I am not a "birther", dear Readers. But I am intrigued by the matter concerning President Obama's birth certificate -- and my intrigue was completely borne out of his thus-far refusal to release it. Is it because he's just so offended that anyone would question his nationality and therefore, eligibility to hold his office? If that's the only the reason, then he's an idiot, a prideful idiot. The people have the right to question their leaders, even on matters that seem so outlandish. President Bush made quite a few unforced political errors by retreating behind his integrity and refusing to answer his critics with reasoned and cogent arguments for his actions. President Obama is allowing a conspiracy theory to grow and spread by refusing to humor requests for his birth certificate. Honestly, owing to the fact that we do have a Constitutional requirement that our president be born in our great nation, I'm surprised that a presentation of candidates' birth records are not a prerequisite to running for the office.
The fellows that Chris Matthews is talking with about this issue are citing circumstantial evidence such as birth announcements and first-person accounts of news of the birth (I don't think any Wise Men were involved) in Hawaii to lay the issue to rest . And I believe them, but why not release the piece of paper and end the speculation once and for all? Why must we rely on secondary evidence when the birth certificate can be released?
I also think it's absurd that we spent the better part of the 2000 and 2004 elections comparing the freakin' grade point averages of the candidates and yet still, this president will not release the most basic of documents. Who is advising him? And what is their reasoning?
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Pet Peeve
I watched a good movie yesterday, Julie & Julia, but there were two moments in the film that bugged me. Of course, they had to do with politics -- just two small comments that did nothing to further the plot and only seemed to serve to insult conservatives/Republicans. Now obviously, someone of my political persuasion is going to be a little annoyed by that, but I have to wonder if apolitical and/or liberal viewers appreciate those kind of comments or feel that they add anything to one's enjoyment of the film. For me, the comments were jarring and took me out of my reverie in the story and put me in a political state of mind.
I just don't see the point -- as other conservative and libertarian writers have pointed out, we know Hollywood is liberal, they don't need to constantly reassure us that they're cool and hip and in the process, sully their own work to do so. The writer (Nora Ephron, apparently, I didn't notice that when watching the movie) of Julie & Julia didn't offend me as a conservative, she offended me as a fan of her movie.
I just don't see the point -- as other conservative and libertarian writers have pointed out, we know Hollywood is liberal, they don't need to constantly reassure us that they're cool and hip and in the process, sully their own work to do so. The writer (Nora Ephron, apparently, I didn't notice that when watching the movie) of Julie & Julia didn't offend me as a conservative, she offended me as a fan of her movie.
Freedom of Speech ... Sorta
Was just alerted to this infringement upon freedom of speech by my Dear Father: what your real estate agent can and cannot tell you about the house you may be about to buy. I shouldn't be surprised, but I continue to be astonished by just how limited our freedom is. This kind of restriction may seem trivial (it also may seem pointless ... because it is), but it's just one of the many erosive government regulations which scratch away at our notion of freedom.
One day we'll wake up and it will all be gone and then we'll wonder how it happened.
One day we'll wake up and it will all be gone and then we'll wonder how it happened.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
War on Smokers
What if they tried this on HIV-positive job applicants? Objectively-speaking, those with HIV (or any other remotely contagious virus) pose more of a risk to the hospital's "healthy environment" for patients than smokers do. How fierce would the outrage be?
Ugh, The Government
Does it seem counter-intuitive to anyone else that more laws and regulations will "help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet" per President Obama?
The internet is one of the last -- if not THE last -- preserve of a truly free market. Anyone can buy some real estate in the form of a web address and set up shop, either to sell a good or service or to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
Infringement upon the internet in the form of rules and regulations will only stifle the market. The government claims it is acting in order to help us -- it's worried that large companies have too much control over access, but as the authors of the article note: "Most consumers haven't had a problem viewing whatever they want online; few instances have arisen of an Internet provider blocking or slowing services." And when an instance such as this arises, do you know what is most effective in remedying it? Ding ding -- the free market! Consumers have choices -- I count at least six in the Atlanta area off the top of my head.
But the government doesn't care about effectively protecting consumers -- the government only cares about control. Anything that they don't control is a threat and an untapped resource from which to fill their coffers.
The internet is one of the last -- if not THE last -- preserve of a truly free market. Anyone can buy some real estate in the form of a web address and set up shop, either to sell a good or service or to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
Infringement upon the internet in the form of rules and regulations will only stifle the market. The government claims it is acting in order to help us -- it's worried that large companies have too much control over access, but as the authors of the article note: "Most consumers haven't had a problem viewing whatever they want online; few instances have arisen of an Internet provider blocking or slowing services." And when an instance such as this arises, do you know what is most effective in remedying it? Ding ding -- the free market! Consumers have choices -- I count at least six in the Atlanta area off the top of my head.
But the government doesn't care about effectively protecting consumers -- the government only cares about control. Anything that they don't control is a threat and an untapped resource from which to fill their coffers.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Just in Time for Christmas
My faith in humanity and the American spirit has been (somewhat) restored. Well done, young whippersnappers -- take charge!
