aren’t you’.

I wasn’t surprised to find that a Catholic professor would be t[pr]eaching the ethics of altruism. By implying that ‘society’ is to be the primary value, and not the individual's own life, he is demanding man live not as man, but as a sacrificial animal. He believes it is right for man not to act in his own rational self-interest, but rather to give himself to the whims of the mindless blob that is ‘society’. Cloaked in the guise of ‘good intentions’ and ‘holy’ even, he is actually demanding immorality from the rational man. He is demanding self-destruction.

He would argue, I’m sure, that sometimes man has to sacrifice for the good of the whole, and since he is part of the whole, it ultimately serves him right as well. This is a contradiction based on the false premise that a sacrifice can benefit the person making the sacrifice. It cannot. A sacrifice is when one gives something of value, for something of lesser value. The ethics of altruism, the ethics we’ve all been brainwashed by, tell us that the greater the sacrifice, the better the act. The more value you give, for the least possible return, the better. This is why the ultimate sacrifice under the ethics of altruism would be giving your own life for something or someone you don’t value. It is impossible for an individual to give something of value, for something of lesser value and ultimately benefit.

The professor, under the DIM hypothesis, would ultimately be considered a ‘misintegrator’, as the ultimate value is not one’s own life, rather a superior power (God). His means of getting there though borrows from the disintegrator’s arsenal; he places God first, society second, and the individual a lowly third (if any value at all is assigned to the individual, which I doubt).

My girlfriend asked if my being personally insulted was being Objective. I explained that by advocating such views, her professor was making a claim on my life. I am to be sacrificed to society, if it is deemed for the ‘greater good’. Property I worked for will be forcibly taken from me if society deems it necessary. Under the philosophy of this professor, I am to give up the essence of my very being, my ‘I’, and it is to be replaced with a ‘we’. And that is as personal as it gets.

Letter to State Senator

2009-04-01T18:11:00.000-07:00

Here is a letter I wrote to Illinois State Senator Dan Duffy, and his response below:

Senator Duffy,

I am writing this to urge you to vote against an upcoming bill regarding the use of "speed cameras" in certain counties, including Lake, in the State of Illinois. If you are familiar with the proposal, you are aware that only the license plate of the speeding car is photographed, not the driver. This violates the tenet 'innocent until proven guilty'; a cornerstone of the American Justice System, and one which is of utter importance in any nation which values individual rights, which this nation supposedly does. By photographing only the plate, and then simply mailing out tickets, the state is passing the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. For example, what if I let a friend borrow my car, and he is photographed speeding? I would get the ticket, despite the fact that I've committed no crime, and the burden of proof would be on me to prove I wasn't the one driving, whereas it should be on the courts to prove I was. Such is the case for red light cameras as well, unfortunately many local 'leaders' have chosen to disregard basic American principles in unjust favor of increased revenues, sold to us under the guise of public safety. While red light, and speed cameras may or may not result in fewer accidents, I ask at what cost? The cost of liberty, in my opinion, is far too great. I urge you to vote against this bill.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-speed-cameras-26-mar26,0,4094414.story

Thank you

RE:

I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree and I am one of the most vocal opponents of this bill.

Thanks for your email.

Dan

Objectivist politics/strategy?

2009-03-31T10:04:00.000-07:00

This all started as early as 2004 with the Kerry/Bush election. Dr. Leonard Peikoff had been working on a new theory called the DIM hypothesis. DIM stands for Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration. Peikoff’s new theory was that epistemology is the fundamental driver of history in all the key areas of life both culturally and personally, specifically one’s ability to integrate. Rand and Peikoff were always fond of Aristotle’s “one in the many” (integration) phrase which was Aristotle’s way of communicating the search for universals. Objectivism holds that universals are epistemological not metaphysical.

www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1620

The whole purpose of the DIM hypothesis (as I understand it) was to solve the problem of Induction. To actually create a Method of Induction just like logic is a method of arguing; this would elevate Induction to a specific, objective, definable method of reasoning. I’m not an expert by any means on DIM or the problem of induction. It is not necessary to have a good understanding of these philosophic issues for the purpose of our discussion. I’m just trying to provide a little context and history here.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
//www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html
//plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

EDIT: I have not listen to the lecture on DIM and am waiting for the book. If they are still free to listen to by all means go for it but I have not done it so I can’t comment much.

So how does this relate to elections you are probably asking? Well in one of the lectures Peikoff was asked about the election and how to apply DIM to it. Peikoff endorsed Kerry and denounced Bush’s religiosity and refusal to confront terrorist regimes. He then later said that everyone should vote straight Dem in the 2006 elections to thwart the rise of the religious right. I believe this was because Peikoff viewed socialism (Dems) as misintegration and theocracy (republicans) as disintegration. His theory I think argues that disintegration is worse historically than misintegration because they are completely opposed to integration and reason in favor of faith and superstition.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff#Politics

Interesting side note on 2008 election.

“"Now, if you ask me what I think of the various people...Personally, I think McCain comes across as a tired moron. Obama as a lying phony. Biden as an enjoyably hilarious windbag. And Sarah Palin as an opportunist, struggling to learn how to become a moron, a phony and a windbag."

Hilarious
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFjYBLkvND8

This of course caused a stir in the Objectivist community. You can imagine the range of topics discussed. Some thought this was Peikoff basically saying if you vote for a Republican you are not an Objectivist (I think this was overboard). Others thought he was right, and others thought he was wrong. Some thought the right choice was to abstain as Rand had mentioned herself in the past. Peikoff had a 19 minutes audio message on his site (that I can’t find now) about this endorsement. He also referred people to this article written by John Lewis which he endorsed. Craig Biddle ARI associate and Editor and Chief of the Objective Standard was in agreement with Peikoff and Lewis stating “John Kerry is despicable, and I will vote for him.”
//capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3647
//capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3960
//www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3961

Then Harry Binswanger and Robert Tracinski came out and endorsed Bush. Naturally this got everyone’s panties in a bunch. Many were worried this was going to evolve into another in a long line of “schisms” and “excommunications”. Nothing of the sort happened thankfully. Robert Tracinski is no longer affiliated with ARI but I think that was by choice and not a denunciation of ARI by him or vice versa. Trascinski I think just wanted to pursue his career outside of the “movement”.
//www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3982
//www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4000
//www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=929
//www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1093

So after reading all of that I wonder what your first impression is. I at first sided with Tracinski and Binswanger. Personally I just thought I don’t care how bad Bush is, Kerry is even worse and as a former soldier I just could not vote for a man that lied about his fellow veterans to Congress so he could launch his political career and stop a war he disagreed with.

