You Might Be A Useful Idiot

If you think the harming and/or killing of animals is never OK, yet advocate the killing of unborn humans for convenience as a choice, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think the media does what it does for any reason other than money, you might be a useful idiot.

If you hate illegal immigration but don't pay attention to who's mowing your lawn, you might be a useful idiot.

If illegal immigration doesn't bother you, but increasing your taxes to pay for it does, you might be a useful idiot.

If your political party plays the abused underdog, but does the same stupid shit as the other party once in power, you might be a useful idiot.

If you voted for Kerry because you didn't like Bush, you might be a useful idiot.

If you voted for Bush because you didn't like Kerry, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think "nature's way" is best, except when it comes to sexual practices, you might be a useful idiot.

If you scream INJUSTICE, but then get upset when the rules limit you, you might be a useful idiot.

If you call yourself spiritual, but are against religion, you might be a useful idiot.

If you've ever referred to someone as "my (insert ethnic/racial minority)-American friend", you might be a useful idiot.

If you support the Baseball/Football/Hockey Players Union but get upset at labor unions, you might be a useful idiot.

If you are convinced that religion is the root of morality, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think morality begins and ends with you, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think the First Amendment is important, but the Second Amendment is not, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think the Second Amendment is important, but the First amendment is not, you might be a useful idiot.

If you decry that other party's politicians as having a double standard on "family values" while ignoring the acts of those in your party, you might be a useful idiot.

If you believe that the Constitution states that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, you might be a useful idiot.

If you're all for freedom of speech, but get upset when the other side insists on exercising their rights to freedom of speech, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think the Second Amendment was created for the purpose of hunting and protecting oneself from criminals, you might be a useful idiot.

If you insist that overturning the Second Amendment is "for the good of society", you might be a useful idiot.

If you believe that Bush is any dumber than Kerry, you might be a useful idiot.

If you think Joe McCarthy was the cause of McCarthyism, you might be a useful idiot.

Another post killed: Supreme Ct vs. Ten Commandments

Well, the only consistent thing about blogging lately is that my ability to post is inconsistent.

I had a nice informational article on the latest Supreme Court decision on display of religious items on and around government facilities.

My suggestion is to go to Findlaw.com and go read the First Amendment and the Annotations thereto. You'll get a nice perspective on where this decision came from . Not at all predictable, actually, as cases have gone both ways, all depending upon where the religious display was located.

To Christians: you're understandably upset. No one likes to lose a position of power and influence. Just as the Public Employee's Union of California, as Governor Arnold is (rightfully) working to make the playing field more fair.

To Liberals who like the decision: Don't gloat, but you will anyways. Show a little honor in victory of your position and just go about your business.

I'm an atheist, so WTF should I care either way?

Will The Last Real Liberal Please Shut The Door

There was a time when being Liberal meant to stand for personal freedom, and reduction of government power. Of course, that was long ago. I'm certain that there are some real Liberals out there, but they're few and far between.

In Kelo v. City of New London, we have a stituation that one would expect Liberals to step up to the plate and defend the little guy. The City of New London, under the pretext of economic redevelopment, wants to take the property of the Petitioners and hand it over to private developers. The private developers will in turn, develop the area, erecting new homes, offfice buildings, etc.

In the past, in order to exercise eminent domain, the government had to prove the land would be put to public use. The Fifth Amendment states "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." Additionally, when interpreting the Constitution, there's a long standing presumption that no word was needlessly used or unnecessarily added, and thus each word of that document carries significant weight.

So...let's cut to the chase.

The "traditional" liberal justices, Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, joined by the "on the fence" justice Stevens delivered the majority opinion, expanding eminent domain power to include giving private land to private entities, so long as the purpose is "economic development"!! If the government wants your land to be upgraded, it can pay you "just compentsation" and hand over your land to private developers.

And these justices are the Liberals?! What happened to the traditional role of Liberalism - personal freedom and protection of the government? Where is the ACLU (Oh I forgot...Ginsberg is the former head of the ACLU)?

In this case, we have the conservatives on the court, Scalia, Rhenquist, Thomas and fence sitter justice O'Connor decrying this decision, argueing very convincingly for the little guy.

