Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Read this.

Howard Husock.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities

...written in AD 2000. 8 years ago.

Understand this: you have only two choices.

You can have an imaginary economy based on the day-dreams of ambitious bureaucrats and politicians. Or you can have a real economy based on what people really trade and why they do so. You don't get both, and one doesn't work.

Imaginary economies work as well as imaginary parachutes.

So, yeah...I don't want no steenking bail-out. The capital everybody is worried about is still all out there. This is just a fight about who gets to keep it, and--if it's the government keepin' it--how much they get to pretend it's worth.

h/t Billy

Monday, September 29, 2008

Close but no cigar...

Taxes could get sky-high with aerial technology (The Press of Atlantic City/Richard Degener)
A new high-tech aerial photography system that can spot an illegal porch from 5,000 feet is being marketed to tax assessors as a way to grow revenue...

"We're not supposed to be spying on people. When it gets to the point where we're doing aerial spying on people's lives, I've had enough," [State Senator, Jeff] Van Drew said.
Well, yeah, Jeff...I guess that's true. I mean, it is true--but what makes aerial spying the point where the line between right and wrong gets crossed?

Anyways, you've had enough, so please quit and take a few more meddlers with you. Mmmm'kay thnx.

You got it wrong, Nancy.

Pelosi: We must insulate Main St from Wall St.

Nope. Actually, we must insulate Wall Street and Main Street from Pennsylvania Avenue.

In other words, separate the economy from the government just like we separate the church and the government--and for exactly the same reasons.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

For decades...

...Canadians have been commenting that the CBC has a strong statist-leftist (essentially Liberal/NDP) bias, and the statist-leftists have been denying it.

Yeah, well now the publisher of CBC news just plain admits it.

Except he titled the admission "We erred in our judgment."

The truth is they finally got caught with no room to weasel about it.

And it's not really a compliment if Mr Cruikshank is just realizing the bias exists.


"Your third party vote is not wasted. It serves to enslave your mind just as well as a major party vote does."--Brad Spangler.

Link to article containing quote.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Do you get it...yet?

You poor bastards have been voting for the lesser of two evils for so long that evil is all that’s left now.
Billy at The Agitator.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

A Democrat I respect...

My head is still shaking!

ex-DEMOCRAT Mike Gravel (former Democrat US senator) speaking on radio regarding Sarah Palin.

QandO for the file. It's a great listen.

I'm still laughing at the show's hosts.

Addendum: I was thinking about this post and doing some follow-up surfing and, in all fairness, the guy is now a Libertarian, so I read. I guess that's no surprise for me since a) I come to my corner of the LRQ with my political growth starting from the left, as well, and b) the guy was making sense.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Investors Daily article...

...Stealth Socialism ...well worth the read.

H/T New Paltz Journal by way of Billy.

The same madness has deeply affected Canada as well.

Social justice means massive State interventionism.

It just sounds prettier. That's why they use it.

Dion Liberals would ban assault rifles in Canada...

OK...I'm a reasonable man, willing to entertain an opposing argument.

If assault rifles are such a bad, bad thing for anyone to have, how about we start with "police & government first"?

Then maybe we'll talk.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Call me stupid, call me wrong...

Fine. Have at 'er. We can have a spirited debate about that if you'd like.

But call me a liar? That's different. (screenshots from a post on Werner's *other* blog)...

The first version:

All he did there was opine that *I* was psychiatrically ill.

That version I left alone.

Then Werner went back and added something:

From Werner in the updated version:
He has even gone so far as to fabricate things I supposedly said, because he's run out of things to write about me.
and that I am:
obsessing about, libelling and fabricating things about other people

So, to Werner: Piss off.

You unarguably did advocate violence against me (and others who don't agree with you and who won't comply) a number of times in this post on your site and I explained exactly how you were advocating violence against me in my comment at 4:28 PM, September 03, 2008 in this thread.

I'm understanding enough to accept that you were too shallow or ill-informed to realize that was what you did (hell, it's getting obvious you don't yet understand the deeper but inescapable and clearly demonstrable consequences of what you were advocating).

However--and this is where things get interesting--I am quite sure you clearly understand that "fabricating" means "lying"...
(fabricate: to concoct to deceive; to invent a story or lie; to make up for the purpose of deception)
...because it's just a bigger word you can use in place of a smaller one, and not an integrated philosophical or political concept requiring insight. Besides, you bill yourself as a pundit and translator ; you claim a degree of professional expertise with words.

Additionally, though, you also now clearly imply I am "libelling" you or "other people". How so? For libel to take place, what I said about you (or these other people, if somehow you didn't mean yourself) must not only be critical, it has to be untrue.

