Is there any problem for which more government is not the solution? I have noticed signs appearing everywhere warning that chubbiness is not a cute attribute in children. I think these are erected by some private group, but I have no doubt that even if this is a private "educational" campaign, pretty soon it's going to become my responsibility to remedy the "problem" or "crisis" of childhood chubbiness. After all, "we" can't have children getting fat because we're all responsible for everybody else's health.
With the passage of socialized medical care we now have an excuse to horn in on everybody's behavior. Every malady - real or imagined - becomes a collective problem, or "challenge" as they like to say nowadays.
Are you a dope addict or a drunk who has ruined your health with intemperate behavior? Don't worry, we're all responsible for your expenses and treatment. Picked up a venereal disease down at the waterfront bar? That's everybody's responsibility too, and not only is treatment a collective obligation, but we must have "education" to teach people how to avoid catching something that has been known about for thousands of years.
Knowing the way government programs always develop mission creep, pretty soon we're going to have to pay for psychological counseling for women whose looks are deteriorating or guys that are going bald. Maybe men can be issued a voucher for free treatments at the Hair Club For Men and women can get a subsidized membership in Curves. This sounds far fetched now, but pretty soon it will be a "right."
Not to suggest any pernicious ideas, but why is schooling free until you get to college at which time you have to start paying for it? I realize that no education takes place in most of these schools, but since that's the supposed reason for their existence, why should it stop at grade 12? Maybe you want to get a doctorate in Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame - shouldn't your freedom from want (one of FDRs Four Freedoms) allow you to study or "explore" this at tax-victim expense?
Whenever a new program is proposed or introduced and has the effect that the opponents predicted, the reply is always that things would be much worse if said program had not been instituted. When sex education was imposed in spite of vigorous objections, it ended up having the results that the nay-sayers predicted, but the answer from the educrats was that things would have been much worse without it.
The same was true of the financial disaster. The crash wasn't caused by know-nothings monkeying around with the economy - no- total ruin was averted by the prudent measures taken by omnicompetent bureaucrats to right the mistakes of private parties.
The government and the news organizations are in a meretricious relationship, and it never fails that we are instructed in the proper interpretation of events. Several years ago, when the government was trying to gin up AIDS hysteria, Magic Johnson became a vehicle to use in the effort. There were pronouncements that "Now we know that anybody can get AIDS." Probably just about everybody already knew that without being told.
The annual flu scare is starting now so you had better rush out and get a flu shot because the CDC says that you should.
With the aforementioned passage of socialized medicine the government now has an excuse to meddle in almost every conceivable activity. Diet is the most obvious area open for control since everybody has to stay healthy so we don't cause any unnecessary expenses, but what about auto maintenance? If you're driving around with bald tires or defective brakes you might wreck or cause someone else to - better have some mandatory auto inspections.
Perhaps you have unrecognized health hazards at your house - dirty air filters on your HVAC system, pathogens lurking in your carpet, bugs, rats, moldy shower curtain, combustible materials near an ignition source, improperly secured swimming pool, over-temp refrigerator, cat walking on counter tops, ad infinitum.
At the grocery, maybe they can program the scanner to calculate the fat, salt, sugar, alcohol and caffeine content of the items scanned and forbid the sale at a certain aggregate. You could be required to enter the number of people you were buying for so the machine could compensate - crazy, I know, but you can never out-crazy the government. Putting government in charge of medical services really does give it an all purpose excuse to forbid or mandate just about anything. It won't happen immediately, but it won't be at snail's pace either. When you go in for any reason, the "medical professional" (now a government agent) will be able to perform a drug test to see if you're endangering your health. Maybe every office can have a police precinct to haul violators to jail. It's all our business now. With government control of health, there is absolutely nothing that is none of its business. As the saying goes, "He that pays the piper calls the tune."
This health bill is going to be found to have all kinds of "penumbras" and "emanations" associated with it.
It really turns the keys to the Temple over to government.
Forty years ago, who would have thought that in just a few years the government would be telling you what kind of windows to put in your house, or what the picket spacing should be on your railings, the acceptable measurements for the rise and run of stairs, flow rates for toilets and shower heads, the required surface area of handrails, what kind of light bulbs are allowed, acceptable door widths, counter heights, switch heights and on and on? Some places prescribe the maximum allowable height for grass.
There is no subject about which government doesn't judge its competence superior to all others. This would be crazy even if the smartest people went into government employment, but they don't. Whenever there is a disaster of some kind there will be the usual "investigation" and the findings are always going to be a "failure" of some private person or entity. It's never going to be found that there was too much regulation or that the existing regulations contributed to the problem.
