Not Safe For Work, Kids, or People in Committed Relationships

Do not play this at work.

Do not let anyone know that you are either watching it, or have watched it.

But I laughed.

Luscious

Luscious.

Hella word, innit?

Teh Health Care Debate

If you can call it a debate. Debacle is more to the point.

If you believe that you can create wealth out of thin air, you are not my audience. Go away. (And if you can, shut up.)

If you believe that the wealth of a nation is a rather finite thing, I would ask you to look at a series of posts that have been given to you from one of the smarter guys I've ever known; Keith Hennessey. Here's a sample:

Debating the President’s Portsmouth pitch (part 1)

This is the first in a series of posts. I had written this as one piece, but it was way too long. So I am going to try it in lots of little nibbles. I will post one nibble every two hours over the next two days.

At a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday, the President said:

THE PRESIDENT: (L)et me just say there’s been a long and vigorous debate about this, and that’s how it should be. That’s what America is about, is we have a vigorous debate. That’s why we have a democracy. But I do hope that we will talk with each other and not over each other — (applause) — because one of the objectives of democracy and debate is, is that we start refining our own views because maybe other people have different perspectives, things we didn’t think of.

Where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.

In the spirit of informed and vigorous debate, let’s look at what the President said about the pending legislation at yesterday’s Portsmouth town hall.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, let me just start by setting the record straight on a few things I’ve been hearing out here — (laughter) — about reform. Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

And yet here is what CBO said about the House bill:

CBO: In addition, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that nearly 6 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have such coverage under the proposal. That figure includes part-time employees, who could receive subsidies via an exchange even though they have an employer’s offer of coverage, and about 3 million people who would not have an employer’s offer of coverage under the proposal. Firms that would choose not to offer coverage as a result of the proposal would tend to be smaller employers and those that predominantly employ lower-wage workers—people who would be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges—although some workers who were not eligible for subsidies through the exchanges also would not have coverage available through their employers.

Whether those changes in coverage would represent the dropping of existing coverage or a lack
of offers of new coverage is difficult to determine. (p. 5)

According to CBO, the President’s statement is incorrect for a portion of these 6 million people who as a result of the House bill would lose employment-based coverage they would otherwise have under current law. Some of those 6 million people would lose the opportunity to get employment-based coverage, while others would “represent the dropping of existing coverage.” CBO reached similar conclusions. Here is a more detailed explanation of this problem that I wrote for an earlier draft of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, under which 10 million people would not have lost the health plan they would otherwise have under current law. CBO dialed this number down to 3 million for a later draft of Kennedy-Dodd.

This is an inevitable consequence of moving away from a system that is so heavily biased toward higher subsidies for employment-based coverage. My preferred plan would have a similar effect. Nonetheless, the President is overpromising, at least relative to CBO’s view of the House bill.

If you haven't read this guy before, let me tell you; I told my mom about this guy. That's how much I trust him.

New Northwest Resource

Do you like Drudge?

Me? I occasionally hit Drudge. I'm more of a techinal analysis kind of guy. Glasses, pocket protector and a slide rule.

But there is a Northwest aggregation server that is actually a good resource to put on your defaut setting: Orbusmax.

Give it a try. I like it.

One Fella Who "Gets It"

There is a guy like me. A guy like me, but isn't like a guy like me.



There are things that make us different. There are things that make us the same. This guy is more like me than not like me.



Take a look at his work, please. And leave a comment. We have lost too many good voices because we don't reinforce those voices.

Om mani padme hum

I remember the second state race I worked on.

I was into the race about three weeks, when I found that the Left was using its ties to the journalism community to put stories out that denigrated my candidate. Henny Willis is the name that comes to mind.

That memory came back waiting to hear David Wu, (D-Short guy), talk to a room full of people from the North Coast. What is funny is that few understand the concept of a mantra, and yet everyone talks about karma. What a silly people we are.

There is a mantra of the Left. The mantra is "what can we do to make sure that people don't hurt themselves?"

