Then click here.
8 hours ago
Friday, August 21, 2009
Republicans Seek To Impose Ethical Standards
(New Republican Party logo courtesy of Rodger Thomas, who channels Jim Ignatowski.)
CLOSE THE CAPITOL’S REVOLVING DOOR IN 2010
House Republicans to Propose Ethics Bill during February Special Session
SALEM—House Republicans will introduce an ethics bill during the 2010 special session to set a “waiting period” on legislators before they can seek and obtain non-elected positions in the state’s executive branch. The bill would extend the current moratorium on private-sector lobbying to include legislators who are seeking management positions in state agencies.
“Oregonians should feel confident that legislators are not using their positions to obtain higher-paying jobs in state government,” said House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg). “If we are going to temporarily ban legislators from seeking certain positions in the private sector, then we should also temporarily ban them from seeking similar positions in the public sector.
“There’s a double-standard in current ethics law because legislators are allowed to immediately move to an agency and lobby their former colleagues on the agency’s behalf,” Rep. Hanna added. “With billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the current practice further erodes the public’s confidence in their state government.”
The proposal would require legislators to wait until the end of the next regular legislative session before they can seek and obtain work for state agencies. House Republicans say they would also consider adding a provision preventing legislators from using their new state positions to enhance their PERS benefits.
House Republicans say that average citizens and rank-and-file state employees are being shut out of employment opportunities in favor of sitting legislators who’ve had direct influence over an agency’s finances and policies.
“Legislators should have to compete with all other Oregonians for employment in the executive branch,” said Deputy Republican Leader Kevin Cameron (R-Salem). “A mandatory waiting period may be the only way we can assure a fair process for hiring people or promoting current employees within an agency.”
What Passes For Inquiry
I have recently come under attack for thinking.
Not just thinking, but thinking without any sign of the requisites necessary for having an opinion. I am Republican; therefore, I must not assume that anything that squirts through my pretty little head has any semblance of importance.
Let us compare and contrast.
I visited one of my favourite Leftist websites and found this.
One of the reasons I began blogging is due to my education. I am probably the only guy you know who ever read “Satanic Verses”. I’m probably the only guy you know who read C.G. Jung, John Barth, Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell.
I know a lot of people who refer to these writers. But rarely have I found that “these people” have actually read anything by these writers.
These are the writers that post-Modernists refer when referring to the seminal moments of the post-Modernist period. And yet, like most high school teachers, their contact with these writers is often reduced to a survey course in “Modern Intellectual Impulses”, or, “Important Modern Writers In America.”
It is the difference between having to read a poem of Margaret Atwood’s, and reading the poetry of Margaret Atwood. One is a dreary trudge through certain distaste. The other is a work of a monastic penance. I have paid my penance. I am due my voice.
This study, this training, this inquiry is the reason why I decided to not just “blog”, but blog on a steady basis. I worked—if reading miserable works of literature is to be considered working—shoulder to shoulder with the many gifted elitists. I gained an insight into the way these folks would put you into boxes of their own design. You are a worker bee, a yokel, or a sheeple. Their very hypotheses were riffed with contempt, but ensconced within the vocabulary of the intellectual; code words with which you were mocked and that reduced your opinions to inconsequence. (Really, have you read Margaret Atwood? And your ideas are inconsequential?)
If you’ve never read the poetry of W.B. Yeats, shame on you. One of the most stunning acts of love I ever experienced from my ex-wife was her gift to me of the Compete Works on one of my early birthdays in my marriage to her. My first act was to buy a plastic dust cover protector. It remains one of my prized possessions. (This simple comparison between Atwood and Yeats is one of the only such comparisons that you will ever trip across. And, it serves as homage to a woman that at one time I averred kinship. I am and will be grateful for this gift.)
There is a stunning difference between a poet like Yeats and the “poetess” known as Margaret Atwood. But if you’ve never read either, how could you know?
The history of ideas is rarely examined, but mostly taught. When I started blogging I took the time to include links to all of the source material that I thought about while writing. It is true that I now rarely link source material, with the thought that if I have tickled your curiosity, you are better off finding your own links on the intertubes than the links that I would be likely to provide. Unlike most teachers I’ve spent time with a lot of source material. So what I find interesting is beyond the comprehension of those involved in our public schools. A lot of my links approach esoterica. I read a great variety of books. You can’t simply read the same 8th Grade primer in Language for two, eight or twenty years and walk away with greater gifts. It is your curiosity that will set your bounds. And is unlikely, if you teach in a public school.