Some children are smarter than others, at least that's the way it was when I was in school, but now it's believed that if we just have the right teachers, books, audio visual aids, class size, uniforms, school year length, metal detectors, hall marshals and on and on, we can get equal outcomes. It is never going to be admitted that some people are race horses, some plow mules, some mustangs and some jackasses.
This is because the jackasses are in charge.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Walbro Carburetor Fix For Miller Big 40 Welder
About three years ago, I had a carburetor problem with a Miller Big 40 welder. The engine is a Continental 4 cylinder flat head.
The float swelled up and wouldn't turn the fuel flow off. I checked all over the civilized world for a replacement float, but couldn't find one anywhere. The problem with finding a float was that the engine used a Walbro carburetor and it was long discontinued The float is a brown phenolic or micarta-like substance, not a brass float. I assume the new fuel (10% ethanol) was the fly in the ointment.
With nothing to lose by trying to remedy the problem in an unorthodox manner, I decided to sand the float down until it would move freely in the bowl. I compared notes with James Reeve, a friend who has been fooling around with engines forever and he said that he used to modify the float configuration on his race cars and then seal the float with epoxy.
I did this and it worked for a few months, but again swelled up. I again disassembled the carb and sanded the float as I had done previously. There was a tiny hole in the epoxy when I took the carb apart that had allowed gas to permeate the float again.
The second time I let the float "air dry" a day or two before applying the epoxy and it's still working fine. I think the problem was caused by the float out-gassing when I originally coated it with epoxy, causing it to have the tiny hole in the epoxy and allowing it to swell again.
Keep in mind that when you sand the float it needs to have enough clearance to still work when the epoxy is added.
The float swelled up and wouldn't turn the fuel flow off. I checked all over the civilized world for a replacement float, but couldn't find one anywhere. The problem with finding a float was that the engine used a Walbro carburetor and it was long discontinued The float is a brown phenolic or micarta-like substance, not a brass float. I assume the new fuel (10% ethanol) was the fly in the ointment.
With nothing to lose by trying to remedy the problem in an unorthodox manner, I decided to sand the float down until it would move freely in the bowl. I compared notes with James Reeve, a friend who has been fooling around with engines forever and he said that he used to modify the float configuration on his race cars and then seal the float with epoxy.
I did this and it worked for a few months, but again swelled up. I again disassembled the carb and sanded the float as I had done previously. There was a tiny hole in the epoxy when I took the carb apart that had allowed gas to permeate the float again.
The second time I let the float "air dry" a day or two before applying the epoxy and it's still working fine. I think the problem was caused by the float out-gassing when I originally coated it with epoxy, causing it to have the tiny hole in the epoxy and allowing it to swell again.
Keep in mind that when you sand the float it needs to have enough clearance to still work when the epoxy is added.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Those Ignorant Churchmen
Hardly a week goes by that you can't find an article somewhere on the web, the gist of which is how fortunate moderns are to be free of the superstition and ignorance of religion, especially Christian religion and Catholicism in particular. The only thing worse than Bible-thumping Fundamentalists is the Catholic Church.
Anyone reading the comments following an article on the teaching of evolution or almost any other topic centering or bordering on science will notice lots of idiotic comments about how science has disproved religion or how religion persecuted scientists, with the obligatory comment(s) about Galileo by someone who knows nothing about the actual Galileo case. Many times there are comments by people who think the "Big Bang" theory disproves religion.
I read an interview a year or so ago with a scientist who thought that Galileo was arguing that the earth is round and the churchmen were arguing that it is flat. There is an interview of David Koch here, in which he tells Suzan Mazur that "Galileo was imprisoned for years for saying the world was round. " He would be hard pressed to find any pronouncements by the church or anybody else that the earth is flat. This is a myth that was concocted by Washington Irving for his biography of Christopher Columbus.
Prior to Galileo, the German Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had a heliocentric theory as did - as everybody knows - Copernicus, who was a cleric and a canon lawyer, which most people don't know.
If the Church is as hostile to science as it is believed to be, one would expect to find no serious scientists anywhere near it, but is that the case? If you know who Georges Lemaitre is and what he is known for raise your hand. Don't know? Monsignor Lemaitre is the Belgian priest who formulated the theory that came to be called - pejoratively - The Big Bang. His own term for the theory was "Primeval Atom" or Day without a yesterday.
Gregor Mendel, another ignoramus who was an Augustinian friar founded the science of genetics, and the Austrian Meteorological Society; the laws of Mendelian inheritance get their name from him.
The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) has long been involved in seismology and astronomy, so much so that seismology is called "The Jesuit Science."