This kinda violates the rule of mantra. Inner direction is one thing. Directing outwardly should be an apparent violation of the rule of karma, even to the less than distinct Buddhist. Here's an example of what I'm trying to express in terms that the Progressive must be required to understand in order to retain his cred:

"An old story speaks about a similar problem. A devoted mediator, after years concentrating on a particular mantra, had attained enough insight to begin teaching. The student's humility was far from perfect, but the teachers at the monastery were not worried.

"A few years of successful teaching left the mediator with no thoughts about learning from anyone; but upon hearing about a famous hermit living nearby, the opportunity was too exciting to be passed up.
The hermit lived alone on an island at the middle of a lake, so the mediator hired a man with a boat to row across to the island. The mediator was very respectful of the old hermit. As they shared some tea made with herbs the mediator asked him about his spiritual practice. The old man said he had no spiritual practice, except for a mantra which he repeated all the time to himself. The mediator was pleased: the hermit was using the same mantra he used himself -- but when the hermit spoke the mantra aloud, the mediator was horrified!

"What's wrong?" asked the hermit.

"I don't know what to say. I'm afraid you've wasted your whole life! You are pronouncing the mantra incorrectly!"

"Oh, Dear! That is terrible. How should I say it?"

"The mediator gave the correct pronunciation, and the old hermit was very grateful, asking to be left alone so he could get started right away. On the way back across the lake the mediator, now confirmed as an accomplished teacher, was pondering the sad fate of the hermit.

"It's so fortunate that I came along. At least he will have a little time to practice correctly before he dies." Just then, the mediator noticed that the boatman was looking quite shocked, and turned to see the hermit standing respectfully on the water, next to the boat.

"Excuse me, please. I hate to bother you, but I've forgotten the correct pronunciation again. Would you please repeat it for me?"

"You obviously don't need it," stammered the mediator; but the old man persisted in his polite request until the mediator relented and told him again the way he thought the mantra should be pronounced.

"The old hermit was saying the mantra very carefully, slowly, over and over, as he walked across the surface of the water back to the island."

For those of you who are aware, this is the sound of what?

We know that there are described three schools of thought; the metaphysical, the teleological and the ontological.

Two of these systems only work by imposing upon others externals. Only one school, like Buddhism, relies upon self-realisation. Other systems that are teleological, yet depend upon self-realisation are the religions referred to as Christian (including the Church) and Hebrew (or, the Jews.)

I don't believe that either Christians or Jews would believe that man is fully self-actualised without that knowing of self coming from within, rather than as a penance against the self. If you're a Buddhist, you have your own beliefs. (I joke.)

What is taking place in the current political debate is not so much a debate among good people arguing amongst themselves, but good people being asked to take up a yoke of obeisance that one may, a priori, reject. Or, reject and refute. Or, ignore. Or, in the face of its imposition, rail loudly and clearly against.

I haven't known clearly that the impulse to control the actions of others would ever come to the head that it has. But I'm usually the optimist in the crowd. The one expecting things to work out well. Growing up as the scion of a man who fought against the last great expression of external authority--we know it as the Axis--that we are actually engaged in a debate to expunge the impulse to impose behaviours upon our general citizenry is rather anachronistic. Who wants to be the next Hitler?

Now I've got pictures from today's Town Hall meeting with Congressman Wu. But what story would they tell? There were a bunch of people. Prolly more than any other previous Town Hall meeting ever held by the congressman in this county. So what? Standing in line was more educational than whatever occurred inside the library.

If you've ever raised chickens, you know what to look for. The posturing in the line today was laughable. I actually had to suppress a laugh. It was like being in grade school listening to a kid getting into his first fight. That I knew the people on either side of me wasn't surprising. This is a rural community. I could write things that would cause them embarrassment, but what's the point. If you had a government job, worked as a member of a union, or worked for a hospital or school, chances are you have absolutely no idea what it is like to actually make a thing or own a thing. There is no denigration intended. You look at yourself as labour. You may be well educated, as are most in the health profession and many in education. But you've chased a career in which you were always the victim. You knew, going in, that there was a promise that at some point your economic sector would gain, through wages, the importance that your career path should receive. After decades of impotence, you've organized yourselves into unions which contribute to Democrat candidates, candidates that vow to you their undying allegiance. Not to America. Not to the values of self-determination. Allegiance to your voice. Your sense of social justice.

