RadicalWacko January 4th, 2008
Al-Qaida threats against the Dakar Rally and an attack in Mauritania forced organizers to cancel the annual race on Friday, the eve of the 5,760-mile trek across North African desert scrubland and savannah.
RadicalWacko January 2nd, 2008
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
RadicalWacko November 14th, 2007
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.
RadicalWacko October 17th, 2007
It’s always horrible when The Onion’s humor is so close to the truth that it hurts:
For a majority of likely voters, meaningless bullshit will be the most important factor in deciding who they will vote for in 2008.
RadicalWacko May 30th, 2007
Before you have a coronary about gasoline prices, check out this chart from the very informative inflationdata.com:
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 . . .
RadicalWacko February 26th, 2007
There 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.
RadicalWacko February 18th, 2007
Rep. Mark Souder R-Ind. makes the assertion on the Tucker Carlson program that not only is today’s marijuana like cocaine, but that thousands of people have died from marijuana and that 65% of emergency drug abuse admissions at hospitals are due to marijuana. Who knew?
See the video here.
RadicalWacko January 10th, 2007
Well, I actually sat through the President’s speech tonight. I didn’t find much interesting in the speech due to the constant leaks of the details. There were no changes in the rules of engagement, no direct strategies to demoralize the enemy, etc. However, one thing really caught my ear:
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.
So apparently, the way to solve the issues of radicalism and violence is bribery. Just hand out money and patronage jobs. What an insult! I find it so amusing that with solemn tone and moral conviction, the President proposes Richard J. Daley style machine politics as a means to help democratic stability. Boy, I can sure say that I feel confident in this new plan!
RadicalWacko September 28th, 2006
After millions of deaths, it’s finally great to see some sense returning to the world. The world’s greatest and safest insecticide has finally been cleared to return to saving lives:
The U.N. World Health Organization (WHO) reversed 30 years of policy yesterday, giving DDT a “clean bill of health” for controlling malaria, and it asked environmental groups to support limited use of the insecticide to save the lives of African babies.
“DDT presents no health risk when used properly indoors,” said Dr. Arata Kochi, director of the WHO’s malaria program. “Well-managed indoor spraying programs using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or humans.”
RadicalWacko September 11th, 2006
Up till now, I’ve viewed the debate about the recent 9/11 docudrama (what ever the hell that means) “The Path to 9/11″ with great amusement. I found it funny that the right wing now stood in defense of the mini-series when not three years ago they were up in arms about the broadcast of another silly mini-series about Ronald Reagan. I thought it just another futile political infight about the portrayals of national leaders in entertainment television. Or in other words, a much ado about nothing.
However, I just came across a letter from Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer and Byron Dorgan to Disney about the broadcast. An excerpt from that letter truly set chills down my spine:
Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Source: Daily Kos: Senate Dems write letter
Am I to get this straight? Has the government gotten so powerful, that they have the audacity to publicly threaten a television network with the removal of their license not on terms of obscenity (not that I’m a big fan of that statute) but instead on the political content of their programming? Are we to the point where this type of letter is to be tolerated?
Now I don’t remember any threat like this during the Reagan “controversy”, however, I would also strongly oppose it. Any government official making such a suggestion is not only a constitutional disgrace but also a direct threat to liberty.
Posting tweet...
Powered by Twitter Tools.
