Q2600

Why Argument from Authority is Invalid

2011-02-04T23:32:00.004-06:00

On February 2nd, renowned physicist Michio Kaku (I have several of his books) appeared on the CBS morning show to discuss the relationship of the recent snowstorms to Global Warming.

Dr. Kaku's argument (basically) was that warmer air caused greater evaporation in the Gulf of Mexico, which increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere--thus leading to greater snowfalls. However, water has a very interesting property: it is an incredible heat sink. The ability of water to absorb heat energy is why it the coolant used not only by your own body, but by nuclear reactors; and why you will die of hypothermia much faster in cold water than in air of the same temperature.

It takes a significant amount of thermal energy to cause one molecule of water to break loose of surrounding molecules--to "evaporate" from liquid to gas. This heat must be given up to return to a liquid state, and even more energy must be lost to become a solid--the ice crystals we call snow.

So, if water is evaporating from the Gulf of Mexico and traveling here to become precipitation, it has to give up all of that energy to go from water vapor to snow. The new snow-heavy winters in Missouri should be significantly milder (with the introduction of all this thermal energy handily carried in from down south), than the long history of previous, nearly snow-less winters. Sorry, but I can easily remember winters in Missouri where the temperature rarely dipped below freezing, let alone -18 degrees F.

Furthermore, these sorts of heavy snows are not historically unknown; they are simply associated with a period of history which gets ignored by the Global Warming Crowd. The Pilgrims, who immigrated to North America during the end of the Little Ice Age over two hundred years ago, would easily recognize snowstorms like what we are currently experiencing. Washington's troops experienced frostbite and hypothermia fighting in the Maunder Minimum with snowfalls much more similar to what we are experiencing today, yet conditions in the Gulf were certainly not as warm as they are today--so the increased snowfall couldn't have been blamed on increased Pacific evaporation.

My Paper in a Nutshell...

2011-02-03T01:12:00.002-06:00

Some time ago, I was unfortunate enough to read Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, a research paper from the University of California, Berkeley, in which a group of liberal professors congratulate themselves on how cool liberals are and how rotten conservatives, while demonstrating absolutely no understanding of the usage of the terms (Adolph Hitler, for instance, is listed as a conservative).

For the capstone project of my BS degree program, I had to write a full APA-style research paper combining two disciplines. In my case, the two topics chosen were science and politics. I saw this as a wonderful chance to do a sort of rebuttal to John Jost's paper, but I wanted to make very certain that I did not write the same sort of paper--that is, I have no problem starting out with a biased hypothesis, but I took every effort to make certain that my bias did not influence my research or my interpretations.

To begin with, I identified a number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic of Global Warming legislation. Due to the limitations of a college research paper, I had a very small sample, but I discuss that in the paper. My next step was to establish a set of specific criteria by which papers could be identified as "Strongly Socialist" (think Communist), "Socialist," "Not Socialist," and "Anti-Socialist." I then established criteria to divide the papers in each of those categories as "rational," "non-rational," and "irrational."

What I found--as I expected--was that there was an overwhelming majority of pro-Socialist papers in this field (only one anti-socialist paper was identified). Second, there was a 100% correlation between anti-socialist papers and rational papers (one of each--the same paper). None of the socialist papers were rational, and the more strongly socialist they were, the more irrational they became.

Of course, this isn't just an indictment of people who write about Global Warming legislation--it's also an indictment of the peer-review process itself, and of the academic community in general.

The High Road

2010-11-27T20:33:00.002-06:00

So, the Libertarian Party has been making a stink on Facebook about what a terrible blow for personal liberty it is that California didn't legalize marijuana this time around. This is one of the several reasons that, although I describe myself as a libertarian, I will never associate myself with the Libertarian Party.
While I don't have a philosophical issue with people doing whatever they want to their own bodies, marijuana can affect more people than those who actually use it.

But let's put aside the societal problems. Let's imagine that I *shudder* move to California--and the way our country has been going since 2006, forced relocation probably wasn't far off in the agenda. Why would I vote to legalize a whole new toxin for people to put into their systems, when I HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL EXPENSES?

Seriously; it was bad enough when I was being forced to buy a house for every deadbeat in the country. Now that the Obama administration has destroyed the health insurance industry, only to replace it with a government-regulated medical coverage industry, expenses are skyrocketing and we're all legally obligated to make those payments. Give me a free market economy, where one can buy a true insurance policy (or choose not to), and I'll be open to toxic recreation.

The Rationality of Atheism

2010-11-21T02:13:00.002-06:00

Talk of bringing atheism into a religious discussion forum brought up the position that atheism "would be the voice of reason waiting to hear what you believe and why." Disregarding the fact that superiority complexes seldom provide the voice of reason, let us examine some points:

In the presence of positive evidence, the reasonable course of action is to accept the evidence. Skepticism is healthy; denial is not. Also note that not all evidence is empirical.

In the absence of positive evidence, the reasonable positi...on is not atheism, but agnosticism. Atheism is a positive statement ("there is no God") which cannot rationally be based on no evidence.

Only negative evidence would provide a rational framework for atheism, and negative evidence cannot exist.

To examine this point on a more personal level, let us consider the case of the mathematical-dyslexic in the modern technological world. Constantly surrounded by people who tell him that mathematics provide the underlying basis for everything from skyscrapers to cellular telephones to cellular mitosis, he would nevertheless be unable to render anything beyond meaningless strings of symbols from any mathematical formula.

Since no evidence could be presented to our mathematical-dyslexic for empirical analysis, would it truly be reasonable for him to reject all non-empirical evidence (such as witness testimony from engineers) and claim that mathematics could not possibly exist? Or worse, to group with other mathematical-dyslexics and write books about how people who believe in mathematics were delusional; that mathematics was merely a superstition which only led to evil?

Ethics and Global Climate Change: A Rebuttal

2010-10-28T13:26:00.006-05:00

As I mentioned on Facebook, my race to get this to my professor in time for drill weekend led me to fudge some page numbers in the citations. I've never had the time since to adequately fix them, so I've simply removed the offending citations. The remainder of my paper is below:

Stephen Gardiner, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”
A Rebuttal

Jason C. Diederich
Philosophy 401
Professor Ho
01 October 2010

A Rebuttal to Stephen Gardiner’s “Ethics and Global Climate Change”

Should wealthier nations pay more than poorer nations in addressing the cost of global climate change? Stephen Gardiner believes that they should. Gardiner makes essentially two arguments in support of this view, one scientific (to demonstrate that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions constitute a significant ecological threat) and one economic (to prove that it is just that wealthier nations pay for “adaptation” to climate change). This paper will demonstrate that the first argument is without value, and that the second is not an ethical position, but the motivating agenda behind Gardiner’s essay.

In making his “scientific” argument, Gardiner spends much time on two particular topics: First, he touts the IPCC’s use of computer models to demonstrate the potential for climate change devastation (Gardiner, 365-367). It should be noted that these models have been thoroughly debunked; these are the same models which commercial meteorologists use, obviously barely adequate to predict the weather five days in advance, let alone five centuries. He then spends a lot of time “discrediting” skeptic’s claims of scientific uncertainty in the realm of climatology—of course, this is a straw man to put opponents on the defensive; there is ample evidence to support a rebuttal of the IPCC reports without resorting to mere “scientific uncertainty.” Since these two claims are without merit, they will be dismissed in favor of treating actual claims of the IPCC quoted by Gardiner.

1. “The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 C.”

It has been demonstrated that the data utilized by the IPCC in creating this figure is highly corrupted (McKitrick, 8). This figure was arrived at using only the thermometers in the Automated Surface Observation System—all of which are on land, and almost all of which are centered around cities. Cities being made of concrete and steel, and full of large mammals and internal combustion engines, this produces an overwhelming heat-trap effect, even if we allow for the probability of nearby heat and light sources for the convenience of temperature-readers. The IPCC completely ignores the satellite temperature record in their reports, even though it has proven (in contrast to the ASOS) to be both complete and perfectly accurate—because the satellite data does not support global warming. It should also be noted that subsequent temperature data in a 2008 study has shown temperature dropping at the rate of approximately 1° C/century from 2001-2008 (Monckton, 6). Along those lines, the IPCC (and Gardiner) relies almost entirely upon the production of carbon dioxide in their estimates of global warming impact—yet carbon dioxide comprises less than .003 of the atmosphere, and its effect on radiative absorption is negligible (Kiehl, 13).

2. “Globally, it is very likely that the 1990’s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861.”

The above statement is entirely fraudulent. Subsequent independent investigation into NASA databases discovered that the 1930’s was actually the warmest decade on record (despite human-caused CO2 emissions still being marginal), with several record high temperatures in the U.S. which remain unbroken (McIntyre). It should also be noted that the global temperature fell ≈ .1° C from 1940-1970, despite significant increases in carbon dioxide levels and output (Sussman, 55).

3. “The increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century in the past 1,000 years.”

The original graph published by the IPCC on this topic shows that temperatures were significantly warmer 500 years ago than they are today, and that current warming is consistent with the trend observable in the transition into the Medieval Warm Period (≈1000-1400 AD), then Maunder Minimum (≈1400-1900 AD) and back out. Note that Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” in the third IPCC report actually deletes those natural periods of significant temperature fluctuation in order to make the current trend (measured without benefit of satellite data) appear unprecedented.

Economically, Gardiner’s entire argument can be summed up in a single-sentence quotation:
“The third proposal I wish to consider offers a different justification for departing from the per capita principle: namely, that such a departure might maximally (or at least disproportionately) benefit the least well-off.” (Gardiner, 378)

The astute reader will notice that Gardiner has just announced that it is okay for developing countries to continue to increase carbon dioxide production, but that wealthy countries must reduce carbon dioxide production. Why would this be okay if carbon dioxide has such a potentially destructive effect? The statement “maximally benefit the least well-off” is the key: it is almost a direct quote from John Rawls’ collectivist work, Political Liberalism (Rawls, 60). Note that if it is acceptable for some groups to increase their carbon dioxide output, carbon dioxide output can’t be the real problem Gardiner is trying to solve. Gardiner’s true issue is economic: he wants to punish developed countries (inevitably the most free) and force them to subsidize the less-developed countries (usually the most totalitarian). He is using global warming to sell Marxist economics, with “gradual adaptation” to make it easier to swallow (Gardiner, 372).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Gardiner’s paper is his discussion of a “right to subsistence emissions.” By “emissions,” as previously noted, Gardiner intends “carbon dioxide emissions”—and we, as a species, inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The author has no doubt that the controversy surrounding climate change will continue for as long as there are carbon credits to be sold—but one must ponder the sentiments of a man who considers humanity’s right to exhale to be a debatable point.

