Safe...

There is an ongoing thread, that I have been reading. Today I posted this on it, in response to Sargent Mac, a police officer, somewhere in the USofA. Due to the 1000 character limit on the comments, the post is broken into a bunch of little posts. Sargent Mac is in bold at the beginning. My posts follow.

The whole thread can be found here...

OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you're not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, "Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?", would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?

How about, "Stop!"?

And, if so, how much force do you believe you'd be justified in using to "defend yourself?"
Sergeant Mac | 12.31.04 - 4:50 am | #

"OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you're not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, "Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?", would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?"
Not if you peacefully accept my decline.
"How about, "Stop!"?
And, if so, how much force do you believe you'd be justified in using to "defend yourself?""
Then "you" would be guilty of initiation of force. It then, simply becomes an escalation/response senario. I ignore you. You grab my arm to restrain/detain me. I push it way, you put your hand on your sidearm and unsnap your holster. I do the same. You initiate a quickdraw, I respond in kind. The results will be based on practice, preparedness and, a little bit, on luck. Feeling lucky?
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 6:55 am | #

Feeling Lucky?

Understand, Sargent Mac, I, and most of those on this thread, wish you no harm. And there are some problems with the scenario I just laid out. I'll get to those in a minute. But, libertarians and other freedom loving people are tired of the authoritarian intrusions on our lives. It starts at the federal level, then more from the state. These two levels can be ignored to some extent, in that they are mere legislation actions that have no effect until enforced or applied at the street level.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:00 am | #

Now, when it gets down to the street level is where it involves you and me. If you approach me in a polite manner and explain what you are doing, what you are interested in and how you think I can help you, you might find that I am all too willing to help, if I can.

If, however, you decide to try to use an assumed authority over me, you will find me resistive. If you then escalate the scenario as above, don't be surprised to find me responding, in kind.

You have no right to my time, my property, or my cooperation. If I decide to give it willingly, that is one thing. But don't think you can take it by force. Won't happen.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:09 am | #

Now, to the problems with the scenario;

1. - As soon as restistance is apparent, I know of no officer who is going to backdown to a challenge of his/her authority, even to the demise of his/her investigation or even the possible loss of his/her life.

2. - Most people are aware of problem #1 and have already decided how they will handle the situation.

3. - The officer has no way of knowing what the detainee is prepared to do.

4. - Some, knowing that the officer is likely to escalate all the way to the deadly force level (by drawing his weapon) have already decided that they will not follow the escalate/response scenario above, since it leaves them at a disadvantage in the draw. They will draw first.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:16 am | #

I think this is a serious concern to you, as it should be. What I have gathered from your posts here, is that you would like a more free nation. You would like less government. You would like to not have to play out the scenario above.

Yet, you are unwilling to recognize individual rights. You are unwilling to recognize property rights. And, you are unwilling to stop doing the very things that make this country a police state.

I submit that you make some form of the scenario,...inevitable.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:23 am | #

Now you may pontificate on the law all that you want. You may defend the corrupted courts as the place to seek justice. But I would point you to a work, by Frederick Bastiat, called "The Law". The laws first duty (and yours) is to protect the natural right of defense.

Something that you would transgress in your attempt at authoriatarian structure.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:30 am | #

From "The Law":

"Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:31 am | #

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right."
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:33 am | #

"If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:35 am | #

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:35 am | #

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false phil
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:36 am | #

"The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy."

I'll let youread the rest at your leisure.

But please, remember, few here want to see your death or a civil war. But most here are willing to match your escalation, action for action, and accept whatever outcome prevails.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:39 am | #

I only hope that local police and sheriff's departments learn this before too many examples have been made.

Then again, those first examples will probably be the worst LE offenders and rogues.

So maybe it will just be house-cleaning.

Let's be careful out there...

...everybody.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:44 am | #

For additional reading:

http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/libe155-20020107-03.html
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:46 am | #

One more thing...

As someone above menteioned, early in this thread, you will be the one to set yourself up as an enemy of the people.

No one here is going to rifle through your car under pretense of a safety search. No one here is going to violate you house and steal your Doritos. No one here is going to order you to stop or do a "Terry" patdown of you.

We are not your enemy, until you make it so.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 - 7:58 am | #


River: They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are.
Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?
From the Firefly episode "Safe"

Shindig...

