- Politics

Celebrate good times...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:57:14 +0000

Beaverton, Oregon will celebrate the 200th Anniversary of Mexico's Independence. Here is an interview by radio host Lars Larson with City Event Coordinator Erin Hickey. This interview is exasperating, but entertaining. No, Beaverton does not have a July 4th celebration. They also celebrate St. Patrick's Day (?) with a "Pooches on the Green" event (???).

Pavlov's "Racist" code word...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:42:57 +0000

Via Brickmuppet: The Herding, by Baldilocks. Anchor link is messed up and will deposit you in the middle of the article. Don't miss the link to part two at the bottom of the article. Excellent essay for all of us racist white folks.

Nothing to see here...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:05:04 +0000

Democrat Rep. Massa to resign; "An investigation into my use of foul language, which we've been talking about all week and I readily admit to having used for decades, and everyone else knows about and isn't bothered by, just that one staffer, might tear my family apart." Right. We believe you.

More fun with Google...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:12:32 +0000

From Sankaku Complex (site is NSFW, link is ok):

You know how when you start typing in a search term in Google, the search engine will pop up suggestions? Generally along the line of, for example:

I type "hobbit" Google will suggest such phrases as "hobbit house", "hobbit name generator", "hobbit travel" and so on. If I type in "how can I" I get suggestions such as "how can I keep from singing lyrics", "how can I lose 10 pounds in a week", "how can I tell if i am pregnant" and such like.

If I type in "Christianity is" Google suggests some fairly insulting search phrases, although to be fair most of those suggestions are repeated for Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and so on.

But not for Islam. If you type in "Islam is"...you will get nothing.

Apparently Google has been made aware of the problem, and they deny any type of "favoritism". The suggestion feature has a bug that for some reason the Google programmers can not discover, won't make suggestions on the phrase "Islam is". Weird, but possible. In fact, If you search on "Islam" plus any other preposition, you get suggestions. You even get some negative suggestions...but not many. E.g. search for "Islam should" will prompt you with "Islam should be banned."

If there is any story here, I think it's much more telling that suggestions for all other major and minor religions include predominantly negative phrases, while Islam includes mostly positive statements.

Climategate means no more advocates, right?

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:15:00 +0000

Don't kid yourself. Sure, you might have thought Copenhagen didn't count because that was a conference of politicians. If you don't have a global warming/severe climate change advocate available, you can read through this post and these comments at Information Dissemination, which normally confines itself to Navy and General Defense news.

Thankfully, Gahlran offers a decent post that may quiet some of the more severe comments. The biggest problem with almost all of the severe climate change/global warming international agreements is that there is no serious enforcement or verification. Many of the chief nations involved, especially China, will not sign on if they are required, in any enforceable way, to comply with the agreements. And as much as some of these people run down the U.S., the United States is far more likely to keep it's promise voluntarily.

Of course, it doesn't help that so many of the severe climate change/global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge that some of the data and procedures used to justify their beliefs are suspect, and were BEFORE Climategate. Never mind that a lot of the data used has always been used out of context, is unverifiable, or lends itself to multiple or contradictory conclusions from what are claimed. There is an imperative for quality custodial care of our planet and all it's systems. Unfortunately, the alarmists are preventing it by not taking the subject seriously.

FedEx vs. UPS

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:41:19 +0000

Saw this linked in two places yesterday. Warning: while funny, this video does contain political commentary.

Can you dig it?

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:55:50 +0000

Day By Day does it again...

As usual, please visit Day By Day for more.

Attention, Texans! October 2nd is Come and Take It Day!

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:40:34 +0000

The Texas Revolution began on this day in 1835 in Gonzales. The relevant Wikipedia article isn't very good (wikipedia is like a box of chocolates...sorry), but their page on Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna has a decent summary of what led to the incident (and the war):

(Mexican President) Valentín Gómez Farías carried out many reforms, introducing anti-military and anti-clerical reforms. He reduced the size of the army and worked hard to root out corruption in the military. He also changed some rules reflecting[sic] the power of the Church. Clergymen would be allowed to preach only on religious matters. He reformed education into a fully secular system. The mandatory tax for the support of the Church was abolished. These drastic reforms angered many of the powerful among the military, wealthy landowners, and the Catholic Church. When there was rebellion and violence against the reform that Farias had made, Santa Anna changed his side, again. Santa Anna reversed his support for the liberals and joined the conservatives, dismissed Farías, declared the (1824) Constitution suspended, disbanded the Congress, and worked to concentrate power in the central government. This was applauded by some conservatives, but met with considerable disapproval from other sectors. He established a Catholic, centralist dictatorship and replaced the Constitution of 1824 (the one that Farias (helped) establish[ed]), with a new document, called “The Seven Laws” – which became the Constitution of 1836. The regime was a centralized dictatorship led by the military.