(Is that what you were referring to when you suggested I'll "be facing criminal charges soon if [I] don't stop [my] deranged behaviour" in a comment on my previous thread? Libel is a tort, Werner. Even if proved, libel is a civil, not criminal, wrongdoing--and, in any case, again, what I said was true. Or are you accusing me of something else that *is* criminal?)

In any case, are you also aware that, especially given that you bill yourself as a pundit (generally understood as: a public figure offering public commentary on public issues) that I think I'm correct when I suggest that the bar for someone to successfully be held as libeling you is likely to be higher than it might be when compared to comments made about a generally private citizen?

To sum up:

I said you advocated violence. You did.

You, on the other hand, explicitly said I was fabricating/lying. I wasn't. You didn't even say you thought I was lying/fabricating. You simply said I *was* fabricating/lying.

Want to guess which one of us I think is actually closer to being guilty of something like libel/defamation? And do you also understand that I'm very sure that it is not even necessary for a plaintiff [that would, in this hypothetical example, be *me*] to prove that a defendant [hypothetically *you*] intended to defame?

Oh yeah, one last thing, for now: you said I "dedicate almost [my] entire blog content to [you] and [your] blog."

Bullshit. I've written 5 or 6 posts referencing your blog; this post makes maybe six or seven. I've written over 250 posts, so you occupy maybe 2% of my output. Your math is evidently every bit as accurate as your logic.

Update (Sept 5th): Gawd, Werner Patels changed it again...(see the comments on this thread for my--I dearly hope--last reply)

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

More on Werner Patel's double standards...

I commented in my last post about Werner's ethical inconsistency.

Here he is today prattling on about about how it's wrong for Jason Cherniak to vet the comments on Mr Cherniak's blog...

Here's Jason Cherniak's latest example of "Liberal" when it comes to freedom of speech:

I am also going to be picky about comments. Responding to a story about income trusts with some accusation against Ralph Goodale will not get in. Responding to a story about In and Out with "well you're responsible for sponsorship" is also not enough. However, if you mention sponsorship in an intelligent way and actually make an argument, then I will allow it. Think of your comments as letters to me, where I will print what I find interesting. I know some people do not like this form of comment moderating on blogs, but my experience is that there are many Conservatives who spam Liberal blogs during an election. I am not going to allow this blog to become a victim of that.

So, you can't write about the truth? The sponsorship scandal never happened and must not be talked about? Is that it? Liberal digressions must be swept under the rug?

...and here he is telling me he doesn't want me to comment on *his* blog...
From now on, please stay on your blog, and keep your anarchy BS off this site. You have not contributed anything substantial to this discussion, except sing the praises of your own selfishness and disregard for democracy and those living in it.
Now, Werner claims I "didn't add anything substantial" and was only "sing[ing] the praises of [my] own selfishness" with my comments. Decide for yourself, here and here.

Werner, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself.

Only a screencap will do justice to this one:

Highlighted Werner Patels quote: "What a great family where 17-year-olds sleep around and become pregnant. "

Regular readers will know that Werner has asked me not to post over at his place. Evidently he found me difficult.

Fine. I'm happy enough to make my point here.

Werner, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Obama, quoted at Fox News:
“I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as governor, or her potential performance as a VP. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories...You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and you know teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that’s off limits.”
Up till now, our disagreements aside, I've been willing to cut Werner some slack and I've kept his blog on my "Blogs I Appreciate" list. Today, his blog leaves there for a new and well-deserved place on my "Blogging Yo-Yos" list.

Werner occasionally makes sense, but the more I read his blog I realize that he is correct only in the fashion that a stopped watch is correct twice a day. I'd love to know what things Werner might consider ethical principles because...well, I'll just give this one example, since Werner prints as though he's an Obama supporter:

Here Werner opines about how it's sensible that people are losing interest in unions, noting that "No one needs those mob-like organizations anymore anyway."

And yet he completely ignores Mr Obama's position on unions, including the fact that Mr Obama supports the Employees Free Choice Act which, among other things, could make secret ballots on union workplace certification a thing of the past.

...if Barack Obama becomes president, secret ballots seem destined to end for at least one type of election: union certifications.

Currently, when 50 percent of workers in a company sign statements to unionize, that merely sets up a second stage, where workers vote by secret ballot to determine if the company would be unionized. Under the new proposal, using a system called “Card Check,” unionization would occur as soon as half the workers had signed cards stating that they favor union representation.

In other words, up until now, a worker could placate union supporters and sign a statement saying that he wanted a union and then vote against the union when he was protected by the secrecy of the voting booth.

While the Bush administration promised to veto the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act,” Obama has made his feelings about the legislation very clear. Last year, Obama promised, “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of 'if'; it’s a matter of 'when.' We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”

Obviously I have severe disagreements with Mr Obama's positions on a huge number of things, but he undeniably showed some class today regarding Ms Palin's kids. That's more than I can say for Werner.