So...my big take away is this: Modern Liberalism is not about protecting the little guy, but rather about expanding government power. (note, I'm not saying Modern Conservatives don't do the same thing, I'm simply discussing this particular case)

I guess I'm just a little disappointed, but not surprised, as I've been giving Liberals the benefit of the doubt up to now, that they really were looking out for personal freedoms.

It's Gonna Be A While

Before I get back into the blogging groove.

Between a cold that also has congested my brain and 8.323485^e15 things going on at work, I'm a bit "stretched".

Well, I HAD a new post, but it vanished

It really stinks when I research a topic, write about it, then the post to Blogger fails.

In this case I had no way of recovering my work. If you look a few posts ago at "I've gotten a bit side tracked lately" you'll notice I've been fiddling with security/privacy apps. Well, they work.

The reason I couldn't recover from my failed post was because I was working on making my system more secure - turned off cache, history, and was going through a number of proxies. Thus...when the "Post Failed" message came up (probably due to the proxies), I couldn't just hit the back button.

Of course, today I'm too sick to come up with something.

Jacko: Catholic Priests Have Been Convicted On Less Evidence

It's pretty remarkable that Jacko walked scott free, however, not totally unexpected. I don't think there was one pundit who thought otherwise, before or after the presentation of evidence. I guess that's the cool part about being a celebrity. I guess good for Jacko, cuz going to prison sucks.

Unfortunatly for Catholic Priests, the Church is out of favor with the media. In the not-so-distant past, members of the Church were considered beyond reproach...now the Church is seen as a litigation target.

We routinely heard, and still occationally hear, about convictions of priests based upon a 20 year old recollection of an adult who claims he/she was molested by said priest as a child. And then the priest is convicted, and no one raises any questions as to sufficiency of evidence, whether or not the plaintiff is in it for the money, or any of the other "reasons" Jacko walked. Of course, there's no physical evidence whatsoever.

These days, the Church tries to settle cases for money, knowing that they can't win in court.

Wow...Jacko Walks On All Counts!

I didn't follow this trial very closely, as IMHO it's largely an irrelevant sideshow.

From what little I did know about it, I'm just surpised he wasn't convicted of supplying alcohol to a minor. The lack of a conviction of child molestation was a dead issue from the get go - not because I think he was innocent, but more because he's Michael Jackson, and had the best legal team money could buy.

Besides, guilty or not, no one is going to convict a cultural icon.

Don't Listen To The Useful Idiots: Hold The Line On Gitmo

Someday, politicians will surprise me again, but don't count on it.

Now, it looks like it's the Republicans who are crying out for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. The funny part is, they want it closed just to avoid media scrutiny. Forget doing what they know is right - keeping illegal combants locked away, individuals who would be (WARNING: downloading and watching the the conent from the following links will be highly disturbing - You Have Been Warned) more than happy to saw off your head as a publicity stunt.

So...the Republicans are simply chicken, a bunch of cowards. They don't want to withstand media scrutiny. Who the hell is running things?

I have no illusions...politicians have rarely been accused of being brave enough to do the right thing. Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans.

To those who would release the Gitmo prisoners - I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, although I probably won't agree and would ask questions in return to see if I could understand where you're coming from. I'll make the opening salvo: Why would you support radicals who would force you to live under Shar'ia law? Are you that desperate? As a people, we shouldn't even put up with anything that smacks of support for those people.

To those who would move the Gitmo prisoners to the continental US - Same thing, but in addition, why would you allow these scum to have the same rights that you enjoy as a US citizen? By moving them to the US, they become subject to our laws. This seems like an awefully generous gesture to a group of people who want us all dead.

Remember, the Gitmo prisoners are there legally - they were captured on the field of battle bearing arms against US troops, without a uniform, or any indication of belonging to any military force. This makes them illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention, and per that document, they do not enjoy any rights of a "normal" soldier, much less a citizen of the US.

As an aside, it's a real hoot how foreign media sources are calling Gitmo a "torture facility". They apparently bought into the Amensty International "Gulag of our times" statement. Calling Gitmo a gulag is like equating Disneyland to Auschwitz.