Giovanni Battista Riccioli S.J. was the first person to accurately measure the rate of acceleration of a free falling body. He also developed extremely accurate pendulums with which to time his experiments. His mammoth book, the Almagestum Novum took up 1500 folio pages and was still being cited over 100 years after publication. In it, he discusses among other things, 126 arguments concerning the motion - or lack thereof - of the earth; 49 for motion, 77 against. A few hundred years before him, the Franciscan Roger Bacon was fooling around with philosophy, optics, gunpowder, and criticizing the Julian calendar.
If you drive a car or ride the bus, you might be indebted to Fr. Eugenio Barsanti, the probable inventor of the internal combustion engine. If you use a refrigerator, you can thank G.E. and Abbe Marcel Audiffren, a French Cistercian monk from whom G.E. bought the license to manufacture the first home refrigerator in either 1905 or 1911; that date is disputed.
In their book Hurricane Watch: Forecasting the Deadliest Storms on Earth, Bob Sheets and Jack Williams tell of Fr. Benito Viñes, S.J. and his development of hurricane forecasting.
"The [Jesuit] order's long tradition of scientific education and research had made seismology something of a specialty, but Cuba's problem was hurricanes, not earthquakes. It and all the other islands of the Caribbean and the eastern Atlantic Ocean had been periodically, tragically devastated by the great storms arriving almost unannounced on their shorelines. Within just a few years, Viñes more or less singlehandedly evened the playing field, and by the end of the [19th] century he and his fellow Jesuit Fr. Fedorico Faura, who was based in Manila, the Philippines, were the most proficient and best-known cyclone forecasters in the world."
Considering that they did this by observation, without radio reports from ships at sea, airplanes or satellites their accomplishments are astounding.
It is not just the physical sciences that the churchmen have shown an interest in. Raymond de Roover, Joseph Schumpeter, Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, et al. have written about the school of Salamanca and the Late Scholastics, who were way ahead of Adam Smith in their economic ideas. Many of these men were moral or dogmatic theologians who had an interest in economic questions.
It was the school of Salamanca that Samuel Johnson said:
“I love the University of Salamanca, for when the Spaniards were in doubt as to the lawfulness of their conquering America, the University of Salamanca gave it as their opinion that it was not lawful.”
One of the reasons that people believe such nonsense about a supposed conflict between science and religion is because of the government school system. If you attended the government schools like I mostly did, the rest of your life is spent in an effort to overcome the induced blindness that is brought about - purposely, I think - by a constant exposure to error. The private schools are subject to the same danger through their use of the same textbooks.
In the United States we supposedly have a separation of church and state, but actually the state is the church.
Private religion is fine as long as its doctrines are not put before those of the state; the state will have no strange gods before it, hence it is necessary to denigrate those who believe in an eternal God who is greater than the state - the true Law Giver instead of a legislator.
There are plenty of Protestants who were religious men and scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton who wrote more on religion than on science, and Wernher von Braun who saw no conflict between science and religion, but Protestantism doesn't attract as great enmity as Catholicism. Protestantism also does not provide its detractors with a large single target of great antiquity, but thousands of different groups which are not hurt collectively through the injury of one or a few. For a fairly long list of scientists who were Christian, go here, here and here
Anyone reading the comments following an article on the teaching of evolution or almost any other topic centering or bordering on science will notice lots of idiotic comments about how science has disproved religion or how religion persecuted scientists, with the obligatory comment(s) about Galileo by someone who knows nothing about the actual Galileo case. Many times there are comments by people who think the "Big Bang" theory disproves religion.
I read an interview a year or so ago with a scientist who thought that Galileo was arguing that the earth is round and the churchmen were arguing that it is flat. There is an interview of David Koch here, in which he tells Suzan Mazur that "Galileo was imprisoned for years for saying the world was round. " He would be hard pressed to find any pronouncements by the church or anybody else that the earth is flat. This is a myth that was concocted by Washington Irving for his biography of Christopher Columbus.
Prior to Galileo, the German Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had a heliocentric theory as did - as everybody knows - Copernicus, who was a cleric and a canon lawyer, which most people don't know.
If the Church is as hostile to science as it is believed to be, one would expect to find no serious scientists anywhere near it, but is that the case? If you know who Georges Lemaitre is and what he is known for raise your hand. Don't know? Monsignor Lemaitre is the Belgian priest who formulated the theory that came to be called - pejoratively - The Big Bang. His own term for the theory was "Primeval Atom" or Day without a yesterday.
 |
| Msgr. Georges Lemaitre |
The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) has long been involved in seismology and astronomy, so much so that seismology is called "The Jesuit Science."