"AS the last Alka Seltzer plink-plonk fizzes you back to the real world, it's time to start thinking about New Year . . . and all the resolutions that go with it.

Richard Wilson, aka Victor Meldrew, for example, is vowing to cut down on the booze. Richard, left, said at a recent charity shindig: 'My New Year's resolution is to try to increase the number of dry days I have each week. At the moment, it's three. But next year, I want to increase it to four.'

When he heard the news, the owner of his local off-licence gasped: 'I don't believe it' and put one foot though the plate-glass window."

More here...

"Sure. It would be humiliating. Having to lie there while the better man refuses to spill your blood. Mercy is the mark of a great man. (lightly stabs Atherton with the sword) Guess I'm just a good man. (stabs him again) Well, I'm all right." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the Firefly episode "Shindig"

"You think following the rules will buy you a nice life, even if the rules make you a slave." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the Firefly Episode "Shindig"

Bushwhacked...

"During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out.

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"

More here...

Alliance Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of."

Mal: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." - From the Firefly episode "Bushwhacked"

The Train Job...

"A TRAIN passenger who went "berserk" and tried to open the emergency door while travelling at 70mph has claimed she did it because she was scared of the person she was with."

Those wacky Brits... More here...

"Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get and beat you with to show you who's in command." Jayne from Firefly episode "The Train Job"

Serenity...

The reviews of Joss Whedon's follow-up movie to the Firefly series have been very favorable. Read the reviews here...

I am a big fan of Firefly and am looking forward to the release of the movie, that is now scheduled for late next year (it was supposed ot be in april, but movie politics changed that).

"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." Jayne from Firelfy episode "Serenity"

How do you fix a Ponzi Scheme?

The fact is,... you can't. Ponzi schemes are crimes of fraud precisely because they cannot be made to work on a profitable basis. What can you do about a Ponzi scheme? The first thing is to recognize one when you see it, then simply don't participate. The second thing would be to go after the operators of such frauds and either exile them or jail them. I prefer exile as it reduces the cost of operating prisons.

That brings us to just one of our governments many ponzi schemes,...Social Security. It is all over the news, that George Delano is going to [negotiate] a fix, with congress, to solve the social security system problems. Don't kid yourself, this is just another attempt to raise government revenues under the guise of helping the people.

Social Security cannot be fixed. It is a criminal operation, run by criminals. There is talk of privatizing funds in the stock and bond markets.

Bad idea.

On average the stock market barely keeps up with inflation. Once brokerage fees, taxes and dollar devaluation is figured in, you are lucky if you break even. Also, in the stock market it is just like the regular marketplace, there are winners and there are losers. So some of those investing are going to realize even less than they would expect to under the current system.

What they will try to do is take more money from those who are working and payout less to those who are sucking the government teat. Sorry to be so brash, but 'thems is the facts'. There will be decreases in benefits. There will be increases in taxes (theft) used to fund the operators (criminals, ie. legislators and government agents). Those that insist on living off the spoils of government theft will have to look elsewhere for their livelyhood.

So what do we do?

The first thing to do is to stop paying in.

This would work out for both the employee and the employer. Currently, the money stolen from paychecks for the ponzi scheme is about 14%. 7% of that is lopped right off the employee's paycheck (check your paystub). The other 7% is paid by the employer, but is actually the employee's money (he could be paid that same money at no loss to the employer if it weren't being stolen by the government - this is the same with all payroll deductions).

Now the employee takes 10% of his pay and pops it into silver or gold or some other investment that he trusts to at least maintain it's value, if not grow, outright. It has cost the employee nothing to do that because he has agreed to keep 3% of the employer's contribution (it was actually his to begin with but he is feeling generous in his new found wealth and wants his employer to benefit as well) and let his employer keep the other 4%. The employee gets a 10% pay boost and the employer gets a 4%, per employee, cost cut.

The employee's take home is the same, but now he is building a nestegg. The employer is saving 4% per employee and now has the funds to invest in better equipment and tooling for the employees to do their jobs with. His company becomes more efficient and is also able to reduce its prices, making it a hit with his customers.

Everybody wins, except the thieves. They get one-way tickets to Afghanistan as part of the new government-employee exile program.

