NPR (audio), Global Voices
Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, is currently attempting to ramrod a new school curriculum into place, one that, unsurprisingly, is focused primarily on creating "young patriots," by which he means citizens who support him and his social policies.
The program, opposed by many Venezuelan parents as an attempt to indoctrinate their children, glorifies Latin American socialist revolutionaries, teaches that capitalism is a tool to subjugate the common people, and blames the United States for Venezuela's ills. Private schools would also be required to follow this curriculum under the plan.
This is an outrage against individual liberty and academic freedom. The place of an education system, particularly one that is publicly funded, should be to teach students factual information, not to feed them propaganda designed to make them loyal to the current ruler and to stir up hatred against that ruler's perceived enemies (in this case, the United States). Of course, it has been plain for some time now that Chavez has no interest in actually maintaining civil liberties in his country; quite the opposite, he aims to become a socialist dictator. He's already well on his way, nationalizing entire industries left and right, most recently the cement industry. He is unfit to lead, and one can only hope that his people will realize that before it is too late.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Hezbollah tries to take over Beirut
BBC, Reuters
The terrorist group Hezbollah has launched an all-out assault on the government of Lebanon, seizing the western half of Beirut, attacking pro-government and anti-Syrian media outlets, and firing rocket-propelled grenades at ministers' homes and government offices.
Hezbollah also happens to lead the minority opposition in the government. That they respond to political problems within a government they are a part of with violence against that government is incredible, or would be if they didn't have a history of it. They have thrown aside all pretense of caring for the Lebanese people, as though they hadn't already during their recent conflict with Israel.
The Bush administration has stated support for the Lebanese government, but the support Lebanon needs right now is the absolute crushing of Hezbollah as a fighting force. They have thoroughly demonstrated that no other measure will keep them from using terrorism as their first resort in political disputes.
The terrorist group Hezbollah has launched an all-out assault on the government of Lebanon, seizing the western half of Beirut, attacking pro-government and anti-Syrian media outlets, and firing rocket-propelled grenades at ministers' homes and government offices.
Hezbollah also happens to lead the minority opposition in the government. That they respond to political problems within a government they are a part of with violence against that government is incredible, or would be if they didn't have a history of it. They have thrown aside all pretense of caring for the Lebanese people, as though they hadn't already during their recent conflict with Israel.
The Bush administration has stated support for the Lebanese government, but the support Lebanon needs right now is the absolute crushing of Hezbollah as a fighting force. They have thoroughly demonstrated that no other measure will keep them from using terrorism as their first resort in political disputes.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Indiana's Primary Elections
As I mentioned in my previous post, I was a precinct inspector for the Indiana primary on May 6. I'm sorry this report was not written on the 6th as I'd promised; I was held up for so long at the courthouse afterwards that all I wanted to do was go to bed.
Setting up the polling station was simple enough; the biggest problem was the fact that the legs didn't want to stay in their sockets on one of the voting machines. The same machine caused problems later in the day because it had a dark spot on its screen that made it hard to see one of the ballot entries.
It is against Indiana election law to campaign within 300 feet of a polling place. When I arrived at the polls, there were campaign signs stuck all over the ground outside the building; I had to remove and confiscate them when the polls opened. After that, though, there were no further problems with electioneering.
After that, the day was mostly long and boring. Voter turnout for my precinct was about 35%, which is high for a primary in this state, since we usually don't matter for the presidential election.
Since the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law requiring photo identification at polling places in order to vote, my job mostly consisted of asking for ID at the front door. Voters kept cracking jokes about being illegal immigrants and/or having fake ID, but other than that, it went off without a hitch in my precinct. (Some nuns in South Bend were turned away for not having proper ID; I'm not clear on whether they were permitted to fill out provisional ballots as is required.)
There was one interesting thing: With the exception of the presidential ballot (for some reason, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul are all still on the ballot) all the Republicans ran unopposed. They didn't have enough candidates to go around, apparently; they were not contesting the judge's seat, and were only running two candidates for the county council (when the ballot allows voters to vote for three).
Voting was busiest at the end of the work day, as expected, but it trickled off well before closing time. We had one voter at the end of the polling time; there was nothing like the rush we were told to expect before closing.
All in all, it was a good day, and a new experience. I'd do it again if asked, though I couldn't resist informing the Democratic chairwoman of the irony of her choosing me to do it afterwards, so I don't know if I'll be asked again.
Setting up the polling station was simple enough; the biggest problem was the fact that the legs didn't want to stay in their sockets on one of the voting machines. The same machine caused problems later in the day because it had a dark spot on its screen that made it hard to see one of the ballot entries.
It is against Indiana election law to campaign within 300 feet of a polling place. When I arrived at the polls, there were campaign signs stuck all over the ground outside the building; I had to remove and confiscate them when the polls opened. After that, though, there were no further problems with electioneering.
After that, the day was mostly long and boring. Voter turnout for my precinct was about 35%, which is high for a primary in this state, since we usually don't matter for the presidential election.
Since the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law requiring photo identification at polling places in order to vote, my job mostly consisted of asking for ID at the front door. Voters kept cracking jokes about being illegal immigrants and/or having fake ID, but other than that, it went off without a hitch in my precinct. (Some nuns in South Bend were turned away for not having proper ID; I'm not clear on whether they were permitted to fill out provisional ballots as is required.)
There was one interesting thing: With the exception of the presidential ballot (for some reason, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul are all still on the ballot) all the Republicans ran unopposed. They didn't have enough candidates to go around, apparently; they were not contesting the judge's seat, and were only running two candidates for the county council (when the ballot allows voters to vote for three).
Voting was busiest at the end of the work day, as expected, but it trickled off well before closing time. We had one voter at the end of the polling time; there was nothing like the rush we were told to expect before closing.