Giovanni Battista Riccioli S.J. was the first person to accurately measure the rate of acceleration of a free falling body. He also developed extremely accurate pendulums with which to time his experiments. His mammoth book, the Almagestum Novum took up 1500 folio pages and was still being cited over 100 years after publication. In it, he discusses among other things, 126 arguments concerning the motion - or lack thereof - of the earth; 49 for motion, 77 against. A few hundred years before him, the Franciscan Roger Bacon was fooling around with philosophy, optics, gunpowder, and criticizing the Julian calendar.
If you drive a car or ride the bus, you might be indebted to Fr. Eugenio Barsanti, the probable inventor of the internal combustion engine. If you use a refrigerator, you can thank G.E. and Abbe Marcel Audiffren, a French Cistercian monk from whom G.E. bought the license to manufacture the first home refrigerator in either 1905 or 1911; that date is disputed.
In their book Hurricane Watch: Forecasting the Deadliest Storms on Earth, Bob Sheets and Jack Williams tell of Fr. Benito Viñes, S.J. and his development of hurricane forecasting.
"The [Jesuit] order's long tradition of scientific education and research had made seismology something of a specialty, but Cuba's problem was hurricanes, not earthquakes. It and all the other islands of the Caribbean and the eastern Atlantic Ocean had been periodically, tragically devastated by the great storms arriving almost unannounced on their shorelines. Within just a few years, Viñes more or less singlehandedly evened the playing field, and by the end of the [19th] century he and his fellow Jesuit Fr. Fedorico Faura, who was based in Manila, the Philippines, were the most proficient and best-known cyclone forecasters in the world."
Considering that they did this by observation, without radio reports from ships at sea, airplanes or satellites their accomplishments are astounding.
It is not just the physical sciences that the churchmen have shown an interest in. Raymond de Roover, Joseph Schumpeter, Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, et al. have written about the school of Salamanca and the Late Scholastics, who were way ahead of Adam Smith in their economic ideas. Many of these men were moral or dogmatic theologians who had an interest in economic questions.
 |
| Luis de Molina, 1535 - 1600, One of the Late Scholastics |
“I love the University of Salamanca, for when the Spaniards were in doubt as to the lawfulness of their conquering America, the University of Salamanca gave it as their opinion that it was not lawful.”
One of the reasons that people believe such nonsense about a supposed conflict between science and religion is because of the government school system. If you attended the government schools like I mostly did, the rest of your life is spent in an effort to overcome the induced blindness that is brought about - purposely, I think - by a constant exposure to error. The private schools are subject to the same danger through their use of the same textbooks.
In the United States we supposedly have a separation of church and state, but actually the state is the church.
Private religion is fine as long as its doctrines are not put before those of the state; the state will have no strange gods before it, hence it is necessary to denigrate those who believe in an eternal God who is greater than the state - the true Law Giver instead of a legislator.
There are plenty of Protestants who were religious men and scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton who wrote more on religion than on science, and Wernher von Braun who saw no conflict between science and religion, but Protestantism doesn't attract as great enmity as Catholicism. Protestantism also does not provide its detractors with a large single target of great antiquity, but thousands of different groups which are not hurt collectively through the injury of one or a few. For a fairly long list of scientists who were Christian, go here, here and here
Monday, October 10, 2011
We The People
One of the greatest myths - if not the greatest - that Americans are taught is that the government expresses the will of the people. Is this really the case or is it a mechanism of psychological control?
I think it is obvious to anyone who drives a car that the vast majority of people think speed limits are too low, particularly on limited access highways. It appears that at least 90% of the people are speeding - at least in Georgia - but the speed limits remain artificially low. A couple of years ago some college students drove around I-285 all abreast at the speed limit (55 MPH) causing a huge traffic jam and nearly causing multiple wrecks. Instead of raising the speed limit in response to speeding by virtually everybody, the state recently passed a "Super Speeder" law that tacks on something like 200 extra dollars to the fine for anybody exceeding 74 MPH on two lanes or 84 MPH anywhere. If the government reflected the people's will, the speed limits would all be raised.
Drugs are another example of the government thwarting the will of a large proportion of the population. Ron Paul has been criticized for wanting to "legalize" drugs when actually all he has advocated is obeying the constitution and abolishing federal laws against drug prohibition in various forms. States can make any laws they please, but the federal government has no enumerated power to make such laws. Obviously there is a huge demand for recreational drugs, but in this instance the will of the people doesn't matter.
What about low-flow shower heads and toilets? Was there a popular clamor to outlaw the old (better) higher flow varieties? I never heard a single person say, "Gee, I sure wish they would reduce the flow of these shower heads." Once again the will of the controllers is imposed on "The People."
The same thing applies to light bulbs. If the people preferred fluorescent bulbs to incandescent they would buy them and there would be no need to force them on the people.
Was there a groundswell of opposition anywhere to unpasteurized milk? Your omniscient Uncle Sam in DC thinks it's naughty for his subjects to have it and will send out hordes of armed stooges to prevent you from getting it and hurting yourself.
