I got to the polling place for my district a half-hour before they were going to close. There was one other person voting at one of the three voting machines. There were 4 volunteer/observers working the polling place. As I was getting my login code from one poll worker, two of the others were saying how they thought it was likely they would see two more voters come and cast ballots. In half an hour.
I voted and left. It took about 5 minutes (compared to what, an hour, when I voted against PresBO?) between door openings going in and going out.
When I signed in, on a sheet with maybe 15-20 names, I saw that my name was the only one with a signature by it. Pretty much NOBODY cared to turn out to vote on a proposed ELEVEN changes to the supreme law of our State. Stated another way, I was voting for maybe fifteen or twenty other people in my district. County-wide we had about 8% turnout. Uncle reports Knoxville saw 5% turnout. Knoxville's voters were voting for 20 people also.
So do you still think your vote doesn't count for anything?
********
In related news, it looks like all you have to do to change the State Constitution is get it on the ballot. All the measures proposed, passed. This is in keeping with the brainless results from prior elections: all you have to do to get a bond issue is get it on the ballot here. Sigh
********
"The only problem with a democracy is that I get the government They deserve!"
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
"It's More Than What It Is."
Yesterday the local radio news started talking up a story about a woman who killed a man. While she was 8 months pregnant. While she was in her apartment. With a 12 gauge. She shot him in the head. While he was in the parking lot. DRT. No charges have been filed, but the police have relocated her, for her own protection.
Wait, what?
He was stealing her car. In Texas (Houston). After dark. The State of Texas understands some things other places *cough*England*cough* don't. Things like, if you're stealing somebody else's stuff at night, you might have just earned yourself a shootin'. There's no reportage on it, but that car might have been her only way to get to her job, possibly the only source of income for her family of unspecified size. Taking the car might have meant an irreplaceable loss and subsequent destitution for that family. For the thief, it was a joyride or a quick few bucks. For the woman, that car might very well have been the only thing keeping her from sleeping on the streets with her kids. How much is THAT worth?
I thought it was pretty ironic that this came the day after a 'car-vs.-actions to protect' it story came up in my own life. One of the guys at work had, over the course of a few months 1) written on a bumper sticker on my car, 2) put a "do not use" tag on the tiedown hook under the trunk, and last week 3) Put a 5"x7" green "PUSH HERE" with a pair of hand icons on it, on the trunk. After each of these incidents, I jokingly tried to tell him to knock off. Friday I told him to take off the sticker (the writing had faded and the tag I can cut myself) and he didn't. I reminded him on Monday, and he again left the stuff on my car. I found a 10" x 10" DO NOT (picture of hands with circle/slash NO sign) PUSH HERE sticker and crossed out the HERE and wrote YOUR LUCK on the sticker (DO NOT PUSH YOUR LUCK). At lunch, I pasted the sticker on the windscreen of his car and used a corner of the sticker to attach the following note:
********
(his name here),
I've tried to be nice about it but you are not getting the fact that I am serious.
My car is not much too look at, but it is mine. It looked the way I had it, because that's the way I want it to look. It is not your car. It is not a park bench. It is mine.
It may not be too hip now, but it cost me the labor of a full half-a-year of my working life. That is what it represents to me. For you to go putting your idea of a joke on it, is a message to me of how little you respect my very LIFE.
I do not appreciate such an extreme level of disrespect. Heretofore, I have refrained from doing anything to your car because *I* do respect other peoples' property, and I am not a big fan of practical jokes even as payback.
Consider this your final warning. The next step for me is either to apply most of a roll of 3" packing tape to all the exterior surfaces of your car and maybe let the air out of all the tires, or to complain to the managmement and owners of our company, in writing, that you are vandalizing my car on company property.
Take the sticker off my trunk, and cut the tag off the tie down hook under the trunk. Don't do anything else to my car.
Or else.