And now you're wondering why the rest of us, the uneducated, non-union, non-government employed would want to shatter your dreams of finally gaining the place and recognition that you deserve.

Well, let me put it to you this way. Go ahead. Sit down.

You're fired.

We cannot and will not allow you to attempt to further screw things up. (A great restraint. Imagine what I should have said.)

You have put this State and this State's people on a path toward poverty. We do not want you running our lives, telling us stories about how horrible and hateful are the people who provide you with you underarm deodorant, your cell-phones, your blue jeans and your personal lubricants and jellies.

You think that you have us in a corner. You are so wrong. Why is Ayn Rand ridiculous? Because you are more afraid of us than you are of yourselves. We don't need to go "John Galt". We do that naturally. We take what we have and put it somewhere else. It's called a Market. You may think you can impose upon us rules that will make us better. You are soo crazy! You don't even recognise that which is happening before you. Time is not your ally. If your ideas are so right, why are you in such a hurry to push them through?

You on the Left are scared. I heard that in line today. The repeated mantras against the people who didn't want shackles. The ridicule of people that you disagree with. Attempting to let yourself feel better as your car crashes into the side of a moving freight train. "We'll be okay...we'll be okay..."

For those of you who haven't attended a Town Hall meeting, don't. Go, just don't go in. You prolly don't have the temper to deal with the rhetoric that you'll hear inside. But wait in line and listen. Listen to the crackle of fear among the Leftists as they attempt to rally themselves for the Lion's Den. This is not the language of Daniel. This is the language of Pilate.

Now, for those of you who expressed your opposition to abortion with vehemence; don't. Your signs were silent testimony. When you shouted your opposition to abortion when the Congressman arrived, you lost debate points. Are you wrong? No. But you gave spine to those who were looking for an object to defy. Re-read your Bible. We are not talking about money-changers.

We, on the Right, are winning. We, who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are winning. Tactical errors are understandable. The Leftists are vewy, vewy nervous. There are times to be loud just as there are times to be silent.

Silence is often the most expressive of possible utterances.

Good News! We're Number One!

Click on the table to be taken to the story.

We finally beat Michigan. Woo-hoo!

Congressman Chased By Crowd...

of angry seniors.

Seems that the prollem of mobs isn't new. This video was taken twenty years ago.

We expect our congressmen to do certain things. It's only when we find out that they don't even care to read the bills they vote on that "the People" get a little tetchy.

Will Congress figure this out?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

(Video found at Volokh Conspiracy.)

Ownership

Ownership.

Who owns what.

Not a new question, in fact, if you were to look you would probably find that there are major schools of inquiry into the basic nature of man that are roughly divided between the metaphysical view, the teleological view and the ontological view.

I will admit to being a greater adherent to ontology than to either metaphysics or teleology. For what I consider apparent reasons.

Looking at the literature of what are referred to as natural rights, there seems to be a consistent view that there are certain irreducible truths; among these are Descartes admonition cogito, ergo sum. I am not aware of any truth that transcends, or can claim to transcend, Descartes statement. Nothing of Berkeley, nothing of Johnson.

It can be said with certainty that nothing I think is the property of another. It is wholly mine. There is no other source of its existence. To clear up any pronoun confusion, there is no other source for my thoughts than myself.

We live in a real world. A world that we interact in and upon. Given that I act upon my thoughts, my actions within that world exhibit certain characteristics; as I act upon the world, the world is changed by my actions. Just as Lorenz wrote about butterfly wings, I, as an independent actor upon the world, have effect. Unlike the butterfly, it isn’t necessary that my actions simply be viewed as random, but it is sufficient to view my actions as the result of my own thinking.

