Odd Citizen

Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

The Press: Enemy of the American People

October 1st, 2012

The following video by Pat Caddell, a former Democrat pollster is the most powerful indictment of the mainstream press that I’ve heard lately. It is depressing. It is a serious disease. Thank goodness we still have independent alternative sources of information via radio talk shows and the internet. Without these we’d be completely blind, deaf and enslaved. But don’t hold your breath. If Caddell is right this alternative too might soon disappear.

The solution, says Caddell, is for Republicans to get some backbone and push back. Call out the lies and the liars. Name names and don’t be cowed. These people are cowards. Don’t be intimidated by them, don’t try to be loved by them. They have poisoned a valuable institution of American liberty, and they must be reformed. It can be, and must be done.

Rabid Mad-Dog Words

August 22nd, 2012

This week’s foaming-at-the-mouth violent reaction to Rep.Tod Akin’s comment about “Legitimate Rape” is evidence of social insanity. Both democrats and republicans reacted like rabid dogs in attack mode. Now, one can argue about the wisdom of calling some cases of rape “legitimate” and some not. But to bust a gut over the mere mention of the subject is insane.

There are words and concepts that political correctness designates as automatic triggers for the mad-dog response. When Larry Summers, a much admired democrat, who was then President of Harvard, said that in his opinion, [paraphrasing] “women are not equally represented in science and engineering disciplines because their brains are not wired for that kind of work” — well, the world exploded around him. How dare he even think such a thought! When a Las Vegas Bookie, Jimmie the Greek, observed that negro athletes had a biological advantage of strong leg and buttock muscles the world reacted as if he was the reincarnation of Hitler.

So let’s see. Here are some concepts that trigger the mad-dog response: 1) There are biological differences between the races, 2) there are innate differences in capabilities, motivations, and behaviors between men and women, 3) a white man insulting a black man by calling him a nigger is racist and a punishable human rights violation, while the same insult by a black man is simply a cultural artifact, 4) expression of distaste for the “gay” agenda and lifestyle, 5) and it goes on and on.

If I call your newborn baby ugly you’ll take offense. It would be better for me to zip my lip and swallow. But if I go ahead and say it and you are a reasonably well mannered person, you’ll probably just ignore the comment and hope you never encounter me again. But if I say that some claims of rape are bogus or exaggerated, i.e., not legitimate, then you may have the mad-dog response and will want to claw my eyes out.

In some Muslim societies they have have very strict attitudes about blasphemy. When someone commits blasphemy he or she is subjected to the blind rage of the community and is often as not stoned to death. So where’s the difference between the rage produced by blasphemy in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and the mad-dog response to certain PC trigger words?

We’d have a much more civilized and peaceful world if the virtue of tolerance were emphasized and practiced. The PC concept of words that invoke rage and mad-dog reactions and self-censorship does not fit a civilized society. It is a characteristic of savage societies which have such taboos and violent reactions against those who transgress.

And as to abortion, that has no legitimate role in the national political debate. It’s none of the federal government’s damn business one way or the other.


September 8th, 2011

Today’s news reports that a French court has found a (strange) fashion designer, formerly employed by Dior fashion house, guilty of speech that insulted Jews and others. However vile the speech, however vile the speaker, making speech a crime is even more vile. And this type of censorship/criminalization of speech has infected what were previously thought to be democratic, free societies including much of Europe and even Canada. Here in the U.S. it hasn’t come to that yet, with the exception of some “hate crime” laws that criminalize thoughts, which is a related subject.

As vigilance is the price of liberty, we must guard against creeping censorship in its many forms, including self-censorship via political correctness. We are a better and more civilized people who ignore speech we detest rather than bringing down the boot of the state on the neck of the speaker.

Obama Regime Propaganda Department Enlarged

May 24th, 2011

Should the President of the U.S. to be spending public funds to campaign for his own re-election? Should the White House support a propaganda department? Well, it does, and today it expanded its staffing. According to and article in the Huffington Post (via FishBowlNY reporting a memo from the WH “This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response”. Heretofore, according to the article, this type of work has been done by the DNC, presumably not at public expense like the current appointment.

How far does it go? Is the next step an effort to censor and silence critical voices through the forceful tools of the U.S. government? See the article immediately before this one.