This is also why I didn’t care about the swift boat issue, I thought it was justice. He smeared and betrayed good men to gain exposure and catapult himself in to politics. Now once he is about to reach the zenith of politics the same men he betrayed to start his assent up the political ladder gave him a taste of his own medicine. I also didn’t see how domestic theocracy was the biggest threat to us when we had real theocratic Islamic regimes plotting to destroy us now. If religion was the enemy in my mind it was certainly not American Christians but Muslim terrorists that we needed to address first and foremost.

But as time went on and we came to find out Iraq wasn’t quite how it was being portrayed by the administration I became more and more upset with republicans and it became easier to except the idea that they are the same with no real meaningful differences. As an Objectivist I also believe that cultural change doesn’t come from politics anyway and since Republicans didn’t appear to be any real opposition to the left that John Lewis was right. They must be crushed in the hopes that a real opposition can emerge.

Tracinski was challenged recently about his support for McCain by a TIA Daily reader and it was Robert’s response that lead me to where I’m at today which is the view that as pathetic as they are the Republicans are better than Democrats on almost every issue. Now that I have seen what Obama has done since winning the election 9and what he is planning to do)it’s hard to imagine McCain being worse.
Below is the reader comment to Tracinski:

“As a devout Objectivist since 1992, I have enjoyed your articles and use them as "intellectual ammo" in my defense of the morality of the free market. I am however somewhat curious as to why you back McCain as "the lesser of two evils" when the Republicans continue to chip away at the principles of the free market. It reminds me of a scientific experiment where you put frogs into cool water and slowly turn up the temperature until the frogs die from the heat, whereas when you put them directly into boiling water they jump out right away.

"The abandonment of principles by the Republican Party makes them a much more dangerous group of policy makers than the openly socialistic Democrats. We may see drastic government intervention into our financial system, but a least we will see them. And when they are exposed for the unlawful seizure that they are, there will be a backlash and a new group of principled conservative leaders will be able to reassert some of the foundations that produced the best government system in the world.

"The biggest challenge will be to identify and develop this next group of leaders who can intelligently defend the principles of the free market. With the conservative base looking to the wholly unqualified Palin as the savior of the party, there will be much work needed to find a principled leader who also has charisma."

Here was RT’s response.

“There is something to this argument; I have certainly found some solace in the fact that John McCain will no longer be the standard-bearer for the Republican Party. (This cartoon pretty much sums up my attitude.) But overall, this is a variant of the "bad news is good" argument I hear from certain Objectivists on every even-numbered year: that an election victory for the left would be good, because it will prompt greater resistance against statism by the right, which will suddenly be much more principled and effective than before. Thus, a collapse into far-left statism now will yield a greater defense of liberty in the long run. Bad political news will really be good.

I was trying to name exactly why I find this argument so unconvincing when my wife Sherri hit the nail on the head. This argument, she said, is just like the "broken window fallacy." It is, she said, the "broken culture fallacy."
In economics, the broken window fallacy is the idea that destruction—e.g., the breaking of a window—actually stimulates economic activity because of all the work required to repair the damage. The most grotesque expression of the broken window fallacy was a Paul Krugman column in the New York Times shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, in which he claimed that the destruction of the World Trade Center would stimulate the economy because of all the office space that would have to be rebuilt in lower Manhattan.

Paul Krugman recently received the Nobel Prize in economics.

The "bad news is good" approach to politics asserts something similar. Barack Obama will break so many windows in our culture and economy, this argument goes, that he will stimulate beneficial political activity to repair the damage.
The error in both fallacies is the same.

In the classic expression of the broken window fallacy, a young hoodlum throws a rock through a store window. A crowd gathers and notices that the shop owner has called in a glazier to repair the window. They then begin to reflect on the increased business for the glazier and how his new income will be spent to buy goods from other businesses in town. They end up concluding that the thug who threw the rock was really a benefactor to society because of all the economic activity he generated.

The error is that they see the new economic activity—but they forget about all of the other productive uses the shop owner might have found for his money instead of spending it merely to regain what he has lost.
Similarly, the advocates of the broken culture fallacy see the prospect of congressional Republicans rallying, say, to block a plan for socialized medicine, and they point with excitement to all of this new pro-liberty political activism—but they forget that the purpose of all of this activity is not to expand liberty, but merely to mitigate the damage caused by giving political power to the left.
I do agree that if Barack Obama and the new Democratic Congress attempt to seize a mandate for socialism, they will cause a backlash, and this will indeed stimulate a great deal of pro-liberty activism on the right. But to understand what this means in full context, we should look at the historical record.

There have been several prominent examples of a victory for the left leading to disaster, followed by a comeback for the right. The biggest example is Carter-Reagan. The left took over Congress in 1974 and the White House in 1976, precipitating the fall of South Vietnam, the Communist takeover in Nicaragua, the Islamofascist takeover in Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as well as double-digit inflation and high unemployment. So the country turned back to the right, electing Ronald Reagan in 1980 on a platform of free markets and strong national defense.

So did bad news turn out to be good?

The actual pattern really went something like this. The left defeated the muddled, compromising old Republicans, and when the backlash came, the country turned to…a new gang of muddled, compromising Republicans—which describes the actual policies of Ronald Reagan, rather than the over-glamorized version now remembered by the right. (This also reminds me of the biggest irony of the "bad news is good" argument. Most of the Objectivist intellectuals who currently make that argument were opposed to this pattern when it actually happened: they denouncing Ronald Reagan and urged Objectivists not to vote for him.) While the conservatives who came to power in the "swing to the right" achieved some good things (defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example, or dramatically decreasing the top marginal tax rate), much of what they did was merely to reverse some of the damage to liberty that had been caused by the left.

And a lot of the broken windows were never fixed. The Islamic Revolution in Iran and the mujahideen in Afghanistan (who were necessary for the fight against the Soviets) laid the foundations for September 11. And government was still much bigger and more intrusive when the whole cycle was completed.

Bad news was bad, and much of the subsequent good news consisted only of making the bad news a little less bad. RWT”

He continued on this idea more in TIA Daily but I can’t find it as of now. Anyway I think I’ve probably presented plenty of material to get a handle on both sides of the debate so at this point I’ll stop typing and can’t wait to hear everyone’s opinions.

