Feb 122008
 

In the strange bedfellows department, folk-singer Arlo Guthrie has thrown his political hat to Ron Paul with this ringing endorsement:

“I love this guy. Dr. Paul is the only candidate I know of who would have signed the Constitution of The United States had he been there. I’m with him, because he seems to be the only candidate who actually believes it has as much relevance today as it did a couple of hundred years ago. I look forward to the day when we can work out the differences we have with the same revolutionary vision and enthusiasm that is our American legacy.”

Legendary Singer-Songwriter Arlo Guthrie Endorses Ron Paul for President — Ron Paul 2008

Jan 022008
 

An editor must have fallen asleep because this gem of an article appeared in yesterday’s New York Times:

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

Predictions for 2008 – Climate Change – Global Warming – John Tierney – New York Times

Nov 142007
 

 Ayn Rand’s massive work Atlas Shrugged turns 50 this year and the editorials are starting the flow in.  The best so far has been from, ironically, the former editor of National Review, Maggie Gallagher.  Included in the editorial is one of the best descriptions of why Rand continues to appeal after all of these years:  

The key to Ayn Rand is that she pictured America largely from early films from Hollywood. As a young girl growing up in the grim world of communist Russia, she saw America as we dreamed ourselves to be, and she longed her whole life with a child’s intensity to make this vision real, to live in it. We respond to her novels because they offer us one deep strand of American self-identity — as individualists, yes, but individualists who together dream big dreams, conquer wild frontiers, invent the future, remake our very selves.

Source: THREE CHEERS FOR AYN RAND – Yahoo! News

May 302007
 

Before you have a coronary about gasoline prices, check out this chart from the very informative inflationdata.com:

Gas_inflation

 

 

Even at today’s peak, in terms of real dollars, gas is really not more expensive than it has in the past.  It will be ok, the world is not coming to an end . . . 

Apr 172007
 

Less that 24 hours after the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, the political sphere is a buzz with commentary and conjecture about what led to the shootings and what could have been done to prevent it.  Instead of allowing the families of the victims of this horrendous incident to mourn in peace, we are deluged by political commentary.  Dan Brown (no, not that Dan Brown) over at The Huffington Post blames guns:

Put responsibility on the soft gun laws that allow anyone who wants guns to obtain as many of virtually whatever they want, especially at gun shows, where in Virginia there are no regulations or background checks.

Source: The Blog | Dan Brown: Virginia Tech: Two Potential Paths | The Huffington Post

My political arch-rival and personal acquaintance Dr. David Yeagle blames the tragedy on liberals:

But I blame liberals. Liberals have already disarmed the people, psychologically. People are afraid to defend themselves. The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond. They didn’t know how to respond. They have been trained to think responding is wrong. Morally wrong. Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared. They can only be victims.

Source: VA Tech Killer: Cho Seung-Hui

And maybe most horrific, Barack Obama compares the violence at Virginia Tech to Don Imus and outsourcing:

“There’s also another kind of violence that we’re going to have to think about. It’s not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways,” he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of “violence.”

There’s the “verbal violence” of Imus.

There’s “the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.”

Source: Reason Magazine – Hit & Run > Obama Compares Virginia Tech Massacre to Outsourcing

All of these statements are not only tasteless and cynical, but are also misguided.  There is no lesson from such a tragedy.  This is an action without context or meaning.  It is a pointless tragedy which has but only one cause.  Cho Seung-Hui was evil.  This is the result of evil actions performed by an evil man.  A man who was willing to treat other people as an means to his own pointless and futile ends. 

To seek political or cultural blame for such an action is not only silly, but is a dangerous misplacing of fault.  The Left wants to blame inanimate objects.  The Right wants to blame relativist culture.  And Obama, well, he’s just in his own little dream world.

Let the families grieve in peace.  Let them bury their dead and heal their wounds.  Don’t use the victims of this senseless crime as an excuse to further any political agenda. If comment must be made, then let it be of sympathy and in resolve against the evil actions Cho Seung-Hui. 

Feb 262007
 

God And GunsThere is an interesting case in Ohio working it’s way through the courts.  An employee was fired by UPS when he was discovered to have a dissembled firearm in his car which was parked in a public parking lot shared by both employees and non-employees.  The court has ruled that the company’s action was a violation of Ohio’s policy allowing citizens to bear arms.  (You can read more details about the case at The Volokh Conspiracy.)

All thoughts about busybody employers aside, the case has me wondering about the signing of contracts with terms that are intrusions on an individual’s rights.  I can understand laws preventing employers from punishing whistle-blowers who report criminal wrongdoing.  Such an action would be a direct attempt to subvert justice.  However, should an employer have the right to execute contracts with employees that curtail the personal rights of an employee outside of his work?  Can an employer hire on the condition that the employee not own firearms or that he submit to personal search without any evidence of wrongdoing?  I think the question comes down to a matter of mutual consent.  As odious as such requirements are, there is certainly no coercion going on, just a mutual agreement for mutual benefit. 

If a person has a right to personal sovereignty, then they must possess the right to voluntarily surrender it.  Unfortunately, while I certainly believe that a person should have the right to possess the means to protect himself against force, the judges in this case have now pulled their guns on the unarmed, namely UPS.  Ironically, the courts are now using force to protect the armed from the disarmed.

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin