SmthOprtr22: that's an interesting question
SmthOprtr22: if you lost a nipple
SmthOprtr22: would a nipple grow back in it's place?
SmthOprtr22: or just regular skin
SmthOprtr22: /ponders
Monday, August 30, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
fun at the josh groban concert:
sara, talking about the guy who did the fire dance at the luau: chad and i decided we are both leaving each other for him. he's that hot. ha! haHA! get it? hot?!?
sara, speaking about the star and planet-shaped light spots on the amphitheater roof: you might say they're....stellar?
lauren, talking about half-life: that sounds like a chemistry video game...*looks around* badum-ching!
sara, talking about the guy who did the fire dance at the luau: chad and i decided we are both leaving each other for him. he's that hot. ha! haHA! get it? hot?!?
sara, speaking about the star and planet-shaped light spots on the amphitheater roof: you might say they're....stellar?
lauren, talking about half-life: that sounds like a chemistry video game...*looks around* badum-ching!
Sunday, August 22, 2004
i figured i ought to look into the issues surrounding the impending presidential election, since i currently have no idea what is going on. i'm sure my basic assumption -- that everyone is an idiot -- is true, but that does not help me determine who will get my vote come election day. my starting point is Our Plan For America, the book released by Kerry and Edwards detailing the changes they will make if elected.
The book opens with a clever bit of semantics setting up the Bush-Kerry dichotomy.
"President George Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney believe that more wealth for the most fortunate
will somehow lead to success for everyone else. We
believe that America always does best when all
Americans have the opportunity to do well."
i.e. lowering taxes (the amount of money stolen) from the greatest producers of the country is not a successful policy. How do Kerry and Edwards define "opportunity?" They don't say, but I submit that it would involve stealing what some people have earned and giving it to those who did not earn it.
"They believe
we can make America safe entirely on our own. We
believe that we must never hesitate to defend our people,
but that we can only truly be safe if we lead the world in
a way that rallies support and commands respect."
And what way is that? By sacrificing all of America's vitues? By going to war to defend man's rights only if those who oppose them support such a war? Of what value are the respect and support of nations that follow principles opposed to ours?
"They believe America is on the right course.
We believe it is time for a new direction."
How quaint. A new direction with regards to what? I assume it will be discussed in the body of the book, but I expect this "new direction" to involve a step closer to socialism, as have all "new directions" America has taken since its founding.
"This book is our plan to build an America that is
stronger at home and respected in the world. We offer
this plan because we believe this election should be about
ideas to lift America up, not negative attacks that drag
America down."
Ideas about what? Which attacks? Attacks against the opposing party like the one just given? Attacks against our philosophical enemies to defend individual rights?
"Our plan is rooted in our values: freedom, family,
work; opportunity, equality, responsibility; love of country
and faith."
I hope by "our" they only mean Edwards's and Kerry's. Only some of the above are values--but not in the way Kerry meant them. The rest are non-values. Freedom, work, and responsibility are values. Freedom -- in the form of individual freedom from physical force; work -- in the form of productive pursuits by such free men; responsibility -- which makes every man the master of his own actions, so that he can neither blame others for his mistakes or use others in order to achieve. These are values stemming from the same source -- man's rights -- on which America was founded. The fact that Kerry-Edwards would include both freedom and responsibility here is ironic, since what they really mean by "freedom" is freedom from responsibility for one's own life and livelihood. Equality is also a value, but in a way far different from how Kerry meant it. His version of equality, of course, means robbing the rich and giving to the poor to "even the playing field." The kind of equality that ought to be valued is merely the fact that all individuals have the same right to freedom from the use of force. In this respect, and this respect alone, are all men equal. Family, love of country, and faith are not values. Family is an accident of birth. Family members may be valued for specific reasons, but family qua blood relationship is not a value and should not be held as such. Love of country is certainly not a value. It is a reaction to a country's virtues. If a country is not worthy of love, then "love of country" would be worse than a non-value; it would be a moral error. Faith is the worst by far. While family and love of country can be good things, and valuable in certain cases and respects, faith is always bad. The definition of faith (the only one relevant to this discussion) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." With respect to man as a rational being, faith is a death sentence. I can only hope Kerry and Edwards didn't mean it.
The next bit gives me more hope:
"[Our plan] reflects certain unshakable principles: that all
Americans deserve an equal chance to rise as high and go
as far as their hard work and God-given talents can take
them; that America’s strength and security depend on
our ability to be true to America’s values—at home and
abroad; that war should be the last resort, not the first,
in the use of American power; and that government has
a limited but essential role in American life, beginning
with the safety of our people."
I doubt that anyone, including Kerry and Edwards, understand how true this last statement is. Americans do deserve and equal chance to rise as high as their hard work can take them. Meaning it is their own responsibility to do so, meaning the products of their labor are theirs to keep, meaning that no laws preventing a man from reaping the products of his labor should be enacted. Translation: property rights and the protection from force. America's strength does depend on its ability to be true to its values. Meaning, its weakness is its refusal to defend its principles on moral grounds, which is the only place they can be defended. Meaning, the present trend of sacrificing the rights of some men for the "good" of others can only lead to the downfall of the nation. Translation: consistency in the protection of man's rights is of the utmost importance. War should be the last resort, reserved for those instances in which the enemy abandons reason and resorts to force. Meaning, the war against terrorists (those who enforce their ideas only at the point of a gun) is justified. Translation: the government's proper role is as a monopolist of force, which may be employed against those enemies who initiate its use. The last sentence is the most true and the least believed as far as what it actually means. I'll repeat it. "government has a limited but essential role in American life, beginning with the safety of our people." The government's limited and essential role in American life is to protect men from the unprovoked initiation of force. That is exactly what "safety of our people" means. This is the cornerstone of a proper government, but seems to have been forgotten by the very people who summon it here.