Thanks to JBTF for this post

Discussion based format

2009-03-30T17:41:00.000-07:00

Over the next few weeks I'm going to be posting articles on issues regarding Objectivism and certain political issues to be discussed from an Objectivist standpoint. Hopefully there will be a number of new readers who will add to the discussion via the 'comments' section under each blog posting. I think we should have a good group of people all of whom I've discussed various topics at length in the past. I hope the discussion will add to the overall intent with which this blog was created.

If you have something you'd like to discuss, or an article you'd like me to post, email it to me at ennuiandobjectivism@gmail.com and I will post it as soon as I'm able.

I will continue to post personal nonsense, stories, rants, tirades, and photos of things I find interesting or amusing.

I hope this works!

Growing Objectivist sentiment?

2009-03-30T10:35:00.000-07:00

A little while ago I posted an article from the WSJ about surging sales of Atlas Shrugged. More recently I had an article forwarded to me (which I refrained from posting because I think it came from a subscriber only newsletter)about the booming sales of Atlas Shrugged, and the implications it could possibly have for this country once the hundreds of thousands of new readers get through the 1200 or so pages. As a fan of Atlas, and of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I am thrilled to hear news like this -even if the reason for the surge in Rand's popularity is in direct response to the final and utter removal of the word 'free' when describing our markets. (Though referring to our system as a 'free market' was always a misnomer).

Friday afternoon I was riding the train home, about an hour trip which this afternoon combined Pink Floyd, sleep, and The Virtue of Selfishness, not necessarily in that order. When we approached my station, I got up to walk towards the door and was standing in the aisle when I overheard a girl, about 30ish, talking to an elderly couple about how difficult it would be to make some unnamed book into a movie. The girl was gushing over how great, involved, and complex the book was. Naturally this piqued my interest as most books these days are practically designed for the big screen. I listened further and finally heard 'there's just so much. I mean, I just finished his speech. John Galt's speech...", I smiled and turned to speak with the group, using the copy of Virtue as my 'in'.

Turns out a friend turned her on to Atlas Shrugged, and she was just about finished. She told me that she 'loved it', and was 'definitely a fan', and that she'd be picking up The Fountainhead as soon as possible. She also mentioned that she was thinking of joining a Chicago-based Objectivist discussion group.

Seeing firsthand exactly what the articles were talking about was inspiring. I don't know anything about the girl, or her prior beliefs, but I'll chalk one up for the producers of the world.

Atlas Shrugged was voted the second most influential book ever written, behind the Holy Bible. With sales exploding, and the nation seemingly eroding into the world described in Atlas, the implications for both parties in power could prove staggering... Maybe just in time for my run for Governor!

Game changer

2009-03-27T05:21:00.000-07:00

This car will sell for $50000. It's 100% electric, can go 300 miles on one 45 minute charge, and does zero to sixty in 5.6 seconds. And it's gorgeous.

If I were in charge of GM's $40000 Volt, I would be very, very nervous.

It's called the Model S, by Tesla Motors, you can read more about it here:
www.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6

America

2009-03-26T11:00:00.000-07:00

Does this quote describe what's currently happening in America? I think it might be, the welfare state will be our downfall.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

~Alexander Tyler

Viva la revolution!

2009-03-25T05:13:00.000-07:00

The Parking Meter Revolt has started!

I fully advocate this type of civil disobedience. Our founding fathers thought it justifiable to go to war over taxation without representation. Do you think you're honestly represented? We 'elect' our officials who then proceed to burden the populus with taxes, fees and fines while they use our plight as reasoning to forcibly take more power, whether in the form of new parking meters, traffic cameras, 'safety' roadside checkpoints. Should WE the people be the ones to pay for Mayor Daley and his band of goon's gross incompetence and abhorrent corruption? Cook County is already the highest taxed county in the nation, and for what? Is Cook County a crime-free uptopia, with perfectly maintained roads, top-notch education, and a state-of-the art infrastructure? (All things the tax-to-death Cook County 'officials' advocate as reasons for high taxes) Hardly. Cook County is turning into a third world country thanks to the likes of Toad Stroger, Mayor Daley and their merry band of democrat criminals. REVOLT!

theexpiredmeter.com/?p=2377

TYRANTS!

2009-03-20T06:39:00.000-07:00

The march towards the nanny-state continues. I think it might be time to revolt...

www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1487047,w-nj-brazilian-wax-ban-032009.article

MBAs 20% Off!

2009-03-12T09:20:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine in the MBA program I’m enrolled in recently sent me an article from the ‘Council of Graduate Schools’ titled Why Should I Get A Master’s Degree? At first glance, the data presented in the flyer is wonderful, especially for someone who will have an MBA in two month’s time. I will make much more money over my lifetime than those with only a Bachelor’s Degree, and far more than those who only finish High School, the flyer told me. What’s more, it seems I’m ahead of the curve, as the flyer pointed out that the “number of occupations that typically require a master’s degree will increase by nearly 20% between 2006 and 2016”, nearly twice the rate of growth expected for all occupations. Great news, right? After all, I’m about to finish mine, I’ll already have my MBA and be making more money, and climbing the corporate ladder while everyone else will be playing catch-up, right? A win-win situation for me.

However, after reading the article from an Objective stance, and looking at it through the lens of basic economic theory, I found it very disheartening.

First, I find it very difficult to believe that the number of occupations requiring a master’s degree will truly increase by 20% over the next decade; rather, employers will simply start demanding master’s degrees for positions which once only required a lesser degree –the real skill-set requirements will not change.

I’ll come back to their reasoning later, but first I want to concentrate on that 20%. Employment in the United States can be seen as a ‘zero-sum game’, which means that for every +1 in one arena, there is a -1 in another; this is because there are a finite number of candidates (the working population). This means that for a 20% increase in the number of occupations requiring an MBA, there will be a 20% decrease in positions requiring a lesser degree (what’s important to remember is that they’re the same positions). Since there are only so many existing ‘masters’, the employees will have to come from somewhere, and enrollment in grad programs will increase by say, 20%.

It’s simple supply and demand; only in this case the demand isn’t based off on value for value, it’s based on non-value, leading to the increase in supply. What happens when the supply of a product drastically increases? The value of that product decreases.