********
The next time I saw my car, his decorations were gone. Being men, we didn't say anything about it on Tuesday, except that he told a joke about how did I like the banana in the tailpipe, and I said I thought I saw somebody put something on his car. Unspoken truce.
********
The point is, as one caller to the radio talk show this morning (still talking about that woman in Houston on the call-in shows) said: "It's More Than What It Is." The lefty host of the show was crying about how a car wasn't worth killing someone over, and the righty host was saying right: it's not worth YOU (i.e., the thief) dieing over. Longtime readers of Vote For David will be getting flashbacks at this point. You are vaguely remembering my First Principles post about the Rights to Life and Property. Go read that too, for more thoughts about the relationship between property and life, and to see how they can be the same thing.
Wait, what?
He was stealing her car. In Texas (Houston). After dark. The State of Texas understands some things other places *cough*England*cough* don't. Things like, if you're stealing somebody else's stuff at night, you might have just earned yourself a shootin'. There's no reportage on it, but that car might have been her only way to get to her job, possibly the only source of income for her family of unspecified size. Taking the car might have meant an irreplaceable loss and subsequent destitution for that family. For the thief, it was a joyride or a quick few bucks. For the woman, that car might very well have been the only thing keeping her from sleeping on the streets with her kids. How much is THAT worth?
I thought it was pretty ironic that this came the day after a 'car-vs.-actions to protect' it story came up in my own life. One of the guys at work had, over the course of a few months 1) written on a bumper sticker on my car, 2) put a "do not use" tag on the tiedown hook under the trunk, and last week 3) Put a 5"x7" green "PUSH HERE" with a pair of hand icons on it, on the trunk. After each of these incidents, I jokingly tried to tell him to knock off. Friday I told him to take off the sticker (the writing had faded and the tag I can cut myself) and he didn't. I reminded him on Monday, and he again left the stuff on my car. I found a 10" x 10" DO NOT (picture of hands with circle/slash NO sign) PUSH HERE sticker and crossed out the HERE and wrote YOUR LUCK on the sticker (DO NOT PUSH YOUR LUCK). At lunch, I pasted the sticker on the windscreen of his car and used a corner of the sticker to attach the following note:
********
(his name here),
I've tried to be nice about it but you are not getting the fact that I am serious.
My car is not much too look at, but it is mine. It looked the way I had it, because that's the way I want it to look. It is not your car. It is not a park bench. It is mine.
It may not be too hip now, but it cost me the labor of a full half-a-year of my working life. That is what it represents to me. For you to go putting your idea of a joke on it, is a message to me of how little you respect my very LIFE.
I do not appreciate such an extreme level of disrespect. Heretofore, I have refrained from doing anything to your car because *I* do respect other peoples' property, and I am not a big fan of practical jokes even as payback.
Consider this your final warning. The next step for me is either to apply most of a roll of 3" packing tape to all the exterior surfaces of your car and maybe let the air out of all the tires, or to complain to the managmement and owners of our company, in writing, that you are vandalizing my car on company property.
Take the sticker off my trunk, and cut the tag off the tie down hook under the trunk. Don't do anything else to my car.
Or else.
********
The next time I saw my car, his decorations were gone. Being men, we didn't say anything about it on Tuesday, except that he told a joke about how did I like the banana in the tailpipe, and I said I thought I saw somebody put something on his car. Unspoken truce.
********
The point is, as one caller to the radio talk show this morning (still talking about that woman in Houston on the call-in shows) said: "It's More Than What It Is." The lefty host of the show was crying about how a car wasn't worth killing someone over, and the righty host was saying right: it's not worth YOU (i.e., the thief) dieing over. Longtime readers of Vote For David will be getting flashbacks at this point. You are vaguely remembering my First Principles post about the Rights to Life and Property. Go read that too, for more thoughts about the relationship between property and life, and to see how they can be the same thing.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Socialist is the new N-Word
The newscasters in the hip pocket of the white house are trying a new tactic: They want people to be ashamed to speak the truth, so they are saying the truth is a code word.