Several states went into open rebellion: Coahuila y Tejas (Tejas {Texas} was a province of the State of Coahuila), San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments, the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatan, and the Republic of Texas (separate from Coahuila). Only the Texans defeated Santa Anna and retained their independence. Their fierce resistance was possibly fueled by reprisals Santa Anna committed against his defeated enemies.

THE BATTLE OF GONZALES

On January 1, 1831, Green DeWitt, who originated the colony at and around Gonzales, requested from the Mexican government that a cannon be provided to Gonzales for protection against hostile Indians. A bronze six pound cannon was delivered to a colonist in Bexar on March 10, 1831.

As part of Santa Anna's defederalization of the Mexican government, the Mexican military made an effort to clamp down on the ability of Mexican citizens to fight back. In September 1835 Colonel Domingo de Ugartechea, the military commander at Bexar, sent six soldiers to retrieve the cannon at Gonzales. The Gonzales colonists took the soldiers prisoner. The cannon was then buried in George Davis's peach orchard for reasons that I've never adequately understood. The colonists then sent out word to other settlements about the incident and requested armed support. Ugartechea responded by sending 100 troops to assure the return of the gun. The gun was dug up and mounted on a pair of cart wheels. The colonists and Mexican detachment faced off on October 2nd. The colonists declared the Guadalupe River the skirmish line, and threatened attack if the Mexicans attempted to cross the river. They did, and the colonists fired on the Mexican dragoons. The altercation was very brief, and the Mexicans soon returned to Bexar.

The phrase "Come and Take It" refers to the motto adopted by the Texian colonists. When the Mexican soldiers demanded the return of the cannon on October second, a colonist is said to have pointed to the cannon and said, "There it is. Come and take it." Of course, there were approximately 140 armed Texians guarding the crossing of the Guadalupe at the time. Several ladies of the settlement subsequently created a flag, the story of which is recorded in colonist Creed Taylor's memoirs:

"Some of our leaders wanted to march and fight under the Mexican national colors; others wanted the eagle, cactus, and snake, eliminated from the flag and in their stead a star. But it was soon ascertained that the boys wanted nothing that bore the slightest resemblance to the flag of Mexico. At a meeting of the officers a committee of five were appointed to select the design for our flag. This committee was to report by three o'clock the next day. And this gave the occasion for the loftiest display of patriotism on the part of the women of Gonzales. They knew that material for a flag was scarce. Before ten o'clock the committee in council was overwhelmed with offers of material of all shades, textures, and fashions. A few silk dresses that had doubtless been worn on state occasions 'back in the states' and were now faded and tattered---but religiously treasured as sacred mementoes of happier days---were brought forward and freely offered. One heroic mother whose sons went down in the Alamo the following March, brought her only pair of green window curtains. It was finally decided by the committee that it was the duty of the Consultation to design and adopt a flag of the new nation; that any action in regard thereto would be premature and not binding; but in view of the present conditions it would be right and proper for the army to have a banner under which to march during the present campaign, and that in keeping with the simplicity that characterized the general make-up of the army the said emblem be as follows: a white field without border, in the center a picture of a cannon, unmounted and without any fixtures whatever, directly over the cannon a five pointed star. Under the cannon and near the lower margin in large letters extending nearly the length of the flag, this inscription: 'COME AND TAKE IT.'"

The cannon itself is lost to history. While some claim the cannon was never dug up again (with attendant stories that the cannon was a dud), or that the cannon was re-buried in Gonzales or elsewhere; others report that the cannon was abandoned en-route to a muster of Texians at Bexar. However, the fate of the cannon is most likely found in the claim that it was turned over to the Texian army and taken, with other cannons, to the fort at San Antonio. Following the re-taking of Bexar with the defeat of the Texian defenders of the Alamo on March 6th, 1836, the Mexican army reports reclaiming and melting down several bronze cannons captured with the fort.

And the winner is...(not)

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:15:23 +0000

I was listening to this live...almost ran off the road I was laughing so hard. It's too bad this video doesn't have the preceding comments; wherein various "experts" and "insiders" related how the final choice was supposed to be down to Chicago and Rio, but the President's impassioned pleas had definitely tilted the vote in Chicago's favor. CNN had even started a crawl announcing that the decision was to be between Chicago and Rio. And then...

Ow! That's gotta hurt! You can tell the anchor has just been told something of the magnitude of "the sky just turned purple". Something impossible had just happened. On top of that, CNN made it WORSE by building up the President's address as the catalyst for pushing Chicago from number 2 to number 1.

I know what happened. The President's speech was just SO AWESOME that the IOC turned down Chicago just so Chicago can try again in a few years and they can hear Obama again. That's the ticket.

Now seriously, I think what the President did was a waste of time and indicative of an administration with their priorities backwards, but there wasn't anything WRONG with it. What's so funny is how everybody just KNEW that Obama's involvement would seal the deal. I mean, EVERYBODY loves Obama, right?