What this article proudly proclaims, even applauds, is that the master’s degree will be debased the same way we’ve seen the debasement of the bachelor’s degree, which is ultimately reason for the 20% ‘growth’ rate. Too short-sighted and too greedy to realize they’re moving in the exact opposite direction of the true answer -admitting less students into bachelor’s programs- they opt instead for the easy money and choose to inflate the number of masters students. Ultimately what will happen is the same thing that happens to the dollar when the government creates money out of nothing, it loses its value.

Why do companies ‘require’ a master’s degree?

The cause of the increase demand of master’s degrees is because a bachelor’s degree has lost so much of its value it’s now seen as a high-school diploma. Companies are faced with a hiring crisis because they’re finding it harder and harder to hire competent employees straight out of college. In the past a bastion of eager, competent candidates, college job-fairs have now become cesspools of mediocrity. I’ve heard in the past that a bachelor’s degree simply represented an assurance to a company that the holder wasn’t an idiot; no longer does that even hold true. Even in my own undergrad experience I recall scratching my head at how half of the student population managed to get into college, and more importantly, why they were even there. “Everyone goes to college” simply doesn’t work.

Who’s to blame?

It’s complex, but readers of my blog should already know the ‘annotated’ answer: The Government. At some point in our nation’s educational history we correctly realized that we were missing out on a potentially massive segment of the population who were intelligent, ambitious and eager to learn who didn’t go to college because they couldn’t afford it. I take no issue with this assertion, and as a nation ‘we’ decided that we should help those students, because society would ultimately benefit from their newfound education. Grants, scholarships, favorable student loans and a plethora of aides ensued. Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Somewhere along the line ‘intelligence’ was discarded as a prerequisite for college admittance, and the grants and loans that come with it…shortly after even ‘ambition’ and ‘eager to learn’ were dropped. Today all that is needed to go to college is simply a whim. Ask a group of students why they’re in college and you’re certain to hear some ‘what else am I going to do’s. Yet, our President trumpets the accessibility of a college education and promises to debase it further. It looks good come campaign time to be able to point to an increase of college enrollment, ignoring of course the quality of those enrollees.

With that said, you can see why I’d be disheartened; I’ve spent more than two decades in school and now those very institutions are trying to make it worthless. Maybe they realize what they’re doing, but I don’t think they care, after all, education is big business, and if everybody goes to college and grad school they’ll continue making money hand-over-fist well into the future. We need to realize that college is not for everyone, and it was never meant to be, and that’s okay. Until then, we’ll all continue to shell out good money for more and more ‘education’ and employers will continue to struggle to find worthy applicants, and in the meantime, I’ll celebrate my accomplishment and ten years from now, hopefully find the same pleasure from seeing my 80% MBA hanging on my wall.

http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/Why_Should_I_Get_A_Masters_Flyer.pdf

A relevant quote, from an underrated President

2009-03-10T08:42:00.000-07:00

"All communities are apt to look to government for too much. Even in our own country, where its powers and duties are so strictly limited, we are prone to do so, especially at periods of sudden embarrassment and distress. But this ought not to be. The framers of our excellent Constitution and the people who approved it with calm and sagacious deliberation acted at the time on a sounder principle. They wisely judged that the less government interferes with private pursuits the better for the general prosperity. It is not its legitimate object to make men rich or to repair by direct grants of money or legislation in favor of particular pursuits, losses not incurred in the public service. This would be substantially to use the property of some for the benefit of others. But its real duty -- that duty the performance of which makes a good government the most precious of human blessings -- is to enact and enforce a system of general laws commensurate with, but not exceeding, the objects of its establishment, and to leave every citizen and every interest to reap under its benign protection the rewards of virtue, industry, and prudence."

~Martin Van Buren

Why demand-side economics, stimulus packages, and certain tax cuts don't work.

2009-03-06T07:38:00.001-08:00

Spending is what drives the economy, not production. The more money people have to spend, the more they'll purchase which will fuel economic growth. The government is the only entity big enough to spur the economy in downturns, because stingy consumers will simply save the money (or payoff debts) and not fuel the economy. Therefore, 'putting people to work' via stimulus packages, and simply giving people money, via tax rebates will generate economic boomtimes. That's basically what John Mayard Keynes beleived, and what the current administration, AND republicans not named Ron Paul believe.

Here's why it's wrong.

I'm going to lose 15 lbs

2009-03-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

I'm 202 now, I'll be 187 by May 1, 10%> bodyfat.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Highway to Hell

2009-03-02T09:33:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, my girlfriend and I went with four other friends to Galena IL for some skiing at Chestnut Mountain, and general revelry. The main reason chose Galena, was because one of my friend’s parents own a four bedroom cabin in Eagle Ridge; a very nice vacation territory.

For those of you who are not familiar with that part of the state, it is adorned with beautiful rolling hills and valleys, covered with mature forests. I highly recommend visiting; it really is a beautiful area.

Anyhow, Saturday morning started out as ordinary as a morning could, and it seemed like it would be the perfect day for skiing -25 degrees, and not a cloud in the sky. We all piled in our rented Kia minivan in all of our gear and headed to the mountain, which on main roads would be about a 15 minute drive.

As you all know, I am a huge fan of GPS, though sometimes I feel the GPS simply tells you the shortest route, and doesn’t take other factors into consideration, such as the neighborhoods, or other oddities you might find along your path; this happened to be one of those instances.

I’m a bit familiar with the area, and was a little surprised when we turned right out of Eagle Ridge, rather than left, but that’s what the GPS told us, and we figured we’d better not question it. We continued down the main road, into a valley when the GPS alerted us to turn left ahead on a road called ‘Devils Ladder’. At first we all kind of laughed at the strange name, and commented that we were surprised Garmin would even know about this road, because it was a dirt road, barely wide enough for one car, straight into the forest, and up the side of the valley. After a few quick turns, we could no longer see the main road. After another turn, we found ourselves heading up steep inclines, with no guard rails along the hill side of the road. The road itself was poorly maintained, and sparsely populated, no houses, mailboxes, or other traffic.

As we approached the apex of the side of the valley the GPS started going nuts. Those who own a GPS know that when you deviate from the directed course, it will automatically try to recalculate a new path to get to your set destination. Our GPS started to try and do just that, even though we had not deviated from the course. It began telling us to turn either right or left in 100ft, but when we would get to that point we’d find no road, and then it would say ‘recalculating’ and tell us to turn on yet another non-existent road. (Note: To turn left from the road we were on would send us plummeting 300 or so feet to the bottom of the valley).