I like it. Now get out there and start sending any congressman, senator or president, who voted for or signed a budget that included any funding of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, to Afghanistan.

Now isn't that a nice Christmas bonus!!!

On this day in history...

...the Wright Brothers conducted the first powered flight of an aeroplane. Click here to learn the steps the brothers took to achieve this incredible feat, as decribed by Orville, in his own words.

The course of the flight up and down was exceedingly erratic, partly due to the irregularity of the air, and partly to lack of experience in handling this machine. The control of the front rudder was difficult on account of its being balanced too near the center. This gave it a tendency to turn itself when started; so that it turned too far on one side and then too far on the other. As a result the machine would rise suddenly to about ten feet, and then as suddenly dart for the ground. A sudden dart when a little over a hundred feet from the end of the track, or a little over 120 feet from the point at which it rose into the air, ended the flight. As the velocity of the wind was over 35 feet per second and the speed of the machine over the ground against this wind ten feet per second, the speed of the machine relative to the air was over 45 feet per second, and the length of the flight was equivalent to a flight of 540 feet made in calm air. This flight lasted only 12 seconds, but it was nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in full f light, had sailed forward without reduction of speed and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which it started.

Click the link. The above quote is taken from the page called "Flight!".

Counting the vote(s)...?

Some new information has come to light about vote tampering. This is from Judiciary Committee hearings, earlier this week...

At apprx 1p, after a witness had finished, cliff arnebeck -- who had given a presentation some time before -- interjected and asked to call one more witness. He was given permission to do so. He said he was calling clint curtis.

Some of the audience literally gasped while others applauded. They clearly knew who he was.

Curtis stood at the front of room with arnebeck seated behind him. Curtis was about five to ten feet from the members of congress. At the front of the room, he placed his hand on a bible and was sworn. To my knowledge, he was the only witness sworn.

Arnebeck began a direct examination of curtis with basic questions, name, residence....

Then got to his qualifications.

Then, he asked curtis something like whether voting machines could be hacked. He said yes. Arnebeck asked him on what he based that opinion. He said because I wrote a program that could do it. Arnebeck asked when that happened. Curtis said feeney had asked him to design such a program at yang enterprises.

Jaws dropped. Tubbs jones and waters looked shocked.

Tubbs jones, waters and nadler asked questions. Waters asked him to repeat who asked him to do it. Congressman feeney, he said. Nadler asked him some questions, as did tubbs jones and a state senator.

Curtis was asked what he would conclude if there was such a substantial deviation btwn exit polls and actual results. He said he would conclude the election had been hacked. Gasps. Could have heard a pin drop.

More at Brad Blog Too...

I am adding Riverbend to the Blogroll. This is a blog run by a local woman in Baghdad. She is trying to keep the blog up even though power and comunications are very intermittent.

On this day in history...

...the Boston Tea Party took place. Here is an eyewitness account...

The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin's wharf, and were surrounded by armed ships of war, the commanders of which had publicly declared that if the rebels, as they were pleased to style the Bostonians, should not withdraw their opposition to the landing of the tea before a certain day, the 17th day of December, 1773, they should on that day force it on shore, under the cover of their cannon's mouth.

On the day preceding the seventeenth, there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on what measures might be considered expedient to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty. At that meeting a committee was appointed to wait on Governor Hutchinson, and request him to inform them whether he would take any measures to satisfy the people on the object of the meeting.

To the first application of this committee, the Governor told them he would give them a definite answer by five o'clock in the afternoon. At the hour appointed, the committee again repaired to the Governor's house, and on inquiry found he had gone to his country seat at Milton, a distance of about six miles. When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members, and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, "Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country"; and there was a general huzza for Griffin's wharf.

It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew.

We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.

We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.

During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.

One Captain O'Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke.

Another attempt was made to save a little tea from the ruins of the cargo by a tall, aged man who wore a large cocked hat and white wig, which was fashionable at that time. He had sleightly slipped a little into his pocket, but being detected, they seized him and, taking his hat and wig from his head, threw them, together with the tea, of which they had emptied his pockets, into the water. In consideration of his advanced age, he was permitted to escape, with now and then a slight kick.

The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable.

-- George Hewes

Direct action...taken directly...