All in all, it was a good day, and a new experience. I'd do it again if asked, though I couldn't resist informing the Democratic chairwoman of the irony of her choosing me to do it afterwards, so I don't know if I'll be asked again.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Indiana primary coverage tomorrow
Tomorrow I'm going to write a report on the Indiana primary from the perspective of a precinct inspector and post it on this blog. I won't be able to do ongoing updates, since I won't have Internet access at the polling station, but I will keep notes and write a full account. Watch this space tomorrow night.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Well, I'm a poll inspector now
With only a few days' notice, I've been tapped to be a poll inspector for the Indiana primary on Tuesday. The precinct they've put me in charge of is a small one, but this is still an incredible responsibility. I have the voting machines in the trunk of my car as I write this; I'm responsible for their security from now all the way until I turn them in at the end of Election Day.
I'm deeply honored to be entrusted with this, but it's funny at the same time. I was called by the head of the county's Democratic Party Committee to do this because my mother is on the committee; I suppose she assumed everyone in the household was also a Democrat. I am, obviously, not, but it doesn't matter; I'm committed to the integrity of the electoral process and will execute my duties to prevent voter fraud and other shenanigans the very best of my ability, and that's all the job requires. It's just highly ironic that the Democrats would unknowingly tap a Protest Warrior to run the polls.
It's also kind of unnerving that so little security goes into choosing who will run the polls; it would have been easy for them to have asked someone who is both less than principled and has a stake in the primary. I suppose we're simply fortunate that they did not... this time.
I'm deeply honored to be entrusted with this, but it's funny at the same time. I was called by the head of the county's Democratic Party Committee to do this because my mother is on the committee; I suppose she assumed everyone in the household was also a Democrat. I am, obviously, not, but it doesn't matter; I'm committed to the integrity of the electoral process and will execute my duties to prevent voter fraud and other shenanigans the very best of my ability, and that's all the job requires. It's just highly ironic that the Democrats would unknowingly tap a Protest Warrior to run the polls.
It's also kind of unnerving that so little security goes into choosing who will run the polls; it would have been easy for them to have asked someone who is both less than principled and has a stake in the primary. I suppose we're simply fortunate that they did not... this time.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Paizo Publishing announces Pathfinder RPG
Back to my gaming roots for a moment.
Paizo (who has, to take a guess, grown tired of Wizards of the Coast's shenanigans with the D&D 4th Edition developers' kits) has announced the development and open playtesting of a D&D 3.5-compatible tabletop RPG called Pathfinder, after the adventure path series they started publishing after Wizards pulled their licenses to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
Rather than convert their Pathfinder line to 4e, Paizo is developing their own ruleset based on 3.5e, and are conducting open alpha and beta tests. The alpha version of the rules may be found at the title link.
Having looked over the alpha version, I find what they have so far mostly good. I especially like the changes to combat maneuvers, but what I like most is the open testing; being able to see production in progress and possibly even influence it is exciting to me.
If you're into d20 tabletop gaming and aren't comfortable with the direction of 4e (or even just have a large collection of d20 sourcebooks that you'd like to keep using, like me) then I highly recommend checking out Paizo's initiative here and joining in the testing. Maybe we can keep up support for our game after WotC abandons it.
Paizo (who has, to take a guess, grown tired of Wizards of the Coast's shenanigans with the D&D 4th Edition developers' kits) has announced the development and open playtesting of a D&D 3.5-compatible tabletop RPG called Pathfinder, after the adventure path series they started publishing after Wizards pulled their licenses to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
Rather than convert their Pathfinder line to 4e, Paizo is developing their own ruleset based on 3.5e, and are conducting open alpha and beta tests. The alpha version of the rules may be found at the title link.
Having looked over the alpha version, I find what they have so far mostly good. I especially like the changes to combat maneuvers, but what I like most is the open testing; being able to see production in progress and possibly even influence it is exciting to me.
If you're into d20 tabletop gaming and aren't comfortable with the direction of 4e (or even just have a large collection of d20 sourcebooks that you'd like to keep using, like me) then I highly recommend checking out Paizo's initiative here and joining in the testing. Maybe we can keep up support for our game after WotC abandons it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Indoctrinate U
This is an unusual step for me on this blog. Today I'm writing a film review.
I have not chosen to write about just any movie. Something like, say, Meet the Spartans (or even 300, the movie it parodies), to name a recent example, isn't even worth my time to watch, much less review. I am undertaking this step for Indoctrinate U, which I honestly feel is one of the most important films certainly of the decade, and possibly within my lifetime.
Why do I feel this way about an independently produced documentary about academic bias? It's simple. Education, and the academia that is responsible for a large part of it and is the subject of the film, is the very heart and soul of the future; without it, we have nothing.
With the above as my premise, it is easy to understand why I consider Indoctrinate U an incredibly important film. The documentary delves deep into the issue of political bias in academia and, far more importantly, the issue of political repression of students and faculty who do not conform to the prevailing biases of a given campus.
For years, anecdotes of political correctness gone wild in universities have circulated around the rumor mill. Most people probably don't pay them much mind; I never did until I actually went to college, started to become politically aware, and ended up as a civil libertarian and classical liberal (as opposed to the more modern variety). Then, I experienced it firsthand.
But this post is about the film, not my own experiences. While I underwent significant vigilante censorship in college, my case is nothing next to some of the ones Evan Maloney, the filmmaker (whose own blog, Brain Terminal, may be found here), covers in his feature-length documentary. Two of the victims of campus political repression he interviews, one a professor and one a student, underwent harassment and abuses of administrative power so severe that they had to seek remedy in federal court. Perhaps not coincidentally, both of those cases arose from the California State University system at California Polytechnic, and several other cases of severe political repression covered in the film concern other California schools, notably UC Berkeley and San Francisco State.