That Sarah Palin is gaining traction in the public psyche is proven by posts like this (NSFW). The calumny that is heaped upon her for her degree from U of I is one of the most contemptuous disgraces to which I can attest. What is it that marks U of I a second rate school? Is it their School of Music?
Or, is it more comfortable knowing that Idaho is one of the last remaining states that is able to perform well economically? What rubes. When will they “catch up” with the rest of us? Wouldn’t a better question be, “what do they know that we don’t?”
Maybe, they, in Idaho, will never catch up to us. I hope they don’t. The Gem State is a special place on the West Coast, and doubly special in the Northwest. Yep, they have folks in places called “universities” and “colleges” who read books. And not just Dick and Jane. They actually read Yeats. And Atwood.
In places like Cambridge and New Haven the temerity of us out West—struggling for survival amongst the Indians—to state that we are as well-educated as they, perhaps better educated, is blasphemy. But, it is a blasphemy of a religion of their own craft.
Do you need to be well read to have an opinion? Nope. Do you need to have formal training to determine the truth? Nope. Elitism doesn’t do anything more than provide a means for the Elitist to attempt a separation of himself from the constraints of common sense and logic. Being literate has its own rewards, as does the acquisition of formal training in a body of knowledge. But it isn’t essential in developing the tools necessary to derive an understanding of truth and logic. Those are human traits. I know a great many autodidacts who challenge my own experience. I’m sure there are some who exceed my experience. I’m not jealous of those in the terms of being diminished by their greater abilities. Instead, these are the people that I seek for their advice. It is a measure of my own humility that I recognize and respect those whose intellect or experience exceeds mine.
Think about this when you view the images that I’ve linked.
Think about the self-image of the artist/blogger who brought these images to life, to the web, to you.
Me?
I’m not jealous at all. Even though I’m limited to crudely crafted stick images of men and women, to produce these images seems such a tawdry waste of intellect and ability. (Imagine, being the proud parents of these artists.)
The tools of the Left include name calling and lying. Emphasize name calling and lying. Disagree with the Left and you are selfish, a tool of the corporations, prolly a baby-killer and militarist, and some other things too mundane to include here. Oh, shill for the insurance companies. I love being a shill. (Actually, I love being a minion. But who shall I minion for?)
Mainly I hate being lectured to by uneducated, unread people. People who never were able to master the math, read a body of work, or understand the corpus of a school of thought. Especially uneducated, unread Elitists. It seems to me that they are attempting to carry rotten sardines to Newcastle. At least coal would know its home.
Oh, and Margaret Atwood is a hack. That isn’t poetry. It’s limbic masturbation.
Not just thinking, but thinking without any sign of the requisites necessary for having an opinion. I am Republican; therefore, I must not assume that anything that squirts through my pretty little head has any semblance of importance.
Let us compare and contrast.
I visited one of my favourite Leftist websites and found this.
One of the reasons I began blogging is due to my education. I am probably the only guy you know who ever read “Satanic Verses”. I’m probably the only guy you know who read C.G. Jung, John Barth, Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell.
I know a lot of people who refer to these writers. But rarely have I found that “these people” have actually read anything by these writers.
These are the writers that post-Modernists refer when referring to the seminal moments of the post-Modernist period. And yet, like most high school teachers, their contact with these writers is often reduced to a survey course in “Modern Intellectual Impulses”, or, “Important Modern Writers In America.”
It is the difference between having to read a poem of Margaret Atwood’s, and reading the poetry of Margaret Atwood. One is a dreary trudge through certain distaste. The other is a work of a monastic penance. I have paid my penance. I am due my voice.
This study, this training, this inquiry is the reason why I decided to not just “blog”, but blog on a steady basis. I worked—if reading miserable works of literature is to be considered working—shoulder to shoulder with the many gifted elitists. I gained an insight into the way these folks would put you into boxes of their own design. You are a worker bee, a yokel, or a sheeple. Their very hypotheses were riffed with contempt, but ensconced within the vocabulary of the intellectual; code words with which you were mocked and that reduced your opinions to inconsequence. (Really, have you read Margaret Atwood? And your ideas are inconsequential?)
If you’ve never read the poetry of W.B. Yeats, shame on you. One of the most stunning acts of love I ever experienced from my ex-wife was her gift to me of the Compete Works on one of my early birthdays in my marriage to her. My first act was to buy a plastic dust cover protector. It remains one of my prized possessions. (This simple comparison between Atwood and Yeats is one of the only such comparisons that you will ever trip across. And, it serves as homage to a woman that at one time I averred kinship. I am and will be grateful for this gift.)
There is a stunning difference between a poet like Yeats and the “poetess” known as Margaret Atwood. But if you’ve never read either, how could you know?