The sufficiency of my thinking results in outcomes that I may or may not have intended. It is not that the thinking I had results in what I had considered the necessary outcome of my thoughts. It is sufficient that what I had thought, turned into action, resulted in certain outcomes.

I am responsible for my thoughts and I am responsible for my actions. From a purely anarcho-syndicalist view, within this state of Nature I am a free actor acting upon Nature in the way that I see fit. The limitations upon my free actions are limited in ways that I agree to such as they are limited by my recognition that others shall not be harmed by my actions.

But, how to add order to this state of Nature?

If, by my efforts, I enhance the value of property, to increase the productivity of that property, I may and can claim a right to that property. If I pick up a common twig and turn it into a work of art, that twig, when transformed, becomes my property. It is not that I have improved, transformed or changed through the investment of my intellectual or physical labour that makes it mine; it is the fact that whether through intellect or through labour I have transformed what it was into what it has become that makes it mine. It is an extension of who and what I am. I own it because I created it.

This act, whether intellectual or physical, is a transformative act. It is a question of what is or is not transformation that becomes the substantive claim of what is, or is not, property.

For too many of, the question of how property arises is confounding.

Much has been made of the idea that “capitalism is theft”. The latest of these advocates is prolly John Rawls, who received the National Humanities Medal from then President Bill Clinton in 1999. The body of thought that Rawls represents is best reflected by those who have a teleological view of the world. That is to say, those who look outside of what we experience, in order to impose an outside order upon the rest of us.

The “capitalism is theft” argument fails to either apprehend or consider the value of individual effort, thought, labour or effort in determining that those who have more are demonstrably unfit to lay claim to having more. Much of what passes for intellectuality on the Left is of this type of circular claim. For a quick primer on circular thinking, you may take a quick view at this attempt to explain social justice as an apodictic, rather than circular, argument:

There are the adherents of teleological and metaphysical explanations to their inquiries of the human state that argue with great force and emotion for their own, particular opinions. Many of these adherents expose themselves to the criticism that the problems that they attempt to solve are merely the creation of their own prison. The remainder simply haven’t dug enough.

The attempt to separate physical labour from the fruit of the intellect is at best disingenuous. When it is explained to me how a man can direct his physical efforts without the employment of his intellectual faculties, then this separation may be identified. But it would be so identified for the first time.

What the criticism of property, of capital, of the intellect attempts is to brand the creation of property, capital and the employment of intellect as having a lower moral standing than the simply physical employment of effort. This becomes the Labour Theory of Value and is used to cover up any manner of logical abuses.

What advocates of this notion attempt is to sever the relationship of man’s intellect from his physical efforts. That imposition is imposed by the believer or adherent to this theory. What is most surprising to the erudite student of economics is this necessary external. Unlike the ontologist who sees the product of human activity as springing from the individual, those who attempt to provide an overlay upon human activity that would be necessary for the operation of the theory they propose fail to see that their construction is just as nefarious and silly as many of the popular teleologies that they must ridicule in order to gain adherents with same said descriptions; such as faith in God.

Those who wish to impose their beliefs upon the rest of us fail simply because of the falsifiability of their premise. It is their premise that man is only perfectible when subject to the machinations of their externally produced teleology. They distrust that which is intrinsic to man; they seek to impose external controls on man’s impulses. They create an unnecessary conflict between men in order to impose the rules that they wish others to live by.

What adherents of the Left, those self-described Progressives or self-identifying Marxists or Communists abhor is the existence of a societal symphony from which the music of a modern economy springs without the benefit of a conductor. It is their basic distrust of the ontological proceedings of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand that offends them. It is the simple recognition that man, left to himself, is more creative and more productive than when restricted to those tasks and imperatives imposed by the ideas and programs of the Left, the Progressive, the Marxist and the Communist.

There are critics which presume themselves as representative of the Right, the more Libertarian impulse, that decry the fruits of man’s freedom to own and create property. They offer arguments that seek to limit man’s ability to choose to associate with others in furtherance of their own economic self-interest. There are those who seek to impose medieval values of ownership upon the owners of corporate equities in order to impose “the correct” external values on the activities of men in a free society.