But it's not limited to California's famously far-left and proud of it university system; the problem extends nationwide, with the documentary touching on incidents at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Yale, Brooklyn College, Michigan State, Bucknell University, and several other schools, effectively putting an end to the era of mere isolated anecdotes of collegiate abuse of liberty. This film exposes the root of the problem for what it is; a systemic and institutionalized campus orthodoxy completely contrary to both individual liberty and academic freedom.
I am once again adding my voice to the call for reform on college campuses, as I did when I was still in school. The sort of widespread academic orthodoxy that Indoctrinate U exposes is poisoning the nation's very future, and must not continue. As Maloney calls for in his film, there needs to be another campus free speech movement, as there was in the 1960s, if students are to gain their freedom of thought and overcome the intellectual sloth that is fostered by rooted orthodoxy. For that is the real danger; in growing to think of its current mode of thinking as the only correct one, academia risks stagnation and complacency in the testing of its ideas. Thank you, Evan Maloney, for your clarion call to action.
I have not chosen to write about just any movie. Something like, say, Meet the Spartans (or even 300, the movie it parodies), to name a recent example, isn't even worth my time to watch, much less review. I am undertaking this step for Indoctrinate U, which I honestly feel is one of the most important films certainly of the decade, and possibly within my lifetime.
Why do I feel this way about an independently produced documentary about academic bias? It's simple. Education, and the academia that is responsible for a large part of it and is the subject of the film, is the very heart and soul of the future; without it, we have nothing.
With the above as my premise, it is easy to understand why I consider Indoctrinate U an incredibly important film. The documentary delves deep into the issue of political bias in academia and, far more importantly, the issue of political repression of students and faculty who do not conform to the prevailing biases of a given campus.
For years, anecdotes of political correctness gone wild in universities have circulated around the rumor mill. Most people probably don't pay them much mind; I never did until I actually went to college, started to become politically aware, and ended up as a civil libertarian and classical liberal (as opposed to the more modern variety). Then, I experienced it firsthand.
But this post is about the film, not my own experiences. While I underwent significant vigilante censorship in college, my case is nothing next to some of the ones Evan Maloney, the filmmaker (whose own blog, Brain Terminal, may be found here), covers in his feature-length documentary. Two of the victims of campus political repression he interviews, one a professor and one a student, underwent harassment and abuses of administrative power so severe that they had to seek remedy in federal court. Perhaps not coincidentally, both of those cases arose from the California State University system at California Polytechnic, and several other cases of severe political repression covered in the film concern other California schools, notably UC Berkeley and San Francisco State.
But it's not limited to California's famously far-left and proud of it university system; the problem extends nationwide, with the documentary touching on incidents at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Yale, Brooklyn College, Michigan State, Bucknell University, and several other schools, effectively putting an end to the era of mere isolated anecdotes of collegiate abuse of liberty. This film exposes the root of the problem for what it is; a systemic and institutionalized campus orthodoxy completely contrary to both individual liberty and academic freedom.
I am once again adding my voice to the call for reform on college campuses, as I did when I was still in school. The sort of widespread academic orthodoxy that Indoctrinate U exposes is poisoning the nation's very future, and must not continue. As Maloney calls for in his film, there needs to be another campus free speech movement, as there was in the 1960s, if students are to gain their freedom of thought and overcome the intellectual sloth that is fostered by rooted orthodoxy. For that is the real danger; in growing to think of its current mode of thinking as the only correct one, academia risks stagnation and complacency in the testing of its ideas. Thank you, Evan Maloney, for your clarion call to action.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Conservative Opposition to John McCain
As should be perfectly clear by now, Senator John McCain of Arizona is set to be the Republican nominee for President. As should also be perfectly clear, a lot of the Republican Party hates him.
Why is this? Well, ask and you'll get many reasons.
McCain-Feingold, for one. Hey, I didn't like it either when the Federal Election Commission tried to apply the rules meant for big advertisers to private bloggers, but we came through that all right. Still, it's a sloppy piece of legislation.
McCain-Kennedy for another. Amnesty for illegal aliens? Get out of here, and take your bill with you.
Then the opposition to Bush's tax cuts. John McCain opposed the tax cuts, it's true. But let's look at why he did it: There were no spending cuts to accompany them, which means that he was opposing cutting revenue while not cutting outlays, i.e. going further into debt. Is this not a fiscally conservative position?
However, the same commentators who lambast McCain tend to love George W. Bush. So for comparison's sake, let's talk about Bush's positions on these same issues that conservative pundits are taking exception to.
First, campaign finance reform. Fine, McCain pushed it and it can be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech. However, these same pundits love the PATRIOT Act, which Bush fervently supports and if anything is a larger infringement on civil liberties than campaign finance reform could ever conceivably be.
How about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? Oops. Bush pushed that same bill harder than John McCain ever did.
And sure, Bush cut taxes, but he did absolutely nothing to curb federal spending; in fact, he increased it to higher levels than any other post-Cold War President. And yet, for all this, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the other big-name talk radio pundits love the President.
No, the real reason is none of those. It is this: Look at the other names on the bills I mentioned above. Notice anything?
Yes. Kennedy and Feingold are Democrats. And that's it right there. This is not about the issues, it isn't about conservatism, and it isn't even about McCain himself. It's all about party loyalty. McCain will occasionally cooperate with Democrats to get things done on Capitol Hill, and to the hard-line Republican wing, this is an unforgivable sin greater than any of the many non-conservative indiscretions Bush has committed in office. Sure, he shot the national debt through the roof, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, and did absolutely nothing to curb Congressional pork spending (it took the man how long to veto even a single bill?), but he never cooperated with Democrats on any meaningful level. So he's good.
What does it say about American politics when party loyalty is the determining factor in an election, rather than the candidates' positions on the issues, capability to act, or even political skill? (For the record, the ability to cooperate with Democrats across the aisle marks McCain as a consummate politician; someone with the ability to exercise great influence in Washington. If anything, it should be a qualification.) There's nothing wrong with opposing McCain based on the issues (despite writing him in as a protest vote in 2004, I do), but doing so simply because he will actually execute his legislative duties when doing that requires being civil to a Democrat is an ideologically and intellectually bankrupt position to take.
