Yesterday Aldetha went to work with me for the last time until January 20th (at the earliest!) With the imminent birth of our third child (and the speed with which my wife went through labor and delivery on the first two) I will be driving to work so as to be only 5 minutes from home rather than 25 minutes.
I am not too concerned about that. I am normally in a better mood if I bike into work and I don't look forward to trying to manage my weight as I stop biking and start the holidays. The expense will be no problem. Last Wednesday morning I filled Gandalf at $1.85/gallon. By that afternoon the price was $1.81. Yesterday it was down to $1.75. A far cry from the $3.60 we once paid over the summer.
Today is the day - BCS Buster or Wanna-Be? I speak of the Utah-BYU game at 6pm this evening(4pm MST.) Based on their performances in their recent games, and the fact that the game is at Rice-Eccles, Utah should beat BYU.
My prediction:
Utah 35
BYU 24
Of course, I will not be watching until the very end - I get too nervous.
Go Utes!
Brad
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The power of ideology...
I spoke with one of my colleagues yesterday about the number of anti-prop 8 demonstration across California (and in other places around the country.)
My own opinion is that if they had shown that much energy before the election, they might actually have won. But I digress...
I posited that it was yet another example of how liberals cannot tolerate losing, dissent or opposition, while conservatives can. To see my point, imagine this:
Prop 8 fails. Immediately, people begin protesting in front of known gay establishments and icons. Businesses that funded the anti-8 movement are boycotted and targeted for vandalism. Homosexual couples are taunted, molested and assaulted by gangs of people brandishing "YES ON 8" signs.
There is only one part of that story that is even remotely believable - "Prop 8 fails." Everything else is beyond the realm of reality that would flow from prop 8 failing. What would happen if prop 8 had failed? Its supporters would have accepted it and moved on to the next political battle - which would have been another ballot measure for the 2009 election or a bill in the California Assembly.
OK, so I tell my colleague (a self-proclaimed Obama supporting liberal) that liberals can't handle losing while conservatives can. She offered an explanation that I found enlightening. Liberalism (the ideology) was born as a reaction to the established and unquestioned rules and laws of the medieval era. John Locke wrote his Second Treatise on Government as a reason-based response to the "divine right of kings" thesis. The foundation of liberalism is questioning established rules, authority and traditions and progress can be found in individual reason, not in established institutions.
Conservatism is a reaction to liberalism. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is a strong critique of individualism and reason run wild. Like liberals, conservatives believe in progress; however, they do not rely completely on individual reason to define "progress" nor do they condone the destruction of existing rules, authority and traditions in the name of progress. Unless existing institutions have failed society or the individual, they should be respected.
Given those ideological foundations, it is easy to see why liberals are violently sore losers, and why conservatives don't end up in violent protests. The political process, rules of civil behavior, laws against violence, courtesy - these are all established institutions. As such, they fall under the category "things that can be challenged in the name of progress" for liberals. So when their efforts to change the institution of marriage were dealt a set-back, opponents of prop 8 had no qualms about discarding other established institutions of behavior to further their efforts. Conservatives would have maintained the other institutions and looked forward to another round within them to try to find victory.
Unfortunately, John Locke and John Stuart Mill (classic liberals) both wrote strongly against intolerance of ideas and in favor of the "marketplace of ideas" in one form or another. So somewhere, modern liberals dumped one of the best parts of their ideology in favor of the more fascist idea of violence against their enemies in the name of conformity and political correctness.
Glad to be a conservative,
Brad
My own opinion is that if they had shown that much energy before the election, they might actually have won. But I digress...
I posited that it was yet another example of how liberals cannot tolerate losing, dissent or opposition, while conservatives can. To see my point, imagine this:
Prop 8 fails. Immediately, people begin protesting in front of known gay establishments and icons. Businesses that funded the anti-8 movement are boycotted and targeted for vandalism. Homosexual couples are taunted, molested and assaulted by gangs of people brandishing "YES ON 8" signs.
There is only one part of that story that is even remotely believable - "Prop 8 fails." Everything else is beyond the realm of reality that would flow from prop 8 failing. What would happen if prop 8 had failed? Its supporters would have accepted it and moved on to the next political battle - which would have been another ballot measure for the 2009 election or a bill in the California Assembly.
OK, so I tell my colleague (a self-proclaimed Obama supporting liberal) that liberals can't handle losing while conservatives can. She offered an explanation that I found enlightening. Liberalism (the ideology) was born as a reaction to the established and unquestioned rules and laws of the medieval era. John Locke wrote his Second Treatise on Government as a reason-based response to the "divine right of kings" thesis. The foundation of liberalism is questioning established rules, authority and traditions and progress can be found in individual reason, not in established institutions.