Yes...I'm saying that the Gulags were worse than Auschwitz. The Gulags killed 10x the number of people killed by the Nazis, in equally, if not more, horrific methods. At least as a prisoner of the Nazi's you had a chance of simply getting gassed. In the Gulags, you'd be tortured into confessing a crime you probably didn't commit, then either being executed, worked to death, or a combination.

I've Gotten A Bit Side Tracked Lately

I took an information security class at work, and have been looking into ways to protect information on my computer, as well as info I send out over the web via email, surfing, and instant messenger.

It's quite incredible how far technology, freely available technology, has come. The free stuff in many cases is even better than the pay stuff. Today, it's possible to surf, email and IM completely anonymously, and encrypted, by sending your message through multiple random routers. Each router only knows where it is sending to, not where it received from, and each router adds a layer of encryption. Router nodes don't cooperate with each other, so even if a router, or multiple routers in the chain, are compromised, anonymization can still be maintained. This is superior to single point of failure "Anonymizer" type single proxy solutions, and makes packet tracing all but impossible.

Now, the really cool part is that one should be able to make all of this portable - that is, these should be able to be installed on portable media, and run from any computer the media is plugged into without the need of 1) installation on the host system, 2) creation of a profile on the host system, and 3) no use of the host system non-volatile memory for cache, history, or any other data trail.

Other interesting stuff:
- one could set up a web server on the same portable media
- using the above mentioned anonymity proggie (which is actually a DARPA funded open source project, currently used by the government for anonymous data gathering in the wild), one could set up a hidden server, and/or provide hidden services by putting up the server or services in a manner so that they're only accessible by routers on the anonymization routing network I describe above.
- one could add a portable office suite to this bundle for added functionality
- add in dial-up functionality, in case you're at a location without dedicated access.
- too many more interesting things to go over.

Howard Dean Will Ensure A Republican Victory

Dear Howard:

Your latest castigation of the GOP is just what the doctor ordered. Your defense of it is even better.

Keep it up Howard! The GOP doesn't have a viable, nationally visible candidate like you do in Hillary Clinton, but what will really piss people off at you and your paty is never ending attacks and standing for nothing.

People really do want to vote for a Democrat candidate, but it appears you learned nothing from John Kerry's failed campaign - you can't expect to win by simply saying the other side sucks and continuously insulting them at every turn.

At some point you'll need to stand for something. We'll be waiting.

Al Qaeda Trained Terrorists Captured In NorCal: Who Cares.

OK...well now that Al Qaeda supporters/members Hamid and Umer Hayat have been caught in Northern California, is anyone going to do anything about immigration policy? How about political correctness that prevents police forces from thoroughly investigating mosques? How about adding some sanity to airport security measures, such as, instead of strip searching Grandma Smith, pay a little more attention (as a matter of policy) to that 23 year old middle eastern gentleman with the beard, top knot, and clutching a copy of the quran/koran?

We already know Al Qaeda is operating in the US. We've found their blueprint for operations. We know the nature of sleeper cells, which is SOP (standard operating procedure) for terrorists - an organization in which each member knows only his/her contact to the hub of the cell, and none of the members know each other.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Sadly, it will likely take a few more 9/11's to get the American populace to pay attention on a more permanent basis.

Know back to your regularly scheduled programming:

/**
* Class: Entertainment_Diversion_For_The_Masses
*
* This class utilizes the entertainment industry to keep the attention of
* the public at large focused on things they're better geared to handle,
*  namely, celebrity issues.  This is class is useful in allowing the government
* to proceed as it sees fit, at the behest of the political parties.
*
*  Should the public for some reason shift its attention to government, one or
*  both political parties are utilized in the Spew() funtion to create a row that
*  irrelevant to the public attention to government, allowing the public to
*  throw up their hands and mutter "why bother," at which point the public will
*  happily return to use of this class.
 *
* @version  35.23.82.7 8 June 2005
 * @author  Anonymous
 */
public class Entertainment_Diversion_For_The_Masses {
    /* This class could also be used to extend the Sports_Diversion,
Sensational_Crime, Irrelevant_Sensational_News and Shock classes */