That is, they say: if you call Barack Obama a Socialist, you really mean Barack Obama is a NIGGER. Ergo, you are a racist and nobody has to pay any attention to anything else you say.
Let's be clear on this:
1)Nigger or not, he's the President and WAY better, in every sense, than anyone who would use the word "nigger" about anybody, in any context.
2)He's only half-black anyway. I guess if you're prone to calling black folks niggers, then he's still one regardless of the "whitetrash! blood" in him.
3)When we refer to the President as a Socialist, we mean Socialist, not Racist. By socialist, we do not mean we think our skin color makes us superior to him, we mean someone who thinks the State should own and run everything. We call him a Socialist because he obviously IS one, by any of a handful of definitions.
Nice try, dinosaur media! Hey, how are your ratings numbers looking these days? Hmm? Hey I have an idea! Maybe you should parrot the white house's talking points a little more . . .
That is, they say: if you call Barack Obama a Socialist, you really mean Barack Obama is a NIGGER. Ergo, you are a racist and nobody has to pay any attention to anything else you say.
Let's be clear on this:
1)Nigger or not, he's the President and WAY better, in every sense, than anyone who would use the word "nigger" about anybody, in any context.
2)He's only half-black anyway. I guess if you're prone to calling black folks niggers, then he's still one regardless of the "white
3)When we refer to the President as a Socialist, we mean Socialist, not Racist. By socialist, we do not mean we think our skin color makes us superior to him, we mean someone who thinks the State should own and run everything. We call him a Socialist because he obviously IS one, by any of a handful of definitions.
Nice try, dinosaur media! Hey, how are your ratings numbers looking these days? Hmm? Hey I have an idea! Maybe you should parrot the white house's talking points a little more . . .
Oh, We Almost Forgot . . . .
You remember how they slipped in a 300-page amendment to the Stimulus bill and gave everyone 3 hours to debate it, in the middle of night, before the vote was forced?
Yeah, the Democrats thought that worked out so well, there are rumors of an 800-page amendment to the 1,990-page 'healthcare' bill standing by in the wings.
That would be, 2,790 pages of special interest group handouts and liberty-crushing by the DEMOCRATS who are still trying to claim to have your interests at heart.
The ripples (shockwaves) following the upcoming elections should be interesting to watch. . . .
Yeah, the Democrats thought that worked out so well, there are rumors of an 800-page amendment to the 1,990-page 'healthcare' bill standing by in the wings.
That would be, 2,790 pages of special interest group handouts and liberty-crushing by the DEMOCRATS who are still trying to claim to have your interests at heart.
The ripples (shockwaves) following the upcoming elections should be interesting to watch. . . .
Oh, Well That Won't Cause ANY Trouble
Austin wants you to give bicyclists and wheelchair drivers a wide berth on the street. Never you mind that wheelchairs aren't supposed to go on the street, they're included. The new rule is that a motorist must give a 3-foot 'buffer zone' when passing a cyclist, but heavy and commercial trucks must give cyclists a 6-foot buffer.
What's wrong with that, VFD? You don't like bicycle safety?
Of course I do. When I rode my bicycle every day to get to work or school or wherever I had to go, I wore a helmet and generally drove like I was invisible. I went to great efforts to drive as close to the edge of the pavement as possible. When my family goes on a ride together, we crowd the little'uns to within a foot of the curb, and don't ride on anything narrower than a 4-lane road, and NEVER on a road with heavy traffic. If it's just my Darling Wife and me, we're in single-file (don't tell her I don't mind the view).
There are a certain number of jerks around here who think that, because they have the legal right to ride on the public streets, they should be able to use the lanes as they please, without negative consequences. 5MPH, two riders side-by-side, on a two-lane road with oncoming traffic in the other lane? Sure, why not? I mean, nevermind that we are holding up commerce and generally making assholes of ourselves, WE have a RIGHT! Who cares that you have to wait or risk your life in oncoming traffic to pass? WE HAVE A RIGHT!