Tyrants have propaganda departments. Tyrants suppress criticism. Little steps like this show the current president’s disdain for democracy, the American people, and legality. Little steps like this chip away at the liberties we should all cherish and defend. The White House Office of Propaganda is an abomination that should not be tolerated in our democracy. Contact your congressional representative and complain. Somebody in authority might have the courage to put a stop to this misuse of public office by President Obama.

Easter Wolf Doesn’t Offend

April 21st, 2011

The headline proclaimed “Easter Bunny, events renamed ‘spring’ to avoid offending anyone”. Now I’m as much a pagan as anyone but I don’t remember ever being “offended” by Easter celebrations. So I wonder who is offended? It certainly isn’t Christians. The holiday is pagan in origin, so why should we be offended? Maybe it’s the eternally outraged Muslims?

Changes in customs don’t give me much grief, but contorting the language certainly does. The Easter Bunny is The EASTER BUNNY, not the Spring Bunny. If you want to invent a new holiday tradition, do it with your own damn animal. Call it the SPRING WOLF or something. (After investigating I discovered that this isn’t an original idea!)


POTUS uses TOTUS to give SOTU to COTUS in presence of SCOTUS

January 24th, 2011


Civil Discourse? Who Are You Kidding?

January 17th, 2011

See: I do not want civil discourse

Well said. Enough said.

Sane Thoughts, Insane Murderer, Unwise Politics

January 10th, 2011

RECOMMENDED: The Scary World of Jared Loughner; Dems Target Political Speech By Chris Stirewalt This is a well reasoned discussion of the political “do-something” climate already swirling around this weekend’s murder rampage by Jared Loughner.

Banning Words: Racism or Culture?

January 5th, 2011

The attempt to censor and re-write Mark Twain’s classics Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn so as to eliminate the word “Nigger” from Twain’s “Nigger Jim” and the word “Injun” from “Injun Joe” is a literary and cultural travesty. To somehow deny that this language was common usage at the time of Tom and Huck’s adventures is to lose the valuable context of the stories. In the political correctness world the first thing one must abolish is any sense of humor. Secondly, PC must ban all tolerance, including that necessary to realistically understand history. Lock-step, group-think, mob-conscience and group-victim-hood are the rule. Censorship is the result.

If the term “Nigger” is offensive to a culture, perhaps we should be equally upset about the type of “culture” exemplified by the video below:

From a historical standpoint the word Nigger derives from Latin for the color black, and Nigeria, or Nigerian, the regions of Africa from which slaves were captured for export to the U.S. (See Nigerian Village Square for a very thoughtful discussion of this subject by Michael Femi: “Banning the N-word not a Solution” The use of the word as an epithet to describe a race or a culture can only get its bite from the perceived pain of those against whom it is hurled. If the word, itself, were the cause of the hurt, then the usage illustrated in the video, above, would certainly be equally condemned. It is not. Why that is so can be explained by the contention that it is part of the urban African-American “culture.” Within the culture it apparently refers to behavior and attitude, not to race. So it is safe for black performers to call each other niggers, whereas the same reference by a white person is oddly condemned as “racist.”

My own private conclusion about this subject is that too much of what the PC crowd calls racist is actually a cultural judgment, not a racial one. There are people who behave in a way we disapprove of. We are entitled to criticize and shun them for their behavior. We don’t invite them to dine with us. Others we admire and want to socialize with. These judgments are cultural, not racial, and they split both racial and cultural communities equally. In a free society they are justified. Banning words does nothing to change these judgments.

Introduction to Liberal Mushification

December 17th, 2010

Mushify: [verb] The progressive/liberal formula for solving every problem and spreading happiness throughout the world. Whenever a liberal encounters someone, anyone who is unhappy for any reason, the answer is to mushify. The essence of musification is to redefine things so they no longer vex the unhappy complainer. Simple!

Mushification appeals to those with a collective mentality, people who consider individual responsibility quaint and icky, who think that demonstrating excellence is an insult against under-achievers and the lazy, that the exercise of honor and duty belong to fools, and that individuals are not entitled to form their own, independent opinions and judgments.

Before the concept of mushification entered my mind I was at a loss to understand why Liberal Collectivists came up with the inane proposals they called progressive. But now it is quite clear. Once you understand how to mushify, you understand the liberal mind in its entirety.