   /** Care should be taken to keep this value at 0 */
   public static int ent4massesCommonSense = 0;
  
   private static Object OStarDom;

   /** initialize OStardom to blind the masses to things that are relevant */
   public Object OStardom;


    /**
    * DivertAttention method
     */
   public void DivertAttention(Object OStarDom = 'active' ) {
        // Primary method that uses OStarDom

 ent4massesCommonSense = OStardom(Headline);

 while !ent4massesCommonSense
  {
       Government.ActBehindClosedDoors();
       Government.IgnoreNeeds();
       Politics.PowerGrab();
  }

 do {
            Politics.Spew();
  Shock.Irrelevant();
  Sports_Diversion.Scandal();
  Sprots_Diversion.BigGame();
  Sensational_Crime.Death();
  Sensational_Crime.Child();  
  Irrelevant_Sensational_News.Oddity();  
  Irrelevant_Sensational_News.Celebrity();
  Entertainment_Diversion_For_The_Masses.DivertAttention();}
  while (ent4massesCommonSense); 


   }
}

Moral Values Without Religion: Does Morality Depend Upon Religion?

Summary: The alternative to the dogmatism of the religious right and the emotionalism of the egalitarian left is a code of moral absolutes based on reason and individualism.

I didn't write this one, but I think it's extremely relevant:

By Peter Schwartz

Does morality depend upon religion? Most people believe it does, which is a major reason behind the appeal of the religious right. People believe that without faith in a supernatural authority, we can have no moral values--no moral absolutes, no black-and-white distinctions, no firm demarcation between good and evil--in life or in politics. This is the assumption underlying Justice Antonin Scalia's recent assertion that "government derives its authority from God," since only religious faith can supposedly provide moral constraints on human action.

And what draws people to this bizarre premise--the premise that there is no rational basis for refraining from murder, rape or anarchism? The left's persistent assault on moral values.

That is, liberals characteristically renounce moral absolutes in favor of moral grayness. They insist, for example, that criminals should not be reviled, but should be seen as tragic products of their "social environment"--that teenage mothers are just as entitled to welfare checks as wage-earners are to their paychecks, and that to deny welfare benefits for a child born into a family already receiving welfare is, as the ACLU declares, to "unconstitutionally coerce women's reproductive decisions"--that America is morally equivalent to its enemies, with our own policies having provoked the Sept. 11 attacks and our "unilateralist" actions in Iraq being no different from any forcible occupation of one nation by another.

Repulsed by such egalitarian, anti-"judgmental" absurdities, many people disavow what they regard as leftism's essence: secularism, and turn to religion for their values.

But this is a false alternative. Secularism is simply a viewpoint that disclaims religion; what it embraces, though, may be rational or not. And the absurdities of the left stem precisely from its irrationality--its pervasive emotionalism, its insistence on doing whatever "feels right," its contention that there are no fixed truths, its credo that morality is anything one wishes it to be. The left maintains that no objective principles exist to validate moral judgments. From its multicultural equalization of all societies--savage or civilized--to its belief in an indefinable, "evolving" Constitution, the left rejects the logic of objective standards and enshrines the arbitrariness of subjectivism. Thus, what the left's opponents should disavow is not secularism per se, but rather the replacement of a religious variant of unreason--blind faith--with a secular variant: blind feelings.

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual's life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man's nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

With reason as its cardinal value, this code of individualism espouses fixed principles and categorical moral judgments. It demands, for instance, that the initiation of force--the antithesis of reason--be denounced and that an unbridgeable moral chasm be recognized between the criminal and the non-criminal.

Since life requires man to produce what he needs, productiveness is a moral value--thereby making moral opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic welfare recipient. Since life requires man to use his own judgment rather than submissively accept the assertions of others, independence is a moral value--making moral opposites out of the person (or nation) acting on his own rational convictions and the one deferring to the consensus of his neighbors (or the U.N.). Since life requires the mind, man's political system must allow him to use it, i.e., freedom is a moral value--making moral opposites out of America, the defender of liberty, and America’s enemies, who seek liberty's destruction.