Conservatism is a reaction to liberalism. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is a strong critique of individualism and reason run wild. Like liberals, conservatives believe in progress; however, they do not rely completely on individual reason to define "progress" nor do they condone the destruction of existing rules, authority and traditions in the name of progress. Unless existing institutions have failed society or the individual, they should be respected.
Given those ideological foundations, it is easy to see why liberals are violently sore losers, and why conservatives don't end up in violent protests. The political process, rules of civil behavior, laws against violence, courtesy - these are all established institutions. As such, they fall under the category "things that can be challenged in the name of progress" for liberals. So when their efforts to change the institution of marriage were dealt a set-back, opponents of prop 8 had no qualms about discarding other established institutions of behavior to further their efforts. Conservatives would have maintained the other institutions and looked forward to another round within them to try to find victory.
Unfortunately, John Locke and John Stuart Mill (classic liberals) both wrote strongly against intolerance of ideas and in favor of the "marketplace of ideas" in one form or another. So somewhere, modern liberals dumped one of the best parts of their ideology in favor of the more fascist idea of violence against their enemies in the name of conformity and political correctness.
Glad to be a conservative,
Brad
Friday, November 14, 2008
The religious left...
Though they will deny it, the political Left in the U.S. is just as dogmatic as the Religious Right. The examples of intolerance and departure from the classical liberal traditions of deliberative democracy and the marketplace of ideas rival any bigoted, right-wing preacher's worst sermon.
It makes right-wing radio seem peaceful and tame by comparison,
Brad
UPDATE: Upon reflection, the Left has a lot more to answer for. Most of the "hatred" from the Religious Right is verbal or idea-based. The Left is as prolific and hateful in their words and ideas; however, they far exceed the Right when it comes to actions.
It makes right-wing radio seem peaceful and tame by comparison,
Brad
UPDATE: Upon reflection, the Left has a lot more to answer for. Most of the "hatred" from the Religious Right is verbal or idea-based. The Left is as prolific and hateful in their words and ideas; however, they far exceed the Right when it comes to actions.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Finally coping with the withdrawl...
As a political junkie, I never get sick of politics. Oh, I may say that I'm not going to get involved or care during an election or political controversy; but then it gets into my system and I just can't get enough (yes, the druggie or alcoholic analogy fits just fine!)
OK, the withdrawal had nothing to do with the Democratic candidates winning - just the initial let-down of having no election to discuss. Kind of like these folks (minus the bizarre Obama fixation):
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Anyway, I'm doing fine and ready to be a part of the conservative insurgency against Obama & Biden's strongly liberal agenda.
Other than the presidential election I was quite interested in Prop 8 out in California. First of all, I was pleased that it passed by a decent margin. Second, its opponents deserved to lose after this commercial aired on election day:
Laws cannot be retroactive - so even the slightly plausible idea that a marriage could be invalidated (the rest of the ad is plain ridiculous) is a straw man argument.
Third, Nancy Pelosi really is an idiot.
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
There's no evidence to support her assertion at all - she's just in denial that the majority of Californians (and the citizens of every state that had a gay marriage initiative on the ballot) disagree with her and the California Supreme Court.
Allahpundit over at HotAir.com takes Pelosi's argument to its logical conclusion regarding the Presidential election:
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”
That's enough for today. I am looking forward to somewhat of a lull from politics so I can focus on finishing the semester, enjoying the holidays, and (most importantly) welcoming our new baby into the world.
Nothing beats a "love" high,
Brad
OK, the withdrawal had nothing to do with the Democratic candidates winning - just the initial let-down of having no election to discuss. Kind of like these folks (minus the bizarre Obama fixation):
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Anyway, I'm doing fine and ready to be a part of the conservative insurgency against Obama & Biden's strongly liberal agenda.
Other than the presidential election I was quite interested in Prop 8 out in California. First of all, I was pleased that it passed by a decent margin. Second, its opponents deserved to lose after this commercial aired on election day:
Laws cannot be retroactive - so even the slightly plausible idea that a marriage could be invalidated (the rest of the ad is plain ridiculous) is a straw man argument.
Third, Nancy Pelosi really is an idiot.
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
There's no evidence to support her assertion at all - she's just in denial that the majority of Californians (and the citizens of every state that had a gay marriage initiative on the ballot) disagree with her and the California Supreme Court.
Allahpundit over at HotAir.com takes Pelosi's argument to its logical conclusion regarding the Presidential election:
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”
That's enough for today. I am looking forward to somewhat of a lull from politics so I can focus on finishing the semester, enjoying the holidays, and (most importantly) welcoming our new baby into the world.