The history of ideas is rarely examined, but mostly taught. When I started blogging I took the time to include links to all of the source material that I thought about while writing. It is true that I now rarely link source material, with the thought that if I have tickled your curiosity, you are better off finding your own links on the intertubes than the links that I would be likely to provide. Unlike most teachers I’ve spent time with a lot of source material. So what I find interesting is beyond the comprehension of those involved in our public schools. A lot of my links approach esoterica. I read a great variety of books. You can’t simply read the same 8th Grade primer in Language for two, eight or twenty years and walk away with greater gifts. It is your curiosity that will set your bounds. And is unlikely, if you teach in a public school.
That Sarah Palin is gaining traction in the public psyche is proven by posts like this (NSFW). The calumny that is heaped upon her for her degree from U of I is one of the most contemptuous disgraces to which I can attest. What is it that marks U of I a second rate school? Is it their School of Music?
Or, is it more comfortable knowing that Idaho is one of the last remaining states that is able to perform well economically? What rubes. When will they “catch up” with the rest of us? Wouldn’t a better question be, “what do they know that we don’t?”
Maybe, they, in Idaho, will never catch up to us. I hope they don’t. The Gem State is a special place on the West Coast, and doubly special in the Northwest. Yep, they have folks in places called “universities” and “colleges” who read books. And not just Dick and Jane. They actually read Yeats. And Atwood.
In places like Cambridge and New Haven the temerity of us out West—struggling for survival amongst the Indians—to state that we are as well-educated as they, perhaps better educated, is blasphemy. But, it is a blasphemy of a religion of their own craft.
Do you need to be well read to have an opinion? Nope. Do you need to have formal training to determine the truth? Nope. Elitism doesn’t do anything more than provide a means for the Elitist to attempt a separation of himself from the constraints of common sense and logic. Being literate has its own rewards, as does the acquisition of formal training in a body of knowledge. But it isn’t essential in developing the tools necessary to derive an understanding of truth and logic. Those are human traits. I know a great many autodidacts who challenge my own experience. I’m sure there are some who exceed my experience. I’m not jealous of those in the terms of being diminished by their greater abilities. Instead, these are the people that I seek for their advice. It is a measure of my own humility that I recognize and respect those whose intellect or experience exceeds mine.
Think about this when you view the images that I’ve linked.
Think about the self-image of the artist/blogger who brought these images to life, to the web, to you.
Me?
I’m not jealous at all. Even though I’m limited to crudely crafted stick images of men and women, to produce these images seems such a tawdry waste of intellect and ability. (Imagine, being the proud parents of these artists.)
The tools of the Left include name calling and lying. Emphasize name calling and lying. Disagree with the Left and you are selfish, a tool of the corporations, prolly a baby-killer and militarist, and some other things too mundane to include here. Oh, shill for the insurance companies. I love being a shill. (Actually, I love being a minion. But who shall I minion for?)
Mainly I hate being lectured to by uneducated, unread people. People who never were able to master the math, read a body of work, or understand the corpus of a school of thought. Especially uneducated, unread Elitists. It seems to me that they are attempting to carry rotten sardines to Newcastle. At least coal would know its home.
Oh, and Margaret Atwood is a hack. That isn’t poetry. It’s limbic masturbation.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
"To Never Knowingly Do Harm"
If you're a medical doctor in the United States and support Obama Care, I'd ask if you really meant it when you agreed to comport your practise of medicine to the Hippocratic Oath?
Just askin'.
Just askin'.
The Appearance of Actual Ideas
A recent visitor has shared his wit and reason with us. It seems that my pointing out that government run enterprises tend not to work very well is a form of simulation rather as a form of discussion.
"Of course OregonNut, you're not into a reasoned discussion based on facts, just a rather poor simulation of one. Clearly you don't know the difference from a quick review of your posts."
When dealing with the Left, it is important to remember that they have rules that they follow. Name calling is one of the first things they do. So, I try to remember the lessons of The Sermon On the Mount and usually remember that dismissing comments like this as reflecting more upon the source than upon me, I hold back the impulse to return the favour. When a conversation degrades into a name-calling session it is no longer reasonable to refer to it as a conversation.
Once labelled, it is easy to be dismissed. If you hear someone you admire calling the head of a successful business greedy or selfish, it becomes easy to dismiss the words of said business head. When you listen to the Left, ask yourself how long it takes for said Leftist to invoke any of their words of power; liar, corporation, profit, sustainability.