Why is this? Well, ask and you'll get many reasons.
McCain-Feingold, for one. Hey, I didn't like it either when the Federal Election Commission tried to apply the rules meant for big advertisers to private bloggers, but we came through that all right. Still, it's a sloppy piece of legislation.
McCain-Kennedy for another. Amnesty for illegal aliens? Get out of here, and take your bill with you.
Then the opposition to Bush's tax cuts. John McCain opposed the tax cuts, it's true. But let's look at why he did it: There were no spending cuts to accompany them, which means that he was opposing cutting revenue while not cutting outlays, i.e. going further into debt. Is this not a fiscally conservative position?
However, the same commentators who lambast McCain tend to love George W. Bush. So for comparison's sake, let's talk about Bush's positions on these same issues that conservative pundits are taking exception to.
First, campaign finance reform. Fine, McCain pushed it and it can be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech. However, these same pundits love the PATRIOT Act, which Bush fervently supports and if anything is a larger infringement on civil liberties than campaign finance reform could ever conceivably be.
How about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? Oops. Bush pushed that same bill harder than John McCain ever did.
And sure, Bush cut taxes, but he did absolutely nothing to curb federal spending; in fact, he increased it to higher levels than any other post-Cold War President. And yet, for all this, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the other big-name talk radio pundits love the President.
No, the real reason is none of those. It is this: Look at the other names on the bills I mentioned above. Notice anything?
Yes. Kennedy and Feingold are Democrats. And that's it right there. This is not about the issues, it isn't about conservatism, and it isn't even about McCain himself. It's all about party loyalty. McCain will occasionally cooperate with Democrats to get things done on Capitol Hill, and to the hard-line Republican wing, this is an unforgivable sin greater than any of the many non-conservative indiscretions Bush has committed in office. Sure, he shot the national debt through the roof, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, and did absolutely nothing to curb Congressional pork spending (it took the man how long to veto even a single bill?), but he never cooperated with Democrats on any meaningful level. So he's good.
What does it say about American politics when party loyalty is the determining factor in an election, rather than the candidates' positions on the issues, capability to act, or even political skill? (For the record, the ability to cooperate with Democrats across the aisle marks McCain as a consummate politician; someone with the ability to exercise great influence in Washington. If anything, it should be a qualification.) There's nothing wrong with opposing McCain based on the issues (despite writing him in as a protest vote in 2004, I do), but doing so simply because he will actually execute his legislative duties when doing that requires being civil to a Democrat is an ideologically and intellectually bankrupt position to take.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The U.S. primary elections: Super Tuesday, late voters, and Party shenanigans
CNN, BBC
Yesterday was the biggest primary election day in United States history. Twenty-four of the fifty states held their primary elections on that day, popularly dubbed "Super Tuesday."
Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama, though just barely. Neither one yet has a majority of the Democratic convention delegates, meaning that far from deciding the primary as was widely expected, Super Tuesday has left the race still open, making the primaries of states that have late primary dates still relevant, a rarity in U.S. politics. (Incidentally, this is why I advocate simply holding all primaries on the same day; more on that below.)
Similarly, the Republican primaries on Tuesday gave John McCain a lead in the number of delegates, but he still only has a little over half of the necessary delegates to guarantee him the nomination. His lead has many conservatives running scared, since his popularity among the conservative wing of the Republican Party is not high, to make an understatement. A separate post on my take on McCain will follow this one.
The upshot of all this is that primaries in late-voting states (such as my own) might actually matter this time out. As I said a couple paragraphs above, this is rare; usually by the time the latest primaries come around in May and June, there have been enough delegates assigned by earlier primary elections to some candidate or another that the primary results in those late states are completely irrelevant to the outcome, causing candidates to neglect the concerns of the voters in those late states, since their votes cannot influence the nominating conventions.
The primaries are staggered the way they are to deliberately give some states more clout in comparison to others. Namely, Iowa and New Hampshire go first because doing so supposedly gives "small states" a say in the race. Which is completely wrong; it does not give "small states" a larger say in the race; it gives Iowa and New Hampshire a larger say in the race. That the Democratic Party is refusing to seat Florida's delegation to the convention because they dared to hold their primaries earlier than they were "allowed" to in order to uphold this fiction is abhorrent and a massive violation of Floridians' right to equal representation. (Incidentally, allowing Florida's delegates to be seated might bring on a result that I really don't want to see; namely, their support for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, since she won the Florida primary nearly uncontested because the other candidates did not bother to campaign there, but it doesn't matter; their rights to representation trump any such considerations.)
In fact, I'm not even sure just why it is that the political parties get to dictate primary dates to the state governments. The parties are not supposed to have that kind of authority, or indeed any authority of their own over the governance of the nation. This is different from politicians who are members of political parties running the governments; this is the party committee itself telling a state government that no, it may not exercise its Constitutional authority to set the date of the election, which is just wrong. The current rush to hold elections first is stupid, but denying entire states their representation for it is inexcusable.
Yesterday was the biggest primary election day in United States history. Twenty-four of the fifty states held their primary elections on that day, popularly dubbed "Super Tuesday."
Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama, though just barely. Neither one yet has a majority of the Democratic convention delegates, meaning that far from deciding the primary as was widely expected, Super Tuesday has left the race still open, making the primaries of states that have late primary dates still relevant, a rarity in U.S. politics. (Incidentally, this is why I advocate simply holding all primaries on the same day; more on that below.)
Similarly, the Republican primaries on Tuesday gave John McCain a lead in the number of delegates, but he still only has a little over half of the necessary delegates to guarantee him the nomination. His lead has many conservatives running scared, since his popularity among the conservative wing of the Republican Party is not high, to make an understatement. A separate post on my take on McCain will follow this one.
