September 30, 2005
A Rare Victory for Individual Rights
On Saturday the people of Florida will have a very basic right restored to them that had been taken away by the courts of the state. I only hope other states will follow this example and stop taking away rights of individuals.
At issue is the "force with force" law. Previous to this law going into effect, if you were attacked or threatened by a criminal, you were required, by law, to retreat, and you were not allowed to defend yourself. If you defended yourself against a violent attack, you could be arrested for attacking, too.
Fortunately, that all is about to change. The new law will actually allow citizens to use force to defend themselves when they are attacked. It is an excellent law, and should be simple common sense -- but the courts in Florida removed all common sense and made criminals out of victims and victims out of criminals.
The wack-jobs that oppose freedom, as might be expected, are yelling and screaming, and trying to discourage people from traveling to Florida. To show their ignorance, people like Representative Eleanor Sobel (Democrat Loon from Hollywood, FL) said:
We're the wild, wild West and I think criminals will abuse it
For those who remember the "discussions" regarding concealed carry laws a number of years ago, you might recognize the statement. It's the same one that was made when people were actually allowed to carry their own weapons. And that statement was total crap then, as has been proved by the fact that the state isn't engaging in shootouts yet.
In addition, it shows the incredibly warped liberal mindset. Did you catch that part? "Criminals will abuse it." So if you're a criminal, which is someone who breaks the law, then you will use force to defend yourself when attacked, and that's abusing the law. Am I the only person left on the planet that actually knows that a "criminal" is someone who ALREADY breaks the law?
Nice job, Florida.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Angie at September 30, 2005 12:31 PM (pjdag)
2
I posted on this earlier today and just updated with a link to you here - can't get trackback to work, tho'. And the blogroll hasn't updated all day, so thought I'd add a comment here!
Posted by: leftbrainfemale at September 30, 2005 03:24 PM (M7kiy)
3
Yipeee! Florida did something right... good thing we didn't have any chards.
Posted by: vw bug at September 30, 2005 06:44 PM (J3xJ9)
4
They've done big articles on that here... I read all the pros and cons and the cons made me shake my head. This whole 'return to the wild wild west' attitude just renders me speechless. Idiots. Really.
I'm very excited about this new law... you come in my home to harm me or my family... you die. Period. It is my right to protect myself and my family and we will do so.
Everyone *I* personally know is happy about this law. I think they had to dredge up these naysayers. I don't personally know any and I don't run in strictly conservative circles.
Posted by: Bou at September 30, 2005 11:17 PM (5JHEt)
5
Every step forward is a surprise.
Thanks for the post.
Allan
Posted by: Allan at October 01, 2005 12:40 AM (C/dUM)
6
There has got to be some law of Conservation of Socialist idiocy. Check out this post on the wilful rejection of the will of the public in the EU: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/individual/dutch_didnt_reject_constitution/
Posted by: Tom at October 01, 2005 01:53 AM (5NkvP)
7
I may have to move to Florida.
Posted by: David Earney at October 01, 2005 10:16 AM (1douf)
8
Some 34 new laws went into effect today in Florida, but this one is the most important by far, IMO.
I think Texas has had this sort of thing in place for quite some time...
Posted by: pam at October 01, 2005 09:45 PM (l6NIn)
9
Every now and then someone gets one right, and I like to point it out.
Here in North Carolina, the opposite is true -- you must run. If you shoot someone in your doorway, you're likely to be charged with murder -- even if they were breaking in your house with intent to kill you.
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:37 PM (iJFc9)
10
I just saw the funniest poster about this, too.
http://cube47.blogspot.com/2005/09/anti-gun-propaganda.html#comments
beware! Beware! BEWARE! of going to florida, where people now will shoot at you just for looking at 'em funny...
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 03, 2005 11:53 AM (vR7Sl)
11
Oh yes, that's part of the anti-gun propaganda team at work!
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 11:59 AM (/k+l4)
12
I thought that stuff only existed in liberal socialist contries in Europe. Can't believe that happened in Florida.
Posted by: Shotgun Shells Conasure at November 08, 2005 03:25 PM (sxO+3)
13
Shotgun, I hate to break you the news, but the United States is pretty much a liberal socialist country today.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 04:49 AM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Knows Best
The North Carolina government, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that you, the
serfs citizens of North Carolina are
sort of okay, but not really. You see, the state is monitoring your "quality of life" in EIGHTY-FOUR categories across the state, and they've decided that your qualify of life is just not good enough.
Why? Well, that would be a question for the loony liberal Democrats who have the time and take taxpayer money to do such reports and examinations. My question, rather than "What are the results," is "Why in the heck does government CARE?"
Where in any Constitution (state or federal) did we decide that government is supposed to determine what is good and what is bad? As you might imagine from a government report, the solution is the same that it ALWAYS is: not enough money is being spent by the state.
We have spent over $2,500,000.00 on this group so they can study whether the peons citizens have what this group decides is a certain "quality of life." Can you think of a better way to spend $2.5 million? Oh, but I forgot, the North Carolina budget, with it's $1.5 BILLION in increases and higher taxes this year was "cut to the bone."
Keep electing Democrats, and you will keep getting this utter wastefulness.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.
September 29, 2005
Carnivals and Hosts
First, let me point you once again to the weekly
Carnival of Liberty. It's a great carnival that really highlights some true ideas of life, liberty, and property. If you only read one carnival a week, that one should be it. Seriously.
