I have been putting these posters up around my campus, and they have been repeatedly torn down every day, sometimes within an hour of when I put it up. At first I attributed it to anti-self-defense weasels, but now I'm thinking the faculty are involved.
Just like at most universities, posters must be approved by the office to be put up, although this is often ignored and unapproved posters are left up. Ironically, my posters, which had been approved were being torn down. Seeing as they were all torn down - again - I went to get more approved. Denied.
They said that students had been complaining that the posters were offensive.
Offensive?
Had I said anything about the group trying to get Barack Obama, who will be the worst president ever, next to Lincoln and Bush, had put posters up saying how we should vote in the primaries and caucuses for him, even though the posters pissed me off? No.
Have I said anything about the advertisements to get people to watch The Vagina Monologues? Not that I find it offensive that there was a girl dressed up as a giant vagina (not kidding). I didn't find it offensive, but I sure as hell could have lied about it. Did I?
NO, because I believe in a thing called freedom of speech. People are going to get offended, it's a part of life. Tough shit. They don't have a right to silence and punish people or messages they find offensive.
Besides, I happen to love theatre, even the socialist and liberal diatribes of men, capitalism, etc.
But, the posters I put up aren't about Art. They're about self-defense, something a great deal more important than Art will ever be (prove me wrong, I dare you.)
To be fair to my university, it is not yet clear if the posters were banned due to freedom of speech issues. But, I'm making inquiries, and I'll soon know the severity of the situation.
Expect a shit-storm to follow. Stay tuned...
27 February 2008
22 February 2008
Adidas-Clad Fidel Claims US Should Emulate Cuba
Yes. I was watching MSNBC just a few minutes ago when a short blurb about Castro stepping down as "President" of Cuba was shown. In it, he claimed that the USA should be the country to change, not Cuba, and that it should follow Cuba's example (Failure - I mean, Socialism).
But, the best part? He was wearing an Adidas wind-breaker.
Yes, I know Adidas is German, but it's still an example of that wonderfully beneficial system: Capitalism (or as I like to call it, the Free Market).
I guess the Irony was lost on him.
But, the best part? He was wearing an Adidas wind-breaker.
Yes, I know Adidas is German, but it's still an example of that wonderfully beneficial system: Capitalism (or as I like to call it, the Free Market).
I guess the Irony was lost on him.
14 February 2008
More school shootings...
I won't say much, because I try not use other people's grief as a political tool, although it's bound to happen to some degree, so I'll keep it as minimal as possible.
Have we learned our lesson as a society yet? Can we please start carrying sidearms with us, now?
Have we learned our lesson as a society yet? Can we please start carrying sidearms with us, now?
Barstool Economics
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Now, That IS extremely accurate on the tax system.
HOWEVER it cannot be maintained except due to the current economic system.
To expound...Men #7, #8 & #9 work for guvco-mini, guvco-major & guvco dependent industries (defense/heavy construction--schools & roads/agriculture/etc.)...so technically the money they "bring" to the table IS already from Men #'s 5, 6 & 10 taken from them earlier by #7, administrated by #8 and re-distributed into the economy by #9
Men #5 & 6, being self-employed or otherwise just hardworking folk, are just trying to catch a break, be left alone, save a bit for a rainy day, pay their obligations AND position to earn their dreams (picture: Carl Drega)...I personally believe they may be the only possible true libertarians in the group, here's why:
Consequently, feeding the entire class warfare system of degradation through taxation. True #5 & #6 may have willingly jumped into the melee...but they finally put some "accidental" blows on EVERYBODY riding their backs, not just #10
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Now, That IS extremely accurate on the tax system.
HOWEVER it cannot be maintained except due to the current economic system.