References

Gardiner, Stephen. (2004) “Ethics and Global Climate Change” In Morton E. Winston & Ralph Edelbach (Eds) Society, Ethics and Technology (pp. 317-329) Belmont, California: Cengage Publishers

Kiehl, J., & Trenberth, K. E. (1997). Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from CiteSeerX: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.168.831.

McIntyre, S. (2007). A New Leaderboard at the U. S. Open. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/.

McKitrick, R. R., and P. J. Michaels (2007), Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465.

Monckton, C., of Brenchley. (2008). Temperature Change and CO2 Change: A Scientific Briefing. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from Science and Public Policy: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf .

Rawles, J. (1971). Political Liberalism. Chinchester, West Sussex, New York: Columbia University Press.

Sussman, B. (2010). Climategate. Washington, D.C.: WorldNetDaily.

"It's Just My Scientist Against Your Scientist"

2010-10-28T13:05:00.009-05:00

In a recent discussion on the topic of abortion, I linked to a webpage from Princeton illustrating that, scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. The response to this was, "Well, I can pull up scientists who say just the opposite, so you're really just playing 'It's My Scientist Against Your Scientist."

My response: Go ahead--I triple-dog dare you.

No post has been forthcoming.

The majority of the online pro-abortion opinion against me is that I am somehow seeking to subvert a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body (and I have been told in no uncertain terms that this means I cannot call myself a libertarian!). However, it should be noted that it is not the woman's body which is being aborted; an abortion is the killing of the unborn child, with the woman's body simply an obstacle which must be bypassed.

For those abortion proponents who wish to, there is a related argument you can make to defend a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes: you should oppose research and public service announcements regarding Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. After all, if you already believe that a fetus has no right to life, then it certainly has no claim at all to good health, and ingesting alcohol is (unlike an abortion surgery) something which the expectant mother really does do to her own body--the fetus is only indirectly affected.

Second Philosophy of Technology Essay

2010-08-30T19:43:00.000-05:00

I decided to truly challenge myself with this writing assignment and find the most wrong-headed concept it this essay. It was tough competition: I could easily have gone with his personification of machines (that unconscious lumps of metal have “points-of-view” and “function as virtual members of society”), or the closely related confusion he has between people being lazy in their use of technology and the idea that an inanimate lump has somehow “mastered” them. I might have focused on the UTOPIA project, the closed-circuit of which seems the most perfect plan for destroying human advancement ever created. However, I have elected step back a bit and discuss the entire concept of “democratizing”—that is, politicizing—science and technology.

Mr. Winner’s argument in proposing the politicization of science and technology seems rational and straightforward: technology affects everyone, therefore, everyone should have a say in what technologies are created. It seems clear. It seems fair.

Of course, Mr. Winner’s arguments are based in the context of a rather stunning number of logical errors and fallacies. First, there is the aforementioned pathetic fallacy; Mr. Winner assigns human attributes to inanimate objects (“does a computer in the workplace function as a servant, slave, controller, guard, etc.?”) (“They can be seen as ‘forms of life’”). He also commits the fallacy of faulty causation: he believes that technologies change society (“What matters is that a whole new kind of society was created.”). He makes the error of believing that technological innovation can be controlled (“No innovation without representation.”), and the dependant error, the culmination and “purpose” of his essay, that such control would somehow be a means of preserving “human liberty and dignity.”

If a teacher used a computer to grade tests, Mr. Winner would not acknowledge the teachers’ use of technology to free himself of a repetitive task, or his greater responsibility to discuss the test with his students. Instead, Mr. Winner would whine that the computer now ran the classroom, with the teacher subservient. The truth is that technologies don’t change societies; societies change—they always have and always will. If new technologies are present, they will be incorporated into that change; but change is inevitable, regardless of technology. Technological innovation cannot be controlled—even in the most perfect vision of Mr. Winner’s anti-scientific fantasy, somebody somewhere will eventually have a new idea of how to do something. The idea that attempting to prevent people from coming up with new ideas will somehow preserve “human freedom and dignity” is ludicrous once it’s clearly examined; even if it were possible, by nay-saying one technology “democratically,” you are almost certainly passing up later insights which will lead to much better technologies.

There is a fairly obvious connection between all of these essays: not matter how they may couch their language to pretend otherwise, they are all ultimately anti-scientific. Saying that we “must create a new science” really means that science must be abandoned. A philosophically-inclined reader will find that this common anti-science is based in the school of post-modernism, in which “feeling” is given primacy to logic. It doesn’t matter that if Mr. Winner’s “three guiding maxims” were retroactively applied to human history, we would all be living at the mercy of the elements to ripe old age of maybe 40; it feels good for Mr. Winner to imagine that we can “take control” and force the world to conform to our fantasies. It doesn’t matter that sectional sofa cushions are popular because they’re easier to clean beneath; it feels good for Mr. Sclove to imagine that it’s some Western anti-Communist plot (much like eating utensils that only feed one mouth at a time—I shudder to imagine the alternative). It doesn’t matter that phrases like “male machines rather than female fabrics” are the utterest gibberish; it feels good for Ms. Wajcman to imagine that she has enlightened herself to some ages-old conspiracy to control women.

Will Mr. Winner’s essay have any practical influence on my use of technology? Absolutely not. Is there an important call to action to be found? Absolutely—in the entire selection of essays. Post-modern “thought” (and I use those two terms together in the loosest of arrangements) is a cancer which has metastasized throughout academia, the news media and the political sphere. The longer it is allowed to grow, the worse our condition will become. The only antidote is logic, which I will both introduce and encourage it at every opportunity.

Thoughts on Burn a Koran Day and Libertarianism

2010-08-30T16:35:00.004-05:00

Recently on Facebook, I was made aware of a group which will be hosting "Burn a Koran Day" on September 11, 2010. Many people on Facebook who happily refer to themselves as Libertarians (or Conservatives, which in America should be practically identical) were shocked and outraged that I refused to condemn this group. Angry statements were made ranging from calling me a Christian hatemonger, to a hater of homosexuals (?) to my personal favorite, "burning Korans will get American soldiers killed in Iraq!"

Leaving aside the incredible pettiness and selfishness of using the lives of people who have signed contracts to put themselves in harm's way to protect your freedom as some sort of moral leverage, and the fact that I won't be PARTICIPATING in the event, let us consider some points of libertarianism in relationship to the upcoming event.

1) If you do not recognize the sanctity of private property, you are not a libertarian. That is, I can go to the bookstore and buy a copy of Q'ran just to burn it. It is mine; I own it and may dispose of it how I please--including destruction and desecration.

2) If you believe that people must be prevented from taking any action which might offend someone, you are not a libertarian. You have no right not to be offended. In point of fact, being offended by something is your own choice. I could choose to be offended by eating ice cream; that doesn't give me the authority to close down the companies that make it.

3) If you believe that people aren't responsible for their own actions, you are not a libertarian. Men don't rape women because of what the women were wearing. Muslims don't bomb synagogues full of children on High Holy Day because some Americans burned Q'rans. Human beings are free-willed organisms, and we take those actions we choose to take.

4) If you get angry at people because they disagree with you, you are not a libertarian. You cannot both believe in personal liberty and not allow difference of opinion. It is absurd.

5) If you respect the ideology of a group that uses violence to coerce people into obeying them, you are not a libertarian. If you want to object to something, object to the destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslims and the subsequent attempt to build a mosque in the crater. Object to the beheading of Daniel Pearl and countless others by Muslims to terrify people into obedience. Don't object to the people who are making it clear that America is still a free country.

Finally, just to highlight the depth of ignorance people have displayed on this topic, it is highly unlikely that the group in Florida will actually burn any Q'rans. You see, Islam does not recognize a translation of a Q'ran as anything but a book--it isn't really the Q'ran. Translations can be had for $20.00 at the bookstore; real Q'rans will cost over a hundred dollars. Do the math.

Philosophy of Technology

2010-08-23T16:47:00.002-05:00

Below is my first essay for PHIL401, Philosophy of Technology. It is a rebuttal to another essay, and I thought it turned out well enough to share:

According to Winston, the most important reasons for the philosophical investigation of science and technology are that a) science and technology are socially constructed; the biases of any given society will determine how much and in what areas scientific advancement will be made, as well as determining how that knowledge will be practically adapted into technology; b) that new technologies might be used in dangerous ways (such as the atomic bomb); and c) new technology carries a risk of unforeseen, dangerous impact on our lives(such as the destruction of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons).

I agree with Mr. Winston that the first point is important, although I’m not sure that it’s as important to “philosophically examine technology” as it is to keep epistemology up to date with scientific investigation. As for the second point, Mr. Winston himself shows how hollow it is: a toaster, as he says, can be used to “lightly burn bread… or as a hand-warmer or a murder weapon.” Technology is completely amoral. It is entirely up to the human being whether the toaster is used to burn bread (which might also be accomplished with an open flame), to warm hands (which could be done by simply rubbing them together), or to commit murder (which can be done any number of ways without the toaster, or any technology at all). As for the third point, every negative impact Mr. Watson lists is an unintended, indeed unforeseeable, consequence. The only way to prevent unforeseeable consequences of technological advancement is to prohibit all technological advancement, which is neither possible nor desirable. As much as some people like to complain, the fact is that the more technologically developed any given society is, the longer, more accomplished and more comfortable are the lives of the members of that society.

I am neither a “techno-optimist” nor a “techno-pessimist,” and I believe that these are false choices. I cannot be a “techno-pessimist,” because I can see that the constant advancement of technology has a generally positive impact: even if a job is lost to a bank teller, for instance, because of an ATM, that ATM now needs people to stock it with money, to service it mechanically and electronically, to program it, to provide security for it… etc. Similarly, while the air in New York City is generally unpleasant due to the constant exhaust of industry and automobiles, it is far less unpleasant than it was 100 years ago, when New York was full of smokestacks and the diseases and parasites carried in tons of horse manure. Nor can I be a “techno-optimist,” since the idea that technology can solve all of humanity's problems is simply ridiculous. Even if we were able to craft perfect, undying bodies with perfect knowledge… what would we do? We would succumb to utter boredom.