In its simplest form mushification involves changing meanings through euphemisms. Crippled becomes handicapped, becomes physically disabled, becomes physically challenged. Trash dump becomes sanitary waste fill. Muslim terrorist becomes terrorist, becomes insurgent. Criminal becomes victim of failed social justice system. The essence of the object doesn’t change, but the word naming it becomes less and less meaningful. You know the drill.

But it gets worse. Mushification can be applied to legal concepts, societal standards, political debates, foreign policy, and everywhere else that liberals see a need for “progress.” Unless you understand it clearly as mushification it’s hard to resist. The only way to effectively resist this is to insist on using the original terminology and its original meaning. You’ll be vilified for that, but if you don’t respect the source you don’t care about the brickbats. To do otherwise is to accept the distorted, mush-meanings, which makes you unable to ever win the debate.

A huge example of Mushification is how it has been so successfully applied to the Commerce clause of the constitution. With a simple redefinition of the term “commerce”, every activity of every citizen can become subject to regulation. Without mushification the U.S. Constitution would have protected us from having a government that now threatens to sink the entire country with its burdensome regulation and crushing expense.

To help you understand the process of mushificaiton, here are some more minor examples:

Senator Weanie wants to pass a bill banning gun ownership — Mushify! Redefine the term “arms” to that, in the constitutional context, it applies only to muskets and flintlocks. Everything else can be banned. Or just redefine an individual right as a collective right.

Johnnie complains he can marry Billie, Mushify! Redefine marriage.

Henry complains that he’s not earning enough money, Mushify! Redefine individual earnings as entitlements. It’s society’s fault, not Henry’s. Pass a law forcing Harry’s employer to give Henry more money. If Harry’s employer goes under, let the government give Henry more money.

Carl complains that his boss says his work is substandard and he doesn’t work hard enough, Mushify! Redefine individual performance standards as group performance standards. Tell Carl’s boss that according to union rules Carl is no better and no worse, on average, than any other union member.

Billie comes home from school crying that his team lost the baseball game, Mushify! Redefine win or loss in sports. Eliminate scoring in baseball games.

Young Sammie complains that his father criticized him for picking his nose at the table, Mushify! Redefine table manners. Table manners are obsolete and don’t matter, especially for young kids.

Artist Jan-Paul creates a sculpture that makes people puke, Mushify! Redefine art as anything the artist says it is.

Bill the welder complains that he’s being blamed for burning down the factory because he didn’t follow the safety rules, Mushify! Redefine Bill’s conduct as an issue, not a problem. It’s not Bill’s fault, nor anyone else’s. It’s the system. It’s not a “problem” that the factory burned down, it’s an “issue”. An issue is something everyone can talk about, but nobody is responsible for.

Victor the CEO made a decision to move the company to China. The Chinese ate the company’s lunch, and it went belly up. Mushify! Redefine the role of CEO as group organizer, not responsible leader. Victor says that really, he didn’t “make a decision”, he “took a decsion” (collectively) so he can’t be held personally responsible for the failure.

Symphony conductor Roger complains that the audience didn’t applaud his latest performance. Mushify! Redefine music as an in-your-face art form designed to challenge the sensibility of the audience. The audience doesn’t appreciate that all sounds produced by an orchestra, no matter how harsh or discordant, are the expressions of the inspired composer, and the audience has no right to make a judgment based on their primitive level of musical sophistication.

Blog reader complains that writer of this article has used only male names in his article. This is sexist. Blog writer Mushifes! Redefine sex. There is no difference between males and females, so why should there be difference of names. Any child should have any name his parents pin on him/her/it regardless of sex (oops! Gender, sexual preference, or perversion). So using male names is moot. The examples could be either or both.

Free Speech and Justice

October 6th, 2010

There is a group, led by a guy named Fred Phelps and his wife, calling themselves a church. This group rotinely assaults the funerals of fallen soldiers, claiming that their deaths are due to sinful behavior and homosexuality. These demonstrations are unbelievably ugly and offensive. The Supreme Court is considering whether their behavior constitutes protected free speech as guaranteed by the constitution.
(sorry for the ad)

I contend that it does constitute free speech, but it also constitutes an assault of the most vicious kind. We all have the right of self-defense, and when assaulted we have the right to defend ourselves.