The upshot of all this is that primaries in late-voting states (such as my own) might actually matter this time out. As I said a couple paragraphs above, this is rare; usually by the time the latest primaries come around in May and June, there have been enough delegates assigned by earlier primary elections to some candidate or another that the primary results in those late states are completely irrelevant to the outcome, causing candidates to neglect the concerns of the voters in those late states, since their votes cannot influence the nominating conventions.
The primaries are staggered the way they are to deliberately give some states more clout in comparison to others. Namely, Iowa and New Hampshire go first because doing so supposedly gives "small states" a say in the race. Which is completely wrong; it does not give "small states" a larger say in the race; it gives Iowa and New Hampshire a larger say in the race. That the Democratic Party is refusing to seat Florida's delegation to the convention because they dared to hold their primaries earlier than they were "allowed" to in order to uphold this fiction is abhorrent and a massive violation of Floridians' right to equal representation. (Incidentally, allowing Florida's delegates to be seated might bring on a result that I really don't want to see; namely, their support for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, since she won the Florida primary nearly uncontested because the other candidates did not bother to campaign there, but it doesn't matter; their rights to representation trump any such considerations.)
In fact, I'm not even sure just why it is that the political parties get to dictate primary dates to the state governments. The parties are not supposed to have that kind of authority, or indeed any authority of their own over the governance of the nation. This is different from politicians who are members of political parties running the governments; this is the party committee itself telling a state government that no, it may not exercise its Constitutional authority to set the date of the election, which is just wrong. The current rush to hold elections first is stupid, but denying entire states their representation for it is inexcusable.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Civil Rights Making Progress
No, it's not what you think. No, really.
The state assemblies of South Dakota and Arizona are currently considering bills that would make it legal to carry firearms on public university campuses. I expect much whining from the anti-gun lobby in the days to come as the bills go to votes before their respective assembly houses. They'll say how it places our children in danger, how there will be deadly shootings by students who are legally carrying weapons, and other such nonsense.
And it's just that. Nonsense. If someone wants to shoot up the University of South Dakota, then he will attempt to do so. A would-be murderer is already setting out to break one of the most serious crimes on the books; he is not going to care about whether or not a campus is a "gun-free zone."
I don't usually cite other bloggers' work, but as a college professor I feel that Glenn Reynolds has some insight into this particular issue. That op-ed was written in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. I encourage you to read it; he raised the obvious points, but it's worth seeing.
Here's to these bills passing. University students are legal adults, and if they can show themselves competent to carry a firearm, there's no reason why their college campuses should be any different than the rest of the country.
And to quote Freud:
:p
The state assemblies of South Dakota and Arizona are currently considering bills that would make it legal to carry firearms on public university campuses. I expect much whining from the anti-gun lobby in the days to come as the bills go to votes before their respective assembly houses. They'll say how it places our children in danger, how there will be deadly shootings by students who are legally carrying weapons, and other such nonsense.
And it's just that. Nonsense. If someone wants to shoot up the University of South Dakota, then he will attempt to do so. A would-be murderer is already setting out to break one of the most serious crimes on the books; he is not going to care about whether or not a campus is a "gun-free zone."
I don't usually cite other bloggers' work, but as a college professor I feel that Glenn Reynolds has some insight into this particular issue. That op-ed was written in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. I encourage you to read it; he raised the obvious points, but it's worth seeing.
Here's to these bills passing. University students are legal adults, and if they can show themselves competent to carry a firearm, there's no reason why their college campuses should be any different than the rest of the country.
And to quote Freud:
:p
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Hail Xenu!
Well, it's been a long time, but recent events have conspired to jolt me out of blogging "retirement," as it were.
For years, the Church of Scientology has been engaging in litigious behavior towards their critics, and now a lot of people have had enough. February 10 is a national day of protest against Scientology.
Event locations may be found here.
Why do this, you ask? For one very simple reason: The Church of Scientology is an oppressive, fascistic, brutal organization that suppresses, extorts, controls, and sometimes even kills its members. A good overview of Scientology's dangers may be found here. If you don't have time to spend an hour or so reading the Operation Clambake site, watch this. Don't believe those critics? How about a court brief?
In addition to this, the "church" has engaged in espionage, perpetrating the largest infiltration of the United States government by any organization in history, foreign intelligence agencies included, during their "Operation Snow White."
Still not enough? According to Scientologist doctrine, L. Ron Hubbard described himself as the Antichrist and charged that Jesus was a child molester and prone to violent fits of rage. From the OTVIII Scientology document:
"No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned Is a brief period of time in which an arch-enemy of Christ. reforred to as the anti-Christ, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This anti-Christ represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the "light bearers" or "light bringer"), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief anti-Christ period. During this period there is a fleeting opportunity for the whole scenario to be. effectively derailed. which would make it impossible for the mass Marcabian landing (Second Coming) to take place. The Second Coming is designed, among other things, to trigger a rapid series of destructive events.
With the exception of the original Buddhism, virtually all religions of any consequence on this planet, mono- and pantheistic alike. have been instruments to speed the progress of this "evolution of consciousness" and bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind. As you know, Siddhartha Gautama never claimed to be anything more than a man. Having caught on to this operation, he postulated his own return as Metteyya, part of which prophecy will have been fulfilled upon the passing of L. Ron Hubbard.
For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on. let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men. he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It Is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal. so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting."
A word of warning, though: The Church of Scientology is utterly ruthless to its critics. Their Fair Game doctrine specifically says that "Suppressive Persons" (their term for their enemies), quote, "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Those who wish to participate in this should know that they are taking a risk. Scientology will use and abuse the legal system in any way they can to shut their critics up. They have in the past intentionally provoked picketers at their churches to attack them by getting up in their faces and then had their critics jailed. If they find out who you are, they will attempt to sue you if they can find any recourse at all, including the use of any of their symbols. I, for one, intend to stand up anyway, because it has to be done, but I don't want to bring anyone into this unaware of the risks.
