October 24, 2005
Classic and Contemporary Marxism
That was the title of a course I took as part of my philosophy minor in college. I just checked, and the course is no longer offered (not sure why), but I’m sure it will surprise some of you to know that I took it at all. Nor was I a communist at the time. I know it is certainly plausible for many of you to think that one could be a communist in college, and make a rapid transition once one is forced to work for a living, but no, I was a libertarian back then as well.
So why did I take it? To give you a hint, on the first day of class, the prof was asking everyone in class why they decided to take the course. We had several members of the Purdue Students against Sweatshops, and I don’t think there was another engineer in the room, besides me. My response to the question?
Well, I’m a die-hard capitalist, who thinks that communism is quite possibly the worst economic system that exists. As such, I wanted to learn all I can about the underpinnings of Marxism to more adequately argue against it.
I wasn’t very popular in there.
I was reminded of this today as I rummaged through the huge box of books that hasn’t been opened since at least two moves ago. I knew I had a copy of the Federalist Papers in there, and with the tendency I have to blog about Constitutional issues I know little about, might make a handy reference.
As I was looking through there, finding some great books (Plato’s Republic, Hobbes’ Leviathan), and some not so great books (Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, filled with more circular arguments than a NASCAR race), I found the leftover books from the class on Marxism. It included such notables as An Autobiography by Angela Davis, Live From Death Row by Mumia Abu-Jamal, and even The New Military Humanism by Noam Chomsky. Yep, that’s right. Your illustrious blogger friend owns a book written by the top public intellectual of our time. So if anyone wants to help me balance my personal library with some pro-liberty books, my Amazon Wishlist link is on the left sidebar. 
Bush: Ever the optimist
Bush Confident Miers Will Be Confirmed
The White House said Monday that President Bush is confident Harriet Miers will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, even though a Democrat on the Senate panel that will hold hearings on her nomination said she doesn’t have the votes.
Republicans countered that Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cannot predict how the GOP-controlled Senate will decide Miers’ fate. Many Republicans have yet to commit to approve President Bush’s second nominee to the high court.
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush is committed to sticking with Miers until the Senate vote.
“He’s confident that she will be confirmed because as senators come to know her like the president knows her, we’re confident that they will recognize she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice,” McClellan said.
Glad to see he’s so confident. I don’t hold that same confidence, because in the few weeks since the nomination, the reception by those Senators has been quite cool. In fact, some of the private meetings she’s had have caused many to think she needs to “study up” on Constitutional law, never a good sign for a Supreme Court nominee. And the questionnaire she completed didn’t inspire hope in her clarity of thought or supposed “detail-oriented” nature.
For a moment, though, throw out the quotes, throw out the newspaper articles, let’s look at exactly what people with a vested interest in the outcome have to say. Yep, I’m talking about the futures traders. If you want to know what the real pulse is saying, it’s always a good thing to see what people who are willing to lay their money on the line are thinking.
Checking the current contract on Tradesports.com, Miers is trading at a 30 share (roughly stating that people are giving her about a 30% shot at being confirmed). I tend to watch Tradesports on these things, because when someone’s putting their money where their mouth is, you know you’re getting an honest opinion. It may not be the right appraisal of her chances, but you know it’s honest.
Even taking away the idea of predictions, there is some overwhelming opposition to this nomination outside the Senate. According to the current numbers that NZ Bear is tracking, 73% of bloggers are opposed to the nomination, with only 13.5% in favor (13.5% neutral). Bloggers do tend towards the extreme ends of the political spectrum, but as Concurring Opinions states, we have been driving a lot of the debate.
There is a lot hanging on this nomination, and a lot of feathers have been ruffled. Quite a few Republicans and Libertarians are opposed to this, and I warn that if nomination goes through, the political ramifications could be devastating. All I can say to President Bush? I hope you know what you’re doing…
UN Technophobes
UN office doctored report on murder of Hariri
THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.
D’OH!
I think the fact that people who want to control the internet can’t even figure out document security should be a troubling sign.