One of my rules is, when in a bar, don't discuss politics or economics with someone who never learned the fundamentals of politics or economics. I know that our public schools are indoctrinating our children into believing that their power comes from their opinions, but opinion makes for great dispute but terrible argument. Very few opinions can withstand exegetical analysis, which is frustrating for the holder of such a belief. They were taught over the course of twelve to sixteen years, or more, that their carefully crafted opinions were the most important things in the world. They received good grades from teachers and professors for holding these wonderful beliefs. And it is particularly egregious to the holder of a belief when that belief is debunked or disproved through simple argumentation, especially when that belief is a very, very, very strongly held belief. It is as if the measure of validity in any discussion is the degree to which one is willing to advance his cause in the face of falsifiability, with disregard to its falsifiability.
Now, as a result, the holder of any unproven or discredited belief becomes a martyr. As the idea burns at the stake, the transference of anthropomorphology becomes a moment of transcendence. No longer held by the bonds of reason and logic, this transcendence becomes in itself the goal of the holder of strongly held beliefs. If you attack my ideas, you attack me. While nothing is further from the truth. It is not my desire to attack the person holding a poorly formed idea or belief. It is my intention to attack that idea or belief.
When the Left makes--or loses--arguments, the cause is always the person who debunks. And if the principle debunker can be labelled, as liar, selfish, corporate shill, then the debunking itself is no longer operational. The Left can hold its ideas and goals, however great their merit, with impunity. Learn the tactics of the Left. Name calling as a primary form of speechifying.
So, enjoy the show. The first video is about greedy corporatists who are destroying the world and disregarding what is so simple to understand that even a child knows it. Without any training or expertise. This is what is known on the Left as the science view.
The second video is especially trenchant in view of the comments of the above referenced commenter.
" Of course OregonNut, you're not into a reasoned discussion based on facts, just a rather poor simulation of one."
The second video is amusing, since it attempt to represent a discussion based on facts, sans facts. Just look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. Fortunately, the signs are writ large. See if you can find the rather boorish references to liars and evil corporations. You can do it. Sure you can!
"Of course OregonNut, you're not into a reasoned discussion based on facts, just a rather poor simulation of one. Clearly you don't know the difference from a quick review of your posts."
When dealing with the Left, it is important to remember that they have rules that they follow. Name calling is one of the first things they do. So, I try to remember the lessons of The Sermon On the Mount and usually remember that dismissing comments like this as reflecting more upon the source than upon me, I hold back the impulse to return the favour. When a conversation degrades into a name-calling session it is no longer reasonable to refer to it as a conversation.
Once labelled, it is easy to be dismissed. If you hear someone you admire calling the head of a successful business greedy or selfish, it becomes easy to dismiss the words of said business head. When you listen to the Left, ask yourself how long it takes for said Leftist to invoke any of their words of power; liar, corporation, profit, sustainability.
One of my rules is, when in a bar, don't discuss politics or economics with someone who never learned the fundamentals of politics or economics. I know that our public schools are indoctrinating our children into believing that their power comes from their opinions, but opinion makes for great dispute but terrible argument. Very few opinions can withstand exegetical analysis, which is frustrating for the holder of such a belief. They were taught over the course of twelve to sixteen years, or more, that their carefully crafted opinions were the most important things in the world. They received good grades from teachers and professors for holding these wonderful beliefs. And it is particularly egregious to the holder of a belief when that belief is debunked or disproved through simple argumentation, especially when that belief is a very, very, very strongly held belief. It is as if the measure of validity in any discussion is the degree to which one is willing to advance his cause in the face of falsifiability, with disregard to its falsifiability.
Now, as a result, the holder of any unproven or discredited belief becomes a martyr. As the idea burns at the stake, the transference of anthropomorphology becomes a moment of transcendence. No longer held by the bonds of reason and logic, this transcendence becomes in itself the goal of the holder of strongly held beliefs. If you attack my ideas, you attack me. While nothing is further from the truth. It is not my desire to attack the person holding a poorly formed idea or belief. It is my intention to attack that idea or belief.
When the Left makes--or loses--arguments, the cause is always the person who debunks. And if the principle debunker can be labelled, as liar, selfish, corporate shill, then the debunking itself is no longer operational. The Left can hold its ideas and goals, however great their merit, with impunity. Learn the tactics of the Left. Name calling as a primary form of speechifying.
So, enjoy the show. The first video is about greedy corporatists who are destroying the world and disregarding what is so simple to understand that even a child knows it. Without any training or expertise. This is what is known on the Left as the science view.
The second video is especially trenchant in view of the comments of the above referenced commenter.
" Of course OregonNut, you're not into a reasoned discussion based on facts, just a rather poor simulation of one."