Bill of Rights Day...

Today is the 213th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. That happened on December 15th, 1791, when Virginia signed the ratification completing the three/fourths requirement and the Bill of Rights became law.

I would wish you "Happy Bill of Rights Day", but it seems rather moot given the current police state that we accept, in defacto. In truth, not even the Constitution is adhered to today as the founding fathers had intended. The result is a country deep in moral and financial bankruptcy...with no respect for individual or property rights...a government out of the control of its people.

Most people don't even know what rights are. This past election we heard about the [sic]'right' to vote. There is no such thing. Rights are inherent in a person through simple being. Nothing else is required. No other people are involved. The mere fact that it takes at least three people to vote shows that it can't be a right. Those people must agree to the concept of the vote and to abide by its outcome. Otherwise the vote is meaningless.

In fact, that brings me to one of my pet peeves about voters. Many of you, out there, claim that if I don't vote, I have no right to complain (they seem utterly unaware that this would be a free speech violation). I fell for the illogical concept once myself, so I don't blame you if you did, too. However if you continue to participate in such a farcical premise, after this explanation, you have no one to blame but yourself. The fact is, that when you vote, you have no right to complain. The mere act of participating in the vote means that you agree to accept the outcome, whether it is the one you want or not. Now some things are fine for voting on. Whether to have beef or chicken at the company Christmas party, for instance. Or voting for prom king/queen, or your favorite movie. We can even vote on when we should next get together to...well...vote.

But the one thing you should never vote on is...your rights. They are not up for debate. As soon as you agree to put them on the ballot you have slipped the noose around your neck and are only waiting for the election results to see which hangman gets to drop the trapdoor for you.

When an elected official authors a bill, which infringes on your rights, you should be screaming treason. Each legislator who co-sponsors such an atrocity is also a traitor. Should the bill actually become law by a vote of the houses, all who participated are gulity of treason to the citizens (even if they voted against it - they agreed it could and should be voted on - bad, bad representative...). A president which then signs a law that, abrogates or restricts your rights, is then also guilty of treason.

At this time we have a federal government (as well as most state and local governments) that has found themselves to be above the Supreme Law of the land. They have seen fit to interfere with your right to life; your right to free association, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech; your right to self defense; your right to be secure in your property and possessions. They have claimed powers that you as an individual did not and could not grant (how can you grant a power that you, yourself, cannot do - like taking money, by force, from another - or invading your neighbors home). They have then used those powers to enrich themselves and their friends, family and business partners. They have lobbed the party bashing balls back and forth, keeping you beguiled by their dexterity, with lies and laws. And yet, you continue to walk into the precincts, eyes glazed over from the daily onslaught of political rhetoric and approve of your next master.

As long as the people continue to put their rights up for a vote, they will continue to lose them.

A piece of paper gets you nothing. It does not grant rights, it acknowleges them. It was part of a contract between the states. It was a simple agreement. The government broke its part of the deal. It means nothing anymore.

You only have the rights you are willing to defend.

Happy Bill of Rights Day.

From No Quarters...

The founding fathers are restless...

Thanks, Gunner...

Rob Roy?...or Don Quixote???

Claire Wolfe posts a reply from a reader to an earlier post of hers, lamenting a possible lack of courage in the patriots of today.

"I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO SOMEBODY YESTERDAY WHY I DON'T FLY. "Because I refuse to run the TSA Gestapo gauntlet," I said.

"But why?" the person asked.

My first flash of impulse was to answer sarcastically. "Because I might kill the goons."

Then I realized the much sadder truth -- that I don't fly because I wouldn't kill the goons. Which might say something about my (and most everyone else's) basic good sense and humanity. But says something terrible about any pretentions we have to real courage or determination to be free."

I know how she feels. Almost everyday I think about what I have to do to keep spreading the Philosophy of Liberty and yet try to provide for myself and my family. Sometimes it seems like "The Impossible Dream". And yet, should I die while still in the fight, is that such a bad way to go? Her responder, known only as Pagan, had this to say:

On 12/6 you said, “Which might say something about my (and most everyone else's) basic good sense and humanity. But says something terrible about any pretentions we have to real courage or determination to be free.”