And considering this blatant act of corrupt “diplomacy”, I suggest, as I do every time I speak of the UN, that we need to throw those bastards out of Turtle Bay, make them pay their parking tickets, and let them set up shop somewhere they’re more welcome… Like Hades.
H/T: Instapundit
Which Food Network Chef
Wow, big shocker here. This is the cooking show that every engineer loves.
Which Food Network chef are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
H/T: Owlish Mutterings
Below The Beltway linked with My Wife Will Like This One
October 23, 2005
Separation
I was listening to Boortz on Friday, and one of his callers was railing against the ACLU for “trying to take religion out of society.” Boortz corrected him, and mentioned that they were trying to take religion out of government, not out of society. But these days, what’s the difference?
In the past, the federal government was a small and a lean entity. It was not an intrusive plague on every part of every day of your life. Without even talking about regulation, Arnold Schwarzenegger made a great point in a speech a year or two ago about taxes. From the time you wake up, to the time you go to sleep, and even while you slumber, you’re being taxed. Your income is taxed. Your sales are taxed. Your utilities are all saddled with hidden taxes and regulatory charges. Owning a car requires a registration tax, as well as your driver’s license “tax”, and excise taxes on your gasoline. There is no escape from the taxing system of our government.
These days, from the moment you wake up, to the moment you go to sleep, and even while you slumber, you’re regulated by the state. There is almost no aspect of life not touched by government regulation. In fact, The Art of The Blog issued a challenge to readers a few weeks ago to state what portions of life were not touched by government. About the only thing I could come up with were the thoughts in my head, and the esteemed probligo could only come up with “lying on my back in the sun watching the clouds pass by”. But think about it. The regulations overnight controlling what sort of air conditioning and heating you can have, as well as all the codes and zoning laws related to your house. In fact, simply owning a house is a taxable activity. When you go to work, you need to deal with a host of OSHA regulations, a minimum wage act, several books worth of HR regulations, all sorts of tax code cutouts to try to influence you or your employers behavior and benefits, etc. Driving to and from work, you are subject to government rules and regulations. When you go to eat, you have city health codes and/or FDA rulings.
When you ask about the separation of church and state*, how can you claim a difference between what the ACLU is doing and actually trying to remove religion from society in general? The state has encroached on so many levels of our daily life that in many ways, there is little difference. A major question is what sort of role religion can play in public schools, even to the limited question of religious groups using public school property as a meeting place. Is that a problem of the separation of church and state, or a problem of state encroachment on education? President Bush has tried to involve government funds in religious charities, and it has caused unmitigated uproar. Is that a problem of separation of church and state, or a problem of government encroachment on private charity?
If the state had a limited role in our daily lives, the doctrine of “separation of church and state” would be a non-issue. Nobody in modern times, with the exception of folks like Falwell, Robertson, and bin Laden, want to see a day where we have a true “establishment” of religion. That word, in 18th century times, meant something different than it does today. It spoke of things like religious tests for office, taxes on “dissenting” denominations or religions, and direct government funding of The Church and clergy.
When the state is a part of every little bit of our lives, however, the separation of church and state becomes a separation of church and society. It angers some people that the ACLU fights so hard against Christianity being such a large part of our society, but the larger point is missed. The ACLU is legitimately fighting against the encroachment of religion onto government, but government has grown so large that they are tearing religion out of what normal people call “society”.
Walter Williams calls the medical costs borne by society due to people not wearing seat belts or helmets a problem of socialism, not a problem of personal choice. Likewise, this is not the fault of the ACLU or of the doctrine of separation of church and state, it is a problem of the state becoming too involved in society. Fix that, and the problems with the ACLU will go away.
New World Man - he's got a roadmap of Jupiter linked with Watcher's Council best posts week ending Oct. 27
rgcombs.blog-city.com linked with Weekend reading assignments
The Glittering Eye linked with The Council has spoken!
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with The Council Has Spoken
The Strata-Sphere linked with The Council Has Spoken!
Watcher of Weasels linked with The Council Has Spoken!