Unfortunately this week I once again forgot to submit my own entry. I used to send out all my carnival posts on Friday night or Saturday morning, but these days there's apparently too many things going on during those times for me to remember. I guess I just need to find a new day to send them out so I can play, too!
On a related note, there's other interesting carnival news. First is the now-old Showcase Carnival. This is the carnival that highlights new blogs -- those less than 3 months old. It needs hosts! It's very simple to host and gives you the entertainment of reading, seeing, and linking to the newest blogs. It's also got a really wild new layout -- go take a peek.
Don't you remember when you had a new blog that no one knew about? I bet you remember who your first commenter was, don't you? New blogs need a little help getting going, and the New Blog Showcase Carnival is where it's done. Head on over, check the open dates, and volunteer to host if you're so inclined.
Finally, there's a new carnival that's starting up, the Carnival of True Civil Liberties. The primary purpose of this carnival is to highlight
our civil liberties that are being stripped away via judicial activism.
Head on over and read all about it and see if you've got something to post for it.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:04 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thanks Ogre, and don't forget to submit something.
Posted by: Jay at September 29, 2005 08:32 PM (xmvb0)
2
I am heading up the Apathy Carnival. That is as much as I can say right now.
Posted by: Jack at September 30, 2005 03:11 AM (bcZWJ)
3
I would have, Jay, but I was out of town all weekend, sorry I missed this week!
And Jack...I'd submit, but I just don't care.
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:06 PM (iJFc9)
Posted by: Christopher Johnson at November 14, 2005 12:27 PM (qoIvi)
5
Well, when gnome win plane kill, I get $150 because I bet against Cosmos.
Posted by: Ogre at November 14, 2005 12:47 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stop the ACLU Blogburst
The ACLU, who claim to be Americas guardian of liberty is ironically
the most active religious censor in America. For nearly two generations it has relentlessly
forced countless communities into submission when it comes to public expression of faith, particularly Christianity.
California has been fighting to save their seal, its history and heritage from the clutches of the ACLU's secular cleansing with everything they've got. The people voted to keep the seal, but the ACLU is not interested in democracy. They believe they know what is best for society, and are willing to force it on people through their finely tuned skills of judicial activism.
Now they are at it again- this time in the small village of Tijeras, New Mexico (population 474). Earlier this week, our friend The Mary Hunter at TMH's Bacon Bits told us the story, and asked, where is the ACLU?
Two residents of a New Mexico town are suing to remove three crosses from the official town seal. The suit says "the crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens" and accuses the city of violating the plaintiff's constitutional right to religious freedom, invading their privacy, and violating the civil rights act of 1964. The mayor says he plans to fight the lawsuit since, he says, the crosses have a historical reason for being in the logo. After all, the town in question is Las Cruces, which is Spanish for "The Crosses."
The Alliance Defense Fund will be stepping up to the plate once again to defend religious liberty.
TIJERAS, N.M. - The village council of Tijeras agreed Thursday to be represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund in their battle against a lawsuit threatened by the ACLU. The ACLU claims the village logo violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it depicts a small cross.
"We have carefully reviewed the ACLU's allegations and believe the seal is entirely constitutional under the law," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "The main feature of the city seal is not the cross but the Zia, which is a Native American religious symbol. The symbols of the seal reflect the history and culture of this ancient village. Many of the same design elements, such as the Zia, are found in the state flag. Why isn't the ACLU suing against the state flag?"
The seal, which depicts a conquistador's helmet and sword, the Native American Zia symbol, and a small rosary, was designed in 1973 to accurately reflect the village's history and not to further any religion.
"The ACLU is once more specifically targeting a cross while it ignores Native American religious symbols. It reveals their desire to target all things Christian, regardless of the fact that the cross in the Tijeras seal is clearly an historic symbol and not an attempt to endorse any particular faith," McCaleb said.ADF
This small town is standing up to the ACLU, and that should be commended. With a population of 474 this is no small feat. Its these small communities the ACLU love to prey on. These kind of lawsuits are the ACLU's specialty, and its sad for an organization that claims it is protecting our civil liberties, to be one that practices daily at stripping them away. We applaud this small town for standing up for their liberty. Thank goodness we have the Alliance Defense Fund out there protecting religious liberty from the secular cleansing of the ACLU. Why the ACLU are allowed to continue their destruction of liberty is beyond me, but its high past time for people to do something about it!
Join us in our fight against the ACLU and its secular cleansing of America. We are a grassroots organization trying to gather the troops to fight the ACLU, expose their agenda, awaken America, and save liberty from the clutches of the secular agenda.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:05 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 700 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Jay at September 29, 2005 08:33 PM (xmvb0)
2
Sorry I couldn't get an original post up -- out of town and all
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:15 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More NC Taxes for you
More government in North Carolina, after raising taxes quite literally billions of dollars this year, still have decided they don't have enough money and they want you to pay even more taxes. The city of Durham decided they wanted to charge another hidden tax -- an impact tax -- and so they did, without legislative approval.
The impact tax is a completely hidden tax in that people do not see it. This is the newest favorite tax of politicians for that very reason. The impact tax would add thousands of dollars to any home purchase -- but since most people see only the mortgage payment, most would not realize they'd just been soaked by the county and city for even more money.
In many cases, both the county and the city are likely to charge the impact fee. This would raise the cost of a house by even more, and again, few would notice. Currently there is a lawsuit that says that the counties and cities do not have the authority to raise these taxes. If the ruling is in favor of the city, prepare for ALL house costs to go up at least $1,000-$2,000 immediately.