Everywhere there are those in government who think they know best. There are movements in various places to outlaw too much salt, fat or sugar in foods regardless of what the citizens want. Many places outlaw smoking in restaurants whether the proprietor thinks it desirable or not.
There was overwhelming opposition to Bush's Billionaire Bailout, but the will of the pols trumped the will of the people. The same was true - and still is - about Obamacare, but the obedient servants of Mammon imposed it against the people's will.
Was there any popular movement to outlaw gold ownership in 1933? Was there popular support for Mr. Lincoln's draft? The New York Times of August 25, 1864 had this to say about the draft:
"To the alarmist[sic] who are concerned lest the draft cannot be enforced without resistance and insurrection, his reply is that, if it has come to this, the quicker the Government proves its power to maintain its laws, the better....It is not a question whether the draft is an evil. No sane man denies it. The only question is, whether it is or is not a less evil than national ruin, which can be prevented by it alone."
It appears from this editorial that the draft might not have been pushed through by the people.
Most states - maybe all - have laws requiring the wearing of seat belts even though there was no demand for such laws. They've even come up with really clever slogans such as "Click It Or Ticket" to remind you to fasten your seat belt.
The nature of the law makes no difference. Regardless of how stupid, evil, onerous or intrusive the edict, a sufficient number of people can be found to enforce it. If it were decreed that no one shall breathe through his left nostril and a visible plug shall be worn in it, there would be no trouble finding police to enforce the new "law."
Many people like to prattle on about how "we" are the government, but relish turning in their neighbor for building a deck - or any imaginary crime - without a permit. It isn't the deck that they object to, it's that the neighbor had the audacity to proceed without government approval.
Convincing the populace that they are the government is somewhat analogous to a voluntary fast vis a vis an imposed fast or any voluntary mortification. If you decide to fast for health or spiritual or any other reason it is much different from being told by someone else that you may not eat, talk, read or watch TV. Anything done voluntarily is more bearable than having it imposed. This is the genius of convincing people that "we did it to ourselves."
I think it is obvious to anyone who drives a car that the vast majority of people think speed limits are too low, particularly on limited access highways. It appears that at least 90% of the people are speeding - at least in Georgia - but the speed limits remain artificially low. A couple of years ago some college students drove around I-285 all abreast at the speed limit (55 MPH) causing a huge traffic jam and nearly causing multiple wrecks. Instead of raising the speed limit in response to speeding by virtually everybody, the state recently passed a "Super Speeder" law that tacks on something like 200 extra dollars to the fine for anybody exceeding 74 MPH on two lanes or 84 MPH anywhere. If the government reflected the people's will, the speed limits would all be raised.
Drugs are another example of the government thwarting the will of a large proportion of the population. Ron Paul has been criticized for wanting to "legalize" drugs when actually all he has advocated is obeying the constitution and abolishing federal laws against drug prohibition in various forms. States can make any laws they please, but the federal government has no enumerated power to make such laws. Obviously there is a huge demand for recreational drugs, but in this instance the will of the people doesn't matter.
What about low-flow shower heads and toilets? Was there a popular clamor to outlaw the old (better) higher flow varieties? I never heard a single person say, "Gee, I sure wish they would reduce the flow of these shower heads." Once again the will of the controllers is imposed on "The People."
The same thing applies to light bulbs. If the people preferred fluorescent bulbs to incandescent they would buy them and there would be no need to force them on the people.
Was there a groundswell of opposition anywhere to unpasteurized milk? Your omniscient Uncle Sam in DC thinks it's naughty for his subjects to have it and will send out hordes of armed stooges to prevent you from getting it and hurting yourself.
Everywhere there are those in government who think they know best. There are movements in various places to outlaw too much salt, fat or sugar in foods regardless of what the citizens want. Many places outlaw smoking in restaurants whether the proprietor thinks it desirable or not.
There was overwhelming opposition to Bush's Billionaire Bailout, but the will of the pols trumped the will of the people. The same was true - and still is - about Obamacare, but the obedient servants of Mammon imposed it against the people's will.
Was there any popular movement to outlaw gold ownership in 1933? Was there popular support for Mr. Lincoln's draft? The New York Times of August 25, 1864 had this to say about the draft:
"To the alarmist[sic] who are concerned lest the draft cannot be enforced without resistance and insurrection, his reply is that, if it has come to this, the quicker the Government proves its power to maintain its laws, the better....It is not a question whether the draft is an evil. No sane man denies it. The only question is, whether it is or is not a less evil than national ruin, which can be prevented by it alone."
It appears from this editorial that the draft might not have been pushed through by the people.