Mr. Winston would say that his reason for “critically examining” technology is to keep people safe. This is, of course, nonsense; as I’ve pointed out, technology itself doesn’t harm people, it is the use to which people put it; further, any unforeseeable consequences of such use are, well, unforeseeable. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Winston believes that people must be kept under control, and in particular under the control of himself and people who think like him.

Questions from Facebook

2010-06-03T00:34:00.001-05:00

Below are two questions which came up in a recent Facebook conversation, and my responses. Let me know what you think:

"I don't see the connection between hunting down international terrorist criminals and funding wars and keeping armies everywhere on the globe."

The connection is this: we are not confronting "terrorist criminals," we are confronting war criminals who use terrorist attacks. These are people who deliberately and indiscriminately cause massive civilian casualties; who use children and the mentally disabled as unwitting human delivery systems; who commit military actions not only using civilian populations as shields but without a uniform to distinguish them from the civilians.
All of these are war crimes, and war crimes are dealt with by the military. Personally, I would be just as happy if Obama whole-heartedly committed the American Armed Forces to this attack and just finished it, rather that sending half the troops he's asked for in order to prolong the crisis for his own political gain. But, I knew better than to vote for him. As for keeping forces around the world--who else is doing anything useful?

"Has it decreased radicalism?"

"Radicalism" isn't a problem. Firstly, because people should be free to believe whatever they want--we aren't the thought police. It is ACTION which must be answered with action. Second, because what the liberal imbeciles in our media and political circles refer to as "radicalism"--presumably to support the farcical oxymoron of "political correctness"-- is, in fact, the CORRECT interpretation of Islam. Mohammed really did direct his followers to murder and torture those who did not follow Islam, to take their lands and valuables (among which he included women), to marry girls as young as 9 (and mutilate their genitals)... It is the Muslims who respect the inherent human rights of freedom and dignity, who choose to live in America and embrace the values of the U. S. Constitution, who are "radical" Muslims.

Free-Market Health Care?

2010-04-17T15:27:00.003-05:00

Faced with an overwhelmingly deadly heart condition, a 9-year-old boy in Georgia has raised $12,000.00 towards his own medical expenses. Essentially, the boy wrote a short story and sold a limited-edition run of autographed copies on E-bay. So Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have passed a gigantic, fascist law mandating that all Americans purchase health care plans, because the adult population of the United States just has no other way to cover their medical expenses, and the free market can't possibly work.

Yet this third-grader used the free market to pay his own way. Amazing. I'm sure we'll be hearing an apology from the administration any minute now--not only for the un-Constitutional legislation, but for their lack of faith in the American people.

Best. Workout Song. EVER!

2010-04-04T21:13:00.000-05:00

Disturbed - Indestructible

DISTURBED | MySpace Music Videos

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

2010-03-27T16:07:00.004-05:00

In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. the United States. This case was to overturn the judgment of the District Court of the Western State of New York, which had made a judgment against the plaintiff based on secondary evidence. This secondary evidence had been gathered based on earlier evidence which had been gathered unlawfully; that is, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the earlier judgement, establishing a judicial precedent known as "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine." This title comes from the Book of Matthew 7:17-20, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The idea is this: if evidence is gained in an illegal way (in this case, in violation of rights affirmed by the Fourth Amendment), then anything gained from that evidence is ALSO in violation of the law, and inadmissible. I bring this up because, as I am typing this, I am listening to politicians and pundits talk about how public opinion will change on the new health-insurance regulation legislation as people begin to see the "benefits" coming to them. These so-called benefits are nothing but "fruits of the poisonous tree," in the most certain definition of the term: the bill itself is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment; therefore, nothing associated with it can be considered a "benefit." At best, they are bribes--paid not by the politicians who passed the legislation, but with money they have confiscated from other people's work--to keep you a quiet subject rather than a full citizen under the Constitution.

UPDATE: Missouri has joined the joint lawsuit with 13 other States to repeal this legislation.

Damned Selfish Conservatives!

2010-03-25T08:34:00.003-05:00

Recently on Facebook, I came across the question: "Do conservatives ever care about anything except their own money?" Here is my response:

If American conservatives were ever primarily concerned with money, that period ended with the ascent of the New Right in 1980. The concern of conservatives today is FREEDOM--specifically, those freedoms won by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. To say that American conservatives are unconcerned with other peoples' welfare is the height of absurdity; American conservatives are hands down the most generous people in the world, giving dozens of times the amount in donations to charity that liberals do (as a percentage of individual income, and not just in toto).

The difference is that, being concerned primarily with keeping people FREE to live their own lives, conservatives do not use the government to FORCE everyone else to pay for what they think is good for them (under threat of prison). That is the province of today's so-called "liberal." Conservatives take care of their own house, so as not to burden others, and help others from their own pocket... rather than helping themselves TO everyone ELSE'S pocket.

Bitch Slap

2010-03-24T02:33:00.005-05:00

Well, we're almost three months in to 2010, and they've finally released a movie I find watchable--straight to DVD, of course. Even the mighty Avatar has taken its place next to Pearl Harbor and Titanic in the dustbin of "Blockbusters I will probably never, ever watch."

Before I go any farther, let me state for the record that this movie is not for everyone. Am I recommending this movie because it has an inspiring message of reason and liberty? No. Am I recommending this movie because it is all about three incredibly hot chicks in skimpy, skimpy outfits who alternate between cat-fighting and making out with each other?

Hell, YES!

If hot chicks shooting things with incredibly large guns (occasionally from motorcycles) doesn't appeal to you, may I recommend Bitch Slap for the sheer inventiveness of its vulgarity? I couldn't even follow some of the invectives.

Adding to the fun is the fact that the cast of Hercules and Xena are on board. And I don't mean a couple of recurring extras like you find in other B flicks--I mean Kevin Sorbo, Lucy Lawless, Michael Hurst and Renee O'Connor! This makes it even better, because I've been using these shows as mental floss between homework assignments.

Folks, if what I've described has intrigued you, watch this movie. It's LOTS of fun. Guys, you can watch this with your girlfriend--in the week between the moment the final credits end, and the moment she finally starts talking to you again, you can drop back by here to thank me.

Hardly Historic

2010-03-23T02:16:00.006-05:00

So, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and others are reporting that on Sunday night, the House of Representatives passed an "historic" health care bill. In point of fact, the is nothing historic about this bill.

From the Soviet Constitution (1936):

Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

Other socialist dictatorships, such as Fascist Italy and NAZI Germany, had the same mandates. This is not to say that people interested in universal health care are NAZI's or Communists; it is only to illustrate the roots of the school of thought which gave birth to these ideas. Remember, when the government runs health, the government RUNS health--by ceding control of our own health-care to the Federal government, we have given up the protection of Bill of Rights and given the Federal government license to regulate and penalize any activity which may affect our health in any way.

I know that there are people out there who are either devoted leftists, or who think that they're apolitical and don't realize how deeply the left has affected their thinking, who don't see a problem with this. Being "healthy" is good for us, so who cares if the government mandates it? Ignoring the obvious question of who defines what "healthy" is (by guidelines currently accepted by the U. S. government, Arnold Schwarzeneger at the height of his bodybuilding career was grossly obese), let's look at the right of the government to mandate how we live our lives at all.

What if this mandate had come from the Right instead of the Left? What if, instead of Nancy Pelosi deciding that she knew what was best for everyone's physical well-being, Newt Gingrich decided that he knew what was best for everyone's spiritual well-being? After all, from his point of view, the well-being of your eternal soul is far more important than the well-being of your physical body. What if he formed a coalition that rammed through (against massive protests) a measure which mandated that every American citizen would attend services at a Roman Catholic church weekly, and that if anyone could not afford a minimum required tithe, federal funds would be used to subsidize them?

Would you still fail to see the Constitutional problems of the Federal government mandating activities and funding them with taxpayers' money? Please let me know what you think below.

When You Get Angry...

2010-03-22T18:37:00.004-05:00

Starting today, and progressing until either Obamacare's full effect in 2014 or its hopeful repeal, you will notice changes in your insurance. First, it is by definition no longer insurance; that is, a back-up investment to cover the expense of potential future problems. From now on, what we call "health insurance" is really a government co-op, just like your utility company, designed to be your sole method of payment for medical expenses.

Of course, there are a few differences. The increased regulatory measures of Obamacare are going to INCREASE your insurance costs--insurance companies now have to "insure against" things which have already happened. It will also raise your taxes--and the taxes of employers, who will be able to hire fewer people. The government-mandated subsidy will do to general medical care precisely what Medicare has done to the pharmaceutical industry--consumer prices will skyrocket.

As our economy stagnates and your bills rise, remember this: the Democrats, who are now utterly controlled by the elitist Progressive movement (Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have all stated so publicly), OWN THIS THING lock, stock and barrel. We have to get as many of them out of office as quickly possible. I'm not saying that Republicans have all the answers... but they are the only ones who can mount a majority quickly enough to fix ANY of this.

The bottom line is this: America tried to send a message to the Republican Party, and wound up selling itself down the river. Make sure you know EXACTLY whom you're voting for.

Upon Further Consideration...

2010-03-22T06:22:00.005-05:00

Man, I just can't sleep.

At any rate, last night I watched the House of Representatives vote as it occurred. At about 9:45 pm, the "health-care" bill passed, and I wrote a vehement note on Facebook that if Obama signed this bill into law, I would drop my health insurance rather than comply with an illegal Federal mandate.

I'm now rescinding that decision.

I know that very, very few people read this blog or give a hoot what I think. I know that some people will read this and think that I'm a coward who caved on his convictions when he finally took the time to consider the consequences. That's fine. Those who know me personally know that I'm hardly one to be put off by the threat of physical or financial hardship, and those who've deployed with me know that the threat of legal action won't deter me from doing what's right (Prison? Hell, have you met my ex-wife? FEAR HER STEREO.)

The fact is, on the off chance that anyone cares or, God help me, wanted to join me in dropping their insurance, that it would actually be counter-productive. Not only am I not actually "obeying the Federal mandate" (I'm not buying health insurance; I already have it), but in dropping my insurance I would be taking money away from the working Americans in the insurance company, and FUNDING the very tyrants whom I oppose (via the penalty which will be applied to uninsured individuals, which will not be applied to any insurance coverage).