Watcher of Weasels linked with Submitted for Your Approval
Baboon Pirates linked with Carnival Of The Vanities #162
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with Carnival of Liberty XVII
New RSS Link
I recently updated my RSS feed through Feedburner. If possible, please update your links. The old one will still work, but I get more accurate tracking information through Feedburner.
The new URL is:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/UnrepentantIndividual
Thanks!
Our Guard Dogs
The wife and I had to go out and clear leaves– again– off the lawn. The dogs begged to join us. They decided to protect us from Marietta’s indigenous predators. Guinness (the “muscle” of the two) took the visible sentry position, while Spanky camouflaged himself in the thick underbrush (English Ivy).
It’s a good thing, too. A neighbor’s dog was off-leash and came by, with a serious case of bloodlust. These two drew that dog away from us. After much butt-sniffing, they backed the offender down.
Mickey's Musings linked with Carnival of the Dogs
Oooh, a “luck” and “power” test…
Someone get me my mood ring and power stone.
|
You Are Internal – Realist – Empowered |
|
You feel your life is controlled internally. If you want something, you make it happen. You don’t wait around for things to go your way. You value your independence and don’t like others to have control. You are a realist when it comes to luck. You have a good deal of power, but you also know the pecking order. |
Hat tip: Committees of Correspondence
October 22, 2005
Weighing In
NZ Bear is looking to tally responses on Miers. Two weeks ago, I was in wait-and-see mode. I would have hoped that they let her reach her confirmation hearings and find some reason to nail her unless she absolutely wowed everyone. But the floors been dropping out below her since then, so I must say officially:
I oppose the Miers nomination.
College Football Week 7
Well, I went 2-for-2 last week. I predicted that Northwestern would beat Purdue, and that USC would beat Notre Dame (and not even cover). Maybe the first half of the season was just full of surprises…
I’m going to be out at two different Oktoberfest celebrations today, so I won’t be able to update actual scores until tonight or tomorrow morning. But nobody reads my blog on the weekend anyway… So away we go…
Michigan @ Iowa:
Vegas Says: Iowa by 3
This was one of those games that was thought in the preseason to be a major matchup, with Big Ten title implications. Well, it still might, but only for one team. It is increasingly looking like the Big Ten champ will be a one-loss team, and Michigan already has two conference losses. And with the inconsistency they’ve shown this year, they’ll be very lucky to remain a two-loss team. That being said, Iowa has had their troubles this year, but seem to be getting stronger and stronger. This game being played in Kinnick, with Michigan having to deal with the pink locker room, I think they’ll pick up their third loss.
Prediction: Iowa 27, Michigan 21
UPDATE: Final Score: Michigan 23, Iowa 20, in overtime
Ohio State @ Indiana:
Vegas Says: tOSU by 16
I only bring this game up for two reasons. First, on one of the message boards I read, someone said that Indiana will “give OSU a run for its money”. And last night during halftime of the USM-UAB game, Lee Corso said he thinks this will be the upset of the week. Well, they’re both wrong. This game will be ugly.
Prediction: tOSU 35, Indiana 10
UPDATE: Final Score: tOSU 41, Indiana 10
Northwestern @ Michigan State
Vegas Says: MSU by 12.5
This one is going to be a shootout. We have two very good offenses, and two very bad defenses. We saw Northwestern hang 51 on Wisconsin, and 34 on Purdue. Their offense is firing on all cylinders. Of course, so is Michigan State’s. When all is said and done, though, I think MSU is the stronger team. They win this game, but don’t cover.
Prediction: MSU 45, Northwestern 35
UPDATE: Final Score: Northwestern 49, Michigan State 14. As Drew Stanton goes, so go the Spartans. Today, he didn’t go so well, with three picks and losing one fumble.
Purdue @ Wisconsin:
Vegas Says: Wisconsin by 8
I’m not going to pick a winner in this game. Purdue has opened up the quarterback position for competition this week, and according to Coach Tiller, who starts will be a “game-time decision”. We have the redshirt freshman who’s never started a game in his life, vs. the 4th-year Junior who isn’t performing. Most of us fans think the frosh is the future of this team, and the team likes him. The 4th-year Junior is a whiner and has a bad attitude, which infects the whole team. But no prediction of a winner can be made when I don’t know who’s starting.