A morality of reason counters the relativism and the undiscriminating "tolerance" of the left.

It also counters a morality of faith, and establishes a genuine "culture of life." Individualism upholds your sovereignty over your life--and refuses to subordinate the preservation of that life to, say, the preservation of embryonic stem cells in some petri dish. Individualism defends your inalienable right to your life, including your right to end it--and evaluates, say, opposition to assisted-suicide as a desecration of human life, since forcing someone to live who wishes to die is no less evil than forcing someone to die who wishes to live.

There is indeed morality without religion--a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.

Copyright © 2005 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI). All rights reserved.

What's The Deal With North Korea?

So the DPRK has agreed to come back to the negotiating table, if the US withdraws its threat to impose further economic sanctions.

During the time period that negotiations have been held up, what has transpired:

They've tested at least two nuclear weapons;

They've acquired additional spent fuel rods, which can be used to manufacture plutonium;

The US is having major trade issues with the Chinese, namely 1) the insistence that the Chinese Yuan be valued per the market as opposed to pegged to the US dollar (patently unfair to the US and Europe), and 2) Chinese dumping of textile products on US markets, making even more difficult for US manufacturers to stay in business (much less compete!). China is a major player in the negotiations with the DPRK.;

Kum Jung Il has declared that any economic sanctions would be considered a declaration of war;

China has made it clear that it will veto any UN resoultion to sanction the DPRK.

So where does that leave the US?

The DPRK has insisted that it negotiate directly with the US. This would give it much needed legitimacy with the world. The US has avoided this for exactly that reason, as the DPRK is headed by a totalitarian communist regime, wisely engageing the DPRK with 6 nation talks. The other nations are neighbors to the DPRK, and so their voice at the negotiating table regarding nukes is needed for a lasting settlement.

The DPRK is still belligerent, and the US leadership is starting to cave.

Enter Bill Clinton, who is now urging the US to negotiate directly with the DPRK. This is where the crap gets really deep - Not only do we not want to negotiate directly with the DPRK for reasons mentioned, but Bill Clinton has some nerve intervening, as it was on his watch that the DPRK 1) didn't meet it's side of the bargain (namely to not be involved in nuclear power at all in exchanged for US aid, which included 100's of millions of dollars, AND something like 5 million barrels of oil per day) by building nuke plants anyways and started a nuclear weapons program and 2) Bill Clinton did nothing about it (it wasn't until Bush took office that the word leaked out about DPRK's building nuke plants in spite of the treaty with the US).

My guess is that the US is still sending aid to the DPRK. Bush is too scared to stop, as Kim Il Jung said this would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Call his bluff, Bush...he won't do anything. If he attacks anyone, the world would give a free pass to a counter attack, and removal of Kim Il Jung. The Koreas could then be united, and a sad chapter of world history finally closed.

If we call his bluff and he does nothing, he'll lose tremendous face with his own people, all but inviting some sort of revolution.

Amnesty International So Very Noble: Gitmo Not A Gulag

So, Amnesty International now retracts it's statement that the Guantanamo Bay detention center is the "Gulag of our times."

How very noble of them. Their retraction barely sees a headline, whereas their original comment decrying the Gitmo detention center. Trust me, they're not in any hurry to draw attention to their retraction.

As per my earlier post, Amensty International is just another media bomb thrower.

Al Qaeda Training Manual

While going through a news articl regarding Amnesty International and how Al Qaeda specifically instructs its adherents to make up stuff to piss off the "civilized" west (by claiming torture, poor treatment of the koran, etc.) I ran across a translated Al Qaeda Training Manual.

It's not difficult to see that anyone who really takes to hear the message of that training manual is not going to be reasonable.

The most interesting section is the anger towards those who hurt Moslems, which is interesting in light of the hundreds of Moslems being killed in Iraq these days. I guess it's OK to harm Moslems they want to be a democratic society? Who knows.

Final note - after looking through the manual, coupled with our porous borders, if there's any doubt that these folks are in the US, you're living in a fantasy land.