It pains me to have voluntarily contracted my entire adult life to allow myself to be put in harm's way to protect the world from tyrants, only to have tyrants take over my own country through a dishonest back-door. However, I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong (unless it involves asking for directions), and my quick decision on Facebook was poorly-considered. Here's to the United States of America using this debacle as a rallying cry for freedom and common sense.

PACE

The Second-Funniest Thing I've Ever Heard...

2010-03-21T20:42:00.005-05:00

A friend of mine asked me yesterday why I don't blog anymore, so I guess I feel motivated today...

Anyway, I heard the second-funniest thing I've ever heard yesterday. The funniest thing I've ever heard was (embarrassingly) on an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess. In it, one of the characters gives this advice to another: "write what you know." Now, this is sound advice on writing--but coming from writers whose mouthpiece to deliver it is a woman, supposedly of Classical Greece but sporting red hair and calling herself a "bard," it's downright hilarious.

The second-funniest thing I've ever heard was delivered in speech by President Obama yesterday: he told Congress that the *ahem* "health-care" bill should be passed because "it goes right down the middle of American politics." Let me give you a counter example of this logic: Here I have a roast-beef sandwich. Here I have a sandwich made from my own feces. I'll split them right down the middle, and you can have the resulting sandwich.

How's your appetite?

A Question of Hypocrisy

2010-03-21T16:41:00.005-05:00

In consideration of today's impending House of Representatives vote--allegedly on a bill to reform health-care, but really to expand the power of the Federal government far beyond its legal limits--some proponents of the legislation have decided that my opposition makes me a hypocrite. Being always interested in a fair argument, I propose the following for consideration:

1) As a civil servant, I am directly involved in every disaster relief response undertaken by the State of Missouri.

2) As a member of the Missouri Army National Guard, I have personally taken part in some of these responses, including our relief mission to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I was there three days after the hurricane, personally handing out food and water, and protecting fire fighters who were being shot at by arsonists.

3) I have been certified as an EMT, and used my training to save at least two human lives (on my own time, separate from any lives I have saved by use-of-force as a military policeman).

4) I am a dues-paying member of organizations which, when totaled, provide millions of dollars a day in charitable donations to hospitals across the country, especially childrens' hospitals.

5) I donate, in addition to other charities, 5% of every paycheck I make to the American Red Cross.

6) I have had surgery while unemployed and uninsured--after which I got a job and paid for surgery on my own.

Given these items for consideration, how does my objection to your demands that the Federal government exceed its Constitutional powers to take even more of the money that I earn through my own labor make me an uncaring hypocrite? Have you done more than I to help others?

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment

2010-01-23T18:44:00.002-06:00

In a case originally regarding a film examining the Presidential qualifications of Hillary Clinton, SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold the validity of the First Amendment in allowing freedom of political speech.

Democrats Doing Good in Indiana

2010-01-23T18:39:00.002-06:00

Defending the right to privacy, not only for gun-owners but for non-gun owners as well.

The U. S. Marines leave Iraq

2010-01-23T18:29:00.002-06:00

Today, the U. S. Marine Corps leaves Iraq and turns over all American military authority to the U. S. Army. How's the war looking now, Harry Reid?

Happy Centennial!

2010-01-22T20:21:00.002-06:00

The Boy Scouts of America turns 100 years old this year. If you know any Boy Scouts, give them a pat on the back--not only for surviving 100 years, but for surviving this long against the ACLU.

Happy New Year!

2010-01-01T14:55:00.004-06:00

Well, here it is, January 1st 2010. Last year was rough. My best wishes to everyone, and of course, I'm making my New Year's Resolution public (and hopefully more binding): I resolve to get my Bachelor's degree this year.

Confirmed

2009-12-12T12:31:00.006-06:00

Roger Ebert is a gigantic tool, but at least he's a reliable water-mark. His endorsement of "Avatar" (both in fact and in verbage) confirms that I am NOT interested in seeing it, big budget or no. The blatant politics of this movie are going to prevent it from doing as well as a film with this level of commitment really should, but either way it's a loss for conservative movie-goers: if it does well, Hollywood will consider it an endorsement that their pro-green, anti-war message is finally marketable. If it tanks, Hollywood will retreat to smaller-budget versions of what it considers "safe" movies--all of which have liberal sensibilities.

HEY!

2009-12-10T21:54:00.001-06:00

Somebody made a poster for my nightclub idea!

Entertainment Update

2009-11-24T23:11:00.002-06:00

I have achieved electronic nirvana: Netflix just shipped me a disk which I can permanently use to stream videos into my PS3.

Less significantly, but of more immediate satisfaction, witness the video that Hot Air calls "the greatest rock cover evah."

Cloture vote passes Senate 60-39

2009-11-21T19:39:00.003-06:00

The Democrats have betrayed the American people again. Don't forget this vote when you cast YOUR vote next year.

The Best of Intentions

2009-11-20T15:43:00.001-06:00

Recently, on Facebook, I was asked why I couldn't just believe that Barack Obama was acting with good intentions. This was my reply:

Let us imagine that I invited you to be the guest of honor at a dinner held at my house. You enter my house to find the members of my family rushing to put out a greasefire with boxes of baking soda. You immediately step in their way to dump a bucket of water into the grease fire, spreading it all over the kitchen.

As my house burns down around me, I am unlikely to be impressed with the idea that you took this course of action based on "the best of intentions": not only has putting water on grease fires been proven to be a bad course of action with disastrous consequences, but stepping in the way of a family attempting to save their own home is unconscionably arrogant.

If I also happened to know that your every acquaintance believed that all houses should be torn down and everyone forced to live together in caves--some of them having gone so far as to bomb contractors' offices--and that you had attended services for 20 years in the Church of Houses are Evil... then I might begin to wonder what it was that you considered "the best of intentions."

Happy Halloween

2009-10-31T16:24:00.002-05:00

Hey, everybody! Nothing big happened today, except for a holiday (that I didn't get off). It's been a while since I really blogged anything, so I wanted to stop in and say "hey!"

I'm back in school (pursuing a BA in Multidisciplinary Studies from Grantham University)--got a 4.0 in my first session. Unfortunately, I screwed up the paperwork for my next session, so I'm getting an extra two-week break.

I also got certified as a NRA Instructor, specifically for Firearms Safety. This won't do me much good by itself, but its a "foot in the door" for firearms training to be done in conjunction with martial arts classes (someday, I hope).

I'm going to try to start blogging more often. I'm busy, but I have opinion to share that I think are important. If anyone wants to see more about what I'm doing personally, I'm on Facebook (but I generally only friend people I know personally). I don't go to MySpace much anymore.

Anyway, happy Halloween. Be safe, and have fun!

Socialized Medicine is Coming

2009-10-26T15:38:00.003-05:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry "Surrender Monkey" Reid announced today that the healthcare bill headed to the Senate floor for a vote includes a public option, with an opt-out for individual states. Note that,if the opt-out is being done at the state level, that means that the un-Constitutional barrier which prevents insurance companies from competing in different states is being left in place. Since no private insurance company will be able to compete with the public option, it won't be long before the "public option" is all that's left--and it won't be optional for long after that.

So... What are YOUR kids learning in school?

2009-09-23T02:39:00.000-05:00

Movie Day

2009-09-22T03:31:00.002-05:00

So, on the recommendation of my friend Kevin, I went to see the movie "District 9." I have to agree with his assessment: it was a really good movie, and certainly not what I expected. I was expecting another Hollywood pro-illegal immigration referendum, but that wasn't what it was at all. I won't go into anymore detail than that, because I don't like to spoil movies that I enjoy.
My one gripe was the line "Where there are weapons, there is crime," in reference to civilians having guns. In defense of the movie, it doesn't take place in America, and I don't know what the South African gun-culture is like. A little later, the same commentator makes the comment, "Where there are slums, there is crime," which Kevin accepts as an explanation of the earlier statement worthy of absolution--I don't. But that's a pretty minor gripe in a really good movie.

Unfortunately, I didn't leave the cinema after watching it. I stayed to watch the new Tim Burton movie, "9." Sigh. It's yet another "God is dead, and that's a good thing" movie. I could tell as soon as it started that it was some sort of allegory, but I admit that it took me until almost the end of the movie to figure out what the message actually was. At least it wasn't as blatantly literal as the "His Dark Materials" series. Even if it weren't for the ridiculous theme, this movie sucked. I find it a bit difficult to any level of suspense or sympathy when there's not a single living character in the movie. That's right, the "good guys" (more or less) are all animated rag-dolls (technically, they're a Hollywood stupid-magic version of homunculi, but we don't find that out until very late in the movie) and the villains are all completely unbelievable machines. And I have quite a high threshold for suspension of disbelief.

All in all, "District 9" is highly recommended; "9" is to be avoided.

Custom Automotive

2009-09-22T03:27:00.001-05:00

So the day before drill, I took my car to Custom Complete Automotive in Columbia, MO (the one next to the mall), for 90,000 mile maintenance. This included brake work and tire rotation. The next day, on my way to drill, my brakes failed completely and a WHEEL CAME COMPLETELY OFF OF MY CAR. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, because they were ery professional about getting my car fixed and paying for everything, but the fact is, this isn't the first problem I've had with that garage. A few months ago, they failed to correctly connect my alternator to my battery, which resulted in my car dying on my way to work.

I'm afraid that I have to recommend that people find a different garage to service their vehicle.

World Hapkido Association Seminar

2009-09-22T03:17:00.002-05:00

Wow, it's been a while since I've been around, huh? Well, now that I'm back in college, I get a bit busy.

Last month I made a 2,000 mile road trip to Greensboro, NC, where I attended a two-day Hapkido seminar hosted by Essential Martial Arts. All of the bigwigs of the WHA were there, and I have to say that I was very impressed. Being an alumnus of Hwarang Do, I expected to see a watered-down version of what I already knew, much as I expect hapkido students would expect from a tae kwon do seminar. I was as much in error as they would be. Hapkido, although smaller in curriculum, more than stands on its own in the company of Hwarang do.
In fact, I have to say that the Korean masters were particularly impressive. The president of WHA, Master Jung, Tae, represented exactly what I would expect in someone who holds the title of "Master"; he had obviously completely internalized the principals and techniques of his art to the point that they were as natural to him as breathing. Even more impressive was Grandmaster Hwang, In-Shik.
When I first associated with the WHA, I read that Master Jung had made a special position for him in the organization. I had assumed that it was simply a political move in Korean martial arts; a gesture of respect to one of the senior masters. I didn't have to watch him for very long, however, to see the truth: Grandmaster Hwang is truly a Grandmaster. I didn't know that hapkido had men of his caliber, and I honestly wouldn't know how to compare him to Lee, Joo Bang (which is about as high a compliment as I can imagine giving a martial artist).