Shades of Critical Mass. I wonder how well that would go down here. I wonder how the cyclists would like being run over by Texans, or actually brought up on charges by a District Attorney not afraid of the Spandex Lobby.
You have a right to do what you want, when it does not interfere with my right to do what I want. If you make a delivery driver 15 minutes late delivering a cake to a wedding and he gets fired, YOU are wrong, regardless of how technically legally entitled you are to occupy a lane of traffic.
The law also says a driver can't cut off a cyclist, when making a right turn. That's all fine and dandy when you have cyclists with a lick of damn sense, but when you are driving your car 5MPH around a turn, with your turn signal going, and cream a bicyclist who slips in front of you going 30MPH, that was their fault. Especially if they were doing 30MPH coming off the sidewalk. To cross against a red light. While talking on a cell phone. Yes it happens.
This is what happens when you let leftists make the rules. This is yet another reason why a) I don't live in Austin proper and b) Austin needs single-member city council districts.
What's wrong with that, VFD? You don't like bicycle safety?
Of course I do. When I rode my bicycle every day to get to work or school or wherever I had to go, I wore a helmet and generally drove like I was invisible. I went to great efforts to drive as close to the edge of the pavement as possible. When my family goes on a ride together, we crowd the little'uns to within a foot of the curb, and don't ride on anything narrower than a 4-lane road, and NEVER on a road with heavy traffic. If it's just my Darling Wife and me, we're in single-file (don't tell her I don't mind the view).
There are a certain number of jerks around here who think that, because they have the legal right to ride on the public streets, they should be able to use the lanes as they please, without negative consequences. 5MPH, two riders side-by-side, on a two-lane road with oncoming traffic in the other lane? Sure, why not? I mean, nevermind that we are holding up commerce and generally making assholes of ourselves, WE have a RIGHT! Who cares that you have to wait or risk your life in oncoming traffic to pass? WE HAVE A RIGHT!
Shades of Critical Mass. I wonder how well that would go down here. I wonder how the cyclists would like being run over by Texans, or actually brought up on charges by a District Attorney not afraid of the Spandex Lobby.
You have a right to do what you want, when it does not interfere with my right to do what I want. If you make a delivery driver 15 minutes late delivering a cake to a wedding and he gets fired, YOU are wrong, regardless of how technically legally entitled you are to occupy a lane of traffic.
The law also says a driver can't cut off a cyclist, when making a right turn. That's all fine and dandy when you have cyclists with a lick of damn sense, but when you are driving your car 5MPH around a turn, with your turn signal going, and cream a bicyclist who slips in front of you going 30MPH, that was their fault. Especially if they were doing 30MPH coming off the sidewalk. To cross against a red light. While talking on a cell phone. Yes it happens.
This is what happens when you let leftists make the rules. This is yet another reason why a) I don't live in Austin proper and b) Austin needs single-member city council districts.
Islam And Christianity Are NOT The Same.
Boortz was talking about the (true) comment made on the floor of the House by Virginia Fox that we have more to fear from the "healthcare" bill than from islamic terrorists. Then he went off on a tangent and once again proved beyond doubt that he has it dead wrong. He thinks the radical muslims are the exceptions. They are following the rule. He also falls into the trap of calling up the memory of wrongs done by Christians in the name of Christ. Here is the difference, once again, for those who have been under a rock:
Christ was a peaceful man, with few exceptions. Those exceptions were when people were violating the only temple in the world dedicated to his Father, the one true God. He taught us to love our neighbors and spread Christianity by word of mouth. It was said of the early disciples that they had turned the world upside-down, but it was their doctrine and the life-changing relationship with Christ that changed the world.
Those who perpetrated violence in the name of Christ were mostly not acting in accordance with the stated wishes of Christ, or were acting in response to muslim aggression, or (let's be honest) were in it for the cash. At the time of the crusades, by the way, if you had a single Bible in your city, that was pretty rare. If it was in a language you could understand, and you could read, and had access to it, you were a dramatic exception to the norm. The people were largely only led to believe what they were told by the (often corrupt) Catholic priests.
