:: KipperCat :: =^. .^=

:: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

It isn't enought that Obama wants to be the nation's banker, automaker, father figure and fearless leader that turns the US into the largest socialist-totalitarian state since termites were discovered. Now he wants to air condition the world.

:: -- JRH 4/08/2009 11:39:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Sunday, March 29, 2009 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

Playing by the rules

What do DPD Officer Robert Powell and the financial markets have in common? A stunning lack of personal responsibility and common sense.

Rather than rely on their own common sense of decency and right and wrong, they rely exclusively on rules made by others to justify their actions. It is not wrong for them to do this, It is what we as a society have been emphasizing for at least the last half century.

In a story in today's Dallas Morning News, these two paragraph at the end stand out:

When questioned by commanders facing increasing public outrage, Powell, who has been a Dallas officer for three years, told his superiors he felt he did nothing wrong in the Moats traffic stop.

According to several Dallas police officers, many young officers share Powell's assessment of the incident. Seasoned officers who have seen the video, including most members of the command staff, said they were aghast and embarrassed at Powell's conduct.

Clearly, the younger generation of cops see Powell's actions justified by both the letter of the law and their job description. Their superiors and veteran cops see it a bit differently. Who is right? Well, I kmow that I would rather encounter one of the veterans.

Most of us think that bankers making subprime housing loans used questionable judgement (well, I'm sure the loan applicants didn't see it that way) but the bankers were just following the rules and guidelines in force at that time. Still, if it were my money at risk, I would rather see common sense rule the day.

In any game, the players have to follow the rules, but when the rules change over time, sometimes the change takes place before the rulebook is reprinted, When different players are unwittingly playing by different sets of rules, keeping score can be the least of their worries and survival becomes the name of the game.

:: -- JRH 3/29/2009 10:47:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

What we don't know about what we know

The argument between evolutionists and creationists continues and will for some time. Whenever I read the arguments of each side I am astounded and frustrated by how they always seem to be arguing past each other without even trying to understand what the other is saying.

As I see it, evolution is still an unproven theory. There is a lot of support for the theory in the fossil record but the same record also gives rise to questions evolution theory fails to address. Creationists pounce on this as disproving the theory. All it really does is fail to prove it and raise unanswered questions. Until those questions are answered, the theory is neither proved or disproved.

Creationists argue that the world and all that is in it was created at once (usually 8000-10,000 years ago). in spite of the fossil record and other evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Evolutionists claim this disporves creationism, Not so. Creation theory rpostulates an omnipotent creator. Such a creator could create anything he desired--including the fossil record and astronomical evidense of age. Why? To create a requirement of faith in the face of doubt.

Which side is right? I don't know yet, but as Donald Rumsfeld once said:

As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, We know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

One thing I know is that as human beings, we will always assume that what we know we know will not be disproved by what we know we don't know, which means we don't know we don't know everything about what we do know.

And if you know what I just said, you know what I'm talking about.

:: -- JRH 3/25/2009 12:52:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: posted by JRH ::

Do we own the government - or does the government own us?

In Cheryl Hall's column, "Do we own AIG - or does AIG own us", in today's Dallas Morning News, at the end she writes:

Let's face it. We are experiencing the impotency that shareholder rights enthusiasts such as Monks have railed against for years.

Individual shareholders can't outmuscle management. And the vast majority of large institutional investors are too lazy, too uncaring and/or too financially conflicted to keep management in check.

"The result is a class of zombie owners who mostly have no idea what they own and largely don't care as long as the stock price continues its ascent," he says. "Active ownership serves as a counterweight to the natural tendency of CEOs and other high-ranking executives to collude in their own self-interests."

Now, he says, it's time for the federal government to come out of its stupor.

That sounds very much like the relationship of the average voter to the US government:

Individual voters can't outmuscle congress. The major campaign contributors care only about their own special interests and the mainstream media are either too lazy, uncaring or too ideologically conflicted to engage in the kind of objective journalism that both informs the public and helps keep the government in check.