Unfortunately, I only completed the first day and a half of training; by Sunday morning, my neck was literally completely fatigued from being thrown so hard so often. I had to roll on my side to get out of bed for the next four days, because I the muscles in the front of my neck were too weak to lift my head. Nonetheless, it was some of the best martial arts training I've ever had, and I hope to attend their winter event as well.

Obamacare

2009-08-08T13:28:00.001-05:00

Steven Crowder "Interviews" the Governator

2009-08-08T12:38:00.001-05:00

Bob Basso

2009-08-02T10:23:00.000-05:00

Hapkido Seminar

2009-07-29T20:15:00.002-05:00

I will be attending the World Hapkido Association Summer Training Camp during the last week of August. Hopefully, my rib won't bother me too badly. I'll be taking my camera along, but with no one to film for me, I'm not sure what kind of footage I'll be able to get.

Back From Annual Training

2009-07-29T10:18:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately, I broke a rib while I was there, which will definitely interfere with my training. Also, it looks as though I've won an all-expense paid vacation to the cradle of civilization next year, but nothing's been finalized yet--it'll depend on what Obama does between now and then.

At was actually fairly fun--at least the part I participated in (I broke my rib on day three--of sixteen). I do wish that I had protested my M-4 qualification score; there was an obvious computer error. I wasn't that worried about a few promotion points this year--and I know I'm a good shot--but it turns out that that qualification was used to determine who would go to Squad Designated Marksman school before we deploy. Oh, well; the new fiscal year starts in September, so hopefully I'll be able to qualify again soon.

I was worried about taking electronics, like my video camera, along--but other people did. Maybe I will next time...

My Hapkido White Belt Test

2009-07-29T10:17:00.000-05:00

Harry Potter Parody

2009-07-08T12:42:00.003-05:00

Lindsey Lohan in a European parody of the Harry Potter movies. Probably better than the real ones.

Harry Potter Parodie sélectionné dans Parodie / Doublage et Sketch / Imitation

Before I go...

2009-07-08T10:13:00.001-05:00

As a final act before I'm gone for the rest of the month, I edited and posted the video of my white belt level 1 & 2 tests on YouTube. The video is here. Also, several of you asked me about a FaceBook page; my new account is up, although Google apparently hasn't found it yet.

I hope you enjoyed Independence Day, and have a great July!

--
Jason C. Diederich

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-03T10:01:00.002-05:00

Just a few days after Iraq's National Sovereignty Day, we have American Independence Day. I think it's appropriate that the two holidays are so close together.

Anyway, I want to wish everyone happy Independence Day--it looks like I'll be out of town until almost the first of August. I do have a request for anyone who reads this--if you spend the rest of the year as some sort of "hyphenated-American," try putting it aside for just this one day. Stop dividing everyone you meet by color, gender, or whatever else it is you're hyphenating... and just be an American.

You might even find you enjoy it! I hope it becomes a habit.

Torture Addendum

2009-06-24T20:43:00.001-05:00

I'll consolidate this later...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-gitmo-myth-and-the-tort
ure-canard-15154

I Was Wrong About Torture

2009-06-24T20:42:00.001-05:00

I have often said that the trouble with the "torture" debate has been that "torture" has never been adequately defined. I don't know anyone who actually endorses "torture" as a policy, but we disagree about what actually constitutes an act of torture. By the standards of many liberal politicians, bikini-waxing businesses should be closed down. As it turns out, I was incorrect: a thorough examination has been made, as even the New York Times reports: waterboarding is NOT an act of torture. Of course, the Old Grey Lady can't help but refer to it as a "brutal" tactic, anyway--since that perjorative still hasn't been legally defined:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07lawyers.html?_r=2

Test

2009-06-12T08:36:00.001-05:00

Test post: blogging by e-mail

Parental Authority? Freedom of Religion? Nonesense, You're the Property of the State!

2009-05-29T00:10:00.002-05:00

A Minnesota judge
ruled that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser would be forced to undergo unwanted chemotherapy treatments which were contrary to his family's religious practices. When his mother left the state rather than comply with the unconstitutional ruling, federal law enforcement was dispatched to bring them back--even though no crime had been committed.
Young mister Hauser has now undergone his second court-mandated chemotherapy treatment--to loud applause from the media.

The message: you have no right to your own beliefs. You have no right your own children. You have no right to your own body. You belong to the State.

Fascism? Yes, we can.

On Liberals and Torture

2009-05-23T16:50:00.003-05:00

The liberal population of the U. S., led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, continues to characterize the use of waterboarding as "torture." To any sane person, this is ludicrous: waterboarding is a practice used to train our own military pilots to survive water landings. Further, the technique itself consists of nothing more untoward than pouring water in the recipient's face for a period not to exceed 40 seconds.
While any other country would consider the allegations that this constitutes torture ridiculous, in America it simply confirms what conservatives have known about liberals for years: liberals don't shower.

Update: If Nancy Pelosi truly believes that waterboarding is, in itself, torture, then why isn't she calling for its removal from U. S. military training? Torture is illegal under the UCMJ, training or no. And why isn't she moving to close down BDSM clubs--especially all of the ones in the San Francisco area?
Finally, if waterboarding is defined as "torture" simply because it's painful--regardless of the magnitude of pain (cf. al Qaeda interrogation manual), then what is her position on bikini waxing?

"Dark Pelosi"

2009-05-22T03:02:00.000-05:00

At current standing, this is officially my favorite YouTube video EVER.

EVER.

Movie Reviews

2009-05-18T21:47:00.003-05:00

I've started posting movie reviews at IMDB.com; in order to save space, rather than post the same reviews here, I've just put up a link to my reviews page at the right. So far, my review of Wolverine is up (and very unpopular!), and my review of S Darko is pending. One of the few things that people actually ask me about here is my movie reviews, so I hope you all enjoy my new venue.

Star Trek and Wolverine: Origins

2009-05-12T06:52:00.002-05:00

Let's start with Star Trek. Honestly, I haven't been a fan of the Star Trek franchise since I was in high school. The constant utopianism is grating, and since Scientology (in The Undiscovered Country) and Communism (in First Contact) were officially adopted into the Utopia of the Federation, well... I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. Nor, in fact, am I a huge fan of J.J. Abrams. So, I went into this movie with fairly low expectations.
And wound up enjoying it. There are weaknesses--the Vulcan dialogue was obviously written by someone trying to write dialogue above his own IQ level by simply using a thesaurus on every other word (never a good idea), and the actor playing Spock couldn't pull of Spock with Spock there to coach him. Plus, Abrams does a really hoaky homage to his own work with the "red matter." Those things being said, I really liked the direction that the series went: there were homages to Star Trek as well (don't be the guy in the red suit... and don't let Kirk near a green woman), there are alien monsters that really LOOK like alien monsters, and some other things that there are more qualified Trekophiles than myself to comment on. Personally, I hope to see this cast grow into its own through several more movies.

Now, for Wolverine. I called this one as soon as the first trailer came out, and no one believed me. An entire movie with the U. S. Army as the bad guy, doing NOTHING EXCEPT kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. Don't watch it, don't take your kids to it.
The only worthwhile thing about this movie, for me, is the opportunity for movie reviewers like Roger Ebert to show what true morons they are. All of these psuedo-intellectual critics like to pick apart superhero movies--as if they are somehow "beneath" any other form of cinematic drivel--so they harp on the fact that the movie begins in "Northwest Territories, Canada, 1845." It didn't exist, and I'm fairly certain that only one film critic actually knew that. The rest are just parroting it so as not to look less intelligent than all of their colleagues. None of them, however--NOT ONE--noticed that the U. S. Army was using M-4 carbines in Viet Nam. But then, what do you expect from a group of people who thought that "Rendition" was a really intelligent movie, and it just didn't do well because the "common folk" weren't ready for it?

Happy Mother's Day!

2009-05-10T15:07:00.003-05:00

Just a post to celebrate all of those moms out there--especially my own! God only knows how you put up with me!

I mean, when I was a kid of course. Obviously, I'm really cool now. And totally self-confident. So I have that going for me, which is nice.

"Under My Bus"

2009-05-10T15:03:00.002-05:00

Zo "Polices" the President--and it's even subtitled, for those of you who don't have sound...

The Next Big Summer Action Flick?

2009-05-10T14:48:00.001-05:00

Heart-ache

2009-05-09T11:08:00.000-05:00

I was looking into running for office in the Missouri House of Representatives. Turns out that I can't run while I hold a job as a National Guard technician. Hmmm...

About the Tea Party

2009-04-17T19:08:00.003-05:00

On April 15th, I attended the Tea Party at the Capitol Building of Jefferson City, MO. There had been some confusion regarding the event--apparently the larger event was on the 14th--but a sizable and robust crowd showed up anyway. I've got over an hour of video clips, both from actual speakers at the event, and of attendees that I managed to interview. (Turns out there's a technique to it!)

Some of the videos are posted below, but Blogger takes too long to load videos--so I've posted everything on a new YouTube Channel.

The Tea Party was a great experience, and I'm looking forward to attending another one in July. I met some great people, and heard some great ideas. That having been said, I have some thoughts for my fellow attendees:

There are two reasons that you might have attended such an event. The first is ask the government to give you back a few dollars on your paycheck. This is certainly a valid reason to have gone, but it isn't why I was there. I went to take back my freedom from a government that is ignoring the Constitution. If you also went there because you believe that the taxes are just a symptom, then you need to keep in mind other people's First Amendment rights:

The Freedom of Religion: I won't say that your politics shouldn't be informed by your religion. That is an idiotic statement made by people who have no idea what religion is. However, at the rally we had several Muslims and Native Americans who were there to support our fight for freedom... and several others that wanted to make the entire movement about Christianity.
Christianity is the greatest force for good that world has ever seen; Christianity can speak for itself. Freedom, however, cannot. Our Constitution does not establish Christianity as the American religion, nor does it establish us as a secular nation. We are a freely religious nation, and when you try to make this movement a statement of Christianity, you drive away many good people who could be our allies.