The Supreme Court, if it has any sense at all, should rule that what Fred Phelps and his followers say is free speech, but that the manner and place of their demonstration constitutes assault. Therefore, the families and friends of the fallen soldiers have the right to send a pack of dogs to tear the assailants to shreds in self defense.

That’s free speech and justice.

Hate is Not a Crime

October 4th, 2010

Geert Wilders, a politician who heads the third-largest political party in Holland is being tried for “hate speech.” What we’re really talking about here is censorship, plain and simple. Mr. Wilders speaks out against immigration to Holland, particularly by Muslims. In too many formerly free, supposedly democratic countries, such as Holland, France and Canada, among others, it has become fashionable to define certain speech as “hate speech.” In some cases, such as Wilders’, this is subject to criminal prosecution.

In fact, there are elements in the U.S. who advocate censorship of speech which they define as “hate speech.” I suppose, if I were Dutch, and with a broad smile on my face I said “I love Muslims and the Koran,” but there was HATE in my heart as I said it, then this would be defined as hate speech. My “hate” could be detected and punished regardless of my words or my expression. However, if I said “I love Elvis and his guitar,” but there was HATE in my heart as I said it, then this wouldn’t constitute hate speech, because a. Elvis was male, b. Elvis was white, and c. (only incidentally) Elvis is dead. Only certain groups of people qualify for protection under the hate speech doctrine.

We all wish to live in a conflict free world. Social friction has historically been relieved by good manners, not strict laws. The solution is to teach manners to children and insist on the same from adults.

This same phenomenon is reflected in the recent suicide of Tyler Clementi at Rutgers University. The tragic outcome of a prank is being packaged as a “hate crime” by the left-wing media pundits. But in reality it is a case of horribly bad manners with an exaggerated consequence. There are multiple principles of good manners that should have prevented Clementi’s room-mate, Dharun Ravi, from planting a camera in the dorm room and broadcasting Clementi’s private behavior. Respect for the privacy of another is certainly a very basic concept of good manners. Ravi’s behavior was not a “hate crime” as some are characterizing it. It was, however, a stupid, grave violation of one person’s obligation to treat another with courtesy and restraint, no matter whatever else he may have had in his mind when he did it.

Net-Nanny for TSA

July 6th, 2010

The big bold headline on Drudge Report today reads BIG SIS BLOCKS WEBSITES WITH ‘CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS’. Now that’s an article that a free speech attack dog can’t resist reading.

The short article describes an internal TSA email sent out to employees describing a net-nanny system to block access to “five categories of websites that have been deemed ‘inappropriate for government access’.” Among these are sites containing “Controversial opinion.” The categories are:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

I guess pornography is OK.

What comes to mind here is that someone in TSA must have detected a lot of employee activity in these categories. Chat/Messaging and Gaming I can understand as consumers of employee paid time. Criminal activity is interesting, along with “Extreme violence”, so the TSA bureaucrats don’t get so worked up that they Go Postal.

As to “Controversial opinion” one has to ask, who decides which opinions are controversial enough to block? I hope OddCitizen.com is controversial enough to merit this award.

And finally, what nitwit bureaucrat working for Janet Napolitano thinks the agency’s employees are so juvenile that they need child-proofing software on their computers? Should such people even have computers in the first place? Who thinks that the TSA’s resources should be spent cataloging web sites to be banned by the blocking system? If the employees have so much spare time on their hands that they can surf around the web during working hours then they are redundant and should be fired.

Obama’s FTC Wants to “Reinvent Journalism”

June 2nd, 2010

Thanks to Coyote Blog’s Creating the American Provda for bringing this most chilling document to my attention. Here’s the FTC’s “Staff Discussion Draft” .PDF POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM

A new Federal Trade Commission document describes ways for government to tax, support and control journalism and consumers thereof. It is written in a bland bureaucratic style, suggesting that others “have suggested …” so-and-so. But read between the lines. No matter what this says, the U.S. Government in general and FTC in particular have no business whatsoever interfering with the practice of journalism.

Authoritarian governments always try to control information, whether by nationalizing the news media, controlling its distribution mediums, or like the government of Mexico, by monopolizing the the production and sales of newsprint paper. This FTC project is nothing but evil.

Please read this document. Then express your opinion by going to: http://public.commentworks.com/ftc/newsmediaworkshop. It might do some good to tell the bureaucrats that their project is unconstitutional and not appreciated.