To expound...Men #7, #8 & #9 work for guvco-mini, guvco-major & guvco dependent industries (defense/heavy construction--schools & roads/agriculture/etc.)...so technically the money they "bring" to the table IS already from Men #'s 5, 6 & 10 taken from them earlier by #7, administrated by #8 and re-distributed into the economy by #9
Men #5 & 6, being self-employed or otherwise just hardworking folk, are just trying to catch a break, be left alone, save a bit for a rainy day, pay their obligations AND position to earn their dreams (picture: Carl Drega)...I personally believe they may be the only possible true libertarians in the group, here's why:
- #'s 1-4 blame somebody else for their problems & expect to be given a solution---THEY HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED AND SHOW NO DRIVE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES TO EFFECT PERSONAL CHANGE
- #7/8/9 being employees of the beast have already sold out---THEY ARE THE ONES ENFORCING TAX POLICY
- AND because the #10 can do anything he wants--up to leaving geographically if he cares to, etc., he doesn't need to have a philosophy, he'll just pay #7/8/9 under-the-table, er, cleanly passed through a LOBBY-ist for expanded protectionist policies or subsidy programs to "get some of his own back."---THINK "NEW WORLD ORDER"
Consequently, feeding the entire class warfare system of degradation through taxation. True #5 & #6 may have willingly jumped into the melee...but they finally put some "accidental" blows on EVERYBODY riding their backs, not just #10
07 February 2008
Libertarian Party sends condolences to the Republican National Committee
Bwahahahaha. This made me laugh. And it made me a little sad, as well.
06 February 2008
Ron Paul, Super Tuesday, and Patriot-lights
I've supported Ron Paul for months, and I will support him as president until after the elections in November. I'll keep supporting him, and the ideas he advocates, for a very long time, I suspect, long after he loses the election - and he will lose the elections, let's not kid ourselves. None of us expected him to win. What we expected was for him, and his efforts, and our efforts, to wake people up, to spark something inside their hearts, to plant that one little seed which has the potential to grow into something mighty. I will support all that for the rest of my life, probably.
But, how many others will? How many people who supported him until the results today are willing to keep going, or how many will quit after the dismal outcome of yesterday?
I decided to do a bit of math, because a) I like math, and b) I wanted to find out how many people voted for him in the primary process. So, I simply tallied up his votes from the states that had primaries, as opposed to caucuses, because primaries give a better indicator of voters who cast their vote for Paul. Here are the results, as of 10:07 Central Standard Time, Feb 6th, 2007, from cnn.com:
The total number of votes received by Ron Paul in the 18 states that have had primaries so far:
523,145
Compared to the rest of the candidates, it's minuscule, but this is quite an astonishing number by itself.
Now, the real test of those voters. Do they actually believe in what Paul says, or are going to give up? Will they see it through to the end (and therefore to the next beginning), or will they quit. Are they Patriots, or Patriot-Lights.
My bet is on the second.
However, with such a large number of people who voted for him in just those 18 states, there are bound to be some real Patriots in there, unsure of what to do next now that they've seen how many Americans just simply don't want freedom.
If you happen to be one of them, and are reading this (however unlikely that is, I have no delusions about this humble blog), there is another option.
Join us in Wyoming, the last free(est) state in the country. Every person who moves here will make a difference. Let me show you.
Let's assume that 99% aren't willing to move to Wyoming right away, or at all - remember what homer said; out of every 100 soldiers, 90 shouldn't be there, 9 will fight well, but that last one is the Warrior who will bring everyone else back alive. Besides, I'm willing to bet many of those voters are either big government republicans or liberals who are sick of politics as usual, and would like something newer and fresh, but who aren't actually libertarian-leaning.
1% of 500,000 (rounded down liberally to account for multiple votes from states that allowed non-residents to vote, such as Iowa, and people who aren't as freedom oriented) is still 5000 people. That number of people moving to Wyoming would really have an impact.
So please, join us in the Cowboy State, the Equality State. It's state motto is "Equal Rights" for a reason. There is always something else to look for, to strive for, to live for, and that something is the Free State Wyoming movement.
But, how many others will? How many people who supported him until the results today are willing to keep going, or how many will quit after the dismal outcome of yesterday?
I decided to do a bit of math, because a) I like math, and b) I wanted to find out how many people voted for him in the primary process. So, I simply tallied up his votes from the states that had primaries, as opposed to caucuses, because primaries give a better indicator of voters who cast their vote for Paul. Here are the results, as of 10:07 Central Standard Time, Feb 6th, 2007, from cnn.com:
The total number of votes received by Ron Paul in the 18 states that have had primaries so far:
523,145
Compared to the rest of the candidates, it's minuscule, but this is quite an astonishing number by itself.
Now, the real test of those voters. Do they actually believe in what Paul says, or are going to give up? Will they see it through to the end (and therefore to the next beginning), or will they quit. Are they Patriots, or Patriot-Lights.
My bet is on the second.
However, with such a large number of people who voted for him in just those 18 states, there are bound to be some real Patriots in there, unsure of what to do next now that they've seen how many Americans just simply don't want freedom.