The second video is amusing, since it attempt to represent a discussion based on facts, sans facts. Just look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. Fortunately, the signs are writ large. See if you can find the rather boorish references to liars and evil corporations. You can do it. Sure you can!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A Model For Single-Payer Health Care
I've work to do and didn't intend to post today.
But I saw this story (thanks to Orbusmax) and was compelled.
AMTRAK is a model of federal success. And the State of Oregon, rather than using $35-million in "found" funds on reducing our state's burden on small business owners, is spending the money to buy rail cars.
You want a federalised health care system? Just take a look at how well AMTRAK runs, this, a criticism from those who love trains.
But I saw this story (thanks to Orbusmax) and was compelled.
AMTRAK is a model of federal success. And the State of Oregon, rather than using $35-million in "found" funds on reducing our state's burden on small business owners, is spending the money to buy rail cars.
You want a federalised health care system? Just take a look at how well AMTRAK runs, this, a criticism from those who love trains.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Teh Crazy Must Be Contagious
Before you hit the video below I would like to remind you that argumentation on the Left is never about the substance of an idea or argument. The Left has been successful over the years by relying upon certain constructions that they've advanced and maintained. Things like "science" and being smart. If you find a Republican who believes that Man Walked With The Dinosaurs, then you're able to say, see? All Republicans believe that Man Walked With The Dinosauars. Likewise, if you find a Republican who went to a church where the pastor or congregants had fundamentalist beliefs, then that (or all) Republican(s) is(are) obviously fundamentalist, too. You know...snake handling, talking in tongues, that sort of thing.
It's much smarter to be a Democrat, where things like inspiration and faith only apply when it comes to their own ideas. Non-religious beliefs, like Man Made Global Warming and a foetus isn't a life, it's just tissue. (Gesundheit.) That governments are better allocators of scarce resources than are markets.
The important thing for a Leftist is to create a label, apply the label and then the argument isn't any longer about ideas or truth, but about the label. Now you can watch the video below and ask yourself, what is the goal of Matthew Littman? What is it that Mr. Littman has tasked for himself going into this interview?
I was struck by the purity of this Leftist's attack on Governor Palin. What did he say? "In a few year's she's going to be dating Flava-Flav"? At the end of my post "Ownership" I gave you a link for a quick test on common fallacies. Fallacies are those things that people use in order to further arguments, but really aren't useful. They aren't useful because they either try to divert attention away from an argument or criticism, or they aren't useful because they attempt to claim authority that simply can't be claimed. What's another word for fallacy? Hmm. I think the word that you and I use on a daily basis, when someone attempts to deliberately deceive you is liar. Ne pravda li?
Is Matthew Littman a liar? That prompted a search for Matthew Littman and his words. I found this statement by Mr. Littman:
"When I got back to my hotel, after the caucuses had culminated, a Barack supporter accosted me in the lobby of the Marriott to tell me she had been to 18 states for Barack, as a volunteer. She said she thought he had an almost mystical appeal, and then she asked, 'Do you think I'm crazy?' I said, 'Yes,' gave her the cell phone number of my office mate Mitchell, and raced to the elevator."
Teh Crazy must be contagious.
It's much smarter to be a Democrat, where things like inspiration and faith only apply when it comes to their own ideas. Non-religious beliefs, like Man Made Global Warming and a foetus isn't a life, it's just tissue. (Gesundheit.) That governments are better allocators of scarce resources than are markets.
The important thing for a Leftist is to create a label, apply the label and then the argument isn't any longer about ideas or truth, but about the label. Now you can watch the video below and ask yourself, what is the goal of Matthew Littman? What is it that Mr. Littman has tasked for himself going into this interview?
I was struck by the purity of this Leftist's attack on Governor Palin. What did he say? "In a few year's she's going to be dating Flava-Flav"? At the end of my post "Ownership" I gave you a link for a quick test on common fallacies. Fallacies are those things that people use in order to further arguments, but really aren't useful. They aren't useful because they either try to divert attention away from an argument or criticism, or they aren't useful because they attempt to claim authority that simply can't be claimed. What's another word for fallacy? Hmm. I think the word that you and I use on a daily basis, when someone attempts to deliberately deceive you is liar. Ne pravda li?
Is Matthew Littman a liar? That prompted a search for Matthew Littman and his words. I found this statement by Mr. Littman:
"When I got back to my hotel, after the caucuses had culminated, a Barack supporter accosted me in the lobby of the Marriott to tell me she had been to 18 states for Barack, as a volunteer. She said she thought he had an almost mystical appeal, and then she asked, 'Do you think I'm crazy?' I said, 'Yes,' gave her the cell phone number of my office mate Mitchell, and raced to the elevator."
Teh Crazy must be contagious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