The closer we got to where the road would eventually peak and begin the descent, the more insane the GPS seemed to be. Finally we made it to the top, where the road followed the curvature of the hill with a sharp left turn. As we made the turn we discovered a long abandoned house positioned on the left side of the road (the downhill side) with no driveway, and no mailbox. The house was painted a greenish blue, and had a rotting roof. Most of the windows had been smashed and you could see into the house, and through a few of the rooms. Trash was strewn about the entire place and along with “no trespassing’ signs, though it was clear from the satanic graffiti the signs had gone unheeded. The interior rooms were covered with pentagrams, upside down crosses, and ‘666’ along with other symbols I recognized but can’t really describe. It was extremely creepy. A few of us wanted to go in and look around, but thought better of it. The entire time the Garmin just kept saying ‘Recalculating’ in a soft, female British accent, which added to the eeriness of the whole scene.

With all of our eyes affixed to the house, Dan, (the driver) slowly rounded the corner and we headed down the backside of the hill, not yet noticing the GPS had fallen silent and instructed us to continue on our normal route.
The rest of the drive on ‘Devil’s Ladder Rd’ was uneventful, and we made it to the ski-area and had a great day.

I don’t really believe in the ‘supernatural’ but the experience was a bit strange and the girls were certainly scared. We took the same road back after skiing and the GPS remained silent through the whole trip, even while driving past the graffiti-laden house. I’m not sure what caused it to go haywire the first time, but it makes for a good story.

Like I said, I don’t really believe in this sort of thing, but I must admit, the hairs on my neck did stand up a little after doing some research and coming across this link; obviously just a coincidence, but odd none-the-less.

http://www.galenaregister.com/archives1996-2000/crime/articles/bodies_of_missing_children_found_in_abandoned_house

"What if?"

2009-03-01T20:33:00.001-08:00

Ron Paul, 2/19/2009

'Atlas Shrugged' sells 3x compared to same period last year

2009-02-27T08:49:00.000-08:00

Reading this book will give you a whole new outlook on the current crisis. I read this from August of 08, and finally finished up early November. Certain passages were eerie to read, knowing the book was written in 1957, but described the current situation to a 'T'.

"Sales of “Atlas Shrugged” Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis

Washington, D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

----------------

Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared on the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22647

Leftonomics

2009-02-26T09:36:00.001-08:00

I've got an idea I think I might pitch to our 'leaders' who seem to think that handing out money is the answer to our current crisis. Feel free to let me know what you think.

If big spending and 'cash infusions' are the way to go, then just do it right the first time...It's simple really, and we'll all benefit. Just start calling quarters dollars. Simple, really. Now you have 4 times the amount of money you had one second ago, and will be able to rush off and buy houses, and cars, and Xboxes. The only 'work' involved will be knowing how to multiply by 4 when you're looking through your wallet and bank statements. We'll all be rich and able to afford anything we want!

...

See how silly promoting consumption with free money is?

Secret Concert

2009-02-26T07:57:00.000-08:00

Tonight I will be attending a Shiny Toy Guns concert in Chicago. Tickets were not available for sale, and the show was not advertised. I won an NBC contest and will essentially just show up to a the provided location and give them the code word I gave when entering the contest. I like the Shiny Toy Guns enough, they have a few good songs, but I'm more excited because I like being in on secrets. I've never been to a secret show, or a secret anything before in my life; I've always had to buy tickets, and wait in line like an asshole. I get to bring a guest of my choosing, though really it's not a 'choice' as I will of course be bringing my girlfriend -just another one of the many perks of dating me!

I'm a dummy

2009-02-23T06:48:00.000-08:00

It's interesting how sometimes your brain just completely misses the most obvious of things. What's sad, is when these misses extend for seemingly your entire life, until you have a 'eureka!' moment, and suddenly feel like an idiot after you realize how obvious the long-standing miss was. I had one of these moments on Saturday night, when I finally, after literally decades of this catch-phrase in the national lexicon caught the play on words in the slogan for Kay Jewelers. "Every kiss beings with Kay". At first I laughed at the alliteral joke, and then felt like a moron for having taken about 20 years to get it (in case you don't get it, "every Kiss begins with K'). Better late than never, I suppose.

I wonder what other little advertising quirks I've missed, but this one's pretty bad, then again, I only 5 years ago first 'saw' the arrow in FedEx.

http://www.awib.org/content_frames/FedEx%20Logo.jpeg

Our money at 'work'

2009-02-19T07:33:00.000-08:00

This is an amazing website created by a friend of a good friend of mine, which shows exactly how the $790 billion is being spent. You can click on the segments of the pie chart, as well as the bars on the bar graph for a line item breakdown. Highlight one of the line items and click the 'source' button to see where he got the info.

http://mike.developer10.com/stimulus.swf

Thanks to Mike and Josh for this one.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator

2009-02-18T12:31:00.000-08:00

A few posts back I blasted Sean Hannity for pandering to the lowest common denominator on his radio show. Today, in the name of balance I will rip apart a silly article that was posted on CNN.com.

Here is the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/americancars.irpt/index.html

I will let you read it for yourself, but here are the most obscene parts, followed with my comments. I don't have a problem with CNN posting interviews with Americans in order to report on the state of the national morale, but rather, when they present what they say without refuting the nonsense that comes out of their mouths. I mean, if a person were to give an interview and say something about 'President McCain', CNN would surely mention the error in the comment. Ah fuck it, I'll also rip apart the quotes themselves.

"Tracy Dupire of Worthington, Indiana, loves to drive her 2002 Ford Mustang convertible with the top down when the weather is nice. She's always had an American car and hopes she always will. "It's hard to rationalize sending all of our money overseas. You have to buy American products and back American workers," says Dupire."

It's only hard to rationalize buying a product of higher value over one of lesser value if you are a moron. Seriously, even chimps understand the concept of value.

Secondly, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, and Toyota all have large operations here in the United States, in fact, most Japanese cars are made in America, why CNN failed to point that out in the article, I have no idea.

""I don't always agree with the big labor unions and management styles but there is just something about American pride. Our country has been bombarded with foreign-made products from clothing to electronics.""

No one was forcing you to buy these products. Why do you think they were successful?

