Cleaning out my bookshelves. I hate to do this, because every time I do, I eventually find myself wanting to look something up, and trying to remember which books I sent to the library sale is becoming increasingly difficult with age. (So far, I'm still finding the library though, so I'm good!) Since I doubt that I'll be able to raise enough funds to build a library wing onto my house, some of these just have to go.
While I'm procrastinating on that task, I thought I'd grab some select quotes and let you guess which president or candidate made the following statements and/or campaign promises:
"As President, ... will establish pilot "second chance" homes for unwed teen mothers"
"An additional $400 million a year will be added to the Child Care Development Block Grant ... to help 500,000 low-income parents pay for an after-school program."
"As President, I will propose a Family Health Care Credit ... for every family making less than $30,000."
"..will establish an exemption of $2,750 for each elderly spouse, parent or relative that a caregiver tends to in their home."
"Government must not invest Social Security money in the stock market."
"Medicare must cover all expenses for low-income seniors."
"Enact the 'Teacher Protection Act,' shielding teachers, principals and school board members from liability arising from efforts to maintain discipline..."
"..promote cooperation with our allies, who should share the burden of their defense."
"...raise the amount in controversy for complete diversity jurisdiction from $75,000 to $100,000."
Have any guesses? Here's the answer key. Everything that is divisible by 3 is by President G.W. Bush. Those numbers aside, all the odd numbers belong to President G.W. Bush, while the even numbers all come from the platform of President G.W. Bush.
Come on. You didn't really think I had any books about Obama here, did you?
How can a country that can't keep the lights on at night actually be capable of war? This isn't the 1950's. This is a drone-war or highly technical warfare era we live in now. There's no way that North Korea could do much damage. They are barely more than a 3rd world country. (Image from CBS News.)
On the March 16th episode of Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN, Donald Gregg, who served in the CIA from the 50's to the 80's and was an ambassador to South Korea gave Zakaria an opinion about all of this. One that it would be nice if our country would listen to.
Below is the quote of importance. Unfortunately, CNN doesn't provide the video of the Korea segment.
And Donald Gregg, a former adviser to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said North Korean contacts he has met recently told him "that they have given up on their diplomats, and the military is now in control."
"What they want is to talk about moving from the now-disbanded armistice agreement to the creation of a peace treaty," Gregg told GPS. "That's what they want to talk about, and anyone who is willing to talk about that, they will listen to. Anyone who wants to talk about what they call the old way, which was give up your nuclear weapons and then we'll talk, is going to get nowhere."
Gregg recommended engaging the North Koreans in new talks. But Cha, a former National Security Council official in the second George W. Bush administration, said that can't be done so soon after their nuclear and missile tests, and he predicted "a very difficult period for the next couple of months or so."
"They don't want to give up their nuclear weapons. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it, too," he said. "U.S. policy for the past quarter century or so has been, 'These things are all on the table if you're willing to give up your nuclear weapons.' This is the problem. This is the dilemma right now."
Here is the audio segment from the GPS podcast. The first 10 minutes cover the interview and is worth listening to Gregg.
You can also read this article from 2011, written by Donald Gregg. In this article Gregg says Obama has increased ties with South Korea. Also, John Kerry (at that time Kerry was not Secretary of State) was open to bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Gregg seems hopeful for diplomacy to end the conflict.
To sum up. The U.S. won't come to the table unless there are "conditions for surrender" that North Korea agrees to. The North Koreans don't want conditions they just want to end the war. And there probably is some chae-myun (saving face) going on here too of course.
For North Korea, the only way out is war. In my opinion they know they're toast. But to end this conflict sooner rather than later they need to escalate matters, try to inflict at least some pain somewhere, and then lose the war with dignity.
What should the U.S. do? Donald Gregg says to go to the table and work out a truce. Perhaps John Kerry works out the truce and Obama fulfills his Nobel Peace Prize. Will the other side of the aisle and the military agree to go along? Or are we going to allow politics to run yet another war?
Perhaps there's a little bit of chae-myun working on our side too which doesn't allow us to do negotiations. Thus, what will probably happen is a short war, then a peace treaty, and perhaps then North Korea can move on and finally get their lights on at night.
Jaana Woiceshyn offers an interesting take on the dichotomy of egoism and altruism. In the below article, she makes an observation whose implications I find highly disturbing. If people stop learning (in term of moral discernment) in their "best" years, and if by then the majority are steeped in politically correct altruism, liberty has a naturally restricted target groups, in fact, a tiny one, indeed.
Research shows that most people do not think about ethics explicitly
after their late teens or early twenties, implicitly choosing instead to
follow cultural norms and the values they were taught at home, if any.