Monday, December 13, 2010
Gawker laments The Death of the Suburban Office Park.
The author of this article believes that these suburban office parks are "terrible environmentally, terrible for transportation, and terrible for the soul". They probably wouldn't be terrible environmentally or terrible for transportation if people lived in the same suburb as their office. I realize that the suburbs are not in any way hip enough for the denizens of Gawker (as evidenced in the comments), but some people obviously like them. And of course, the buildings themselves are ugly, but they serve a purpose -- or they used to when we used to have vibrant and growing small business sector.
What really frightened me about this post was actually the comments. These Gawker commenters have no idea that the vacancy of these office parks marks a significant loss to the economy -- it is these small businesses in ugly suburban office parks which employ the majority of the middle class that is the tax base that funds the government programs the commenters so love. One of them suggested converting the vacant office buildings into "housing or shelters or something useful." You mean something useful like a business that employs people, trades them money for work and allows them to be self-sufficient -- and pay taxes?
The author of this article believes that these suburban office parks are "terrible environmentally, terrible for transportation, and terrible for the soul". They probably wouldn't be terrible environmentally or terrible for transportation if people lived in the same suburb as their office. I realize that the suburbs are not in any way hip enough for the denizens of Gawker (as evidenced in the comments), but some people obviously like them. And of course, the buildings themselves are ugly, but they serve a purpose -- or they used to when we used to have vibrant and growing small business sector.
What really frightened me about this post was actually the comments. These Gawker commenters have no idea that the vacancy of these office parks marks a significant loss to the economy -- it is these small businesses in ugly suburban office parks which employ the majority of the middle class that is the tax base that funds the government programs the commenters so love. One of them suggested converting the vacant office buildings into "housing or shelters or something useful." You mean something useful like a business that employs people, trades them money for work and allows them to be self-sufficient -- and pay taxes?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
At it Again
Westboro Baptist Church strikes again with their unique and abhorrent take on Christianity by picketing Elizabeth Edwards' funeral. Apparently, they've discussed the matter with God and He hates her. I didn't agree with her politics or appreciate her involvement in covering up her husband's affair during the 2008 primary, but does any of that matter now? What exactly are these people hoping to accomplish? What offends me most about them is that they don't seem to have any real motives beyond spewing hate. There are plenty of legitimate protests that are executed by unsavory means and some excuses can be made for those, but this is nothing but hate.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Keep It Up
I'm a big fan of civil disobedience -- admittedly, I don't practice it much myself, but I do admire those who do. We must keep the pressure on the TSA to cease and desist its ridiculous and pointless new "security" procedures. And we must do so in our own uniquely American way -- with humor. We don't have to get ugly with the TSA workers or engage in any actual criminal behavior, we just have to poke fun and expose the absurdity of it all.
I would like to know what the airlines are doing about all of this. I'm also a big fan of market-based solutions and urge all travelers who can reach their destinations in ways other than air travel to do so. I know not everyone can do this, but I'm hoping the airlines will see that these new procedures are a threat to their customer base and try to find a different solution. Personally, I think each airline should be responsible for its own security.
I would like to know what the airlines are doing about all of this. I'm also a big fan of market-based solutions and urge all travelers who can reach their destinations in ways other than air travel to do so. I know not everyone can do this, but I'm hoping the airlines will see that these new procedures are a threat to their customer base and try to find a different solution. Personally, I think each airline should be responsible for its own security.
Just Curious
How long do you think it takes Congress to come up with their bills' names and shoe-horn in words with the appropriate starting letter to make fancy acronyms?
Kinda Creepy
'IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING' is apparently a new-ish campaign to remind us that we live in dangerous times. Admittedly, I'm biased against this administration and might not have been so creeped out by this if it had been done by President Bush -- and I do know that to some extent it was initiated by Bush. (One of my favorite lines of his presidency was his response when asked what irregular behavior citizens should be on the look-out for: "if you find a person that you've never seen before getting in a crop duster that doesn't belong to [them] -- report it", but I digress.)
However, this Big Brother-ish approach -- complete with computer screens at retail counters admonishing us to spy on each other -- coupled with the TSA overreach, the invasive healthcare bill, and other small infringements on our liberty (including my own recent brush with red light cameras) makes me uneasy. It feels like the death of liberty by a thousand cuts -- which is exactly how our liberty will meet its demise.
Maybe I'm naive and overestimate my fellow citizens (although, read the "About Me" and you'll see that's not true), but I don't think we need a reminder to be on the alert for things that seem suspicious. In my estimation, it is our government that has forgotten about 9/11, not our nation.
However, this Big Brother-ish approach -- complete with computer screens at retail counters admonishing us to spy on each other -- coupled with the TSA overreach, the invasive healthcare bill, and other small infringements on our liberty (including my own recent brush with red light cameras) makes me uneasy. It feels like the death of liberty by a thousand cuts -- which is exactly how our liberty will meet its demise.
Maybe I'm naive and overestimate my fellow citizens (although, read the "About Me" and you'll see that's not true), but I don't think we need a reminder to be on the alert for things that seem suspicious. In my estimation, it is our government that has forgotten about 9/11, not our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)