"Daniel Luke Diaz of Diamond Bar, California, has only bought American cars his entire life -- he even drove a Hummer during his time in the military. He says, for the most part, American cars provide good value.
He also says he feels a responsibility to buy American.
By buying foreign cars, "You might as well be laying off the American autoworkers yourself and handing their paychecks to those foreign automakers personally," says Diaz."

What the fuck are you talking about? You feel it is your responsibility to buy American out of altruism, which will get you no where. Nevermind, Mr. Diaz, that by buying American out of altruism only breeds mediocrity, and ultimately failure (well, or bailouts I suppose).

Again, most foreign automakers have plants here in the states.

"He says foreign automakers have used a "quantity-over-quality strategy" that flooded markets and made the cars seem more reliable. Marketing is a huge part of the solution for turning around the auto companies, he says."

Why does CNN print this garbage? Seriously, this is insulting. There have been books written in praise of Toyota for their unyielding dedication to quality, and many American companies have tried to copy the 'Toyota Way'; it wasn't a smoke and mirror show based on 'flooding the market' to somehow trick Americans into only thinking they were getting quality.

""American consumers simply want to know the American cars on the road will last, will have a long-term warranty, and that parts will be readily available and labeled 'Made in the USA.' "

Actually, I could care less where it was made, stop advocating protectionism.

The truth is, American car companies have made strides in quality and value in recent years, to the point where they are becoming more comparable with their foreign counterparts. What people seem to forget is the concept of brand-equity; something Ford, GM and Chrysler are seriously lacking, and no influx of government money will get it back.

American automakers are where they are because of a series of bad decisions, consistently putting out products of lesser quality, ridiculous labor agreements, and overall managerial hubris.

My friend Josh (my personal authority on all things automotive) offers this as evidence.

Some American cars from 1988:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Celebrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Tempo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_LeBaron

Some Japanese cars from 1988:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Sentra

Is it any wonder?

Another reason I won't do Facebook

2009-02-16T12:32:00.000-08:00

This is kind of scary.

http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever

Legalize Pot

2009-02-16T09:11:00.000-08:00

Should we legalize marijuana?

Not only is the 'war on drugs' a monumental waste of resources, and immoral from an individual rights standpoint, it is an economically stupid standpoint.

In the midst of the worst recession in decades, the government chooses to maintain its archaic position on marijauna, in economic terms? Forcing a $10 billion a year industry underground; and off the revenue stream radar. I'm too tired to draw out the finances, but I'm sure the government could tax it at around 10%, that's a billion dollars a year in new tax revenue. The flood of demand for the newly legalized product would also create jobs, as companies would need to hire employees to harvest, package and distribute the product. How many jobs? $10 billion is alot of money, the numbers would be in the thousands.

In addition to the new tax stream, how much money each year would be saved in not having to fight the futile 'war' against weed? Again, I don't have the specifics, but last year the government spent $19 billion on the 'war on drugs', how much do you think that would be lessened if pot were legalized? By a few billion at least I'm sure. It would also give our overburdened prison system a break.

Not only does it make sense economically, I would argue that it makes sense socially. We would be safer if marijuana were legal. How? Pfizer and Merck can sell drugs at Walgreens much more efficiently and effectively than uneducated idiot gang members who currently rely force and violence to hawk their product. Big Pharma has efficient, legal distribution channels in place; channels that don't involve a pick up truck with a false dash, a 9 mm, and your cousin from Logan Square. They simply couldn't compete.

I realize there are many other, harder drugs that gangs sell as well as marijauna, which we'd still have to deal with (well, I think they should all be legalized, but we'll start small), but put it this way, legalizing marijuana takes $10 billion dollars a year out of the hands of the drug cartels. That type of financial hit hurts, and I imagine many of the cartels wouldn't be able to survive the sudden revenue slash, thus lessening the amount spent each year dealing with those thugs.

It's time to get past the irrational, illogical arguments made for the continued criminalization of marijuana, and do what makes sense for the economy, and society as a whole. Legalize it.

Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-11T11:16:00.000-08:00

This is a letter I wrote to Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Feel free to use it as a template to send to your own lawmakers to oppose any talk of a 'Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine'.

Senator/Congressman/Congresswoman

Recently, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) stated on a radio show that it was 'time to bring back the fairness doctorine'. As a resident of Illinois, and a proud American who believes that this nation was founded on the principles of individual rights, (not collectivism), and one of those rights being the freedom of speech, I am vehemently opposed to any government mandate requiring that private broadcasters air any particular message other than those they freely and justly choose. Such a mandate would be a violation of the first amendment, and is akin to communism. The only entity which should be allowed to influence what is broadcasted is the market itself. If there is a demand for political discourse of a certain leaning, then such stations will flourish, if not, they will cease exist. It is not the role of government to force private citizens to convey various viewpoints.

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is unAmerican, and I urge you to oppose any restrictions, or impositions regarding our first amendment rights.

Thank you for your time

Spandex clad rebels

2009-02-09T07:12:00.001-08:00

Weathermen are predicting near record warmth tomorrow for the Chicagoland area, with highs approaching the mid-60's. Needless to say, I, along with pretty much the entire population of Chicago, am elated; especially considering that two weeks ago highs struggled to get above zero. With the warm weather comes the bikers, and drivers need to be extra-vigilant of their surroundings while driving, and while opening their doors.

As a non-biker I've heard all of the emotionally charged arguments, and terrifying anecdotes of 'near misses' from the biker crowd. But the honus of responsibility should not be placed solely on drivers. How is it that bikers throw a fit anytime they're almost swiped, cut off, or forced to take evasive actions, while at the same time breaking virtually every traffic law on the books? Bicyclists are supposed to follow the same traffic laws as cars. Maybe the spandex is a little too tight, but something happens when a Chicagoan gets on a bike and hits the streets; they forget the meaning of the word 'stop'.

Seeing a cyclist stop at a stop sign in the city of Chicago is a rarity; an event akin to a solar eclipse or Haley's comet. Driving in relative safety is based on the assumption that other drivers will act in a predictable, rational, and law-abiding manner. When you cross an intersection at a green light you make the assumption that none of the cars on the cross street will drive through their red. When you stop at a stop sign just before another car, you go first because you are both operating under the assumption that it's your turn. When cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, they create anarchy, they throw a wrench into the systed as they're now playing with a different set of rules.

An ex-friend of mine, who was an 'avid' cyclist once explained this to me by saying 'Come on man, bike vs car who wins?' His emotional argument missed the point. It's not a competition, but by cyclists not playing by the same rules as cars, they're putting themselves in danger, yet trying to place the blame for their added danger on drivers.