If you do decide to go, stay together with fellow protesters (unless they're about to do something stupid), do not give out your name, do not allow yourself to be tempted to physically engage a Scientologist or even give the appearance of doing so. See you in the field.
Addendum: I am aware of the current DDoS attacks against the Church of Scientology's websites. While I detest Scientology for the brainwashing cult that it is, I do not condone illegal actions of this sort or any other. Scientology should be opposed within the legal system and with peaceful demonstrations, not hacking or vandalism.
For years, the Church of Scientology has been engaging in litigious behavior towards their critics, and now a lot of people have had enough. February 10 is a national day of protest against Scientology.
Event locations may be found here.
Why do this, you ask? For one very simple reason: The Church of Scientology is an oppressive, fascistic, brutal organization that suppresses, extorts, controls, and sometimes even kills its members. A good overview of Scientology's dangers may be found here. If you don't have time to spend an hour or so reading the Operation Clambake site, watch this. Don't believe those critics? How about a court brief?
In addition to this, the "church" has engaged in espionage, perpetrating the largest infiltration of the United States government by any organization in history, foreign intelligence agencies included, during their "Operation Snow White."
Still not enough? According to Scientologist doctrine, L. Ron Hubbard described himself as the Antichrist and charged that Jesus was a child molester and prone to violent fits of rage. From the OTVIII Scientology document:
"No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned Is a brief period of time in which an arch-enemy of Christ. reforred to as the anti-Christ, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This anti-Christ represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the "light bearers" or "light bringer"), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief anti-Christ period. During this period there is a fleeting opportunity for the whole scenario to be. effectively derailed. which would make it impossible for the mass Marcabian landing (Second Coming) to take place. The Second Coming is designed, among other things, to trigger a rapid series of destructive events.
With the exception of the original Buddhism, virtually all religions of any consequence on this planet, mono- and pantheistic alike. have been instruments to speed the progress of this "evolution of consciousness" and bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind. As you know, Siddhartha Gautama never claimed to be anything more than a man. Having caught on to this operation, he postulated his own return as Metteyya, part of which prophecy will have been fulfilled upon the passing of L. Ron Hubbard.
For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on. let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men. he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It Is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal. so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting."
A word of warning, though: The Church of Scientology is utterly ruthless to its critics. Their Fair Game doctrine specifically says that "Suppressive Persons" (their term for their enemies), quote, "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Those who wish to participate in this should know that they are taking a risk. Scientology will use and abuse the legal system in any way they can to shut their critics up. They have in the past intentionally provoked picketers at their churches to attack them by getting up in their faces and then had their critics jailed. If they find out who you are, they will attempt to sue you if they can find any recourse at all, including the use of any of their symbols. I, for one, intend to stand up anyway, because it has to be done, but I don't want to bring anyone into this unaware of the risks.
If you do decide to go, stay together with fellow protesters (unless they're about to do something stupid), do not give out your name, do not allow yourself to be tempted to physically engage a Scientologist or even give the appearance of doing so. See you in the field.
Addendum: I am aware of the current DDoS attacks against the Church of Scientology's websites. While I detest Scientology for the brainwashing cult that it is, I do not condone illegal actions of this sort or any other. Scientology should be opposed within the legal system and with peaceful demonstrations, not hacking or vandalism.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Washington, D.C. gun ban struck down
I've missed a lot of things that I wanted to post about over the past month or so, but I might as well start here now that I'm back rather than inundate everyone with my take on old news. So instead, here's a story that just broke today.
Washington Compost, text of the court decision. (Warning: 195 kilobyte PDF.)
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (how's that for a mouthful?) overturned the decision of the District Court for D.C. (the full title of which is a similar mouthful) in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, in which the plaintiffs were denied their Constitutional right to bear firearms by the lower court. The appeals court overturned the district court's decision, declaring Washington, D.C.'s 30 year old, near-total ban on firearms to be unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit covers only Washington itself, not any of the states. (If Chicago's gun ban had been struck down in this manner instead, gun bans would be illegal throughout the entire 7th Circuit, but this covers only the capital city.) I don't really see the point of a circuit court that covers only one city (where do they circulate between? Courthouses on opposite sides of the District?), but there it is. Nobody ever expected government to make sense.
The city is likely to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but I don't know whether or not they'll agree to hear it. The Court has more conservative justices now, but to quote a friend of mine, "the Country Club Republicans especially tend to have a certain elegant disdain for the rabble bearing arms." We'll just have to wait this out and see.
In the meantime, I feel like celebrating a little. Party time.
Washington Compost, text of the court decision. (Warning: 195 kilobyte PDF.)
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (how's that for a mouthful?) overturned the decision of the District Court for D.C. (the full title of which is a similar mouthful) in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, in which the plaintiffs were denied their Constitutional right to bear firearms by the lower court. The appeals court overturned the district court's decision, declaring Washington, D.C.'s 30 year old, near-total ban on firearms to be unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit covers only Washington itself, not any of the states. (If Chicago's gun ban had been struck down in this manner instead, gun bans would be illegal throughout the entire 7th Circuit, but this covers only the capital city.) I don't really see the point of a circuit court that covers only one city (where do they circulate between? Courthouses on opposite sides of the District?), but there it is. Nobody ever expected government to make sense.
The city is likely to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but I don't know whether or not they'll agree to hear it. The Court has more conservative justices now, but to quote a friend of mine, "the Country Club Republicans especially tend to have a certain elegant disdain for the rabble bearing arms." We'll just have to wait this out and see.
In the meantime, I feel like celebrating a little. Party time.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
It's official. Hugo Chavez is now a dictator.
Well, I haven't posted in awhile, but this has jolted me back into bloggerdom.