The Freedom of Speech: Do we need to hear from the opposition? No. We hear from the opposition everywhere, all the time. But remember, the whole purpose of Freedom of Speech is to protect speech you don't like. Standing in front of a Democrat to block his face, rushing up and pounding the podium, trying to shout him down--these are not the tactics of people who want freedom. These are the tactics--the VERY tactics--of Communists. They don't help us; they don't protect anyone from suddenly converting to liberalism. All they do is provide the media with a video clip of us being hateful to play rather than playing our ideas.

I went to the Tea Party to support freedom. I hope in the future, everyone else will remember that that's why they are there, as well.

Tea Party, Jefferson City, MO; 15 APR 2009

2009-04-16T22:26:00.007-05:00

Jefferson City Tea Party, April 15th

2009-04-06T17:39:00.002-05:00

I will be participing in the Tea Party at the Jefferson City Capitol on April 15th. Parking is horrible on a regular day in downtown JC; since I live less than 3 miles from the Capitol, I'll be walking (and carrying my video camera).

If anyone would like to participate in this Tea Party, I don't have a spare bed--but I'll probably have room for your sleeping bag!

--

Crowder Strikes Again!

2009-03-26T19:54:00.003-05:00

Apparently, this was put together before today's news about the new ObamaNAZI Youth Corps
and "Civilian National Defense Force
" (a.k.a., "Gestapo").

Another Reason to Love the Japanese...

2009-03-26T08:09:00.001-05:00

If you're wondering why the characters are rabbits, the Japanese word for "rabbit" is "usagi." That's "USA G. I." Heh.

Hey, All!

2009-03-18T11:08:00.002-05:00

Just a note to let everyone know that I'm still around. There's actually been quite a bit to blog about in the last month, but I've been busy with so many other things in the real world.

I miss everybody, and I hope I'll have a chance to do some real blogging in the near future!

New Letter to My Representatives:

2009-02-08T11:30:00.003-06:00

Their phone inboxes are full, so I've sent the following e-mail to my elected representatives. I encourage EVERYONE to send one like it to their representatives before we are stuck with catastrophic fallout of the passage of the so-called "Economic Stimulus Bill":

Dear (X):

I want to know what you, as my Senator, are doing to dismantle this disgraceful spending bill and protect my family's future from being bought by China? How are you protecting me from the massive inflation it will cause?
President Obama said that we do not have to sacrifice our principles to keep ourselves safe--freedom is one of our most sacred principles. Failing businesses must be allowed to fail; to re-organize or be replaced by better businesses. It is individual Americans who create prosperity for our country; stealing the money of your constituents and for government subsidies will NEVER make America better or stronger, no matter how noble the intentions of the programs.

-----
I had another thought today, regarding the new President: does anyone else feel like Julius Caesar has been stabbed in the back by the Senators, and Nero is warming up his fiddle?

St. Valentine's Day Commercials

2009-02-08T09:28:00.003-06:00

So, I'm taking over my shift at work. My colleague has just given his change-over briefing, and he's getting ready to leave, when a commercial for "Pajamagrams" comes on the television. "Only one gift is guaranteed to get women to take their clothes off this Valentine's day," the announcer intones.
Now, I already know that the next line will be, "A Pajamagram!" However, the makers of this commercial have thoughtfully left a nice anticipatory silence between the two sentences. Of course, anyone having watched a movie with me since my MST3K infatuation in college knows not to leave such pauses in the dialogue when I'm around. Before the announcer can gleefully inform us that it is a "Pajamagram" which will entice the clothing off of our significant others, I lean over confidentially and announce my own idea about what gift is guaranteed to get women out of their clothes.
"Money," I say.

Invariably, the Pajamagrams commercial is followed by a spot for Vermont Teddy Bears. The VTB spot apparently takes place in an office whose steno pool consists exclusively of between-jobs porn stars. One of these... ahem... "buxom young ladies" receives a Vermont Teddy Bear from her boyfriend, delivered at work. The dialogue begins in true porn-wannabe fashion:
"It's so much bigger than I expected!" offers one girl.
"Oh, I could just kiss it and kiss it," says another.
"I can't wait to give him my surprise," finishes the first.
At this point, I look over at my friend and ask him, "Now, do you know what was given to those girls to make them say all of those sexy things?"
He opens his mouth to say 'no,' then closes it and thinks. "Money?" he asks.
"Money," I confirm.

My Own Private Valentine

2009-02-06T08:49:00.003-06:00

Okay, the real name of the movie is Private Valentine: Blonde and Dangerous. Yes, I watched a chick flick. I figure, at this juncture in my life, am I really doing anything that requires me to keep my testosterone up? NO.

Anyway, there are (believe it or not) some technical errors with the film. In fact, most of the "Army Basic Training" is actually taken from Marine Corps Boot Camp. Rather than give an exhaustive list (after all, it isn't supposed to be a documentary of Army life), I'm just going to mention two that really need it.

1) Two of the characters--including the main character--wind up hooking up with their drill sergeants after training. I think that this is a VERY bad message to send the young women who might watch this movie.

2) At one point, Private Valentine's company commander denies her request to be released from training because she is "property of the U. S. Army." I cannot begin to describe how angry I get every time I hear this nonsense. YOU CANNOT OWN PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. Military personnel are contracted employees.

That having been said, this movie came as close to giving the U.S. military a fair shake as you're probably likely to see from most of Hollywood. The characters were intelligent and dedicated, and most were there out of a sincere sense of duty or a desire to improve themselves. Brava, Ms. Simpson!

-----
On another note, February 10th is the release date of W. It's a fallacious piece of crap made by a pretentious, America-hating piece of crap. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't put it in your Netflix queue.

Broke Trek

2009-02-03T08:38:00.001-06:00

Pro-Choice Comments

2009-01-28T20:46:00.002-06:00

Recently, I made an original quote on MySpace which seems to have generated a lot of initial reaction:

"I consider myself to be pro-choice; that is, I support the rights of the baby to grow up and make his own choices."

Several people have said that they will use this quote, and I've asked them to refer to this URL so that anyone who feels like commenting on it may do so here.

Gran Torino

2009-01-28T19:32:00.002-06:00

Well, I suppose that I've waited long enough for my friends to see if they want to.

Gran Torino is a BRILLIANT movie, and I'll tell you why: not simply because Eastwood's character dies, but because of the way he dies.

You see, in the standard hippie mentality, individual effort is meaningless. Think about horror movies: either a group survives together, because they all did essentially the same thing, or everybody dies, because the monster is insurmountable. If someone sacrifices themselves for the group, it's just an incidental crazy man like Randy Quaid's character in Independance Day. And he wasn't sacrificing himself for the group; he was more out for revenge.

Clint Eastwood's character makes a moral decision to sacrifice his own life for his friends. This is something that I don't EVER recall seeing from Hollywood, and the movie is absolutely brave and brilliant for it. Of course, it is being snubbed at the awards shows, because Hollywood has liberal movies like Milk and Frost/Nixon to drool over.

Hopefully, with the success of movies like this (as well as Dark Knight, 300, and An American Carol) we are witnessing a Renaissance of conservative cinema.

The REAL story of the Middle East conflict

2009-01-20T02:08:00.000-06:00

Star Wars

2009-01-18T19:18:00.000-06:00

Through the eyes of someone who's never seen it...

Goals for January 2009

2009-01-09T09:25:00.002-06:00

Well, I suppose that my New Year's Resolution is to do better with goal tracking and implementation. I have my first set of goals for 2009 posted on my exercise and spiritual blogs (and my financial blog, to which I don't currently provide a link).

Four Movie Reviews

2009-01-06T15:24:00.003-06:00

Well, DVD rentals, anyway...

First, let's look at Resident Evil: Degeneration. Plot was boring, characters were boring, animation was hit-and-miss. If I go any more in-depth, I'll be boring, too. I don't really recommend it, but it might fill a really slow night.

Next, Confessions of a Pit Fighter. Very good, well done fight scenes. The main character actually regains his conscience through the intercession of an intelligent and effective Catholic priest (when was the last time Hollywood did that?). Plus, a little pro-life message. Downside: the plot development is a little choppy and the love-interest looked like she might have been born with a penis. Otherwise, I'd recommend it for anyone who likes fight movies and especially if you'd like to see a movie with a bit of conservatism.

Speaking of conservative movies, An American Carol is out on DVD. Liked it at the cinema, like it on DVD. As I've said before, this is a movie with a definite political axe to grind--and it causes some of the jokes to fall flat. But there are also a lot of jokes that don't fall flat, and some real feel-good moments. If you enjoyed Airplane: The Movie, or if you appreciate the fact that America is the good guy, or (like me) both--you should watch this movie. Hell, I'm buying a copy.

Finally, Adventures of Johnny Tao. What's not to like? Pretty girls, but very family-friendly. The Chinese people are speaking real Chinese, and it has the best classical martial arts choreography I've seen outside of Hong Kong. There is some excellent visual style going on (including the final showdown between a hero dressed like a honky-tonk cowboy and a villain dressed like a post-apocalyptic biker), and the good guys work at the VFW! Highly recommended.

Ammunition Accountability

2009-01-06T09:29:00.004-06:00

Hey, good news! (not)

You remember how Barack Obama said he wasn't going to take our guns? Well, apparently his cronies are coming after our ammunition!

The "Ammunition Accountability Act" is currently being proposed in 18 states (including Missouri--thanks, Claire!). It will not only require that all new ammunition be encoded by laser-etching, it will require the destruction of all non-etched rounds--including privately-owned, re-loaded ammunition! It will also place a five cent tax on EVERY BULLET.

If this bill is being proposed in your state--and remember, this is being proposed in state legislatures, not the U. S. legislature--call upon your district representatives to vote it down quickly and decisively. It is not only a clear violation of the Second Amendment, but a terrible invasion of privacy.

From a reply I made on Hotair.com...

2009-01-03T08:19:00.002-06:00

The original post is here.

Is anyone else worried that Obama’s Kool-Aid will now be served by Jim Jones?