If you happen to be one of them, and are reading this (however unlikely that is, I have no delusions about this humble blog), there is another option.
Join us in Wyoming, the last free(est) state in the country. Every person who moves here will make a difference. Let me show you.
Let's assume that 99% aren't willing to move to Wyoming right away, or at all - remember what homer said; out of every 100 soldiers, 90 shouldn't be there, 9 will fight well, but that last one is the Warrior who will bring everyone else back alive. Besides, I'm willing to bet many of those voters are either big government republicans or liberals who are sick of politics as usual, and would like something newer and fresh, but who aren't actually libertarian-leaning.
1% of 500,000 (rounded down liberally to account for multiple votes from states that allowed non-residents to vote, such as Iowa, and people who aren't as freedom oriented) is still 5000 people. That number of people moving to Wyoming would really have an impact.
So please, join us in the Cowboy State, the Equality State. It's state motto is "Equal Rights" for a reason. There is always something else to look for, to strive for, to live for, and that something is the Free State Wyoming movement.
Why Al Franken Should Not be in Politics
Is he an economist? No? Enough said.
But I'll say more anyway.
Universal single payer health care? How about another idea, a much more foreign one: a free-market approach. Increasingly higher quality and increasingly lower prices happen in other parts of the market, and it's time the medical field follows suit. Not completely free market, but much more than it currently is (hardly any). With some high-tech procedures and operations where the demand for them is almost fixed, i.e. inelastic, then maybe something there to make it more affordable. But, insurance, common medical bills, etc? They should be subject to the market. Try it, and watch it work. Managed competition doesn't work, universal health care will probably result in the tanking of the economy in the few years after it's instituted.
http://catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6407
Education: Should also be subject to a free market approach. Teaching standards and education failing in some schools? Fire the teachers that suck /let the market provide incentives for them to improve - stop pandering to the teacher's unions. Don't give the schools and teachers subsidies to fund efforts to 'improve' the teachers. In the free market, incentives are extremely important in the supply and demand of labor, and without them, quality suffers for it. Excessive testing is a result of government funding - the schools must make the students test all the time, to show the "progress" their students are acheiving, only to get the money from the government. Al's solution is more government intervention to solve a problem that was created by governement intervention in the first place.
Worker's Pay: Raise the minimum wage? Is he retarded? You know what raising the minimum wage does, generally? It erases the low paying jobs, and increases unemployment, and hurts the economy, and therefore the standard of living for everyone. Duh. He also wants to increase workers' rights to organize. Okay, and? They already have rights to organize, big deal. Unions may have been good and necessary in the first part of the century (although that's debatable), but not anymore. Unions have no place in politics anymore, as they only screw up the market systems. Unions want workers to be paid 15, 20, 25/hr plus benefits, and then they want cheap goods, too? Sorry, that's not the way it works. Higher pay and higher prices, or lower pay and lower prices. Can't have both and still have the economy be prosperous. Besides, either way, your standard of living will go up because of the markets.
Social Security: What the hell? Keep it? He must be retarded. It was never designed to work long term. It was barely designed to work at the time (the great depression) and was only meant as a temporary fix. With 2/3 of the population retiring by 2015 or so, we young people will be paying for their retirement, and we'll be paying a much larger share than they had to pay when they were young. Ok, so they paid into SS for the entire lives. But, those funds can be used on anything, like taxes, so the money they paid isn't the money they'll get. But, that's not my fault. It's their fault and the government's fault, and we're supposed to pay for that? I don't think so. Social Security will definitely bankrupt this nation. If retiring people haven't saved, and haven't invested, then why the hell should we have to pay for their mistakes?
And, although he's not running on this platform (wisely), gun control: He's a huge supporter of gun control. Don't even get me started on this. A good indicator of how a politician, or even a person, thinks is his views on guns and self-defense. If he doesn't like them, and doesn't trust people with them, guess what? He doesn't have any respect or trust in the people. Putrescent.
Stop supporting this idiot for office.
But I'll say more anyway.