But a free society is not simply reflected by the degree to which one may offer argument that differs from the generally accepted views held by those who seek to impose externalities upon the individual. A free society is one that also recognizes the importance of defending the property rights of the individual, whether those rights to property spring from the mind, as in capital; or from the physical actions of the individual, as in labour.

It is important to view property as a transaction, and most importantly as a contract. It is the role of a society to codify the rules of transactions and to protect the sanctity of the contract. Our society itself is a form of contract; our Social Contract.

Emotion, moral authority, sentiment and cries for social justice are poor substitutes for freedom, liberty, property and the contract. You are better off when you are responsible for your own condition, rather than reliant upon those who seek to impose external values that are in conflict with the basic nature of who you are, as a man. You may see yourself as the beneficiary of some certain, short-termed gains. But in the long run, you’ll find yourself just as enveigled in serfdom as were your progenitors of the Middle Ages.

The worrisome thing is, those who seek to impose their external beliefs upon your freedom and liberty do so with the same Jedi mind tricks as the lairds and princes of the Middle Ages. Understanding systems of thought, and the differences between metaphysics, teleology and ontology may seem difficult. But the fruit of epistemological inquiry is an understanding of the traps that have been laid in an attempt to ensnare you. At your stage in life there is a good chance that a formal course of study into philosophy and critical thinking is beyond your care. And as an adherent of heuristics I am not an advocate of such a course, although it would be of benefit to you, in my opinion. So, for a short course, simply take some time with some of the more common types of falsehoods that are practiced on a day-to-day basis by the advocates of external control and authority.

Because you are free and have your liberty, you rely upon your government to enforce the rules—the social contract—that guarantees your continued freedom and liberty. What happens when your government fails to live up to its end of the bargain?

Here’s an example of what happens when a social contract breaks down. (From RoguePundit.)

How would you solve these problems? How can we avoid the problems that are currently plaguing countries like Venezuela, whose people are trying to avoid a complete breakdown and return to the feudalism of the Middle Ages? How much freedom and liberty can we take from others, before we find ourselves the victims of our own snares?

Global Warming Update

I occasionally comment at ClassicalValues and Power and Control.

A couple of weeks ago, I referred M. Simon to the brughaha working its way into the culture of the ManBearPig theorists; the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (also referred to as the Met) was holding back data being sought to test the actual model used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was adopted by the U.N. and AlGore to prove that Man was going to be the Cause of the World's Destruction (AlManBearPig).

You can dig into that battle at Climate Audit. Don't be disappointed if some of the language that takes place--you really want to hit the comments sections for these posts!--may be a little heavy on technical talk. The argument that is taking place will make for better reading if you have some background in advanced statistics, not just the simple probability stuff that you get in high school or in a first year stat class.

But, if you've read this far and are still not put off, Dr. Tim Ball has an excellent article available for you at CanadaFreePress. If you're a frequent visitor to various blogsites around Oregon, you might want to pass this along to David Afpel. You know, he really, really, really believes that Man is going to be the Cause of the World's Destruction. (Just look at the data, Davey!)

Wu, Day After Tomorrow

This is Tuesday. Thursday, your Congressman, David Wu, is scheduled for an hour at Seaside’s Public Library.

Don’t expect to get in.

Don’t get mad at not getting in.

Dress well. Be polite.

The anger we feel towards Congressman Wu is an anger that Congressman Wu will never feel. If you behave angrily towards him, you will become part of his cache of anecdotes on rube behaviour when he returns to his digs in Washington, D.C. He belongs to a club that you’ll never belong to. The elites in Washington, D.C. laugh at you in their private get-togethers. The image of Congressman David Wu laughing at you while his friends in Washington, D.C. applaud his ability to get around you will delight his friends, in Washington, D.C., for many a dinner party.