I was actually going to agree with Ed on this one, and give Obama some credit–but after further thought, I realized that I would be giving Obama credit for doing nothing.

lodge–you need to check your history. The U. S. won a military victory in Viet Nam–and then isolationist liberals forced a withdrawal before the new government was stabilized, resulting in the slaughter of 3,000,000 people. As for Iraq, the SOFA is finalized and we’ve handed over the Green Zone. What more do you want?

Finally, I think this situation in Israel would be a lot clearer if people stopped referring to the Muslim population as “Palestinians.” There’s no such thing. “Palestinian” was made up in 1967 to drum up international sympathy by portraying these people as being ethnically attached to the area called “Palestine” (which is actually a reference to “Falastein,” Greek-speaking pirates who raided the area centuries ago). These people are Jordanians; they’re just so crazy and brain-washed that even Jordan doesn’t want them back.

Jim Jones. Kool-Aid. What can go wrong?

Happy New Year!

2009-01-01T11:07:00.002-06:00

Well, today begins 2009. I wish everyone the best with their New Year's resolutions-- and with the new year! Remember, this is a fresh start; you have another chance this year to make the world a slightly better place than it was last year (and given last year, that's really not asking much, is it?).

Private Valentine

2008-12-23T02:41:00.003-06:00

I just saw a preview for what appears to be a straight-to-DVD Jessica Simpson movie, Private Valentine: Blonde and Dangerous. I'm not surprised that Hollywood didn't put this in the cinema, since it seems to involve a largely sympathetic portrayal of the U. S. military. The closest thing that I have to a complaint is that Simpson's character's "Army" training is mainly Marine Corps training--but I'm more than willing to overlook that faux pas.

I'm looking forward to this release--February '09!--and, if I'm correct in my assessment of the picture, kudos to Ms. Simpson for having the courage to make it!

Instructions for Changing Oil

2008-12-12T11:23:00.002-06:00

Oil Change instructions for Women:

1) Pull up to Jiffy Lube when the mileage reaches 3000 miles since the last oil change.
2) Drink a cup of coffee.
3) 15 minutes later write a check and leave with a properly maintained vehicle.

Money spent: Oil Change $20.00 Coffee $1.00 Total $21.00

Oil Change instructions for Men:

1) Wait until Saturday, drive to auto parts store and buy a case of oil, filter, kitty litter, hand cleaner and a scented tree, write a check for $50.00.
2) Stop by liquor store and buy a case of beer, write a check for $20.00, drive home.
3) Open a beer and drink it.
4) Spend 30 minutes looking for jack stands. Jack car up.
5) Find jack stands under kid's pedal car.
6) In frustration, open another beer and drink it.
7) Place drain pan under engine.
8) Look for 9/16 box end wrench.
9) Give up and use crescent wrench.
10) Drop drain plug in pan of hot oil: splash hot oil on face and arms in process. Cuss.
11) Crawl out from under car to wipe hot oil off of face and arms.
12) Throw kitty litter on spilled oil.
13) Have another beer while watching oil drain.
14) Spend 30 minutes looking for oil filter wrench.
15) Give up; crawl under car and hammer a screwdriver through oil filter and twist off.
16) Crawl out from under car with dripping oil filter splashing oil everywhere from holes. Cleverly hide old oil filter among trash in trash can to avoid environmental penalties. Drink a beer.
17) Buddy shows up; finish case of beer with him. Decide to finish oil change tomorrow so you can go see his new garage door opener work.
18) Sunday: Skip church because "I gotta finish the oil change." Drag pan full of old oil out from underneath car. Cleverly dump oil in hole in back yard instead of taking it to recycle.
19) Throw kitty litter on oil spilled during step 18.
20) Beer. No, drank it all yesterday.
21) Walk to liquor store; buy beer.
22) Install new oil filter making sure to apply a thin coat of oil to gasket surface.
23) Dump first quart of fresh oil into engine.
24) Remember drain plug from step 10.
25) Hurry to find drain plug in drain pan.
26) Remember that the used oil is buried in a hole in the back yard along with drain plug.
27) Drink beer.
28) Shovel out hole and sift oily mud for drain plug. Re-shovel oily patch of ground and avoid environmental penalties. Wash drain plug in lawnmower gas.
29) Discover that first quart of fresh oil is now on the floor. Throw kitty litter on oil spill.
30) Drink beer.
31) Crawl under car getting kitty litter into eyes. Wipe eyes with oily rag used to clean drain plug. Slip with stupid crescent wrench tightening drain plug and bang knuckles on frame.
32) Bang head on floorboards in reaction to step 31.
33) Begin cussing fit.
34) Throw stupid crescent wrench.
35) Cuss for additional 10 minutes because wrench hit Miss December (1992) in the left boob.
36) Beer.
37) Clean up hands and forehead and bandage as required to stop blood flow.
38) Beer.
39) Beer.
40) Dump in five fresh quarts of oil.
41) Beer.
42) Lower car from jack stands.
43) Accidentally crush remaining case of new motor oil.
44) Move car back to apply more kitty litter to fresh oil spilled during steps 23 - 43.
45) Beer.
46) Test drive car.
47) Get pulled over: arrested for driving under the influence.
48) Car gets impounded.
49) Call loving wife, make bail.
50) 12 hours later, get car from impound yard.

Money spent: Parts $50.00 DUI $2500.00 Impound fee $75.00 Bail $1500.00
Beer $40.00 Total-- $4165.00

But, you have the satisfaction of knowing the job was done right...

My Thoughts on Proposition 8

2008-11-27T18:55:00.002-06:00

A certain segment of society would have you believe that Proposition 8 discriminates against homosexuals by denying them the right of marriage, and that it was created and forced onto the public by gay-hating Christians. I have some thoughts on this matter:

1. Proposition 8 does not prevent homosexual people from getting married. It bans same-sex couples from getting married. Anyone who truly wants to get married is free to find a partner of the opposite gender and do so. Personally, I’m interested in becoming a member of the Roman Catholic communion. I can’t, since they don’t allow Freemasons. If I wanted it badly enough, I’d give up being a Freemason to become a Catholic--but I don’t want it that badly.

2. Of course, I could just say that I’m not a Freemason--but anyone who respects the Church enough to really want to join would know that that lie would render invalid any sacrament--including marriage--in which I participated. Similarly, a marriage decree issued by by a Christian church to a same-sex couple--being against Church doctrine--would be invalid. These people aren’t interested in marriage rights for homosexuals. They are interested in offending Christians. These are the same protesters who go to Communion and spit the Host on the floor.

3. While sexual-orientation discrimination is not being practiced (see above), gender discrimination is. Only couples of mixed genders may obtain marriage licenses. If it can be proven that gender discrimination is not accepted under California law--that is, that all public restrooms and high school locker rooms are unisex--then I will consider that Proposition 8 may be invalid.

4. Even without same-sex marriage, there are no rights available to married people that are not available to same-sex couples. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church; it provides no legal standing that is not also provided by a civil union. Further, there are many organizations--especially in California--which are happy to provide beautiful, moving wedding ceremonies for such civil unions.

5. As mentioned above, marriage is a sacrament of the Church. It is therefore protected by the First Amendment. Using the government to violate the sanctity of a religion by re-defining marriage sets a dangerous precedent against the First Amendment.

My solution? All secular weddings should be referred to as "civil unions," and such unions should be available to anyone. The "license" which provides privileges such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights, should be secular, and not use the word "marriage." "Marriage" should refer specifically to a religious ceremony involving a husband and a wife, with no language tying it to legal standings.

Gone for Six Weeks...

2008-11-16T02:11:00.006-06:00

I may stop by occasionally, but for all practical purposes I'm on blogcation for the next six weeks. I will be dedicating that time to rectifying some financial matters (which are not my fault, damned credit bubble!), studying Tagalog, getting instructor credentials in a couple of martial arts, and preparing for the high-demand PT level of OCS. It is still my hope that at the end of this period I can get directly commissioned, but I'm preparing for the worst--and I can stand to shed a few pounds anyway.
While this may not seem like a large work load to keep me away from blogging, rest assured that if nothing else, running four miles a day before breakfast will definitely curb one's extracurricular activities.

Two new additions to the periodic table of elements

2008-11-14T19:09:00.001-06:00

Element Name: WOMANIUM
Symbol: WO
Atomic Weight: (don't even go there)

Physical properties: Generally soft and round in form. Boils at nothing and may freeze any time. Melts when treated properly. Very bitter if not used well.

Chemical properties: Very active. Highly unstable. Possesses strong affinity with gold, silver, platinum, and precious stones. Violent when left alone. Able to absorb great amounts of exotic food. Turns slightly green when placed next to a better specimen.

Usage: Highly ornamental. An extremely good catalyst for dispersion of wealth. Probably the most powerful income reducing agent known.

Caution: Highly explosive in inexperienced hands!

Element Name: MANIUM
Symbol: XY
Atomic Weight: (180 +/- 50)

Physical properties: Solid at room temperature, but gets bent out of shape easily. Fairly dense and sometimes flaky. Difficult to find a pure sample.

Due to rust, aging samples are unable to conduct electricity as easily as young samples.

Chemical properties: Attempts to bond with WO any chance it can get. Also tends to form strong bonds with itself. Becomes explosive when mixed with KD (Element: CHILDIUM) for prolonged period of time. Neutralize by saturating with alcohol.

Usage: None known. Possibly good methane source. Good samples are able to produce large quantities on command.

Caution: In the absence of WO, this element rapidly decomposes and begins to smell

NOVEMBER 4TH!

2008-11-04T05:51:00.002-06:00

Don't forget to vote today--Senator McCain needs every vote he can get! The Democratic campaign has run every dirty trick they can, from accepting private donations to allowing fraudulent donations on their website to registering fraudulent voters!
It's up to the honest folks to show that American can't tolerate that sort of politics--elect Senator McCain!

UPDATE: That's okay, America--I didn't want to retire someday, anyway.

New Video on Democrats and Iraq

2008-10-30T23:27:00.001-05:00

Why are people voting for Democrats again?

iPetitions

2008-10-28T12:25:00.001-05:00

I have created an account at iPetitions.com. This allows me to gather electronic signatures for the purpose of introducing legislation to national ballots. I don't know if I'll ever get popular enough to push anything through, but please check my petitions out whenever you stop by. My first petition (the links are on the right) is to end the practice of Congressional earmarking, also known as "pork-barrel spending."

I have several ideas for petitions. I don't know how quickly I'll get them up, but if you find the ideas appealing, please sign them, and tell your friends!