Universal single payer health care? How about another idea, a much more foreign one: a free-market approach. Increasingly higher quality and increasingly lower prices happen in other parts of the market, and it's time the medical field follows suit. Not completely free market, but much more than it currently is (hardly any). With some high-tech procedures and operations where the demand for them is almost fixed, i.e. inelastic, then maybe something there to make it more affordable. But, insurance, common medical bills, etc? They should be subject to the market. Try it, and watch it work. Managed competition doesn't work, universal health care will probably result in the tanking of the economy in the few years after it's instituted.
http://catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6407
Education: Should also be subject to a free market approach. Teaching standards and education failing in some schools? Fire the teachers that suck /let the market provide incentives for them to improve - stop pandering to the teacher's unions. Don't give the schools and teachers subsidies to fund efforts to 'improve' the teachers. In the free market, incentives are extremely important in the supply and demand of labor, and without them, quality suffers for it. Excessive testing is a result of government funding - the schools must make the students test all the time, to show the "progress" their students are acheiving, only to get the money from the government. Al's solution is more government intervention to solve a problem that was created by governement intervention in the first place.
Worker's Pay: Raise the minimum wage? Is he retarded? You know what raising the minimum wage does, generally? It erases the low paying jobs, and increases unemployment, and hurts the economy, and therefore the standard of living for everyone. Duh. He also wants to increase workers' rights to organize. Okay, and? They already have rights to organize, big deal. Unions may have been good and necessary in the first part of the century (although that's debatable), but not anymore. Unions have no place in politics anymore, as they only screw up the market systems. Unions want workers to be paid 15, 20, 25/hr plus benefits, and then they want cheap goods, too? Sorry, that's not the way it works. Higher pay and higher prices, or lower pay and lower prices. Can't have both and still have the economy be prosperous. Besides, either way, your standard of living will go up because of the markets.
Social Security: What the hell? Keep it? He must be retarded. It was never designed to work long term. It was barely designed to work at the time (the great depression) and was only meant as a temporary fix. With 2/3 of the population retiring by 2015 or so, we young people will be paying for their retirement, and we'll be paying a much larger share than they had to pay when they were young. Ok, so they paid into SS for the entire lives. But, those funds can be used on anything, like taxes, so the money they paid isn't the money they'll get. But, that's not my fault. It's their fault and the government's fault, and we're supposed to pay for that? I don't think so. Social Security will definitely bankrupt this nation. If retiring people haven't saved, and haven't invested, then why the hell should we have to pay for their mistakes?
And, although he's not running on this platform (wisely), gun control: He's a huge supporter of gun control. Don't even get me started on this. A good indicator of how a politician, or even a person, thinks is his views on guns and self-defense. If he doesn't like them, and doesn't trust people with them, guess what? He doesn't have any respect or trust in the people. Putrescent.
Stop supporting this idiot for office.
04 February 2008
"Mukasey's radical worldview is now the norm"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/index.html
This reminds me of something Lysander Spooner once said:
[The Constitution] has either authorized such a government as we
have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
From the article:
I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration -- at least
exclusively -- for what has happened to our political system. They were
responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country's
institutions -- its media, its Congress, the "opposition" party, even
the courts -- all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing -- or to
endorse it -- once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn't have
surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking
political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that
there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other
institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.
Well, yes and no. He's right in spreading the blame to all other government institutions, but we are also to blame. We, the people, should bear a huge amount of responsibility. A man is only a slave when he allows himself to be. We allowed this kind of thing to happen. You think voting does anything? Stupid establishment folks just keep parroting that tired idea of "If you don't like it, then vote for someone else," as if democracy consists of voting every few years and then shutting the hell up. Voting doesn't do shit. "Then you're not supporting the democratic process!" the stupid fuckers whine. If elected officials vote the wrong way we're supposed to vote them out and then sit down and shut up? I don't think so. The wrong vote they gave isn't what pisses us off. What pisses us off is that they think they can vote away things that were never theirs to vote on in the first place (verbatim from Unintended Consequences by John Ross). "The people making the laws think that anything is okay if they can get 51% of the legislators or the people to go along with it." (page 701)
Back to that quote from the article. The Founding Fathers probably wouldn't be surprised at the failure of the checks and balance systems they thought would keep things in order. Those systems were never meant to work. There are no checks and balances. Like the great author Boston T. Party says, the three branches of government are like three bully brothers, each promising to stop the other two from beating you up and stealing your lunch money. The Constitution was deliberately designed to let the national-level government take and exercise as much power as it wants. Some of the biggest supporters of the Constitution were Madison (in his federalist years), Adams, and Hamilton. They all had large interests in letting the national government take huge amounts of power. For more evidence on this subject, read Hologram of Liberty, by Boston T. Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)