The closest they come to choosing an “obvious” moral code is to follow
cultural norms—which means subscribing to the moral code dominant around
the world: altruism.
Radiation hormesis hypothesis compared with LNT and linear model with threshold. In all 3 graphs, x-axes represent radiation dose and y-axes
represent magnitude of health effect. Zero-equivalent point (ZEP)
represents level of health effect in absence of radiation.
The quadratic model of Figure 1 approximates threshold graph
of this figure. A threshold model would imply no effects of radiation
up to certain level, after which risk rises linearly with
dose. The radiation hormesis model, in contrast, shows beneficial
effect at low levels of exposure as it drops below ZEP.
Dr. Calabrese presents his (highly generalisable) findings about the nature of dose response in the low dose zone, discovering that longstanding "scientific" standards underlying regulatory rulings systematically ignore the true reaction pattern, thereby introducing massive bias. The key insight presented by Dr. Calabrese seems to me to consist in the fact that rather than following a linear pattern, dose responses are characterised by two phases such that at low doses they may act in a stimulating way, only to display inhibiting effects at higher doses - (hence the terms "biphase" or "hormetic"). Low doses of radiation for instance may stimulate healthy reactions in the human body, thus actually improving their well-being, while causing harm only at higher doses.
Although the title may sound like my life is sort of like a scene out of World War 1, the reality is that I’m really having quite a satisfying time fighting for liberty in my own little corner of the world. The effort is much neater—like this photo
than it is like this one:
(although sometimes a gas mask might be called for).
We’ve had some real successes in Nebraska. Several of our RLC members are now County Party Chairs. We’ve got three leadership positions in 2 of the 3 Congressional Districts of the state. Our members are out there campaigning for liberty friendly candidates in city elections taking place in the next few weeks.
I’ve held two Grassroots training sessions in the last month—one in Lincoln, and one in a village with a population of about 250. Each of those trainings had 20 or more people at them. There’s something stirring out there—people who have never paid much attention to politics, are all of a sudden interested, and interested in learning how to be effective. At the training this past weekend, I had two people—from outside of Lincoln—come up to me at the end and say “when and where is your next training session? I have friends that need to come.” It may be a busy spring—I’ve said that I will drive anywhere in the state if they will arrange for the place, and guarantee at least 6 people will show up. We’re building an army of grassroots activists. Many of them aren’t actually RLC members (and may never be). But whether they join us formally or not, it’s pretty obvious that they agree with us on an awful lot of things, and I’ll happily take their partnership on the things that we agree on.
I’m in the midst of “spring break”—got done with the Winter quarter last week, have all of this week off, and then start back up in the Spring quarter next week.
Yesterday I was honored to guest lecture on “Entrepreneurial Leadership in the Political Sphere” in a friend’s class at the University of Nebraska-Omaha College of Business (a Principles of Management course).
Life continues to be a little frenzied, and I’ve given up on promising to post more regularly. But I will post as I can, and be ever grateful to Georg and Angela, and anyone else who continues to post, as well. Our readership, while not massive, continues to remain pretty steady, if the statistics that I’m seeing on page hits are correct.
Theocracy: a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission
It looks as if we are being increasingly ruled by an eco-(hypocracy)-theocracy:
They represent a rapidly expanding,
increasingly powerful government class that is determined to control
what we eat, say, do and buy.
In the environmental arena, these
would-be czars and czarinas want to regulate what kinds of energy we can
produce and use, cars we can drive, and jobs and living standards we
can have. They are the vanguard of a dangerous alliance of eco-imperialism and vulture environmentalism.
Driven by utopian, Deep Ecology and
global governance ideologies, elected and unelected ruling elites pass
laws, promulgate regulations and issue edicts, based on faulty to
fraudulent science and unsupported proclamations about dangerous manmade global warming, resource depletion and sustainable development.
They seek to radically and fundamentally transform the energy, economic
and social fabric of our nation and world – in the name of “social
justice” and “saving the planet.”
They operate with little or no
transparency or debate, often with vague or minimal legislative or
constitutional authority, and with virtually no accountability for the
false pretexts they use to justify their intrusive actions, or the harm
they cause to people and wildlife. Their attitudes and actions often
reflect a callous disregard for environmental values and people’s
property, civil rights, jobs, health and even lives.
Our courts give them almost limitless
discretion to impose laws and regulations, select pseudo-scientific
“facts” to justify them, and ignore both the imaginary benefits and
substantive harm they cause. They allow and encourage sweetheart “sue
and settle” legal actions between regulatory agencies and activist
groups, capricious agency inaction on mineral leases and permits, and
arbitrary bureaucratic waivers of endangered species and other
environmental laws for gigantic wind and solar projects.