We lose our freedoms by not actively protecting them.

Madam Speaker: The President … Our Glorious Leader?!

January 28th, 2010

The start of every State of the Union speech begins with the grave announcement that the “supreme one” has arrived. “Madam Speaker: The President of the United States of America,” he gravely intones. And then the clapping can begin.

What he should say is: “Madam Speaker: The Chief Bureaucrat of the United States Government.” That, after all, is the president’s actual role. The congress makes the laws, the president manages the bureaucracy. The United States is not led by its president nor by its congress. These are the servants of the people, not their masters. We Americans don’t want nor do we need leaders in federal high office. We are not a club, not a corporation, not a ball team. We are individuals who go about our own business in spite of government, not because of it.

Did I somehow get this wrong? Are we a “people” organized and directed by a “leader”? Do we march about doing the work of the nation? Do we have a “national purpose?” Do we have “national goals?” I say nonsense, BS.

Live Free or Die.

Google & The Internet Sewer

January 13th, 2010

Today we have news that Google is threatening to end its internet operations in China. The reason given is that the company has experienced a high level of cyber-attacks against its headquarters operations, such attacks originating in China. Google says that some of these attacks succeeded in stealing valuable information from the company’s computers. And reading between the lines, Google has been justifiably criticized for going along with the Chinese government’s censorship regime, which is undoubtedly a constant administrative pain in the butt as well.

Let’s face it. The internet is a sewer, and the fact that we can get anything useful from this sewer is something of a miracle. Over 90% of all email traffic is spam. The vast majority of non-email traffic is criminal activity designed to steal software, music, and personal data, or alternatively, to destroy the ability of servers to provide web sites and other services.

Several years ago, after I had invested over a year of effort and thousands of dollars of my personal capital in a software venture, the software’s keys were quickly cracked by numerous Chinese-based software piracy web sites. The web site marketing my software got lots of business, nearly all of it from people using the pirated keys. This traffic was 100% theft, generating no revenue for me. Most of this traffic was Chinese.

Then, just about a year ago, my server was experiencing a large increase in traffic designed to bring down the server, a large number of so-called “denial of service” attacks. It was large scale and ugly. Analysis of the traffic indicated that it originated in China. So now my server blocks all Chinese originated traffic. This has left me with a much quieter, more peaceful environment, though the denial of service attacks continue intermittently from other sources — probably bot-nets.

Parenthetically, many of the latest probes originate in the Amazon “clouds” located in both the U.S. and Europe. I wonder if the Chinese are renting “cloud-time” for their attacks? Oh well.

The lesson here is that the internet sewer is receiving a lot of its pollution from China. The Chinese people care nothing for intellectual property and apparently consider theft to be an honorable occupation. The Chinese government cares a lot about controlling information and from many reports engages in cyber-thuggery, theft and attack as a matter of policy.

Google would be right to pull the plug on China. The internet would be a cleaner sewer without any Chinese participation.

Truth That SHOCKS!

January 10th, 2010

OK, Harry Reid reportedly said something very shocking. He told the truth!

a. Barack Obama is light skinned. (TRUE)
b. Barack Obama doesn’t use the Negro vernacular in his speech unless he wants to. (TRUE)
c. Based on “a” and “b” above, his electoral chances were enhanced — Harry’s opinion. (also TRUE in my opinion.)

Democrats and their PC base are in a frenzy, tripping all over themselves to:

a. Figure out how to say that Harry didn’t say that.
b. Even if Harry did say that, he didn’t mean it.
c. Even if Harry did mean that, he’s apologized to every Negro African-American in his Rolodex.

What Harry should have done is to say: “I meant what I said back then, and I still believe that I spoke the truth.” Period, end of controversy.

Political Correctness is the Enemy of Truth.

Big Brother Comes to New Zealand

January 4th, 2010

Big Brother comes to New Zealand in government requirements for all providers of communications, telephone, internet, web surfing, etc. to install taps that will be accessible to the government.

The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.

In preparation, technicians have been installing specialist spying devices and software inside all telephone exchanges, internet companies and even fibre-optic data networks between cities and towns, providing police and spy agencies with the capability to monitor almost all communications

It is reported that a warrent is needed for police or others to tap into this system.