Either that, or elect good people to represent you in your county and city. I'll let you know when I find any.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.
Counties want more money
Well of course they do -- doesn't everyone? The biggest problem
here is that in order for the counties to get more money, they have to TAKE IT from people by force!
At issue here is the ever growing, expanding exponentially, completely unconstitutional program called Medicaid. In North Carolina, the federal government pays 60% of the Medicaid bills, the state pays about 30%, and the county is expected to pay 10%.
The problem is that the county doesn't get to decide WHO gets Medicaid. So in other words, this is a completely unfunded mandate -- the state and the federal government tells the county to spend money on a program, tells them how much to spend, but then doesn't provide the money.
There's a real, real easy solution to this problem for the county -- tell the state and the feds where they can go. Inform them they need to take a long walk off a short pier. What can they do? Is the federal government going to stop giving the county the rest of the money? OoooO!
Is the federal government going to come crashing into North Carolina and arrest the county commissioners for NOT spending money? I'd LOVE to see that one!
The Medicaid program is way out of control. It's very obviously unconstitutional and it is NOT compassionate in any way, shape, or form -- it's theft. Counties, if you want to control your budgets, get out of the Medicaid business -- it's YOUR county, YOU get to decide what to do there, NOT the federal government.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
September 28, 2005
More Hurricane Whining
It is the end of the world! The sky is falling! Repent! Repent! How do I know? I've been told, according to Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Police Jury President Hal McMillin, living conditions are horrible in his area, and he needs more money because "HIS" residents face the unthinkable! They might
be without air conditioning, and risk insect bites
Oh, the horror! How can we permit people to live this way? Quickly, mobilize the national guard and arrest anyone who attempts to survive at any exterior temperature other than exactly 70 degrees Fahrenheit! If someone dares to turn their own, working air conditioner off, they must be arrested immediately and placed in a detention center where the air is exactly monitored.
And the mosquitoes! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
The only possible solution is for the federal government to nationalize SC Johnson's Off! Insect Repellent. We must devote our scarce national resources to not permitting any person in Louisiana from being bitten by a mosquito. If even one child is bitten, President George Bush has failed as president and should be impeached if he does not resign.
Of course, we have to be very careful to not actually kill any of the mosquitoes, as they have just as much a right to live as humans, so we can only repel them from attacking people.
P.S. Hey Hal, I'll provide you with the same tip as Sheriff John from an earlier post: Shut your pie hole, get out from in front of the cameras, and try working for something instead of whining about what others haven't GIVEN you.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
1
We can get free Off! from the gubment? Cool, seeing as how I get eaten alive everytime I set foot outside. Now, about my dog, can she get some flea treatments from the ol' gubment, she sure is suffering what with all them damned fleas.
Now it is my turn to whine! The storm, remnants of Rita, that hit my home on Sunday, done blowed out my Directv! I neeeed my Directv! Where is the gubment? I may have to go days, nay, weeks without my directv, the Horror! Help! Help! I'm starting to suffocate, bugs, no t.v., must.talk.to.spouse. Arghhh!!!
How is that for inconsequential whining? P.S. I have pictures up now. . .
Posted by: oddybobo at September 28, 2005 05:59 PM (6Gm0j)
2
No! Not DirectTv, too! Quickly, why isn't Congress moving on this? Why hasn't Congress sent you a check for $100,000 yet? I'm sure you're owed it, since the storm hit your house, too. I'm calling my Congressman and asking him why he hasn't sent you $100,000 right now.
...
...
(His phone is busy.)
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 06:40 PM (iJFc9)
3
I got: "you want what for what?" "This is a joke right, ha ha."
Who can I sue?
Posted by: oddybobo at September 28, 2005 07:15 PM (6Gm0j)
4
I'd LMAO if it wasn't for the fact that people like Hal weren't dead serious.
Ya know, after storms like Fran and Floyd, I do not remember people whining like they are in La. Maybe it is because the people in those areas are demoratic, while most folks in NC are GOP.
Posted by: William Teach at September 28, 2005 07:24 PM (eSZb/)
5
Now I'm getting, "Sorry, that number has been changed to an unlisted number..."
And Teach, that could be -- and can you explain how, since most people are GOP in NC, how we have a heavily Democrat (although NOT democratic) legislature?
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 07:45 PM (iJFc9)
6
Enough on the whining... This just makes me sick. I was without power last year for 3 days. Heat, bugs, no tv, no computer... geeze... I should have whined more... what is that saying... the squeaky wheel gets the grease?
Posted by: vw bug at September 29, 2005 02:40 PM (J3xJ9)
7
But the whining is so insane! If I can't make my house payment this month, can I whine to the government and get someone else to pay the bill? No? Then what's the damn difference?
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:04 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Insurance
Wow. 33 different Christian Views Symposiums already? I'm impressed. I'm also embarrassed to note that I've only provided
the correct answers to
14 of them. Well, I'm trying to be consistent and answer them each Wednesday.
The questions are provided each week by Lennie of Cross Blogging. Each week he provides a question and seeks answers from all people -- Christians and others. To join in, you just have to post your answer to the question on your blog, or even in his comments. This week is in response to a quote from John Stossell. You can read his entire quote over at Lennie's.
1. Should the government provide cheap insurance to anyone? Why or why not?
2. If you do not carry insurance on your property should the government pay for you to rebuild?
3. Should the government pay for local projects like rebuilding the levees in New Orleans?
4. What role if any should the military have in natural disasters?
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.
1
"If you can find it in a phone-book, government shouldn't be doing it."
Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 12:45 PM (fd0tG)
2
I'm with you 100% on that one, Tom!
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 12:55 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cavemen Had Cars
Apparently someone has been educated by the government school system in Texas -- and the was elected to a government position, likely based in part on his excellent education. Sheriff John:
We have been living like cavemen, sleeping in cars, doing bodily functions outside
Uh...okay. I wonder what kind of cars cavemen had? According to the Cartoon Network, the dinosaurs and cavemen lived about the same time, so the dinosaurs hadn't died yet to give us oil, nor did Evil Haliburton (TM) exist to refine the oil to gas (only to make profits), so there couldn't have been any gasoline.
Does that mean that cavemen had electric cars? Or does it mean that people in Texas have cars that don't run on gasoline? Oh wait, now I see what's going on in Texas:

Man, those people have it pretty good. Dinosaurs to wash the dishes, they get to walk around in bare feet all the time, good union jobs at the rock quarry -- I think we need more hurricanes to hit places so things will get even better!
P.S. Hey Sheriff John: Shut your pie hole, get out from in front of the cameras, and try working for something instead of whining about what others haven't GIVEN you.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:04 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I have something to give him, but he's not gonna like it!!
Posted by: oddybobo at September 28, 2005 09:20 AM (6Gm0j)
2
He might, rabbit, he might...
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
3
You know sometimes I'd like to administer a caveman style attitude adjustment.
Posted by: Jack at September 28, 2005 09:33 PM (aFawc)
4
I wonder if it would get through their thick skulls...
Posted by: Ogre at September 29, 2005 05:48 AM (iJFc9)
5
I know the city of Penscola didn't flood and a thousand people didn't die to poor planning, (actually we in the State of FL are pretty organized overall when it comes to Hurricanes) but there are people in Pensacola still living like this after a year. Give me a break. And why don't I hear the people from Mississippi whining? They got hit just as hard. Yet, they say NOTHING. They've rolled up their shirt sleeves and are putting it back together. The people of Mississippi know what the Floridians know... you can rely on NOBODY but your own for basic survival. Ain't nobody gonna come help you.
Those folks need to suck it up and quit whining. We're all sick of it.
Posted by: Bou at September 29, 2005 07:47 AM (5JHEt)
6
But, but, isn't government there to provide every need for you? A lot of people seem to think so...
Posted by: Ogre at September 29, 2005 07:51 AM (iJFc9)
Posted by: Jesse Baumann at December 05, 2005 03:51 AM (IX7ew)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Corporate Welfare
To those who support welfare, I'm sure you will be glad to know that Dell, Inc. is
getting some of your welfare money -- I'm sure, just because Dell is impoverished, black, or "trapped in poverty." I'm sure they wouldn't survive without the $318+ million dollars of taxpayer money they are receiving.
This example CAN be compared the the welfare that is giving to individuals -- in order to have welfare at all, no matter the recipient, you have to accept that government has the right to take money from one person or individual and give to another.
If you accept that position, then you give government the ability to determine who it is, exactly, that gets to have that money. Government is now in the business of determining how much money every person has in this country. If government likes you, you get cash -- taken from someone else. If government doesn't like you, you get money taken away from you.
This is wrong. This is anti-freedom. This should not happen in a free country. However, in North Carolina, this is what Democrats believe -- only they can determine how much money each person and business should have in the state -- and if you're not a Democrat, they don't like you.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Amen! It is completely wrong, and it happens all across America.
Posted by: Jay at September 28, 2005 08:28 AM (2FcUc)
2
Where are the Constitutionalists that believe people should be free? Certainly not in any levels of government that I can see...maybe with the exception on Ron Paul.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:37 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Jeff at September 28, 2005 08:40 AM (ICddU)
4
Yes, yes it is, Jeff. So I think we should stop doing it to people. We should stop taking away money from people to give to other people who didn't earn it.
And thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:47 AM (/k+l4)
5
It gets worse. Ask any guy on the street for two free market economists in the 20th century. He'll say "Milt Friedman" and "Alan Greenspan." We shan't talk of Greenspan.
Milt Friedman, widely considered a defender of capitalism, pushed for the Witholding Tax in the 40's so that government could delegate its tax-collection to the efficient private sector and at the same time hide growing taxes from the citizens. In step with this sick invention, Friedman proposed a "negative income tax," a welfare scheme couched in free market rhetoric.
The man about whom many in the MSM and the public consider the strongest defender of capitalism in the 20th century, would agree with the NC government in principle, but would probably chide it for "not doing it well enough."
We have a long way to go...
Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 09:40 AM (iinH5)
6
Indeed we do have a long way to go, and not much time to get there. You don't want to get me started on hidden taxes!
But we have a short time, because if we are not already at the tipping point, where less are supporting more, we will soon be there.
And I think if you ask the "guy on the street" that question, I don't think they could answer it at all.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 27, 2005
Another Politics Quiz
You never know how these quizzes are set up, and certainly some of the questions begged explanations, but why not? My results:
You are a Social Conservative (33% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (85% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Republican
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
(Hat tip to Flight Pundit).
Posted by: Ogre at
08:05 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (78% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist
I would have thought I was higher on the Economics and a little lower on the Social. Oh well, a 40 question quiz is far from perfect
Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 27, 2005 04:53 PM (K+h36)
2
Yeah, tests like this are always questionable -- there were a few questions in that test that were very loaded -- they would ask a question that you really couldn't answer yes or no -- like "Should the victims of Katrina be given aid and money to help?"