Nothing beats a "love" high,
Brad
Monday, November 3, 2008
A reply and predictions...
My October 27th post elicited quite a strong response from my brother-in-law. I do feel a response is in order:
First, the purpose of taxes is to raise funds for goods ("outputs" is the political science jargon) that are for public use. The political process has determined that the funding should be public (not private or user fee) and the benefits should be for all of society. Strong examples of this are national defense and the interstate highway system. These are the outputs that taxes are used for. Various levels of government employ user-fee systems (NJ Parkway and Turnpike) that collect funds based on use, but that is not what the federal income tax system is used for.
Second, the empirical evidence demonstrates that government revenue goes up when capital gains tax rates are reduced. As with all social science, causality is questionable; however, correlation is not - and it is nearly perfect. Obama can say that revenue may not go up - he can also say that drinking Clorox may not kill you - but he has no empirical evidence to back it up.
Finally, many people have made millions and more per year by working hard. Regardless of whether one thinks of some work as "bad" or "good" it is still work and requires an effort (that's why it is rewarded with money.) This also excludes the question of wealth because that is not taxed at the Federal level (thanks to the Progressives.) There are many ways to earn $1 million or more per year - I'm just not willing to put the necessary work into doing so (just like most Americans.)
OK, so who will win tomorrow?
Obama will take Virginia (it will be called by 9pm EST.) McCain will miss flipping Pennsylvania and Obama will be guaranteed the White House.
Is this a realigning election?
Probably. According to the American Conservative Union, McCain is moderately conservative (his score of 65 ranks him as the 47th most conservative senator for 2007) while Obama is strongly liberal (his score of 8 ties him for 15 most liberal senator - behind Joe Biden's 4.)
What about reforming Washington and bringing bipartisanship back?
Dead. McCain/Palin are the only major party ticket that have any experience or willingness to take on the establishment. Obama/Biden is a "yes-man" ticket in every way. McCain has worked on major bipartisan legislation and reforms. Obama & Biden? Nope. None of it.
Will this finally end the racial question in American politics?
It should. "The Man" will be a black man - a liberal black man at that. Race-baiters have nothing to complain about with Obama in the White House.
In addition to leeching off the taxes paid by the rich, I look forward to seeing all the nutroots and wackos that formed Obama's "base" deal with being the "establishment" apologists.
Ready to join the vast right-wing insurgency once again,
Brad
First, the purpose of taxes is to raise funds for goods ("outputs" is the political science jargon) that are for public use. The political process has determined that the funding should be public (not private or user fee) and the benefits should be for all of society. Strong examples of this are national defense and the interstate highway system. These are the outputs that taxes are used for. Various levels of government employ user-fee systems (NJ Parkway and Turnpike) that collect funds based on use, but that is not what the federal income tax system is used for.
Second, the empirical evidence demonstrates that government revenue goes up when capital gains tax rates are reduced. As with all social science, causality is questionable; however, correlation is not - and it is nearly perfect. Obama can say that revenue may not go up - he can also say that drinking Clorox may not kill you - but he has no empirical evidence to back it up.
Finally, many people have made millions and more per year by working hard. Regardless of whether one thinks of some work as "bad" or "good" it is still work and requires an effort (that's why it is rewarded with money.) This also excludes the question of wealth because that is not taxed at the Federal level (thanks to the Progressives.) There are many ways to earn $1 million or more per year - I'm just not willing to put the necessary work into doing so (just like most Americans.)
OK, so who will win tomorrow?
Obama will take Virginia (it will be called by 9pm EST.) McCain will miss flipping Pennsylvania and Obama will be guaranteed the White House.
Is this a realigning election?
Probably. According to the American Conservative Union, McCain is moderately conservative (his score of 65 ranks him as the 47th most conservative senator for 2007) while Obama is strongly liberal (his score of 8 ties him for 15 most liberal senator - behind Joe Biden's 4.)
What about reforming Washington and bringing bipartisanship back?
Dead. McCain/Palin are the only major party ticket that have any experience or willingness to take on the establishment. Obama/Biden is a "yes-man" ticket in every way. McCain has worked on major bipartisan legislation and reforms. Obama & Biden? Nope. None of it.
Will this finally end the racial question in American politics?
It should. "The Man" will be a black man - a liberal black man at that. Race-baiters have nothing to complain about with Obama in the White House.
In addition to leeching off the taxes paid by the rich, I look forward to seeing all the nutroots and wackos that formed Obama's "base" deal with being the "establishment" apologists.
Ready to join the vast right-wing insurgency once again,
Brad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)