Illegal Immigration Hurting American Youth

Here's an unexpected side effect of illegal immigration - Teenage job seekers are having a much more difficult time finding work.

Illegal immigrants are essentially unskilled labor. However, they're willing to work for peanuts. Because illegal aliens don't exist on any payroll, employers don't need to pay them minimum wage or provide any sort of benefits.

Teenagers, on the other hand, are American citizens, and anyone who hires them must comply with minimum wage laws, as well as workers comp, provide benefits where warranted, etc.

The result? Illegals are taking entry level positions that American teenagers have typically held, to begin gaining that all important work experience.

At what point will the social costs of illegal immigration be seen as outweighing the financial benefit?

Watergate, Deep Throat: It Was The Diversion De Jour

I smell a book in the works by Deep Throat. The 91 year old needs to leave a legacy (read: money) for the issue of his loins, so now's the time to come out of the closet.

Watergate was essentially a spat over a breakin to the DNC's headquarters during which sensitive election materials were stolen and the offices were bugged. It's been shown pretty conclusively I think (although I don't know for sure) that Nixon (and thus the RNC) were behind the breakin.

First off: Anyone who doesn't think this sort of crap goes on all the time is naive and mistaken. Nixon was just stupid to leave a trail that led right to him. This stuff goes on today from both sides, only now the DNC and RNC are extremely careful not to get caught. The methods are highly technical, and they most likely use well paid spies, as opposed to leaving physical evidence such as bugs.

Tempest technology was already mind boggling 15 years ago, when I worked in building Tempest emissions test and surveillance equipment. It's available to anyone with the money and desire. Using this, I can sit outside of a building and know what you're typing on your keyboard, what's displaying on your monitor, what data your hard drive is churning on, listen in on phone conversations, what TV show you're watching, cell phone, pager, scanner, etc. Yea...you could protect yourself against TEMPEST emmission snooping, but it's extremely difficult.

There's ECHELON, likely accessible by anyone at a high position of power. Both parties have people at those levels. Not to mention a plethora of other technologies that can record conversations at a distance, read electrical signals, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the hardest to detect, human spies.

Secondly: I'm amazed that the RNC was able to duck the Watergate bullet, which just goes to show that the whole exploitation of the Watergate scandal was pure politics. The seated President always holds a high position in his/her political party. The fact that the RNC wasn't implicated in Watergate is nothing short of fantastic. I'm sure they'd contend that it was all Nixon, to which I'd respond BS.

What was the bottom line to Watergate? As with all major media hyped scandals, it was simply something to divert attention from something far more important. In this case, it was the struggle in Vietnam. Even after the US pulled out of Vietnam, Nixon kept funding the pro-American/anti-Communist forces there. Interestingly, with this funding, the south Vietnamese were quite successful and were winning the war.

For some reason, the Democrats wanted to ax that funding (my guess is they wanted the money for one of their own causes...I don't think they really wanted to promulgate communism in Vietnam). However, they couldn't just vote to cut the funding, as they'd be crucified in the press. When they found out about what happened at the Watergate Hotel, namely, political espionage that's been going on since the dawn of time, they made a big deal out of it.

Needless to say, the media jumped on it - what a great story...the President of the US mired in political skull duggery...burglary, bugging the opposition. The indignation! The whole country focused their attention on Watergate, while the Democrats axed the funding for the South Vietnamese, effectively crushing their efforts.

Within one year of the funding cut, North Vietnamese forces crushed the South, and the Communists were firmly in control. The obligatory mass murders and concentration camps ensued, as Communist governments don't like opposition. Today, Vietnam is still a communist nation.

Let me reiterate - I don't think the congressional Democrats wanted the communists to take over Vietnam (they probably didn't care one way or the other). I really think they had their own pet projects they wanted money for.

Also, the fall of South Vietnamese forces would likely have satisfied the Democratic constituency that the Republicans really were wrong this whole time about the whole Vietnam war - it wasn't winnable, it was a waste of time, it was a waste of American lives. This was never brought up after the Tet Offensive, and certainly not after Watergate, but, IMHO it was a great back up issue should it be needed.