Most states - maybe all - have laws requiring the wearing of seat belts even though there was no demand for such laws. They've even come up with really clever slogans such as "Click It Or Ticket" to remind you to fasten your seat belt.
The nature of the law makes no difference. Regardless of how stupid, evil, onerous or intrusive the edict, a sufficient number of people can be found to enforce it. If it were decreed that no one shall breathe through his left nostril and a visible plug shall be worn in it, there would be no trouble finding police to enforce the new "law."
Many people like to prattle on about how "we" are the government, but relish turning in their neighbor for building a deck - or any imaginary crime - without a permit. It isn't the deck that they object to, it's that the neighbor had the audacity to proceed without government approval.
Convincing the populace that they are the government is somewhat analogous to a voluntary fast vis a vis an imposed fast or any voluntary mortification. If you decide to fast for health or spiritual or any other reason it is much different from being told by someone else that you may not eat, talk, read or watch TV. Anything done voluntarily is more bearable than having it imposed. This is the genius of convincing people that "we did it to ourselves."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Reality Dawning
Many years ago, a group of disgruntled patriots, nationalists or terrorists - depending on your perspective - went into the Capitol building in D.C. and shot five congressmen. The assailants were four Puerto Rican nationalists who unfurled a flag of Puerto Rico and then fired thirty shots into the floor of the chamber. This incident happened on March 1, 1954.
As far as I know, nobody tried to claim that these people committed this act for anything other than political reasons or that "they hate us for our freedom." One of the shooters supposedly shouted "Free Puerto Rico."
There was no talk of "3/1 changed everything." Everybody probably understood that the shooters wanted the US out of Puerto Rico. If someone had inquired as to why the assailants shot the congressmen, they wouldn't have been accused of "trying to justify the terrorists," it would have been recognized as a simple inquiry as to motive.
The same thing is true of the World Trade Center/Pentagon caper, but the public is discouraged from believing the perpetrators. Soon after the attack, Osama Bin Laden appeared in a video tape wearing his US issued Goretex camouflage jacket saying that he had nothing to do with the attack, but that he approved of it and congratulated the ones who pulled it off. He said (paraphrasing) that if the US continued to aid Israel and occupy "Holy lands," "I swear to God" it will happen again. After this the government made sure that the people weren't going to hear any more grievances from Mr. Bin Laden by prohibiting the showing of any more videos from him with the excuse that he "might be sending coded messages."
The video is probably on YouTube if it hasn't gone down the memory hole.
Immediately there was a propaganda campaign to assure the public that the attacks had nothing to do with American actions in the Middle East. All of a sudden it was discovered that these people hate us because we are good or because we are free. Has there ever been another case in history of one group being so resentful of another group that has not harmed them in any way that they are willing to kill themselves to inflict harm on the objects of their resentment? Would it be rational for someone to say to himself, "I'm barely eking out a living and my neighbor has millions of dollars and lives in a mansion. I think I'll crash a plane into his house to kill myself and perhaps kill him too?" The question answers itself.
If this were motivated by the Islamic religion, it would seem that all the disgruntled practitioners would not be concentrated in one area as I wrote about here.
Fortunately, there is a slow movement toward reality and now 43% of Americans believe that the attacks might have been motivated by something the US government did, according to this article about a poll by Pew Research Centre. According to the article:
"The shift, however, was mainly confined to self-described Democrats and independents, half of whom now believe US policies may have motivated Al Qaeda.
Republicans, on the other hand, remained steadfast, as on a number of other key issues, in their view that the attacks were not motivated by anything the US had done.
The survey also found major differences between age groups on this question. More than half (52 percent) of respondents under 30 said US actions may have motivated the attacks, while only 20 percent of respondents 65 and older were open to that explanation."
This might help explain why Rick Santorum and Rudy Giuliani claim to believe the party line. It's doubtful that anybody who has spent time in government would believe the "official" story. If these two are regular church-goers, they would have recited thousands of times the part of the Confiteor that says "...I have sinned through my own fault,... in what I have done and what I have failed to do..." i.e. taking responsibility for one's own actions. Why would governments be any different from individuals since people in the upper echelons of government are many times some of the worst people? The principle seems to be that whatever "we" do is fine and everybody had better like it.
Imposing sanctions and no-fly zones, supporting dictators, occupying territory, aiding one's enemies, toppling elected officials, etc, generates ill will from the victims of such actions. This is probably a universal rule.