Mohammed was NOT a peaceful man, unless you mean when he was not on a raid. He led and personally participated in DOZENS of bloody attacks on neighboring cities, for the sole purposes of plunder, rapine, and gain of status. He advocated spreading islam at the point of a sword. The muslim (ottoman) empire spread through BLOODSHED, not word of mouth.
Those who are currently perpetrating violence in the name of allah are doing so in accordance with the stated wishes and example of mohammed. The koran is widely available and the literacy rate is, while low, still much higher than in the eauropean middle ages. Nevermind that, when they to school as children, they were made to learn the koran by heart whether they can read or not.
These religions are not worshipping the same God. Their goals are not the same. They are opposites.
Do not be fooled.
Christ was a peaceful man, with few exceptions. Those exceptions were when people were violating the only temple in the world dedicated to his Father, the one true God. He taught us to love our neighbors and spread Christianity by word of mouth. It was said of the early disciples that they had turned the world upside-down, but it was their doctrine and the life-changing relationship with Christ that changed the world.
Those who perpetrated violence in the name of Christ were mostly not acting in accordance with the stated wishes of Christ, or were acting in response to muslim aggression, or (let's be honest) were in it for the cash. At the time of the crusades, by the way, if you had a single Bible in your city, that was pretty rare. If it was in a language you could understand, and you could read, and had access to it, you were a dramatic exception to the norm. The people were largely only led to believe what they were told by the (often corrupt) Catholic priests.
Mohammed was NOT a peaceful man, unless you mean when he was not on a raid. He led and personally participated in DOZENS of bloody attacks on neighboring cities, for the sole purposes of plunder, rapine, and gain of status. He advocated spreading islam at the point of a sword. The muslim (ottoman) empire spread through BLOODSHED, not word of mouth.
Those who are currently perpetrating violence in the name of allah are doing so in accordance with the stated wishes and example of mohammed. The koran is widely available and the literacy rate is, while low, still much higher than in the eauropean middle ages. Nevermind that, when they to school as children, they were made to learn the koran by heart whether they can read or not.
These religions are not worshipping the same God. Their goals are not the same. They are opposites.
Do not be fooled.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Go Here. Read The Whole Thing.
No new posts here until tuesday so you all will have a chance to see this. You will go to this page and read the whole thing.
Unless you think paying $26,000 for shitty health insurance for a family of four sounds reasonable. Make that, paying AT GUNPOINT $26,000 for shitty health insurance.
It's like the worst programmers who worked on the worst version of Microsoft Windows got together and wrote a health insurance bill. Literally.
Unless you think paying $26,000 for shitty health insurance for a family of four sounds reasonable. Make that, paying AT GUNPOINT $26,000 for shitty health insurance.
It's like the worst programmers who worked on the worst version of Microsoft Windows got together and wrote a health insurance bill. Literally.
Let's Be "Clear:" Scientology is a FAKE Religion.
Yahoo! News reports that France has fined the 'church' of scientology $900,000 for being fake, and a handful of very high-level members of the organization have defected and become the newest critics of scientology.
Then the article tries an even-handed approach to pretending this is a regular thing that happens to all religions. They mention that the Internet is now a source of information about the 'church' that members have to pay for. They even mention that Italy and Russia did not ban the 'church' from operating in those countries, and equate scientology with the Roman Catholic Church.
Not mentioned were things like, some of that information is: the source of the residual stress on your soul. L. Ron Hubbard (founder of the cult) said that the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.
No, seriously. Borrowing from the wikipedia entry on Xenu:
"Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm. Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story." This is what they mean, if you have ever heard a scientologist talk about The Wall of Fire or the "R6 implant".