Don’t worry about ‘pretentions’... ‘real courage’ is not contradictory to ‘good sense and humanity’. Real courage is putting your good sense into gear, knowing what you can get away with or not, and biding your time till you can act.

I recently re-watched two movies (each with its own theme -- and each correct in its own way, I think) which left me wondering who was the true Idealist. Because I saw them one day after the other, they both challenged my mind at the same time.

One was “Rob Roy” who remained true to his honor by ultimately killing his antagonist on his own terms. Taking his chances with life, he girded himself with sufficient expertise, as well as attitude, to be sure of his success.

The other was “Man of La Mancha” who won by default, so to speak, dying with his principles still intact. We must believe in ourselves first before we can claim the right to fight for anything. ("Cyrano de Bergerac" was another.)

Don Quixote and Cyrano are NECESSARY to prepare for battle. But Rob Roy will be more sure of winning the war (as is Mal Reynolds [of Firefly]) -- and will stay alive to fight again!

‘Basic good sense and humanity’ are the actions one takes to set up the enemy on one’s own terms. It is a part of us, as Idealism is; and are just as relevant to Realism as courage and determination must be in order to get the job done.

There is no ‘pretension’ about it, in either case. There is a right time for both.

I like that. Thanks Claire and Pagan. Lets keep trying to spread the word and stay low, like Mal Reynolds and know that, if it comes down to it, we can go out like Don Quixote and still win.

It reminds me again of the words of Joel Simon, written shortly after 9/11:

I wish I could believe that the original intent of our republic can be restored. I really do. Not long ago I re-read El Neil's and Aaron Zelman's book Hope. I leaned back in my chair and tried to retreat into a fantasy of what it would be like to have someone like Alexander Hope as president, providing a way for us to restore our liberty while punishing those guilty of stealing it from us. I just couldn't do it.

No president like that will arise. Americans won't rise up, either, even when it's too late. In the unlikely event we do organize for revolt, we'll lose. Since I can't imagine living in the future America I envision, I expect to die. And when I die, I don't expect to be surrounded by friends. So enemies will have to do. I just don't want to die alone.

"You don't stand for that! Someone tries and kill you, you kill them right back." Mal Reynolds - Firefly Episode: Our Mrs. Reynolds

Town Ends Law Barring Cat-Dog Cohabitation

What is the world coming to. Somebody call the Ghostbusters. I think they may be needed here...

Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Audio here...

"I'm the king of the world!!!"

That line, from the movie "Titanic", has been named the cheesiest line in recent movie moments.

Although ``Titanic'' soared at the box office in 1997, according to a recent survey, its most memorable line - ``I'm the king of the world!'' - sunk.

British baker Warburtons posed the question ``What are your top three cheesiest moments in film?'' to 2,000 U.K. moviegoers in celebration of the launch of their new cheese-flavored crumpets.

The line uttered by Leonardo DiCaprio was followed by Patrick Swayze's ``Nobody puts baby in the corner'' from 1987's ``Dirty Dancing'' and Andie McDowell's ``Is it still raining? I hadn't noticed,'' from the end of 1994's ``Four Weddings and a Funeral.''

The rest of the runners-up are here...

In a Titanic display of arrogance and domination, King George Delano (sorry Vox) and his band of merry hinchmen have decided that DiCaprio is a mere Earl. After all, how many kings can you have?

Last week, the minions of George W. Bush announced, in open court, that he has the power to seize anyone on earth -- even "little old ladies in Switzerland" -- and imprison them forever if he so chooses, The New York Times reports. The minions said that anyone Bush declared "an enemy combatant" -- even if they never took up arms against America, even if they didn't know their actions were related to terrorism in any way -- could be abducted from any nation, friend or foe, or in the Homeland itself, and held indefinitely, "at the president's discretion," stripped of all rights under the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions.

More here...

Liberated Iraq....or Nazi Occupation???

We are merely the second coming of the same crap. Facism. Looks like training for the Bush version of Amerika. I can see the Iraqis longing for the limited torture of Saddam versus the all out take-over and destruction by the United States. Iraq was never a threat to the US. It still isn't. But America is a threat to the world as long as We The People don't keep our government in check. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

"They that give up essential liberty for temporary security, will have neither." Benjamin Franklin

The American occupation forces in Iraq are "drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control" and, as the Boston Globe observes in its lede, these changes will "make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy... promised."