When little Johnny keeps poking the rattlesnake with a smoldering stick we shouldn't be too perplexed as to why the rattlesnake bites little Johnny. It isn't because of Johnny's freedom or because he is good or any other kooky explanation. Sending out hordes of people to fight the rattlesnakes over there so we don't have to fight them over here is not the solution. The solution is to leave them alone and reprimand Johnny, although the latter would probably not be necessary since he has learned a valuable lesson on his own,
Trying to impose your will on another people is a sure-fire way to make enemies. Even if you have a benevolent intention - rarely the case - sending lots of armed men (usually boys) into another country is sure to cause trouble. Boys will be boys, and when they start drinking and fighting and whoring, the locals take a disliking to them and all who sent them.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Jews were preparing to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem when a smart-alecky Roman soldier mooned them and uttered some insulting remark which resulted in a riot. Soon after the "mooning" episode, another soldier tore up the Jewish Books Of The Law and threw them in the fire. As everybody knows, things went down hill from there with the Temple eventually being destroyed.
The lesson from this - or one of the lessons - is that people don't like foreigners coming into their country and pushing them around. This is something that Rick and Rudy and all others "in denial" should ponder.
As far as I know, nobody tried to claim that these people committed this act for anything other than political reasons or that "they hate us for our freedom." One of the shooters supposedly shouted "Free Puerto Rico."
There was no talk of "3/1 changed everything." Everybody probably understood that the shooters wanted the US out of Puerto Rico. If someone had inquired as to why the assailants shot the congressmen, they wouldn't have been accused of "trying to justify the terrorists," it would have been recognized as a simple inquiry as to motive.
The same thing is true of the World Trade Center/Pentagon caper, but the public is discouraged from believing the perpetrators. Soon after the attack, Osama Bin Laden appeared in a video tape wearing his US issued Goretex camouflage jacket saying that he had nothing to do with the attack, but that he approved of it and congratulated the ones who pulled it off. He said (paraphrasing) that if the US continued to aid Israel and occupy "Holy lands," "I swear to God" it will happen again. After this the government made sure that the people weren't going to hear any more grievances from Mr. Bin Laden by prohibiting the showing of any more videos from him with the excuse that he "might be sending coded messages."
The video is probably on YouTube if it hasn't gone down the memory hole.
Immediately there was a propaganda campaign to assure the public that the attacks had nothing to do with American actions in the Middle East. All of a sudden it was discovered that these people hate us because we are good or because we are free. Has there ever been another case in history of one group being so resentful of another group that has not harmed them in any way that they are willing to kill themselves to inflict harm on the objects of their resentment? Would it be rational for someone to say to himself, "I'm barely eking out a living and my neighbor has millions of dollars and lives in a mansion. I think I'll crash a plane into his house to kill myself and perhaps kill him too?" The question answers itself.
If this were motivated by the Islamic religion, it would seem that all the disgruntled practitioners would not be concentrated in one area as I wrote about here.
Fortunately, there is a slow movement toward reality and now 43% of Americans believe that the attacks might have been motivated by something the US government did, according to this article about a poll by Pew Research Centre. According to the article:
"The shift, however, was mainly confined to self-described Democrats and independents, half of whom now believe US policies may have motivated Al Qaeda.
Republicans, on the other hand, remained steadfast, as on a number of other key issues, in their view that the attacks were not motivated by anything the US had done.
The survey also found major differences between age groups on this question. More than half (52 percent) of respondents under 30 said US actions may have motivated the attacks, while only 20 percent of respondents 65 and older were open to that explanation."
This might help explain why Rick Santorum and Rudy Giuliani claim to believe the party line. It's doubtful that anybody who has spent time in government would believe the "official" story. If these two are regular church-goers, they would have recited thousands of times the part of the Confiteor that says "...I have sinned through my own fault,... in what I have done and what I have failed to do..." i.e. taking responsibility for one's own actions. Why would governments be any different from individuals since people in the upper echelons of government are many times some of the worst people? The principle seems to be that whatever "we" do is fine and everybody had better like it.
Imposing sanctions and no-fly zones, supporting dictators, occupying territory, aiding one's enemies, toppling elected officials, etc, generates ill will from the victims of such actions. This is probably a universal rule.
When little Johnny keeps poking the rattlesnake with a smoldering stick we shouldn't be too perplexed as to why the rattlesnake bites little Johnny. It isn't because of Johnny's freedom or because he is good or any other kooky explanation. Sending out hordes of people to fight the rattlesnakes over there so we don't have to fight them over here is not the solution. The solution is to leave them alone and reprimand Johnny, although the latter would probably not be necessary since he has learned a valuable lesson on his own,
Trying to impose your will on another people is a sure-fire way to make enemies. Even if you have a benevolent intention - rarely the case - sending lots of armed men (usually boys) into another country is sure to cause trouble. Boys will be boys, and when they start drinking and fighting and whoring, the locals take a disliking to them and all who sent them.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Jews were preparing to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem when a smart-alecky Roman soldier mooned them and uttered some insulting remark which resulted in a riot. Soon after the "mooning" episode, another soldier tore up the Jewish Books Of The Law and threw them in the fire. As everybody knows, things went down hill from there with the Temple eventually being destroyed.