This is what they teach. That is what your soul needs to be made "clear" from. Being blown up by a hydrogen bomb by a space alien. You would have to be a scientologist for a good long time and pay a bunch of cash, or spend 2 minutes searching on the Internet, to find out stuff like that. By the way, the 'church' of scientology has sued people to keep tidbits like that under wraps. Go clicking around the web some more and you'll find more "confidential material" (quoting the Yahoo! article) about the Cult of Scientology.
Also not mentioned in the Yahoo! article: Scientology's somewhat more limited successes in Germany. Also not mentioned is that Anonymous declared war on Scientology, and Scientology is fighting back (good luck with that!). Also not mentioned is the way scientology tends to send in the lawyers whenever somebody calls them a cult (which they are), or that scientology is both a cult and a profitable 'non-profit'business.
********
Let me be quite clear about this: The Church of Scientology is a cult as well as a for-profit business enterprise. Anyone seeking spiritual enlightenment would do much better cracking open a Bible than a copy of Dianetics. If you want to know the way to Heaven, you can find it free at any genuine Christian's house.
Then the article tries an even-handed approach to pretending this is a regular thing that happens to all religions. They mention that the Internet is now a source of information about the 'church' that members have to pay for. They even mention that Italy and Russia did not ban the 'church' from operating in those countries, and equate scientology with the Roman Catholic Church.
Not mentioned were things like, some of that information is: the source of the residual stress on your soul. L. Ron Hubbard (founder of the cult) said that the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.
No, seriously. Borrowing from the wikipedia entry on Xenu:
"Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm. Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story." This is what they mean, if you have ever heard a scientologist talk about The Wall of Fire or the "R6 implant".
This is what they teach. That is what your soul needs to be made "clear" from. Being blown up by a hydrogen bomb by a space alien. You would have to be a scientologist for a good long time and pay a bunch of cash, or spend 2 minutes searching on the Internet, to find out stuff like that. By the way, the 'church' of scientology has sued people to keep tidbits like that under wraps. Go clicking around the web some more and you'll find more "confidential material" (quoting the Yahoo! article) about the Cult of Scientology.
Also not mentioned in the Yahoo! article: Scientology's somewhat more limited successes in Germany. Also not mentioned is that Anonymous declared war on Scientology, and Scientology is fighting back (good luck with that!). Also not mentioned is the way scientology tends to send in the lawyers whenever somebody calls them a cult (which they are), or that scientology is both a cult and a profitable 'non-profit'business.
********
Let me be quite clear about this: The Church of Scientology is a cult as well as a for-profit business enterprise. Anyone seeking spiritual enlightenment would do much better cracking open a Bible than a copy of Dianetics. If you want to know the way to Heaven, you can find it free at any genuine Christian's house.
My Neighbor The Socialist, Dealing With:
We spent a good bit of halloween night at the home of one of our neighbors. During the course of conversation, it came out that she was convinced: she doesn't believe in Capitalism, that she would prefer Socialism.
!!! And she seemed like such a nice lady.
Fortunately, just then our children were being normal, un-sedated children, and I had an excuse to change the subject. I went as far as verifying that she meant more like France than Soviet style socialism, and dropped the matter like a hot potato.
Why VFD, you're a chicken!
No, but I've heard several conversations between Sean Hannity and Men on The Street . . . and that's not really what I wanted to have over pecan pie and hot chocolate, in place of what had been a perfectly lovely evening. Sometimes, as Dennis Prager says, clarity is preferable to agreement.
!!! And she seemed like such a nice lady.
Fortunately, just then our children were being normal, un-sedated children, and I had an excuse to change the subject. I went as far as verifying that she meant more like France than Soviet style socialism, and dropped the matter like a hot potato.
Why VFD, you're a chicken!
No, but I've heard several conversations between Sean Hannity and Men on The Street . . . and that's not really what I wanted to have over pecan pie and hot chocolate, in place of what had been a perfectly lovely evening. Sometimes, as Dennis Prager says, clarity is preferable to agreement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