Uncyclopedic Global Warming

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:39:52 +0000

I like Uncyclopedia. If they would get their sh*t together, the site could challenge The Onion and other related sites for sheer witty, satirical brilliance. Unfortunately, they also feature many entries that are comprised almost entirely of joining random strings of curse words and sexual paraphernalia to form in-cohesive and unfunny diatribes.

But sometimes, you get something amazing like the entry on Global Warming:

Global warming is a fact (or a theory, or a theology) over which humankind has come to unanimous agreement with unprecedented speed. The Earth is warming, or else it's cooling, or else it's not doing either very fast. If left unchecked, this will lead to the destruction of civilization, probably, in a Biblical flood that will happen around 1995. Humans, prosperity, rich diets, breaking faith with Nature, and anything else you may feel guilty about, are the cause of the phenomenon, or else it's sunspots, and it might be totally random.

And:

Scientists first observed global warming in 1895. Then in 1920 they said it was global cooling. Then in 1935 they said there was global warming, but then in 1975 they said it was the verge of a new Ice Age but then it became global warming again. But that is all old news. Let's stop talking about discredited work and move on to the real history...

And:

The scientists' eyes met and they knew they were all thinking the same thing: A soft life through endless government research grants. Lifetime sinecures not just for cousins of legislators! This was the first case of scientific consensus. In fact, science previously had not been conducted through votes and consensus at all. These scientists reached an equally unprecedented conclusion that has echoed through legislative hearing rooms ever since: The science is settled!

I urge you to read the entire article.

This about sums it up...for so many things...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:37:00 +0000

From Chris Muir's Day By Day

Weekend Political Post

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:03:38 +0000

The Brickmuppet vents about Political Correctness and the coarsening of political dialogue.

My friends mood changed, he gave me a stern look and told me that amongst his progressive friends, anyone who used the phrase "Politically Correct" was considered to be a bigot because they want to be able to say such things as 'ni**er' and 'fa##ot'. He went on to say that he agreed and anyone who used the phrase...he thought less of.

Apparently a lot of right-leaning people missed this. "Politically Correct" no longer belongs to the left. Under attack from cultural watchdogs and suffering from it's own excesses, Political Correctness was an empty concept by the end of the 90's, at least to the originators of the concept. Oh, they still believe in the ideal, they just don't use the words. The current fad is "code words", as Brickmuppet touches on later in his post, but I'm not sure how much longer that will last. The left has already stretched the concept extremely thin. Of course, the current "call him/her a racist" fad isn't helping any. Please read the full blog post (linked above); it's a painful but inciteful look at social/political relations in America right now.

Another neat post at The Unwanted Blog concerning the new "V" miniseries, concerning exactly what real-life lessons the creators of the new program are drawing from. Here's some of the evidence:

Three things that keep me from posting much lately:

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:18:12 +0000

One: So many people paying attention to politics right now that I feel redundant...although I did post I link to the health care reform bill on twitter --->
Two: Just got Fallout 3, as watching a Let's Play by Necroscope on Youtube really piqued my interest. And, yes indeed, I'm really enjoying the game.
Three: Summer transitional period of the cotton farming year; even more than before, I'm just running around trying to keep everyone else where they can keep working, due to hiring extra people for hoeing and spraying, and a large number of odd jobs that need to be done.

It's not the lever, it's where you stand...maybe....

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:34:51 +0000

I've been following the debate between the Pentagon and Congress over the F-22 for quite a while (generalized summary: Congress wants more, the Pentagon doesn't). It's been pretty clear to me, based on which congressmen were making the argument, that the call for more F-22s was about defense contracts, not about defense needs (although that's usually the case on congress's end). However, I never really understood why Sec. Gates and other bridges to the military were so opposed to the F-22; the F-22 has been clearly demonstrated to be the BEST air superiority fighter in the world, and will probably remain so for 5 to 10 years. It's also a pretty good deal. You can find a ton of articles detailing the F-22 and the arguments about procuring more on the web; most of the important ones can be found linked at Information Dissemination.

Anyway, Galrahn at ID finally summed it up in a way the less-informed among us (including myself, although I try) can understand (assuming he is correct...it sounds like it):

I am a big fan of the F-22, and I think we should build around 400, but I support Gates move to cut it because this debate is no longer about the F-22. Anyone in favor of reforming the DoD supports Gates move to cut the F-22, and anyone who likes the business as usual entrenched interests value system of defense budgeting favors the F-22. That is what the F-22 has come to mean, a symbol for change or status quo.

Read the entire article, and all those others I was talking about.

A valid argument...?

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:27:58 +0000

OH on Twitter (paraphrased):

Reply to Accusation of Coup: As a journalist, you ARE aware of the relevant articles of the Honduras Constitution: 4, 5, 9, 237, 239, 240, 373, and 374. Right?

Reply to that response: Of course I'm aware of the articles, I was making sure you weren't just spewing rhetoric.

When I was a kid, that was the back door out of a debate you were losing. However, I love the modern modification of adding "spewing rhetoric," an often-used phrase in the U.S. used to describe Conservatives arguing ideology.

Will wonders never cease.