What is particularly chilling about this report is the following:

Official papers obtained by the Star-Times show that, despite government claims that it was done for domestic reasons, the new New Zealand spying capabilities are part of a push by United States agencies to have standardised surveillance capabilities available for their use from governments worldwide.

While US civil liberties groups unsuccessfully fought these surveillance capabilities being used on US citizens, the FBI was lobbying other governments to adopt them. FBI Director Robert Mueller III told a senate committee in March last year that the FBI needs “global reach” to fight cyber-crime and terrorism and that co-operation with “law enforcement partners” gives it “the means to leverage the collective resources of many countries”.

Emphasis added.

The English speaking countries seem to be heading down an Orwellian path of surveillance, government monitoring and control. How could the countries of the Magna Carta be the ones doing this? It wouldn’t be too surprising in Russia, North Korea or Vietnam. But New Zealand?

Are these facilities already installed and operational in the U.S.A.? Are you listening in Janet?

The argument is being made by New Zealand officials that non-criminals have nothing to fear from this. Maybe so, for a while, but the potential for misuse by a tyrannical government is breathtaking. Suppose the Irish start using this kind of system to monitor for violations of their new Blasphemy laws.

I’d much rather have all government telephones and electronic communications monitored 24/7 by a committee of citizens. Now that might make some sense.

Blasphemy Now Illegal In Ireland

January 3rd, 2010

Ireland has passed a blasphemy law. The majority Green party of Ireland, under Fianna Fail, confirms the saw that greens are stop lights, too yellow to admit they’re reds. Blasphemy? Holy shit! The Dark Ages commeth.

The new law imposes a penalty of up to 25,000 Euros for publishing or uttering anything that any religion may find offensive. Pakistan is reportedly working in the United Nations for this type of law to become universal.

Of course, there is some push-back in Ireland and elsewhere. So maybe it’s just another of those silly green things that can be stomped out by enough ridicule. Or maybe it will take a few stonings or burning of heretics at the stake to turn people’s stomachs. Who knows?

Hasan’s Al Quaida Association

November 8th, 2009

From British newspaper, the Telegraph, we have this:
Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

I doubt this article would appear in a PC U.S. newspaper. It implies that a Muslim was preaching terrorism at his mosque (how odd, how un-PC), and that the mass murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, may have been influenced by this to commit an act of Jihad.

Now that Hasan is off the ventilator, I say waterboard him!

Obama Cult of Personality in Grade Schools

November 5th, 2009

If you haven’t seen this in BigGovernment.com you should take the time to do so. It is the best illustration available of the “cult of personality” that characterizes President Barack Obama’s support.
ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama

There is nothing wrong with teaching children the fundamentals of patriotism. There is nothing wrong with teaching children with inspirational examples of achievement. Perhaps there is not even anything wrong with using President Obama as an inspirational example for underachieving and under motivated black children.

But there is something absolutely evil and un-American about the deification of the president through blatant political propaganda, and it is especially revolting when this propaganda is imposed upon school children.

It works for Hugo Chavez, it works for Castro, it worked for Mao and Lenin, so why not for Barack?

War News in Perspective

October 10th, 2009

From news reports a couple of days ago, trumpeting the fact that 8 U.S. soldiers had been killed in a fierce battle at Camp Keating, one might have concluded that this was some kind of a defeat. But thanks to ABC News, which apparently had a reporter (Karen Russo) on the ground at the time we now learn that our forces gave a lot better than they got. (See this) That should have been reflected in the original headline stories about the battle. See below:

One of the commanders in the Keating fight rejected any suggestion that the battle was a defeat and was frustrated that it could appear that way, especially since he estimated that as many as 100 to 150 attackers were killed in the fight.

Lt. Col. Jimmy Blackmon, who commanded the Apache battalion that flew to Keating’s defense, told ABC News, “Knowing that American soldiers fought all day long, heroic valorous actions all day long, and a headline would lead the average person to believe that we may have lost that fight. Unequivocally untrue.”

Giving credit where it is due, ABC news, particularly the objective and knowledgeable reporting of Barbara Raddatz, has done better than most of the other mainstream news outlets in reporting military news events. Many of the others have editors and reporters that a) use the news to discredit and minimize military accomplishments, and b) in many cases, the writers and editors don’t know which end of the weapon the bullet comes out of.

Blogger Censorship

October 5th, 2009

AP reports: FTC: Bloggers must disclose payments for reviews saying that

The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.