The result is a class of zombie voters who mostly have no real idea who they are voting for and largely don't care as long as the pork rolls in. An active electorate serves as a counterweight to the natural tendency of congressmen, bureaucrats, and lobbyists to collude in their own self-interests.

Perhaps it's time for the American voter to come out of their stupor.

And no, voting for Obama was part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Labels: Politics

:: -- JRH 3/25/2009 10:43:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: posted by JRH ::

Restored rights for felons?

In a post over on Alphecca, among the comments is one by AndyA. suggesting that felons who commited non-violent felonies such as political corruption or financial mismanagement should have their rights restored (so they can vote and own guns among other things). A simple reason comes to mind: The loss of rights is one of the consequences of committing a felony. It is one of the things that sets felonies apart from misdemeanors. In this era of plea bargaining, probation and parole, it is often the only thing.

Labels: Civil Rights, gun control

:: -- JRH 3/25/2009 10:19:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

The Death of Journalism

There is a new movie out about the media's love affair with Obama. It is available at www.howobamagotelected.com. The video is $19.95, but at least check out the trailer.

Labels: Media, Politics

:: -- JRH 3/24/2009 12:33:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: posted by JRH ::

Tomorrow Belongs to Who?

I woke up the other day with a tune from "Cabaret" running through my head: Tomorrow belongs to me". You know the one. Starts out as an ode to springtime, promise and hope and ends as a Nazi marching song with the verse:

O' Fatherland, Fatherland show us the sign,
Your children have waited to see.
The morning will come when the world is mine,
Tomorrow belongs to me

I wondered why that tune was in my head and then I realized I was hearing different words:

And now, a new Leader has given the word,
The world has been wanting to hear,
"We are the change we've been waiting for"
Tomorrow, it seems, is here.

And then I knew why:

A charismatic speaker who attracts throngs of dedicated, even fanatical followers that go away from his speeches enthralled, excited and motivated to follow wherever he leads but not a damn one of them has a clue what he was really talking about doing or how he planned to do it.

The identification of a prosperous segment of society as greedy profiteers and the cause of all of the nations (or even the world's) ills -- ills to be cured by the confiscation and redistribution of the wealth of that segment.

A plan for national recovery and progress that appears to be based on the nationalization of major industries and financial institutions along with the harnessing of individuals into collective actions to achieve goals defined by the government. Individuals must set aside their personal goals as pursuit of personal goals are greedy and selfish (unless the personal goal involves overcoming a perceived hardship inflicted by the greedy profiteers. Then it becomes a national duty to help). H.R 1388, recently passed by the house includes a plan to set up a "volunteer corp" and consider a mandatory service requirement (read more commentary here). It also refers to uniforms to be worn by volunteers and a "National Civilian Security Force". Hmm...will the shirts be brown or black, I wonder?

All of us being told to get out of the way and get in line or get run over...or rounded up. When voluntary (i.e. unpaid) service is mandatory, that used to be called slavery.

I expect a new energy policy that supports railroads for mass transit. I'd think about investing in cattle car futures but I'll probably be riding in one soon enough. Things move faster these days. A lot has changed in 75 years. I wonder what a 21st century Kristallnacht looks like? Do they still make Zyklon B?

Labels: Civil Rights, Politics

:: -- JRH 3/24/2009 01:05:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Monday, March 23, 2009 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

Just what we need...

First, read this: Homeland Security plans for violence on US border

Stronger law enforcement? We've needed that for a long time. Just enforcing existing immigration laws would go a long way. Stronger laws would be even better.

Tighter gun control? If by "gun control" they mean "being able to hit the target", I'm all for it. If it means more vlolations of the 2nd Amendment, NOT!!!

Mexico has a problem with drugs and violence and somehow the solution is to infringe on the Constitutional rights s of US citizens? I don't think so. Mexico thinks it has a problem with guns coming in illegally from the US? Well guess what? The US has a problem with Mexicans coming in illegally from Mexico. We can certainly do something about the guns going south by effectively enforcing existing laws. I suggest we do that, then we can use the guns to stop the illegals going the other way.