What's wrong with our economy

2009-02-06T06:27:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/02/05/psychics.economy/index.html

Christ almighty. Unemployment is at its highest in decades, the markets are in shambles, billions, trillions of dollars have been lost over the past year, and business for this fruitcake is booming. Want to know what's wrong with the economy? It's a complex problem, but one of the issues is certainly people spending money on things they shouldn't, and or can't afford...like $135/hour psychics. I know times are tough, and people are looking for something to believe, but how about believing in yourself? Try acting in your own, rational-self interest, and leave the high-priced metaphysics as a luxury for better days. Think for yourself, take responsibility of your own life, using things like reason and logic as your guide; not a woman who touches a picture of you and then consults with 'the angels'. I'm sorry, but this is a waste of money, and the thought of business people consulting psychics before making decisions is archaic, and downright disturbing. We are devolving back to a dark time in human history.

Consulting mystics is simply primative; it is the non-thinking, non-living, second-hand approach to life. We have more information available to us now than any other generation in the history of mankind. You can sit at a computer and find scores of information previous generations couldn't even dream. We have all of this data, information and technology at our disposal, and people are paying $135 to sit with someone with no credentials and have her tell them what to do?

The article says "The biggest reason people are going to see psychics is probably that they want to feel in control". This is a contradiction. You want to feel 'in control' so you consult someone with no experience or expertise and allow their words to be your compass? That's like saying you like to feel in control when you drive so you're going to close your eyes and let a six-year old talk you through the motions of driving.

Here we are, at a time in history when we need all of the logic, reason, and capabilities of the rational human mind given to each of us, and people are hiding, crouched in the fetal position with their hands over their ears and eyes, as they hand over their hard earned money to a mystic. What a sad state of affairs.

Hmmm...Maybe the liberal media DOES think Obama is the Messiah

2009-02-05T07:11:00.000-08:00

http://news.aol.com/?feature=329973

Valentine's Demonic

2009-02-03T17:21:00.001-08:00

I'm a little disturbed with Valentine's Day this year. No, not simply because I'm broke, and have no clue what to do for the amorous occasion, but because this year, countless men will unknowingly adorn the neck's of their wives and girlfriends with a symbol of the beast. Sold on the ruse of charity and romance, they will head to the mall, and proudly purchase a piece from the Jane Seymour 'Open your Heart' jewelery line; possibly condemning the wearer to eternal damnation.

Seriously, no one at St. Jude, or Kays, or Jared mentioned to Ms. Seymour that her 'open heart' design looks like the SERPENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ORIGINAL SIN, AKA SATAN!?!?! If I was eating some baby back ribs, and a dollop of BBQ sauce spilled onto my shirt into that shape, I wouldn't think, 'awe look, two intertwined open hearts, how romantic', I'd call a fucking exorcist and induce vomiting.

Maybe you can get this necklace for your girl, and celebrate Valentine's Day with a black mass, followed by consummating your relationship in a graveyard.

You be the judge...

Errrgggghhhh....

2009-01-30T09:24:00.000-08:00

"I don't see organized labor as part of the problem,'' the president said. "To me, it's part of the solution.'' ~Barack Obama.

Sure it is...just ask GM/Ford/Chrysler. Forcing companies to pay a greater value for a lesser value is part of the solution huh?

Global Positioning

2009-01-29T12:44:00.000-08:00

This past Christmas, my girlfriend gave me a GPS for the Mini. I cannot even begin to describe the ways in which this wonderful little device has changed my life. The obvious is that I'm never lost. If I miss a turn, or an exit, a woman's voice just tells me that she's 'recalculating' and redirects me to my destination. Also, it has a function where you can search for whatever it is you want to find...a grocery store, a Walgreens, golf-course, gym, etc. The technology is truly mind-boggling. Somehow it gives me a newfound sense of confidence while I'm driving, like I'm driving with 'Kitt' or something like that, even though its essentially mapquest.com on a little touch screen. It will also show me where traffic is, and gives me the option to avoid the traffic. I hate traffic more than anything. I think if I could chose between never, and I mean never having to sit in traffic ever again, or the US catching Bin Laden, I'd take the free-ride on the freeways.

I'm about to offer two million dollar ideas up to the general public, but since no one reads this, the money will be left to someone else. You know how people have made huge money with Iphone apps? The next step in GPS are apps like the ones for your Iphone.

Here is the first million dollar app: A crime level warning. The Garmin is great, and will get you to where you want to go the fastest, but it doesn't seem aware that it's sending you through fucking Beruit on the streets of Chicago. Once I wanted to go to Naperville from my house and it would have had me dodging bullets all through the fucking west-side to get to the Eisenhower. Not a chance G-man, I'll stick to 90 to 290. Safe, fast, and elevated. For me it's not a big deal, because I know where to avoid, but to unfamiliar travelers I could see where this could be dangerous. The GPS should be able to show you high-crime areas, and you should be able to have it divert your route to avoid these areas. The technology is simple enough...I mean, not simple to me of course, but simple to our techie-overlords.

Second million dollar app: All parking meters equiped with a tiny sensor and transmittor device which communicates with GPS's informing them whether or not the spot is open. If you don't want to spend on the sensor you could just have it tell your GPS whether or not there's time on the meter, and you could assume if there was no time that the spot was open. This way, when you're driving in the city, you don't have to circle your destination for 30 god-damned minutes looking for a spot.

Bam! I just made a nerd a few million dollars.

I've provided a link to my GPS for your pleasure...just in case you're in the market!

Sean Hannity is...

2009-01-21T05:50:00.000-08:00

Recently I've become bored with 99% of all songs played on the radio, so I've began listening to talk radio. Usually I listen to the Score, or ESPN, for local and national sports coverage, but we are quickly entering the dullest season of the sporting year; the time between the Superbowl, but before MLB opening day. Needless to say, there's not alot of new, interesting sports talk in the city of Chicago (and I don't follow hockey). Due to this lag in relevant sporting analysis, I've had to scan the AM airwaves to find interesting conversation. Last night, driving to Naperville I decided to tune in to hear what the right had to say about the inauguration, so I tuned to AM 840.