The lesson from this - or one of the lessons - is that people don't like foreigners coming into their country and pushing them around. This is something that Rick and Rudy and all others "in denial" should ponder.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
SWAT Team Raids: Overkill Fit Only for a Police State
"Back in the heyday of Stalin’s USSR, the very hallmark of its totalitarianism was the dreaded “midnight knock on the door,” in which the police simply hauled people away, sometimes never to be seen again and often for reasons unrevealed to relatives and acquaintances of the person abducted. To this terrifying scenario, the American state has added the excitement of flash grenades, broken windows, battered doors, and often unnecessary gunfire."
Read full article.
Read full article.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Walking Into Tyranny
Lawmakers in West Dakota are floating a trial balloon to license travel by foot. Senator Joseph Ambulabis (D 84) came up with the idea after a constituent complained to him about having to obtain a driver's license to operate a vehicle on the public roads. Ambulabis said he was unaware that anyone could drive a car without a license in most states until the 1940's.
The idea came to him almost as an inspiration he told Mendax News Service. If the states could turn what had theretofore been a right into a privilege, why not license walking also? One would not need a license to walk on his own property or any privately owned property (such as shopping centers) as long as they had the owner's consent. Ambulabis has received an avalanche of outraged calls about his proposal, but he has also garnered substantial support.
Briefly his proposal is this:
1. All people, regardless of age would have to obtain a license to walk or operate a wheel chair on any publicly owned property.
2. A minimal fee would be charged for the license ($10.00 proposed) which would be good for five years.
3. All money from the licenses would go toward installing sidewalks where there are none and maintaining those that currently exist.
4. Any surplus funds from the licenses would be allocated to hiring more police and street sweepers.
5. In order to obtain the license, applicants would provide their name, social security number,
date of birth, height, weight etc. and fingerprint or retina scan (to prevent fraud) and submit to
a drug test.
6. Anyone caught walking without a license would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment and have their walking privileges revoked for 6 months on first offense, five years on the second offense.
7. The license would be a waiver of rights as regards search, sobriety and drug testing.
Police officials hailed the idea as a way to catch criminals and terrorists. Police could set up license check points and catch public drunks and drug-crazed criminals much the same as they do at driver's license check points.
"We've needed a law like this for a long time," said Keith David of the Elkhead Coalition. Mr. David has lobbied hard to get speed breakers and stop signs installed throughout the Elkhead area and says he's delighted that someone has finally realized that neighborhoods need a revenue source to maintain their sidewalks and streets. "Non-drivers have been given a free ride as far as infrastructure maintenance, this makes them pay their fair share, it only makes sense," said David.
Civil libertarians have protested the proposal as a police state idea, and sarcastically called it a "your papers please" proposal. Ambulabis is not deterred however, and believes that if his bill doesn't pass this session, it will in the next one or the one after that. He says many of his constituents are tired of not having sidewalks and having to roll their children's strollers in the street, creating a hazard for them and motorists. He also argues that it would give police a way of identifying people who walk their dogs and let them tear up other people's property. As the situation now stands, there is no way to identify the offenders since they can refuse to give their names and claim that they have no driver's license or none with them.
Ambulabis is encouraged that the governor and many mayors back his proposal. He sees it as a way to protect a free society while maintaining order. Ambulabis says his proposal is an idea whose time has come.
Representative Arnold Benedict (R 42) of the Conservative Republicans Against Paternalism has proposed a compromise. His bill would require a license only for those walking more than one mile from home. "Most of my constituents don't travel by foot for more than a mile anyway so they won't be affected," Benedict told critics of his bill. Benedict told cheering supporters at the capitol that the Republican party would continue to be "the most vigilant of watchdogs against government encroachment of liberty."
Meanwhile, George Mason of the Libertarian party, a perennial candidate for office has denounced Benedict's proposal as an abandonment of principle. "Once you admit the principle that pedestrians can be licensed by the state you have given up your right to walk" thundered Mason to a handful of supporters at a downtown motel. Benedict, when questioned about Mason's opposition told Mendax News that he "didn't want to get bogged down in an argument over principle. We have been elected to make government work for the people; that's what I'm trying to do; we've got to work out some kind of reasonable compromise" said Benedict.
Critics say that once a right has been turned into a privilege the state can raise the price of exercising the privilege so high as to be unaffordable. Ambulabis counters by pointing out that no one would be forced to obtain a license as long as they stayed off of public property and asks how his proposal differs from licensing drivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