My answer is yes, they should, but not by government.
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 04:56 PM (iJFc9)
3
I got centrist, but not in the quadrant I would have thought. There were some questionables... that I would like to have been able to put NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Posted by: Bou at September 27, 2005 10:15 PM (5JHEt)
4
I am ALSO a Strong Republican - which is a darn good thing, as I am a State Committee member! Phew!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at September 28, 2005 01:51 AM (VHQXK)
5
Ah, Bou, but it's all for fun with these things, isn't it? I've flirted with the idea of making an accurate quiz that could show which party platform someone matches up with, but I just haven't found the time.
And Peter -- a STRONG Republican? In MA? I didn't know they were allowed there.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 06:00 AM (iJFc9)
6
Wow, I didn't really see that coming - I turned out to be a "Capitalist", hehehe!
Posted by: leftbrainfemale at September 28, 2005 07:53 AM (M7kiy)
7
Say it ain't so!
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:34 AM (/k+l4)
8
If you ever do put together a quiz of your own, be sure to get the political spectrum right. I haven't seen one yet that is accurate.
For example on this one, Fascist should be on the opposite side of the "economically permissive" axis, and a little more "socially permissive". In other words, along the bottom in the left corner/center rather than upper left corner. A Fascist (National Socialist) is just a more committed socialist. Economically, the only difference between Fascists and Communists is that, while both have strict government control over the use of capital, Fascists allow private parties to own the capital, while communists believe that it should be owned by the state. It doesn't make much difference in the end, as the state controlls the capital in both cases.
I also would have flipped this so Democrats were on the left side and Republicans on the right.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 28, 2005 09:28 AM (K+h36)
9
Echo Zoe
In the Zwangwirtschaft form of Socialism, the praxeological characteristic of ownership (ability to direct the use of an economic good) is in the hands of the government, no matter what is on the statutes.
Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 09:43 AM (iinH5)
10
Actually, I was working more on an agree/disagree type of quiz. I was grabbing party platform positions and statements from party web sites and putting them together. So the question would be something like, "Which of the following statements about abortion most closely matches your personal opinion."
Then I'd list all the different political party positions. I think I'd also include a "none of the above" so anarchists could find a home, too.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 10:02 AM (/k+l4)
11
And yes, I did notice the facist did seem to be in a rather odd place, too. Maybe I'll take the test again and see if I can get facist for a result...
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 11:00 AM (/k+l4)
12
Centrist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
Or should I say, See Bou's answer. Blhhhhhhhh.
Posted by: vw bug at September 28, 2005 01:23 PM (J3xJ9)
13
Thanks, Bou...err... I mean VW...
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 01:44 PM (/k+l4)
14
No kidding, our answers were off by like 4%.
Posted by: Bou at September 28, 2005 08:32 PM (5JHEt)
15
I'm starting to think you are the same person with a split personality...
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:53 PM (iJFc9)
16
You are a Social Liberal (75% permissive)and an... Economic Conservative (81% permissive)
You are best described as a: Libertarian
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness
I've always said I'm a Libertarian. Now the almighty quiz has confirmed it.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at September 29, 2005 08:35 PM (Sc2Wh)
17
Well it's good that it's official now, Birdwoman, isn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:16 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hurricane Responses
This week's
Homespun Blogger Symposium asks,
What did you see different in the preparation and aftermath of this storm compared to the one that devastated the Gulf Coast regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama?
Was the response better? Worse? What would you change?
The Homespun Bloggers are a group of non-professional bloggers that congregate and formed a group of very loose affiliation. Each week a question is presented to the group members for answering if you wish. Join them, if you like, or just answer the question yourself on your own blog -- it's fun!
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
02:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
ID in Schools
A self-proclaimed "expert" from Duke University, with all the usual "holier than thou" attitudes and ivory tower proclamations has declared, with an expected immediate deference to his much-more-knowledgeable-than-you ruling, that
mentioning that evolution might not actually be 100% correct is unconstitutional.
This is just another liberal who has decided that he knows better than you and should be obeyed at all times. He claims that mentioning anything other than his one, true religion, materialism, in government-run schools is a violation of his right to free speech because his religion (naturalism) is correct and all other religions should not be allowed in any government institution.
In a related, but underreported lawsuit, an unnamed individual has sued the state of North Carolina, demanding that the laws against murder be repealed because they are very clearly an unconstitutional infringement on religion and an establishment of religion.
"The Bible clearly states that 'Thou shall not murder,'" says the lawsuit, filed today in Loon County, "so the state simply cannot have that law. It is an obvious attempt by Christians to enforce their own moral and religious rules on the rest of society."
The lawsuit continues, "In addition, this prohibition on to what many deem to be a sacred religious right, murdering infidels, clearly prohibits law abiding citizens from exercising their own religion. If one person's religion deems that murder is required by their god, who is the state to tell them their religion is wrong?"
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on both lawsuits simultaneously, as the ruling in one lawsuit will most certainly be expected to be applied to both.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Frankly, I don't think religion has any place in schools, especially Science class. If my child is going to learn about any religion in school, I had better be signing a form for him to attend. Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom IMO. Save it for sunday school, unless maybe we can teach Evolution in Sunday school as well.
Anyhow, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, so there
Posted by: Glyn (Zaphod) Evans at September 27, 2005 03:03 PM (/JF0D)
2
Then why can the religion of evolution be taught? It's a belief system, it just happens to be a very common one.