Now, I expected to hear some critical words of our new President, the First Lady, and all of the inauguration activities. What I heard instead was a contemptible little weasel playing to the lowest common denominator, mongering fear, hatred, and utter nonsense to his legions of brainwashed minions. What I found most amazing, was his ability to get out coherant sentences without once taking his tongue out of the ass of Ronald Reagan's corpse.

The flurry of hatred towards the new first family was relentless. Sean Hannity, a so-called conservative* actually had the gall to claim that Barack Obama's inagural speech was all 'doom and gloom' and 'fear mongering'. Pardon me Mr. Hannity, while I vomit up this bit of irony. 'Fear mongering' was the modus operandi of Bush and Cheney since 9/11/01. The 'terror alert level' put out by the Department of Homeland Security? Just what do you think that was? 'Oooh no, today is an 'orange day', I was going to go to the Jewel, Home Depot and maybe Bed Bath and Beyond -if we have time, but now I just don't know. Maybe I'll just sit in my basement and hide from the terrorists'. Good idea, lets implement an ambiguous, color-coded system and release vague warnings throughout the year so people can...err...um...well I'm not sure what we were supposed to do on orange, or yellow, or red days different from any other day. And isn't it you Mr. Hannity who for weeks droned on and on about the 'Fairness doctorine' and how you were worried you'd be out of a job, and no one would be able to listen to people talk about politics? Even though Obama has stated many times that he is against this evil proposal? Talk about fear mongering.

Then Hannity talked about how under Obama, 'conservatism is in exile' and that people won't be able to speak freely without fear of being labeled anti-social at best, imprisonment at worst. Eck...the nasty taste of bile covered irony has returned. Tell me Mr. Hannity, what was the reaction of the right after 9/11 any time anybody questioned the government response? Because I remember a form of neo-McCarthyism took hold and anyone who spoke out about the Patriot Act, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act II, Iraq, the wiretaps, the executive orders, etc was immediately labeled 'unAmerican'. Blowhards like yourself Mr. Hannity made it your personal mission to squash any dissenting opinions on the war in Iraq. If you were against the war, you were against the troops, and only evil, anti-Americans would be against the troops. Wasn't that what you bellowed? Against the mission, against the troops?

To listen to Sean Hannity, a person would think that Stalin or Marx was just sworn in as our President. To listen to his callers, it becomes clear that none of them know the difference, or even care to know. They kowtow to the weasel Hannity (starting every call with 'you're a great American') and then proceed to regurgitate the nonsense Hannity just spoon fed them, and Hannity in return gives them a pat on the head along with some cliché warning of the doom that lies ahead. But they love it, and they tune in.

I couldn't help but wonder if radio personality Sean Hannity and the 'real' Sean Hannity are the same person. If not, the title to this thread would end 'Sean Hannity is a genius', if they are one in the same it ends 'Sean Hannity is a douchebag'.

*A true conservative would not defend George W Bush with the vigor Mr Hannity does.

Extra credit-
Above I mentioned the overflowing man-love for President Reagan. Hannity played clips of Regan's inaugeral speech saying 'there's a real speech' and would then drool all over himself talking about Regan...'small government, strong defense, low taxes'. You sure about that Sean?

Have a read:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Meanwhile, in Texas...

2009-01-20T11:16:00.000-08:00

Today is truly historic. President Barack Obama. That’s all you really need to say to encapsulate the gravity of the moment. As of about noon today, the ‘-elect’ was dropped from his title, and he became our President. Much has been said about the historical significance of this past election, and much will continue to be written about this very day and what it means, and will mean to America. With this in mind, I do not have anything to add at the moment that won’t be written or spoken by someone far more intelligent, and far more eloquent. Along with the historical significance, much has been discussed over the daunting tasks now facing President Obama –again, by people more intelligent and better versed than me. So, this post will focus on not the man with the overflowing plate, but the man with the empty plate, George W. Bush.

What do you think it’s like to be George W. Bush right now? Do you think he’s a bit depressed? Relieved? What can that be like? To go from being the most powerful person in the world, at the helm of the most powerful military force ever assembled, to being an ‘ex-pres’ with one guy in a suit assigned to you in Texas?
Last night I watched a show on the intimate details of the White House. The staff, kitchen, living quarters, etc., everything the President wants and needs is available to him 24/7. How do you go from 8 years of that, to Laura asking you what you want for dinner, and reminding you to take out the garbage? Do you think it’s a bit of a let down? Like when you look forward to a vacation for so long, only to get back home and realize it’s over? Come and past in the blink of an eye?

What a surreal feeling it must be. Think about it, for 8 years W didn’t carry a wallet, a cell phone, car keys, house keys, cash, credit cards, or any of the other daily necessities the rest of us try not to lose. 8 years without driving a car either. He held a position of extreme consequence, but it’s almost like only now does he return to the ‘real world’; seems to me like it would be kind of a let down. Like when you get home after that long, amazing trip, and think about how it seemed like just yesterday you were boarding the plane –you think about how you wish you could be back in that moment. I wonder if it’s like that for ex-presidents.

I think this feeling would last about a week or two before George realizes he can finally relax –really relax, and spend the entire day in his pajamas if he wants, watching Law & Order marathons on TNT like the rest of us. Finally truly being ‘alone’, no stream of meetings and briefings, the pressures of the world off of your shoulders must be refreshing.

I realize that they are still very wealthy. It’s not as if they’re moving back to a double-wide outside of Odessa or anything like that, but it still has to be strange.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

2009-01-15T08:51:00.000-08:00

By STEPHEN MOORE
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

***SPOILER ALERT***

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

Cow Tax

2009-01-09T07:32:00.001-08:00

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=269579
Your government at work. Here is an idea. With billions in bailout money being passed around like Alyssa Milano at the MLB All-Star Game, why doesn't the government drop a couple of billion on sending all of its elected and appointed officials to an Econ 101 class. Maybe then they could realize that the price of products is determined by supply and demand, the 'equilibrium price'. In short, the price you pay is already the highest price allowed in the market. Impose artificial price adjustments and you throw the market out of equilibrium. $175 per cow!?!? What do you think that would do to the price of meat, milk, cheese, leather and the assortment of products netted from cattle farming? What do you think would then happen to demand for those products? Less cattle. What do you think less cattle means for America? Less corn. A weakened demand for corn on an already strained farming industry? More unemployment, more poverty. Devastating for the heartland and America in general.

I love the environment and think it needs to be protected, but when 'protecting' the environment, means strangling humanity, and taking a step backward, I think common sense needs to prevail.