Prediction: Wisconsin doesn’t cover the spread.
Update: Wisconsin covers.
Final Score: Wisconsin 31, Purdue 20. We played the redshirt freshman, he had flashes of brilliance and flashes of stupidity, including 3 interceptions, two returned for TD’s. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see him taking the snaps next week.
So, I’m one for four this week. Wow, I suck.
October 21, 2005
The Unabridged Version
I finally figured it out. So many people have acted like we conservatives and libertarians don’t properly understand the Constitution. I’ve finally figured out why. We’ve been reading the abridged version!
I’ve discovered that there is an unabridged version, distributed only to liberals. I was rummaging through my left-wing, pinko commie neighbor’s trash, and found his copy!
Here are some of the differences:
Amendment 1.5: Nothing in the preceding text is construed to protect the speech of citizens regarding their elected officials within 60 days of an election. Further, any speech considered in any way offensive to members of non-protected classes (i.e. everyone except white males) is not protected. Last, the prohibitions of promoting the “establishment” of religion refers to “the Establishment”, i.e. “the Man”. Since the recognized Establishment (i.e. “the Man”) in this country is Christian, only the Christian religion is prohibited in public matters.
Amendment 4.5: All people enjoy a right to privacy. However, this privacy only applies to what is done within ones own uterus. One has no enjoyment of privacy with the substances one may consume. One does not enjoy a “right” to smoke tobacco, in public or private. Private thougths deemed offensive to members of protected classes are similarly not acceptable, and can be prosecuted as “hate crimes” if necessary. In fact, all activities outside of abortion are not considered private, and are thus subject to the regulation of Government.
Amendment 5.5: As with Amendment 4.5, “private property” is legitimately the domain of Government to control its use and seize if necessary. Any requirement of “public use” simply means whatever the Congress, state Legislature, or local Government wish it to mean.
Amendment 9.5: “The people” shall be held to mean Congress, the elected representatives of the people. The enumeration of powers in the Constitution is not intended as a limit on powers of the Congress.
Amendment 10.5: As with Amendment 9.5, any rights not expressly granted to the United States is held to exist within the States or the Congress, with deference always given to the wishes of the Congress.
As always, I hope this helps. Perhaps with the full text, we can finally understand what these liberals have been talking about all these years!
Ogre's Politics & Views linked with Unabridged Constitution
The Path Less Traveled linked with The Unabridged Constitution
Josh's Weblog linked with The Unabridged Constitution
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with Interesting Reading
Ron Paul on Tax Reform
He says we should lower taxes and make it simpler. Makes sense to me.
And he points out why the Presidents Tax Reform Panel will do neither:
It’s doubtful that former politicians and tax bureaucrats will propose meaningful tax reform. After all, we’ve heard this song before. Remember the big tax reform bills of 1986, 1997, and 2001? We were promised a simpler tax code each time, but it never happened. Some slight progress has been made in terms of very modest rate reductions and a slow phaseout of the estate tax, but even those changes may be reversed by revenue-hungry future congresses.
The reform panel should have two simple goals: make taxes lower, and make taxes simpler. Anything else quite frankly is insulting to the American public. But during several hours of discussion last week, the various panelists talked about everything but those two objectives. Instead they embraced the practice of using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, debating what exemptions, credits, and deductions should be tinkered with to steer taxpayers toward or away from certain activities.
The panelists also misused the term “tax subsidy†over and over. A true subsidy is very simple: certain individuals or businesses receive taxpayer money from the government. But the panel members clearly have accepted the thoroughly leftist idea that all income belongs to the state, and therefore the state “subsidizes†you by letting you keep some of the money you earned. This is nonsense. If the government uses tax dollars to build you a house, you have received a subsidy. Taxpayers have given you something. But if you pay less in income taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction, you have not been “subsidized†by anyone. The government has not given you something; it simply has taken less. What kind of tax reform proposals can we expect from people who can’t understand the fundamental difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?