Decades ago, most Americans were Christian, so Christian beliefs were taught in school. Now most Americans are apparently naturalists, so Naturalism, including evolution, is taught in schools.
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 03:13 PM (/k+l4)
3
The issue is not about religion versus science, ID versus evolution. It is about public education being a political issue. Anything, even the
size of shoes, becomes a controversial topic if it becomes a matter of political force.
In a free market for education, parents would put their money where their mouths are. Creationists would send their children to schools teaching creationism, if they valued it highly enough. Evolutionists would send their children to schools teaching evolution, if they valued it highly enough. My guess is that the issue of evolution/creationism would pale before others such as multiculturalism, environmentalism, moral relativism, and modern liberalism. Would you rather send your child to a school that teaches ID in Science, but multicultural hogwash the rest of the day?
Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 03:02 AM (BIAl1)
4
Oh- check this out http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/06/18/monosizean-shoes/
Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 03:04 AM (BIAl1)
5
And in this case it's not about anything BUT religion -- it's just that the ACLU and the 11 parents here are so intolerant that they will not allow anything other than their own religion to be taught in science class.
Interesting link, I think...
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 06:05 AM (iJFc9)
6
Actually, I think Tom has a good point. If the FedGov wasn't doling out dollars to local schools (and WHERE in the Constitution is the authorization for THAT power?), this wouldn't be an issue.
Personally, I don't think teaching ID constitutes a violation of the Establishment clause.
I *do* think that it's bad science, but the quality of public education isn't a constitutional matter.
Posted by: Harvey at September 30, 2005 04:39 AM (ubhj8)
7
I certainly agree 100%. I don't think government, federal or otherwise, should pay one dollar for schools. And then ALL this would go away.
And if government education were about quality...well, there'd need to be a lot more changed than just this one thing...
Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:34 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Begets Government
The complete failure of a system known as the "Charlotte Area Transit System" continues to expand despite spending billions of taxpayer dollars. Last night the CATS system
asked the city council for 50,000 square feet of "office space" in a prime area of the city, on some of the most expensive land in the state.
"Public Transportation" is out of date. It was a nice idea 20 or 30 years ago. It's nonfunctional and incredibly wasteful. Government has no business even providing any public transportation. However, they continue to expand without any end -- for no reason other than so they can spend more taxpayer money.
I want to run a bus service as a business. However, I'm not allowed to because government has a monopoly on bus service, and they have artificially lowered prices because they collude with one another to ensure the price stays lower than can be profitable -- and picking up the costs by slapping the taxpayers with the costs.
So yes, if you work and are productive in Charlotte, NC, you are paying for bus fare every single day, whether you use the buses or not. It's wrong. Are there any lawyers out there who will take my lawsuit against the city for monopolistic practices and unfair competition?
Posted by: Ogre at
08:04 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.
1
When I saw ""Public Transportation" is out of date. It was a nice idea 20 or 30 years ago. It's nonfunctional and incredibly wasteful." I thought 'Typical American - won't use public transport because it's inconvenient, so the transport system doesn't get enough use to justify building up to a point that people will want to use it'.
HOWEVER... when I saw the words "government has a monopoly" it all made sense - has there EVER been a government-run service that could beat a privately owned business for convenience, ease of use and overall cost? (I'm including taxes here - not just subsidized tickets).
Of course not. Government-run 'businesses' have no competition that they have to win customers from, their employees have no targets to meet or incentives to meet them, and little prospect of reward for growing the business.
"Public Transport" run by private companies can - and does (in Europe) - work very well, dramatically improving traffic congestion, giving an overall positive impact on the environment, and saving the users money. I didn't even learn to drive till I was 22 - I got around just fine by bus & train.
I think that for public transport to work, three essential ingredients are required:
1) It should be run by private companies who do not have a monopoly on transportation in the region.
2) It can only work within concentrated populations - who could make a profit running a bus out to a few isolated farms a few times a day?
3) There should be effective rule of law in the region served - people should not be afraid to wait at a bus stop, and the bus drivers shouldn't expect to be robbed when entering the bad side of town.
Posted by: geekbrit at September 27, 2005 11:42 AM (Oi3lh)
2
Thanks so much for reading beyond the first lines, geekBrit, really! I am serious when I say that I would start up a bus service for paying customers as a private business, but I simply cannot. I've interviewed and surveyed people who I know would pay for it. But I can't compete with the government when they offer the same thing basically for free.
And your point #2 is why public transportation is such an incredible failure in Charlotte, and in many other areas of the US. For those who haven't been here, the absolutely vastness of America is incredible. There is SO much space that people spread out. So most cities are spread out -- which makes effective public transportion impossible for the reasons you mention.
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 01:29 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Good 'Ol Boys
Governor Easley & his Democrat buddies in the Legislature have
appointed members to the newly created "lottery board" to bring monopolized state-sponsored gambling to North Carolina so that more people will be kept down and in poverty while pinning their hopes on life on 1:100,000,000 odds. Not surprisingly, all the members of the board are high-ranking Democrats.
Linda Carlisle was a Democrat trustee at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The leader of the new group is Charles Sanders, who ran for the Democrat nomination for US Senate from North Carolina 10 years ago.
Bryan Beatty is the current North Carolina Secretary for the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, another strong Democrat. Kevin Geddings was a Democrat aid to a governor. Malachi Greene was a strong, strong Democrat on the Charlotte City Council.
If you want to get involved with anything related to the state in this state, you must be a Democrat. Republicans are very obviously not welcome -- despite the vast number of citizens who are are registered Republican and want their points of view heard as well.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
September 26, 2005
Carnival, carnival!