Most residents of Fallujah are currently refugees without homes. Under the plans being drawn up, these refugees would be funnelled into Fallujah through "citizen processing centers". Once at a citizen processing center the Fallujan would have a DNA sample taken and their retina scanned. They would then receive identification badges displaying their home address. Those ID badges will be required. They must be worn and visible at all times.

Inside Fallujah — again, a city the size of Miami — cars will be banned. Buses would be used to transport ID-marked, retina-scanned Fallujan citizens through the city.

Lieutenant Colonel Dave Bellon, of the First Regimental Combat Team, told the Globe that "You have to say 'Here are the rules,' and you are firm and fair. That radiates stability... We need to be the benevolent, dominant tribe."

More here...

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis

Why a weak dollar is BAD for America...

The Mogambo Guru gives a real simple and real accurate explanation about why the weak dollar is really really really bad for America. It is because we don't make anything to export anymore.

Everybody has something to say about the weak dollar. To the amazement of many, including myself, there are those who are actually saying that a weak dollar is going to be good for us! To explain how this is possible, sit down and make yourself comfortable, as the plot is a long and complicated one, but it all started with somebody in a coma not knowing that her sister had a baby, the father of which is not her husband, and two sets of evil twins return from a long absence, vowing revenge, while the father's uncle, whose nephew is having an affair with her sister because the mother had an affair with a Ukrainian dwarf that was in town with the circus, which is secretly owned by the guy that she was blackmailing, and, ummm, well, I sort of forget how the thing goes, but there is another episode on tomorrow, where we find out if the doctor lives or dies before he can perform the delicate operation on the orphan, which not an orphan at all, but is the illegitimate daughter of the mayor!

No! Wait! Now that I think about it that is not the plot at all! Sorry! In fact the plot is simplicity itself. A strong currency is good for a country that imports stuff, because you get to buy so much stuff for so little money, and you end up with a whole shopping basket full of bargains, beautiful, beautiful bargains, including that new hollow-point .50- caliber ammo for the machine gun and two cases of grenades for the price of one! And a new shower curtain that will look absolutely darling!

Conversely, a weak currency is good for a country that exports stuff, as you get a pricing advantage over your competitors in the international marketplace when your stuff hits the market shelves in that foreign market and the shopkeeper puts a price tag on it in local currency. Up to now, see, America has been a consuming country, and therefore we had a strong dollar policy, and we got to buy stuff cheap. And we borrowed money and bought it all. Now we are at the limits of the amount of money a working-class peasant like me can bear without waking up in the middle of the night, drenched in sweat over impending bankruptcy and ruination.

As a sweat-drenched people desperately in need of sleep and debt relief, we are not going to be buying as much stuff from now on, and therefore we will not be importing as much stuff from now on, and so we don't need a strong currency anymore. What we need is a weak currency, so that we can sell stuff to foreigners real cheap, and hopefully getting back into the game.

And now we are going to get one, and if you think that a nation of gluttonous consumers in a Big Government Economy, who make nothing, but consume everything, is going to seamlessly transition itself into an exporting powerhouse without monumental disruptions, and heartache, and misery, and ruination, and collapse of everything you hold near and dear, then I know that, although you are much better looking than me, and much smarter than me, and everybody likes you, that there are more differences between us than just those things. For instance, I also know that you have not spent any time reading history, because if you had, then you would be screaming in horror and fear, which is probably redundant, but saying just "horror" or just "fear" sounded inadequate, somehow, to describe the situation.

More here...

By the way....

...sorry for my absence. I have been out of town until mid-day Saturday. Took me two days just to catch up my email. I am going through last weeks information now.

Gunner...life is good. Life is what you make it. Make life good.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy ****...what a ride!"

Coming soon....to a street near you...

I would walk or bus wherever I went. At the bus stop, I'd see money--coins & currency--scattered in the gutter. For the first couple of days, I'd pick up large and shiny coins and stare at their dates. A former coin collector, I'd wonder why a coin minted only a year ago now lay in the gutter. Valueless, my Brazilian friends would tell me, like the government. They had a few wonderful words--"safados"--scoundrels or "ladrones," which meant thieves, to classify their political leaders.

More here...