"We believe in equal opportunity for all, but special
privileges for none."
Bravo. They probably don't mean it.
"We believe the best measure of our nation’s progress
is the condition of America’s great middle class."
I submit that the best measure of a nation's progress is its consistency in upholding individual rights. A good barometer of that would be the condition of America's producers.
"We believe America’s national security requires military
strength, strong alliances, and homeland defense."
Obvious, but at least true.
That's just the introduction. We shall see how the body of the book pans out.
The book opens with a clever bit of semantics setting up the Bush-Kerry dichotomy.
"President George Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney believe that more wealth for the most fortunate
will somehow lead to success for everyone else. We
believe that America always does best when all
Americans have the opportunity to do well."
i.e. lowering taxes (the amount of money stolen) from the greatest producers of the country is not a successful policy. How do Kerry and Edwards define "opportunity?" They don't say, but I submit that it would involve stealing what some people have earned and giving it to those who did not earn it.
"They believe
we can make America safe entirely on our own. We
believe that we must never hesitate to defend our people,
but that we can only truly be safe if we lead the world in
a way that rallies support and commands respect."
And what way is that? By sacrificing all of America's vitues? By going to war to defend man's rights only if those who oppose them support such a war? Of what value are the respect and support of nations that follow principles opposed to ours?
"They believe America is on the right course.
We believe it is time for a new direction."
How quaint. A new direction with regards to what? I assume it will be discussed in the body of the book, but I expect this "new direction" to involve a step closer to socialism, as have all "new directions" America has taken since its founding.
"This book is our plan to build an America that is
stronger at home and respected in the world. We offer
this plan because we believe this election should be about
ideas to lift America up, not negative attacks that drag
America down."
Ideas about what? Which attacks? Attacks against the opposing party like the one just given? Attacks against our philosophical enemies to defend individual rights?
"Our plan is rooted in our values: freedom, family,
work; opportunity, equality, responsibility; love of country
and faith."
I hope by "our" they only mean Edwards's and Kerry's. Only some of the above are values--but not in the way Kerry meant them. The rest are non-values. Freedom, work, and responsibility are values. Freedom -- in the form of individual freedom from physical force; work -- in the form of productive pursuits by such free men; responsibility -- which makes every man the master of his own actions, so that he can neither blame others for his mistakes or use others in order to achieve. These are values stemming from the same source -- man's rights -- on which America was founded. The fact that Kerry-Edwards would include both freedom and responsibility here is ironic, since what they really mean by "freedom" is freedom from responsibility for one's own life and livelihood. Equality is also a value, but in a way far different from how Kerry meant it. His version of equality, of course, means robbing the rich and giving to the poor to "even the playing field." The kind of equality that ought to be valued is merely the fact that all individuals have the same right to freedom from the use of force. In this respect, and this respect alone, are all men equal. Family, love of country, and faith are not values. Family is an accident of birth. Family members may be valued for specific reasons, but family qua blood relationship is not a value and should not be held as such. Love of country is certainly not a value. It is a reaction to a country's virtues. If a country is not worthy of love, then "love of country" would be worse than a non-value; it would be a moral error. Faith is the worst by far. While family and love of country can be good things, and valuable in certain cases and respects, faith is always bad. The definition of faith (the only one relevant to this discussion) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." With respect to man as a rational being, faith is a death sentence. I can only hope Kerry and Edwards didn't mean it.
The next bit gives me more hope:
"[Our plan] reflects certain unshakable principles: that all
Americans deserve an equal chance to rise as high and go
as far as their hard work and God-given talents can take
them; that America’s strength and security depend on
our ability to be true to America’s values—at home and
abroad; that war should be the last resort, not the first,
in the use of American power; and that government has
a limited but essential role in American life, beginning
with the safety of our people."
I doubt that anyone, including Kerry and Edwards, understand how true this last statement is. Americans do deserve and equal chance to rise as high as their hard work can take them. Meaning it is their own responsibility to do so, meaning the products of their labor are theirs to keep, meaning that no laws preventing a man from reaping the products of his labor should be enacted. Translation: property rights and the protection from force. America's strength does depend on its ability to be true to its values. Meaning, its weakness is its refusal to defend its principles on moral grounds, which is the only place they can be defended. Meaning, the present trend of sacrificing the rights of some men for the "good" of others can only lead to the downfall of the nation. Translation: consistency in the protection of man's rights is of the utmost importance. War should be the last resort, reserved for those instances in which the enemy abandons reason and resorts to force. Meaning, the war against terrorists (those who enforce their ideas only at the point of a gun) is justified. Translation: the government's proper role is as a monopolist of force, which may be employed against those enemies who initiate its use. The last sentence is the most true and the least believed as far as what it actually means. I'll repeat it. "government has a limited but essential role in American life, beginning with the safety of our people." The government's limited and essential role in American life is to protect men from the unprovoked initiation of force. That is exactly what "safety of our people" means. This is the cornerstone of a proper government, but seems to have been forgotten by the very people who summon it here.
"We believe in equal opportunity for all, but special
privileges for none."
Bravo. They probably don't mean it.
"We believe the best measure of our nation’s progress
is the condition of America’s great middle class."
I submit that the best measure of a nation's progress is its consistency in upholding individual rights. A good barometer of that would be the condition of America's producers.
"We believe America’s national security requires military
strength, strong alliances, and homeland defense."
Obvious, but at least true.
That's just the introduction. We shall see how the body of the book pans out.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Monday, August 02, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)