Senator McCaskill Responds on Bailout

2008-10-28T12:19:00.002-05:00

Here is the text of the e-mail I received from Senator McCaskill in response to my letter about the bailout:

Dear Mr. Diederich:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the turmoil in the financial markets and federal government’s response to it. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

The situation in the credit markets is dire, and that has left us with some tough choices. We have seen a series of financial institutions fail and that brought us to a crisis point where lending all but stopped. Problems spread beyond investment banks and Wall Street trading firms. Retirement funds and even some money market accounts, which are supposed to be safe places for savings, have been threatened. Meanwhile, interest rates for the short term financing that businesses rely on to make payroll rose to levels that they could barely afford. Many have found that they could not get financing at all, and some small businesses in Missouri have shut their doors as a result.

Missourians are right to be angry about this situation. Financial firms packaged risky subprime loans into securities which they said were as safe as government bonds, and investors made reckless bets on these new products. The new products were so complex that, when they started to go bad, no one knew which securities were affected and to what extent. What’s more, some firms had borrowed huge amounts of money to buy these products, which put their creditors on the hook as well. Confidence dropped to zero throughout the whole market. The federal government was asleep at the wheel during all of this. Regulation was inadequate and oversight was nonexistent.

I do not like how we got here, and I do not like what we have to do to get out. It stinks that the American people are now being asked to post $700 billion to clean up this mess. It all stinks to high heaven. But doing nothing would be much worse. While many Missourians have not felt it yet, the credit crisis has already caused some farmers and small businesses to lose the lines of credit they rely on to function day to day. Many city and state governments have been unable to find financing for important projects, such as sewer projects and hospital improvements. With no action, even Missourians with good credit might not be able to get a home loan, a student loan, an auto loan or a loan to expand their small business.

Still, I took no pleasure in voting for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, but I did so because the credit crisis poses a very real threat to the economic security of all Americans. This bill will attempt to address the credit crisis in a systemic way and get credit flowing again. The bill will allow the Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion in distressed assets, such as mortgage backed securities. The Treasury hopes that this will restore confidence and free up lending by removing some of these distressed assets from the banks’ balance sheets and replacing them with capital. The Treasury also hopes to recover the $700 billion through the sale of these assets and possibly return a profit to the American people.

Like many Americans, I have my doubts about this plan. However, I was pleased that Congress inserted many provisions designed to protect the taxpayer and ensure oversight of the program. The bill places strict reporting and disclosure requirements on the Treasury. It requires the companies that participate in the program to give the government equity shares, allowing the taxpayer to benefit if the company recovers and its stock price goes up. It puts limits on compensation paid to CEO's at participating companies and there are provisions to work with homeowners to restructure loans and keep them in their homes to the greatest extent possible. While it is far from perfect, it is much better than the blank check the Secretary of the Treasury initially proposed.

I know this plan will not be a silver bullet. We will need to do a lot more to get our economy back on track, including investing in education, job training, and renewable energy. We also need to get to work to establish strong, common sense rules and regulations to undo the damage of the last decade of deregulation that turned our financial markets into the world's largest casino. As your Senator, I will be pushing hard to address all of these issues.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to reach out in the future with your thoughts and advice.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

Notice that she completely ignores my question about the Community Reinvestment Act, insisting that the problem was NOT ENOUGH regulation of the market.

Why?

2008-10-26T15:38:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Bluebird asked why God would make a spider as big as the one I referred to in my blog post. I am gratified to be able to answer her question directly, and I shall:

Sheeple

2008-10-25T04:56:00.002-05:00

Australian SPIDERS

2008-10-25T04:54:00.003-05:00

It looks like the Aussies have the same kind of spider problems I'm having!

I'm Voting Democrat...

2008-10-24T15:59:00.002-05:00

The Sentiment Overseas

2008-10-23T08:13:00.003-05:00

Democratic Halloween

2008-10-23T07:19:00.002-05:00

Less Communication...

2008-10-08T06:19:00.002-05:00

The software at work now prohibits me from visiting my blog from there--so it looks like I'll only be in contact on the weekends, now.

Letter to My Congressmen

2008-10-07T04:51:00.003-05:00

This letter was sent to each of my congressmen on the morning of 8 October, 2008.

I am writing to let you all know how disappointed I am that not only was H.R. 1424 allowed to pass, but that ALL THREE of my elective representatives chose to support it. The nationalization of businesses is directly contrary to founding principles of our country, and moreover does not address the root of the problem--the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandates lending to bad-risk borrowers. I request that you provide me a list of the "assets" purchased through this bill, so that I will know where NOT to take my money to avoid supporting "American" socialism.

Please be aware that this letter now appears on my blog, as will your replies or lack thereof.

Representative Ike Skelton has responded, stand by for post.
Senator Christopher Bond has not yet responded.
Senator Claire McCaskill has responded, stand by for post.

Oh, This One's Much Better:

2008-10-06T15:02:00.002-05:00

From Iowahawk:

Funny and Informative...

2008-10-06T14:27:00.004-05:00

From Newsbusters. Not nearly as funny as Red State Update, but updated more often. And worth the watch:

Update: If the video doesn't play for some reason, follow the first link above to see it on its original page.

See, This is Why I Get Grinchy About Christmas...

2008-10-06T08:30:00.005-05:00

I was in Wal-Mart last night doing my grocery shopping for the week, and I heard Deck the Halls playing. On the fifth of October??? I mean, I have a lot of good feelings about Wal-Mart as a company--they get decent products to people at good prices, they help out with disaster relief all the time (and I would know)... but 90 days out with the Christmas songs?

Come on.

President Bush's Radio Address: "Whee, Socialism is Fun!"

2008-10-04T09:16:00.003-05:00

You know, I've defended President Bush on a number of occassions. I've never been a really big fan, but I know for a fact that he gets unfairly demonized in every medium. But I just listened to his radio address on the housing bailout, and in no way can I support him.

First of all, who the hell gave the government permission to spend my money like that? It is a direct contradiction of the basic founding principles of our nation. Second, what about the statement that many of the assets being purchased by the government have underlying value, and the government will probably be able to recoup its expenditures? I mean, hasn't the message coming from the President and the Congress for MONTHS been that "speculation is EEEEVIL?" Haven't we been talking about "PUNISHING speculators?"

An American Carol

2008-10-03T19:29:00.011-05:00

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
--Samuel Clemens

I've started with that quote because I've had some time to consider its meaning, given all of the times it has been thrown at me for being a "brainwashed killer." The truth is, Clemens didn't mean that patriots are scoundrels--but that scoundrels would use the veneer of patriotism to prevent people from questioning their motives. Think of the congressmen who ask, "Are you questioning my patriotism?" Then think of those who don't. See what I mean?
If you are the type of person who asks, "Are you questioning my patriotism?" you shouldn't be here. As much as I enjoy traffic on my blog, you really aren't welcome. More to the point of this post, however, you won't enjoy An American Carol. Carol is part slapstick spoof and part feel-good-about-America movie; the two don't mix seamlessly, and like any movie trying to push an agenda, it gets tiresome in places. I think those places are worth sitting through to see the rest of the movie, however--and in it's defense, it is certainly no more agenda-driven than the original Christmas Carol.
While I was alone, for some reason, in laughing out loud about the "Episcopal Suppository Bomber," I was far from alone in laughing out loud during the movie. The only part I really didn't enjoy was the trailers--they decided to put a trailer for Oliver Stone's new suckumentary, "W." before the first really conservative feature to come out of Hollywood in thirty years.

Blech.

A quick scene to whet your appetite:

The main character, Michael Malone (a spoof of Michael Moore), is cowering in a port-a-john because he knows that a group of Afghan terrorists is about to set off a bomb in Madison Square Garden, killing 20,000 American troops and their families during an Independence Day concert. Suddenly, he is slapped across the face.
It is the spirit of General George Patton, who talks to Michael about courage. Michael begins to sputter... and is slapped across the face again. This time it is the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who talks to him about doing the right thing. Michael begins to sputter again, when a third hand reaches out and slaps him across the face.
"Bill O'Reilly? What are you doing here? You're not a spirit!"
"I know," answers a smirking O'Reilly. "I just enjoy slapping you."

The take-home message is this: if you are tired of the constant stream of anti-American, military-bashing, leftist crap being shoveled on you by Hollywood--go to the cinema and watch this movie. If you like it (and I think you will), watch it AGAIN. Due to the nearly totalitarian political situation in Hollywood, everyone involved in this movie has literally put their careers on the line--this is our one good shot to send Hollywood a message that they might be able to understand. Let's give Carol a really big opening weekend!

Update: Some agrees with me.

*****

While I'm plugging movies, let me put in a word for Get Smart. I saw this with friends in Kansas City, at the dollar cinema. We were really expecting another Starsky and Hutch debacle.
But this movie was good.
Really good. The gags were not only funny, they were smart. Someone did serious homework to make this a movie worth watching, and I recommend it. If it's too late to catch it at the cinema, the DVD release is in December.

Well, goody.

2008-10-03T12:37:00.007-05:00

The Bailout Bill--a.k.a., the Crap Sandwich, has been passed with strong bipartisan support.

So, now that I have worked for over a decade to buy my own house, I get to witness not only the expansion of American socialism and the crippling of the free market system, but I get to watch my own tax money be used to buy the houses of other people who couldn't be bothered with their own fiscal responsibility.

I am absolutely disgusted with the American Congress. As I wrote that last sentence, House Majority Whip Clyburn is actually speaking on television, saying, "I hope that this piece of legislation has gone a long way toward restoring the credibility of our body politic."

My God.

Movie Showdown

2008-10-03T08:10:00.007-05:00

An interesting showdown shaping up in the cinema this week--"An American Carol," the conservatively-oriented spoof produced by the Friends of Abe, opened today, as did Bill Maher's religion-bashing movie, "Religulous."

It's the resurgence of American Conservatism vs. more spiteful Hollywood liberalism... I don't know how good Carol is going to be, but I'll be going to the cinema to support the effort anyway. One thing that I will predict, regardless of how well Carol actually does (and the new trailers are raising my hopes), is that Religulous is going to tank. Bad.

Correction: Per Anonymous' comment, this movie was not "produced" or in any way financed by the Friends of Abe. However,several members have parts in the movie.

Update: Someone agrees with me.