Congressman David Wu is fortunate. If you take a look at how the state’s democrat party gerrymandered the First Congressional District, you will note the care democrats took to make sure that Clatsop County and Tillamook Counties would not be conjoined. There would be too much representation of rural concerns. It’s much easier to include the Westside of Portland—as an MSA—in order to balance the rural needs of Oregon with the urban demands of Oregon.Before you go to Congressman David Wu’s Townhall Meeting on Thursday, here are a few words of caution, from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:



Sorry, that wasn’t the video I was looking for. The Speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives warned us that those who oppose representatives, like our own representative, Congressman David Wu; for failing to read the bills he votes in favour of, prior to voting for those bills, that we who think a man who represents 680-thousand other Oregonians and should read those bills, well…the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, believes that we who so disagree will show up with Swastikas and symbols like that.

So don’t show up Thursday, at the Seaside Public Library at four o’clock with your Swastikas. If we don’t self-identify and dress well, well, who knows. We might be Democrats. Or, school teachers. Or, union organizers. (Union organizers dress real nice. Very spiffy.)

Great advice, Speaker Pelosi.

I don’t know why Oregonians would be worried about the continued march toward socialism.



Oregon Avg. Local Rate 0.36%
Top State Rate (2011) 11.00%
Combined Top Rate 57.54%


Look at what's happening in Oregon!


We, in Oregon, will finally be Number One in something. The highest combined tax rate in the nation!


Woo hoo!

It remains beyond my ken to explain to the folks I love how Oregon has slipped so in its ability to perceive goodness and wrongness.


A writer from the Oregonian quotes socialist haven Lewis & Clark College econ prof Martin Hart-Landsberg as expecting good results from our resource rich state:

"’I don't see anything that suggests Oregon would be better placed to outperform the country,’ Hart-Landsberg says.”


When the Left goes south on you, you better open up your eyes.

I will share with you a rule of thumb I picked up on Oregon economics about twenty-five years ago: Oregon lags the national economy by about two years. And that observation was made when Oregon’s economy had greater diversity. The good kind. Like, you want some “diversification” in your portfolio.


Congressman David Wu is not a native Oregonian. Born in 1955, Congressman Wu didn’t move to Oregon until the late 1980’s, after dropping out of medical school and deciding to instead become an attorney.

Congressman Wu has built his congressional career by dealing with constituent concerns as “not being on my radar right now.”


Of course, if reading the bills in front of him isn’t on his “radar” right now, mebbe nothing will ever be on that screen.

But, being an Oregonian, mebbe nothing really makes sense to you.





It could be that Congressman Wu represents Oregon better than other Oregon congressmen simply because he wasn’t born here, wasn’t raised here, and really only lived here for a few years before moving back to Washington, D.C., where he hangs out with other really smart guys who aren’t from Oregon.

After all, we elected Ted Kulongoski, Debbie Boone and Betsy Johnson.

We do things differently in Oregon.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

You thought this was an anachronism, this statement by Patrick Henry. No doubt you have comfortably relied upon your citizenship within the world's freest country to give you confidence that the State would never be able to make a decision regarding your life or death.

Do you have a "right" to health care? No, I don't believe you have such a right. Is there anything that can be done to help the woman in the video below? Sure. I think there is. If any of you spend any time at all watching television, you know there are important campaigns to save kitties and puppies, the manatee, wetlands, and the orphans in countries you and I will never visit. So some people need help? Sure. I just believe--and think that the video below helps prove--that people are better off taking care of themselves, rather than relying upon the beneficence of the state to provide for them.

There are, after all, certain costs.

What is liberty? It is the essence of the who and what we are as humans. You may think my ideas are crazy, but they are my ideas. You may think you have better, smarter ideas than I. But all I want is to live my life according to my ideas. You may think you're better equipped, better educated, better informed, and that for my own good, I must live according the the better equipped, educated, informed ideas that you have. And, you can, if in a majority, impose those views upon me, relying upon the coercive power of the State to enforce your viewpoints upon me.

This is not Liberty. This is Tyranny.

Leftists want to intrude in ways unimagined mere years ago. They can do it smarter, better. They are the guidon carriers for Social Justice. I don't want Social Justice.

I want Liberty.