Censorship creeps in like a fog, on silent little cat’s feet — to paraphrase the poet.

Insulting the Sun God

September 15th, 2009

Thanks to Glen Thrush via Drudge we can see the House of Representatives rules about insulting the Sun God president. (Really!)

Especially useful: The section on how to properly insult the executive branch in the in the chamber.

“Disgrace” and “nitwits” — okay.

“Liar” or “sexual misconduct” — ixnay.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

How can our representatives properly represent us if they are gagged by rules of speech? What about free speech?

I can understand decorum and manners. But going to this lawyerly extreme I don’t think makes any sense at all.

One of the problems we have is that our head of state and our head of government are one and the same. In England they have a better system. The head of state lives in a palace and should not be insulted without insulting the country. That’s understandable. While the head of government governs from a humble address (10 Downing St.) and can be called whatever a representative wants to call him.

Representatives should be able to call our head of governmennt a “miserable, reckless, lieing, coward” without rebuke if he deserves it. We shouldn’t elect a head of government who can’t take it. My further suggestion is that we should follow the British example and install the winner of the Ms. America pagent in the White House as head of state and send the President of the United States Bureaucracy to a boarding house — a nice one, but a boarding house nonetheless.

Sorry Barack, but American citizens don’t need or want a Sun God

Obama Gets Fishing Assistance From Africa

August 8th, 2009


African student engineer invents device to solve the Sun God’s appetite for fish. After seeing the appeal for “fishy” info to be sent to flag@Whitehouse.Gov this clever guy came up with a device that will automatically attract the fish. And like Obama’s internet fish trap, this one is also electrical. Click the picture to see the whole story.

What will these clever Democrats think of next?

Sun God Wants to Know Who You Are

August 6th, 2009

This is getting really ugly. Our Dear Leader, The Sun God, now wants citizens to report the misdeads of citizens who oppose socialized medicine directly to the white house. See: Report Your Neighbors OK, like Castro and Chavez the Sun God is organizing neighborhood watch committees to spy on opponents and heretics.

From the whitehouse:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
(emphasis added)

You may think they just want to get ahead of the buzz, but think again. Every email has an address, and the sun god keeps track of where mail comes from. (See my earlier post:Email Spam From the White House.)

So please join me in sending a message — thousands upon thousands of messages (use a public email address such as Yahoo) — to: flag@whitehouse.gov . Report what you think about their “FISHY” project.

Maybe these people aren’t complete tyrants yet, but don’t count on it.

A Vision of the Future? Censorship On Campus

August 2nd, 2009

In case you haven’t seen the blog at TheFire.Org Here’s an
interview with Dave Barry concerning censorship on college campuses.

Visit the web site. It speaks eloquently for itself.

Is this the prototype for impending censorship in the Obama vision of change?

Rhetorical Tactics of the Left

July 30th, 2009

In the previous post I discussed Coyote Blog’s observation about the liberal pattern of diverting the conversation. Now, here’s a
perfect example of diversion from a blog discussing Glen Beck’s rhetoric about President Obama’s attitude toward white people.

The author, Scott Gibbs, complains:

On Tuesday morning’s edition of Fox & Friends guest Beck makes the declaration that Barack Obama, legally elected President of the United States, is a racist who “hates white people.”

He then goes on to give reasons why, in his opinion, Beck’s charges are untrue. But then comes the diversion:

But, before we watch Beck, let’s take a quick one-question quiz.

Circle the more reckless statement:

A. “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly.”

B. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

But anywho, here’s the clip:

He then showed the Glen Beck clip from Fox. The clip is unremarkable and not really the subject of this post.

I then came across a video clip in which MSNBC jumps in with an attack on Glen Beck. The rhetoric of the attack itself was, again, unremarkable. However, on the screen as a block-subtitle the whole time was the following text:

Do you think right wing’s verbal attacks on Pres. Obama are:
A. Free Speech B. Hate Speech

This diversion sends chills down my spine. Free speech is free speech. “Hate Speech” IS free speech, no matter how offensive you may think it is.

If we ever get to the point of truly differentiating free speech from “hate speech” we’ve turned a corner and given up our most precious freedom.

Political Opinions: Made or Taken?