When it comes to actual tax reform legislation in Congress, don’t underestimate the lobbying influence of accountants, tax attorneys, tax preparers, IRS employees, and mortgage companies, just to name a few. Many, many groups and industries benefit from our Byzantine tax system in one way or another. They will not accept major changes to the tax code without a fight.
If I were willing to engage in voter fraud, I think I’d be voting for Ron Paul and Tom Coburn.
Hat Tip: The Watchful Investor
An isolated case
I’d like to think this might catch on, but I doubt it… The victicrat mentality is just too entrenched.
From Forward Biased:
A woman in Ormond Beach, FL, one Diane Johnson, buys a pork loin at her local Publix grocery store. She gets home and prepares it for her family’s evening meal last Tuesday. In the process of preparing or serving it, she discovers that there’s a bullet in it. A bullet in her pork loin casserole.
But this isn’t the strange part (and no, I’m not making this up).
All she wants is a replacement piece of meat. Publix is happy to comply with a $10 refund and a fresh pork loin.
She isn’t going to sue anyone. No one. Not Publix, not the slaughterhouse the meat came from, not the ammo manufacturer, no one. After all, she said, no one got hurt.
Local lawyers are still in shock, but plan to file a Class Action against Ms. Johnson for Wrongful Denial of Income, Illegal Display of Common Sense (going against Florida community standards), Willful Infliction of Emotional Distress, and all associated Medical Expenses. Don’t try to tell them that no one got hurt.
I wish someone else had been this reasonable…
Coburn Interview
This will be my last on the Coburn Amendments, unless some other news breaks. Coburn had a few other amendments, such as percentage across-the-board cuts in the Transportation Bill. I had hoped there would still be time to have those debated and voted upon, but no luck. The Senate passed the transportation bill last night, 93-1.
But just to put it into perspective, the two bridges that were going to be cancelled would have cost a total of $454 million. When you think about it, there are (very rough estimate) about 100 million taxpaying households in the USA. A quick calculation would show that the taxes to pay for those bridges work out to $4.50 per taxpaying family. But, we all know that’s not true, because the rich are taxed much more heavily. So for a “rich” household like mine, where we have incredible luxuries such as the ability to buy our Ford Rangers with the V6 rather than the 4cyl engine, it will probably cost me $10, not $4.50. But wait! There’s more! Because it’s being paid completely out of deficit spending, that will actually cost me $20 in future taxes, as paying the interest on that debt will roughly double the real cost!
I think when these bridges are complete, I’m going to drive to Alaska and just drive over them about 100 times each way. Dammit, I’m going to get my money’s worth!
But that’s neither here nor there. As yesterday’s vote on this amendment was going on, Tom Coburn was interviewed (I think by C-SPAN) on the whole deal. The transcript is over at RadioBlogger, I highly suggest you check it out. Some highlights:
JB: Well, does that bother you, Senator? I mean, are you worried so much about Oklahoma projects?
TC: No. I don’t ask for any projects. I ran on a platform of saying the biggest problem we face in our country is financial and economic, and cultural in Washington, that if we don’t change that, I promised you I will not earmark a thing until the budget is in surplus.
JB: Wow.
TC: So I don’t have any earmarks. So I don’t have any…you know, there’s no power over me to withhold earmarks, because I have none.
JB: Well, how tough is it going to be, though, to undo this culture of pork? I mean, the porksters are all around you. I mean, we’re not naming names, but you’re outnumbered there pretty solidly, so…
TC: Look, when the American people want things to change, they will change. Just as like in 1994, they changed? It’s this year’s time. Make them change. You know, hold them accountable. There’s Democrats and Republicans up here, but we’re all Americans, and we ought to be thinking about the heritage that has come before us, and the legacy that’s going to follow us. And the legacy that’s going to follow us today is a millstone around the neck of our grandchildren, because we’re going to leave them so far in debt, and we haven’t even begun to talk about how do we fix Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
We need more like him. And Isakson and Chambliss better shape up, or I’ll do everything I can to ensure that they’re replaced by people like Coburn. Of course, I’m stuck with my two until at least the ‘08 and ‘10 elections, but I have a long, long, memory.