New carnivals posted for your reading pleasure:
I always love to read The Tarheel Tavern. This carnival is posts about and from people in North Carolina. It's posts and information from all across the spectrum -- sometimes there's political stuff, there's almost always some poetry, and sometimes really good personal thoughts.
This week the tavern is hosted by Pratie Place. Head on over there and see all the different things and ideas that come out of North Carolina (in spite of it's oppressive political atmosphere).
The New Blog Carnival Showcase is up at Striving for Average. This is a weekly traveling carnival that highlights the newest blogs that appear on the internet. If you've got a blog that's 3 months old or less, feel free to join in!
The details are on the brand-spanking new Showcase Carnival Page. Go take a look -- really. Feel free to leave a comment on the new site design -- it's rather... bright...
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
Naturalistic Faith
If you believe in naturalism and evolution as presented by today's scientists, there are a number of things in which you must have faith. I don't have enough faith in random chance to believe that our entire existence is a cosmic accident.
In this posting, which will be rather long, I'll point out a few of the absolute requirements for just matter to exist -- not even mentioning how much more complex the requirements are for life. Then I'll illustrate the mathematical probabilities that these few conditions can exist via random chance. I'm not presupposing any conclusion -- just read and view the facts of physics and draw your own conclusion.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1271 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Of course, atheists disagree with this position because they believe that their views are by default outside the realm of "belief" or "faith." Logically speaking, you are 100% correct and I think you've done a nice job in presenting evidence where a leap of faith must occur. Naturally, the counter argument used is that we just don't know enough through science in order to address your concerns. Of course, science never defines where inane stuborness in holding to such a view begins and ends. One could make the argument that Pink Unicorns do exist and we just don't have enough science yet to support it, yet such notions are laughed at and dismissed while just as great leaps of faith are required to hold to the prevailing thoughts on cosmic and biological evolution.
Brad
Posted by: Broken Messenger at September 26, 2005 06:38 PM (7pqp9)
2
Thanks for stopping by, Brad -- and you get the point of my post entirely. By saying we don't have enough science to explain something means that you must have faith in it. And to believe naturalism actually takes much more faith than intelligent design.
Posted by: Ogre at September 26, 2005 08:42 PM (iJFc9)
3
Ok...LOL...uh huh....way cool....
WAY above my head but it was fun to read. LOL
Posted by: Raven at September 27, 2005 09:06 AM (h80AX)
4
I tried to keep it simple, but sometimes some "stuff" is just too complex! Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 09:53 AM (/k+l4)
5
Very nicely done Ogre.
Allah has 72 virgins waiting for his warriors, we just don't have the science yet to prove it yet. I think these are recycled virgins though..
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2005 09:56 AM (JUnMB)
6
Thank you, Michael. But "recycled virgins?" That's beyond comprehension there...
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 09:59 AM (/k+l4)
7
Ogre, I do believe you have found your niche. That was awesome. Now, if you do it more often you will have to take time from eating neighborhood children and stray dogs and cats....but think of eating troll sammiches instead and keep this up.... great post amigo.
Posted by: GM Roper at September 27, 2005 11:21 AM (3+aU1)
8
Thanks, GM!
I'm shooting for about once a week. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to analyze the science using science. I see large holes in various aspects of science and I'm just trying to point them out to see if anyone else can see them.
Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
9
"...to believe naturalism actually takes much more faith than intelligent design."
Not sure I follow. To believe in that which by definition is *not* supernatural requires more faith than to believe in the supernatural (i.e., ID)? Within that framework, I don't doubt that you'll find all sorts of ways to poke holes in science.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 01:42 PM (/f2f8)
10
The faith I'm mentioning here is faith in the idea that despite an actual probability of zero for the universe forming completely at random, one believes that it did. To me, it requires more faith to believe in that than it does to believe that there was someone, or something, the designed it.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 01:47 PM (/k+l4)
11
The probability that a designer which was not itself designed by a more complex or intelligent entity could have arisen ex nihilo is also zero. No matter where people go with this, regardless of whether their beliefs are supernatural, material or both, they're going to run afoul of the same issue.
But that aside, there are too many flawed assumptions in your estimates to make them worthwhile. The most egregious is noting that if given physical or astronomical properties or quantities were off by just a tiny amount, life could not exist. What this does is presume that life and its parameters and requirements came first, and that the universe arose around it in a way that just happened to conform to life's needs.
What you're ignoring is obvious: By definition, any life that exists can by definition thrive only under extant conditions. There are a million other potential values for G and the masses of subatomic particles and the electric charges of atoms, and had any these been in place five billion years ago, life, had it arisen on earth, would simply be different in subtle or perhaps powerful ways.
In other words, your probablity model only makes sense if one assumes that the types of lifeforms seen on the earth of today are the only lifeforms that could possibly exist. Clearly, this is specious reasoning.
To ilustrate: Which is more likely?
1. God created man, which can only tolerate temperatures between about 0 F and 100 F, and then placed the earth just far enough from the sun to yield these conditions; or
2. The earth, being 93 million miles from the sun and with a pronounced axis tilt, gave rise to creatures and *only* to creatures suited to its own conditions.
It's a no-brainer, a simple matter of keeping causes distinct from effects.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 02:13 PM (/f2f8)
12
Then again, I never mentioned life in this example. In this example, I'm specifically speaking of physics and matter. There is no mention of life nor God.
So the probability of THIS universe being created by random chance is still zero. There's no possibility.