July 29th, 2009

A very interesting and on-point article appeared a few days ago in Coyote Blog: “Things I Have Learned as a Libertarian. In his posting, “coyote” observes a pattern of argument that characterizes discussions between liberals and others, an opening observation (“socialized health care is costly”), the liberal response parrying with an attack not responding to the original subject (“Don’t you know how evil Cheney was?”), all resulting in a complete change of subject, the original subject (“government health care”) forgotten.

This pattern reminds me of my experience as a software developer/publisher when success or failure depended to a large degree on the opinions published in computer magazine reviews. A favorable review could launch a product, an unfavorable one could sink it. So the reviewer’s opinion was vitally important.

Inevitably, the first question the reviewer would ask is “What is your software like?” to which I would respond, “It is original, not like anything else on the market.” I really hoped that the reviewer would judge the product on its unique merits and benefits, rather than a checklist feature-by-feature comparisons of something it was “like.” But no. It further became apparent that the real motivation for the “What is it like?” question was that, knowing what it was like would also provide the reviewer a reference to a ready-made opinion. The reviewers would do almost anything to avoid forming an original opinion on anything. I realized then that the reviewers, like most of the world’s people are in fact herd social animals.

In an earlier post (here) I observed that the press has adopted by conventon “a decision was taken” over the previously more common “a decision was made” and observed that the latter form is more comfortable to those avoiding responsibility. And similarly, like decisions, opinions can be “made” or “taken” depending on one’s ability or willingness to do his own original thinking.

With this in mind, the pattern of political dialog discussed in the Coyote Blog post, most probably results from a group-think mentality from which opinions are “taken.” Thus, absent a pre-made opinion the only alternative for the group-think arguer is to change the subject so as to steer the conversation into his group’s territory of pre-defined opinions. consideration of anything else is out of the question.

In essence, then, conversations within these bounds are meaningless and unproductive. So how is democracy achieved under such circumstances? One can only hope that a few good ideas become embedded in the group-think, and these “groups” will gain following and momentum so that we can prosper in spite of it all.

Fortunately, the only people who actually generate ideas, good or bad, are true individuals, libertarians and conservatives among them.

The President of the U.S. Government Bureaucracy – A Change We Should Believe In

August 29th, 2008

Watching the Democrats at their nominating convention this week I was struck by an observation of change – the convention’s apparent theme. The “change” was that, unlike the previous few Dem conventions this one was not such a freak show. Most of the people there could have been my neighbors – unlike prior years, when one out of five appeared to come from under a bridge somewhere, if not from Mars.

But some things haven’t changed at all. The speakers all talk incessantly about “fighting.” Fighting for this and fighting for that. Mostly for the announced benefit of the “working people.” Now when you think about it, that’s an insult. First, who are they fighting? Presumably the evil Republicans personified by George Bush. If he was fighting back maybe there would have been many more vetoes. Or maybe they’ve been fighting the Republican congress. Odd (but fortunate) that they have accomplished nearly nothing at all in congress, due mainly to their own contradictions.

Now the second part of the insult is repeating endlessly the reference to “working people.” I suppose they mean blue collar union members, which leaves me and a lot of others out, as if we didn’t work for a living. This class reference, this Marxist class envy (warfare) rhetoric should have no place in American politics. This is the rhetoric of manipulative, scheming demagogues and dictators.

But is it meaningful? Not really. The Dems have, once again, selected candidates based on emotional windstorms, this time on Bush-hatred, anti-war nostalgia and environmental hysteria. History suggests that most of the American electorate is smarter than this, and that Empty Obama and Supercilious Biden will be recognized for what they actually are. They will not be elected.

And this leaves space for another observation. Mentioned almost as often as “fighting,” and “working people,” we heard “President of the United States of America.” This is a term I really wish both parties would abandon immediately. The replacement should be “President of the U.S. Government Bureaucracy.” This describes the proper role of the president. Too many people think that the President leads the country and even the whole world. This is a very dangerous and harmful illusion. This illusion is responsible for the virtual destruction of the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court and the Congress over the past 200+ years. This illusion turns citizens into serfs and public servants into slave masters. Americans don’t need and shouldn’t tolerate a government that intends to “lead,” guide, manage, or dominate the country. We already have too much of this; and that is what’s wrong now. We should start to correct it by referring to the president as “The President of the U.S. Government Bureaucracy,” or just “Chief Bureaucrat.”

« Previous Entries