BBC, The Times
Venezuela's governmental assembly has granted President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for the next eighteen months. What this means, in rough terms, is that for the next year and a half, the gigantic socialist weasel gets to do pretty much whatever he wants.
What he wants is to nationalize (read: steal the resources of) the oil and gas industries, rob those who have earned affluence in order to give it to those who have not, and remove term limits on the Presidency so that he can effectively remain in power indefinitely. Given that he was just handed nearly absolute power, I would not be surprised in the least if he decreed himself more time to rule by decree at the end of the 18 months.
To quote Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how democracy dies. To thunderous applause." Though it would be entirely accurate to say that, ironically enough, this is an example of democracy (as opposed to republicanism as in the government system, not the party) in action.
BBC, The Times
Venezuela's governmental assembly has granted President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for the next eighteen months. What this means, in rough terms, is that for the next year and a half, the gigantic socialist weasel gets to do pretty much whatever he wants.
What he wants is to nationalize (read: steal the resources of) the oil and gas industries, rob those who have earned affluence in order to give it to those who have not, and remove term limits on the Presidency so that he can effectively remain in power indefinitely. Given that he was just handed nearly absolute power, I would not be surprised in the least if he decreed himself more time to rule by decree at the end of the 18 months.
To quote Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how democracy dies. To thunderous applause." Though it would be entirely accurate to say that, ironically enough, this is an example of democracy (as opposed to republicanism as in the government system, not the party) in action.
Friday, January 05, 2007
National Guardsmen overrun by gunmen on Mexican border
I wondered when this would happen back in March, when the National Guard was first ordered to the border. Seems my question has been answered.
Breaking from local Arizona News 12
A patrol of four National Guardsmen was overrun by armed men at the border somewhere between Nogales (AZ or Mexico; they're right across from each other) and Lukeville, AZ, a 120 mile stretch of desert in the western part of the state's border with Mexico on the night of January 3rd. No one was hurt and the gunmen retreated back to Mexico when Border Patrol reinforcements were called. It's unclear whether shots were fired. The Guard is currently deployed along the border on orders from the Arizona governor, and is in an observation and support role, supplementing the Border Patrol rather than directly acting against border incursions.
I will post updates later today as information warrants. I haven't slept all night and am too tired to go hunting for additional sources at the moment.
Update: MSNBC now has a more detailed article up.
Breaking from local Arizona News 12
A patrol of four National Guardsmen was overrun by armed men at the border somewhere between Nogales (AZ or Mexico; they're right across from each other) and Lukeville, AZ, a 120 mile stretch of desert in the western part of the state's border with Mexico on the night of January 3rd. No one was hurt and the gunmen retreated back to Mexico when Border Patrol reinforcements were called. It's unclear whether shots were fired. The Guard is currently deployed along the border on orders from the Arizona governor, and is in an observation and support role, supplementing the Border Patrol rather than directly acting against border incursions.
I will post updates later today as information warrants. I haven't slept all night and am too tired to go hunting for additional sources at the moment.
Update: MSNBC now has a more detailed article up.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Historical perspective on Saddam Hussein's execution
I'm making this post to link to this entry in the American Thinker blog. I have nothing further to add.
Thanks to John Cox and Allen Forkum for bringing this to my attention.
Thanks to John Cox and Allen Forkum for bringing this to my attention.
Happy New Year!
Just ringing in 2007, and resolving to post to this blog more. Happy New Year, everybody!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Why Middle Eastern Muslims deny the Holocaust
Los Angeles Times op-ed by the illustrious former Dutch Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I wish I could say that what Ms. Ali says in her op-ed essay is a surprise, but I find that it isn't. I didn't specifically know that knowledge of the Holocaust is suppressed in the Islamic world, but now that I have the knowledge, I find that I fail to be shocked.
So Islamic theocracies don't teach their citizens about the Holocaust, call it a lie, which causes both the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf to be bestsellers in many Arab countries, and teach the former as fact in their schools. I knew about the popularity of Kampf and the Protocols already, which is a large part of why this revelation wasn't particularly surprising.
And that's scary. It's frightening that so many in the Arab and Muslim worlds are avid readers of Hitler and of anti-Semitic fabrications (that have been known to be such since the 1920s), but knowing that they could read these, particularly Mein Kampf, which details Hitler's plans, and then not accept that Hitler would, in fact, kill millions of Jews, shows a frightening form of doublethink. Arab culture and failing Arab governments wishing to distract their citizens from their failures blame the Jews for their ills, saying that a group of people that Muslims worldwide outnumber by 75 times is wholly bent on the destruction of Islam and is on the brink of bringing it about, without setbacks. This is creating such an awesome hatred of Jews and Judaism that the citizens of those Arab states simply will not believe the historical fact of the Holocaust, even when it is presented to them in all it's unholy horror.
And that, dear readers, is what's most frightening of all. An entire culture is convinced that it must destroy an entire other culture in order to survive. That is a recipe for war eternal.
I wish I could say that what Ms. Ali says in her op-ed essay is a surprise, but I find that it isn't. I didn't specifically know that knowledge of the Holocaust is suppressed in the Islamic world, but now that I have the knowledge, I find that I fail to be shocked.
So Islamic theocracies don't teach their citizens about the Holocaust, call it a lie, which causes both the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf to be bestsellers in many Arab countries, and teach the former as fact in their schools. I knew about the popularity of Kampf and the Protocols already, which is a large part of why this revelation wasn't particularly surprising.
And that's scary. It's frightening that so many in the Arab and Muslim worlds are avid readers of Hitler and of anti-Semitic fabrications (that have been known to be such since the 1920s), but knowing that they could read these, particularly Mein Kampf, which details Hitler's plans, and then not accept that Hitler would, in fact, kill millions of Jews, shows a frightening form of doublethink. Arab culture and failing Arab governments wishing to distract their citizens from their failures blame the Jews for their ills, saying that a group of people that Muslims worldwide outnumber by 75 times is wholly bent on the destruction of Islam and is on the brink of bringing it about, without setbacks. This is creating such an awesome hatred of Jews and Judaism that the citizens of those Arab states simply will not believe the historical fact of the Holocaust, even when it is presented to them in all it's unholy horror.