You're getting the point when you see that no matter what your belief system, it all has to start somewhere -- and some sort of intelligent designer, whether it's God or an alien named V-Ger doesn't matter -- simple random chance is not a reasonable explanation.
Yes, there are many other possibilities for the value of the strong nuclear force -- and EVERY ONE OTHER THAN THE CURRENT ONE RESULTS IN NO MATTER. None. Nothing exists.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 02:42 PM (/k+l4)
13
"You're getting the point when you see that no matter what your belief system, it all has to start somewhere -- and some sort of intelligent designer, whether it's God or an alien named V-Ger doesn't matter -- simple random chance is not a reasonable explanation."
No, an inteligent designer is not a sine qua non of this sort of construct. In fact, when this discussion is run against the edge of Occam's razor, purely material causes make more sense, because otherwise an endless recursive loop is set up wherein a designer requires a designer requires a designer...etc.
"I never mentioned life in this example."
Except when you wrote:
"...if the relative mass of protons vs. neutrons was off by even just 0.0001%, not only could life not exist, but matter itself couldn't exist...If this force were weaker, say 1/100th of it's actual strength, then protons would repel one another in the nucleus of atoms -- again making neither life nor even matter possible...The slightest change in either of these forces would change our sun into a blue giant or a red dwarf -- ensuring no life on the planet earth."
That is why I what I based my previous post on.
There are other problems with your assumptions -- among them the fact that what you label "randomness" is in the real world substituted by molecules' and subatomic particles' adherence to known physicochemical laws, and other conflations of chance events and predictable outcomes -- but as you've decided for yourself that a designer was behind it all, I won't try to dissuade you. This sort of thing isn't irksome anyway when not co-opted by Intelligent Design proponents who can be demonstrated to talk out of their arses at every opportunity.
One day a designing force may indeed turn out to be the best explanation, but this sort of modeling, while an interesting thought exercise, falls shy of being explanatory (as do the best cosmological arguments available to date, actually).
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 02:54 PM (/f2f8)
14
The materialist viewpoint runs up against the exact same problem as the creator -- where did the first material come from?
But, I'm glad we finally agree-- nothing can effectively explain the creation of matter (and life). That's all I want to point out -- that there's a possibility that materialists are not correct, and there's clear data and evidence to show that theirs MIGHT not be the right way.
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 03:04 PM (/k+l4)
15
(And have you noticed the really cool Google ads for all sorts of neat, physics-related stuff on this page?)
Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 03:05 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Guard Our Borders
Here we are again. It's time for the Guard the Borders Blogburst, so let's get started.
This Mexico travel site is complaining about Arnold's trip to Mexico. The amusing part about this article is this quote, in reference to Arnold being "anti-immigrant":
“He doesn’t want Mexicans to go,” to California, said Victor Faz, a 16-year-old street taco vendor in Mexicali. “And they are the ones that help the state get ahead.”
Thank God for 16-year-olds, right? I mean, without them, how would we ever know what's
really going on?
For the record, Arnold isn't "anti-immigrant". Neither are most of us complaining about the immigration problem. I am, however, anti-illegals who come here without following the proper laws to get here and then have the balls to think my tax dollars will support their livelihood. To be quite honest, I'm anti-anyone who comes here illegally, period. I don't care if you're working 14 hours a day in a warehouse to send money home, sitting on your butt in an apartment using your welfare check to snort crank, or standing on the street corner offering boom-boom to whoever happens along.
Which brings me to my next point. Green card marriages. Mad Canuck has something about this:
Business marriages and other forms of immigration fraud really rankle me. As a foreigner myself living here in the United States, I have a lot of legal hassle I have to deal with, and I do not appreciate the concept of people getting a free ride, speeding past law-abiding people like myself by doing something illegal. And, as a married man, I also have a real problem with someone making a mockery out of the institution of marriage by entering into it fraudulently.
Well spoken. The immigration problem needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now. Bush needs to stop appointing idiots to posts of authority within the immigration law enforcement agencies. With the recent natural disasters that have hit the U.S., it's imperative that we pay even closer attention to our borders. Otherwise, we're going to wake up one day to find that more than a hurricane has demolished our cities.
----------
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, held every Monday at
Euphoric Reality and other blogs. Our mission is to keep immigration issues at the forefront. If you'd like to be a part of it, send your blog URL and name to kit.jarrell@ gmail dot com.
Blogs on Board:
Posted by: Ogre at
11:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.
Terrorists Terrorize
Terrorists terrorize. That's what they do. They only stop when they are killed. Israel, who ought to know this, is finding it out yet again.
You may remember when earlier this year Israel forcibly removed it's own citizens from Israeli land so that they could give the land to terrorists (Palestinians). Supposedly the terrorists (Palestinians) would stop terrorizing and killing the people of Israel if they gave them some land for their own.
Well, Israel gave them the land, and the terrorists continued to attack and kill Israelis. Why? Because they're terrorists! They seem to be incapable of doing anything else. They certainly will not be appeased until all Israelis are dead -- at least they're not stopping trying to kill the people of Israel.
Fortunately, Israel is doing what needs to be done (this time) -- they're fighting back. Hamas and the Palestinians have launched new attacks on Israel, so now Israel is fighting back. I only hope it's not too late. Israel should just take back the Gaza strip and raze it -- to create a buffer between civilization and terrorism.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
107kb generated in CPU 0.0768, elapsed 0.1476 seconds.
98 queries taking 0.1017 seconds, 310 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.