October 20, 2005
I won’t miss him…
The Next Stern? Maybe There Isn’t One
They fade in and out like stations along the radio dial, some with more frequency than others: the reputed replacements for departing shock jock Howard Stern. There’s David Lee Roth and Adam Carolla, Jon Stewart and Geraldo Rivera, Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Bonaduce.
One or more could fill Stern’s vacant morning drive-time seat in January, when the radio icon surrenders his syndicated kingdom for Sirius Satellite Radio. But it’s time to face the truth, for better or worse: terrestrial radio may never see another Howard Stern.
“He is irreplaceable,” said Michael Harrison, founder of the trade publication Talkers magazine. “Stern is one of a kind, among the very, very small handful of people that were THE broadcasters of the 20th century — and carrying into the 21st.”
Love him or hate him, Stern remains an extraordinary industry figure. He boasts a national audience larger than even his ego, advertising revenues bigger than both, a three-decade career that expanded from broadcasting into television and publishing for the self-proclaimed King of All Media.
I’ve never quite understood why people love Howard Stern so much? He’s never seemed to me to be particularly insightful, and except for breaching the topic of explicit sexual banter, I never quite figured out what was so “shocking” about this shock jock.
I know some people just absolutely love him. Can someone explain why? And while you’re at it, what was so great about Seinfeld?
« Previous Page — Next Page »
Chomsky is coming to speak here at ISU next semester. I think I’ll go, to get a laugh, if nothing else. If I really felt like being a jackass, I could hope that the lecture was during the day on a Tuesday, which meant I would be required to attend in uniform.
Oh, and your reasoning for taking that class sounds like my reasoning for taking a “Feminist Philosophy” class as my “diversity” requirement.
One must know ones enemy, and all that.
Comment by Mike — October 24, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
Suuuurrrre, Mike. “know ones enemy”. Yeah, right… You’re just trying to meet chicks.
It’s not going to work, because anyone who would be a part of ROTC is just a tool in the oppressive patriarchy, the cause of all that is evil in the world. You open your mouth once in that class to express an opinion, and you’ll be lucky to leave the room with genitals intact…
If you want to do some opposition research, you should check out Pandagon. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
Now, if you really want a class to meet women, most colleges have a psychology class titled “Human Sexuality” or something similar. That’s a much more acceptable place to attack society with your patriarchial, phallocentric tripe.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — October 25, 2005 @ 8:58 am
Pot – this is Kettle – you’re black.
C’mon Brad. Like you didn’t know that Commie chicks are as easy as chicks who smoke while reading Cosmo.
Comment by KJ — October 25, 2005 @ 10:14 am
I actually dated a girl in College who considered herself a Democrat since that was as close as she could get to being a Communist in the major parties. I didn’t meet her in that class, though…
She was weird. And I think she’s a lesbian (not my fault!) now, although some of us aren’t sure if she’s realized that yet…
Comment by Brad Warbiany — October 25, 2005 @ 10:46 am
Heh, I think I can keep my genitals intact…or at least what’s left of them after my experiences with females in my “white men bad minority females good” religion class junior year of high school.
And yes, you figured me out…it’s all about the chicks.
Oh, and KJ, you’ve heard the Republican vs. Democratic women joke, right?
“Young Republican gentlemen want to marry upstanding Republican ladies, but they date Democrats because they feel they’re entitled to some fun first.”
Actually, along those lines, I’ve been able to find a surprising number of libertarian chicks on campus…and not the pussy LP “war is bad” type either. The kind that like guns, like the military, like free markets, like capitalism, and most importantly, are quite uninhibited.
Comment by Mike — October 25, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
I can’t believe I wasted so much time at Purdue studying and going to church. Think of all the social diseases I missed out on. I’m not good at confrontations with idiots, so I mostly mind my own business in real life. The most contraversial class I took was art, which I took because they held it right across Stadium from the Quad and I needed a humanities elective.
Comment by otho — October 27, 2005 @ 11:55 am