And that, dear readers, is what's most frightening of all. An entire culture is convinced that it must destroy an entire other culture in order to survive. That is a recipe for war eternal.
Germany to jail gamers
Like I said in my introductory posts on this blog, I am, among many other things, a gamer; that is to say, I play tabletop and video games as a hobby. I consider this a normal, non-harmful thing and an enjoyable social activity.
Which is why stuff like this really pisses me off.
Evidently, we did too good a job of pacifying Germany after the Second World War. The Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle, their ratings board, is evidently so emasculated that they won't rate games that feature violence of any kind, even violence against zombies. While not giving a rating doesn't officially ban a game, it does mean it cannot be sold in most stores in the country.
But evidently, that's not enough. Noooooooo, now the states of Lower Saxony and Bavaria want to toss people who commit "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters," along with the developers who make the games that let them do so, directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
This is a disgrace. Such restrictions on the freedoms of expression and association should not be perpetrated by any government, and a Western democratic government has no excuse.
In response to this treatment of their industry, the German game developer Crytek is threatening to relocate to a different nation. Good luck with that, Crytek. Far Cry isn't exactly my favorite game, but you guys deserve better.
Which is why stuff like this really pisses me off.
Evidently, we did too good a job of pacifying Germany after the Second World War. The Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle, their ratings board, is evidently so emasculated that they won't rate games that feature violence of any kind, even violence against zombies. While not giving a rating doesn't officially ban a game, it does mean it cannot be sold in most stores in the country.
But evidently, that's not enough. Noooooooo, now the states of Lower Saxony and Bavaria want to toss people who commit "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters," along with the developers who make the games that let them do so, directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
This is a disgrace. Such restrictions on the freedoms of expression and association should not be perpetrated by any government, and a Western democratic government has no excuse.
In response to this treatment of their industry, the German game developer Crytek is threatening to relocate to a different nation. Good luck with that, Crytek. Far Cry isn't exactly my favorite game, but you guys deserve better.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Hugo Chavez to try to remove term limits on his office
Seattle Times, Bloomberg
Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, recently won reelection with 63% of the vote, giving him his second, and under Venezuela's current constitution final, six year term in office.
But that's not good enough for him. He's following through with his pre-election threat: He is now moving to remove term limits from Venezuela's constitution so that he can be reelected continuously.
I don't care whether you're left, right, up, down, or center; screwing with your country's constitution to suit your needs once in power is an idiot, power-grabbing thing to do, especially when done as a step towards implementing a failed economic and political system. His efforts are failing already, if a move to devalue the bolivar again is any indication. When you have to actually make a law banning your citizens from buying foreign currency to prevent outflow of capital, then maybe it's time to rethink your economic situation.
Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, recently won reelection with 63% of the vote, giving him his second, and under Venezuela's current constitution final, six year term in office.
But that's not good enough for him. He's following through with his pre-election threat: He is now moving to remove term limits from Venezuela's constitution so that he can be reelected continuously.
I don't care whether you're left, right, up, down, or center; screwing with your country's constitution to suit your needs once in power is an idiot, power-grabbing thing to do, especially when done as a step towards implementing a failed economic and political system. His efforts are failing already, if a move to devalue the bolivar again is any indication. When you have to actually make a law banning your citizens from buying foreign currency to prevent outflow of capital, then maybe it's time to rethink your economic situation.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
North Korea pisses me off
Okay. On most days when I decide to post to this weblog, I try to post my opinion and analysis of important current events, and to do so with a level head. On those days, I try to stay objective and offer rational discourse. Today is not one of those days. Today, I'm posting a rant. General warning: This post contains profanity.
Pyongyang Chronicle.
How dare the North Koreans? How fucking dare they? Kim Jong-Il's government is literally starving the North Korean people, even instructing them to breed fucking rabbits for food, and now they go and not only tell their citizens that they have power and heat when they clearly do not, they tell them that we the people of the United States are not only without power ourselves, but are stealing oil from South Korea and causing thousands to freeze to death? The gall of the North Korean propagandists is just fucking appalling. Seeing this and yet being unable to do anything about it is possibly one of the most frustrating things I have ever faced, and this does nothing but rub it in.
And what's worse? The people buy this. It's drilled into their heads from birth that North Korea is the most prosperous country in the world, and that all others are far worse off. And what's even better? There are people over here, in the United States, who like North Korea. I've heard it said. If you're one of them, click here. Fucking Communists...
In conclusion, the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il can take his propaganda about how bad I have it and shove it up his ass, along with his entire government, economic policy, and ideology. That is all.
Man, I needed that.
Pyongyang Chronicle.
How dare the North Koreans? How fucking dare they? Kim Jong-Il's government is literally starving the North Korean people, even instructing them to breed fucking rabbits for food, and now they go and not only tell their citizens that they have power and heat when they clearly do not, they tell them that we the people of the United States are not only without power ourselves, but are stealing oil from South Korea and causing thousands to freeze to death? The gall of the North Korean propagandists is just fucking appalling. Seeing this and yet being unable to do anything about it is possibly one of the most frustrating things I have ever faced, and this does nothing but rub it in.
And what's worse? The people buy this. It's drilled into their heads from birth that North Korea is the most prosperous country in the world, and that all others are far worse off. And what's even better? There are people over here, in the United States, who like North Korea. I've heard it said. If you're one of them, click here. Fucking Communists...
In conclusion, the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il can take his propaganda about how bad I have it and shove it up his ass, along with his entire government, economic policy, and ideology. That is all.
Man, I needed that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)