Labels: drug wars, gun control, immigration, Mexico

:: -- JRH 3/23/2009 10:22:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Monday, June 04, 2007 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

We don't know where it starts, so where it ends gets easier

Ft. Worth, Texas: Police find the body of a newborn infant along the shore of Eagle Mountain Lake. They are looking for the mother and have asked the public to report anyone who may have recently given birth but has no child.

Pompano Beach, Florida: An 18 year old girl from Iowa gives birth in a hotel bathroom and tosses the baby in a trash chute where it falls 7 stories to its death.

These are not isolated incidents and they are the first shuch stories to be reported. They are becoming more common with each passing day. Such incidents indicate a growing disregard for the value of a human life that is the best argument I have seen against legalized abortion.

Since the passage of Roe v Wade, the argument as to when life begins has been continuous. But the lack of a clear answer has not stopped abortion proponents from pushing the limit as far as possible. Second trimester, third trimester, "partial birth" abortions make it clear that where life begins is not a concern. Is it any wonder that some mothers-to-be see nothing wrong with a "post-partum" abortion?

Labels: abortion

:: -- JRH 6/04/2007 04:43:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

What Do We Mean by "Marriage"?

I was hoping that Tuesday's vote would allow Texans to demonstrate an intelligent understanding of the marriage issue. But we, as a state and as a nation, still don't seem to understand just what marriage is or should be.

Marriage in the US is not something that can rightfully be defined by law. Marriage, as practiced in the US, derives mainly from western European cultures in which church and state were inextricably linked. Rites and rules of the church had legal standing and the force of law (not that much different from some Islamic countries today). Marriage is such a religious rite with legal standing.

With the ratification of the 1st amendment, the US severed the connection between church and state but just what does that mean? As to marriage, it means marriage still has the status of a religious rite with legal standing, but it must also mean that the legal standing be separated from the religious rite and become a civil union created by law.

Churches may define marriage however they like and may withhold the rite from whomever they see fit. This is, under the 1st amendment, outside of the control of government. Likewise, government may recognize that the religious marriage rite conveys legal protections, but that rite should not be, and under the 1st amendment, cannot be, the only means of conveying such legal protections.

For this reason, marriage and civil unions have long existed separately even though both are called "marriage".

A marriage performed by a magistrate is not a religious rite, it is a civil act which establishes and conveys legal protections. These legal protections are the same as those recognized by law and custom as being created by the religious rite of marriage, but we make a big mistake in calling the civil ceremony a marriage. It is a civil union, and as such, it must apply to all citizens equally as all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a rite of the church. Civil unions are created and recognized by law. Under the 1st amendment, civil law cannot define a rite of the church, and a rite of the church cannot have the force of law. But the law can accept a rite of the church as having a legally defined standing and has done so many times. In the case of marriage, a license must be obtained from the state and signed by an authorized official (minister, justice of the peace, etc.) in order to have legal standing. So a marriage can create a civil union, but a civil union cannot create a marriage regardless of what we have been calling it.

Just what legal protections may exist in a civil union is a legislative issue. Perhaps since two people of opposite sex are required to create a child, a state may legislate that only opposite sex couples may adopt children. Or civil unions could be recognized by federal and/or state law for purely economic, non-sexual purposes.

However civil unions are defined, any law or state constitution that denies the legal status of civil union on the basis of a religious definition of marriage is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. And any law or state constitution that denies a civil union to any adult on the basis of race, sex or religious affiliation is violation of the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.

I have no problem with churches defining marriage. Any minister who does not want to perform a same-sex marriage because it violates his/her religious beliefs may refuse. I do have a problem with anyone imposing these or any other religious beliefs on others in ways that clearly deny equal protection of the law to all citizens.

:: -- JRH 11/09/2005 07:15:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...