TechProsaic

[20:06:34] <Twitter> cnnbrk: Barack Obama wins the Mississippi Democratic primary, CNN projects.

[20:18:06] <Twitter> cnnbrk: Correction: Exit polls show Obama leading Clinton in Mississippi. CNN has not projected this race.

Follow up!

[20:43:19] <Twitter> cnnbrk: CNN projects that Sen. Barack Obama will win the Mississippi Democratic primary

I guess they changed their minds back. 

Share This

Here I go with my once-yearly political blog post. I’m afraid that if I did them more often I’d scare everyone away.

Please read how my friend Peter lays out the facts (as he sees them) about the peaceful religion of Islam. He’s done a lot more research on the matter than I have.

one small voice

I know that it is claimed that many Muslims are moderates, not radicals; but at the same time I see no evidence of this so-called moderate Muslim majority rising up in protest against their extremist, terrorist, jihadist brethren, because in their hearts they know that the Koran condones and excuses and encourages all believers to slay the unbelievers wherever they may be found.

The one thing that I cannot understand about those who disagree with this position, or otherwise condone terrorists, jihadists, and totalitarians everywhere, or the “peace at any price” crowd is this:

How can you imagine that people who intentionally murder in the name of their religion can ever, EVER, be right?

To me amd my moral code, such as it is, that is the definition of wrong and evil and anathema to humanity. I’m no sociologist, but it seems to me that the cultures who have grown in wisdom and intelligence (not to malign STR/DEX/CHA & THACO) over the thousands of years of humankind have some things in common:

• they share information openly
• they encourage freedom
• they value all peoples as (more or less) equal
• they value life above death

Conversely, with Islam you have this malignant theocracy which preaches the opposite to all of this–common sense. It seems to me that followers of such a religion are forever doomed to remain in stasis. They are out of touch with time. They refuse to learn the lesson that the world constantly changes all around you and it cannot be stopped. They will forever remain warlike while the rest of humanity rises above it as an adult would look back on their teenage years as a quaint period of immaturity in the human condition.

Some people have their political correctness blinders on. They contradict themselves in everything they say. They want a to have a false sense of equality by having the government compel others to feel the same way they do. They want to include all races, all cultures, all religions, all everything, all is equal, all is welcome, no exceptions. Well what if one of those religions walks in the front door of a nation built upon this policy? What if everyone wants to include everyone else in this groupthink– everyone in the world but this one guy with a bomb strapped to his chest?

I think the vast majority of Americans reading this will understand in the very core of their beings when I say there must always be checks and balances. Always. I don’t mean that as a reference to our three branches of government, but that is one good example. What I mean is that while evil exists, good must remain vigilant. You cannot have a world where everyone stands in the middle in a mythical utopia of commonality. I like dancing around it but I’ll come out and say this. You may not like George Bush and his position, and by extension the foreign policies of the entire United States. That’s pretty short-sighted my friend. I won’t force you to share my opinion (no man should), but I think you need to leave a dusty corner in the back of your mind open to the possibility that Mr. Bush might have this one right. It doesn’t even metter that you don’t want to rise up to the threats that can be seen around you if you look for them. We just happen to be in the most favorable position to be able to do something about this, so we do.

I hope that in some years, likely after I’m gone, that Man can look back on society that came before him and say,

“Wow. They thought they were special. They thought they were in an enlightened electronic age of information. They were little children! Look at the temper tantrums they threw over the stupidest little things! I read about this group that spanned a 1,400 year period yet they remained solidily in the Middle Ages! I am so glad that the rise of Western Civilization finally overcame the menace of radical Islam.”

N.B.: Do not think this means I drink anyone’s kool-aid, especially any political party like the Democrats or the Republicans, and demagogues like Sean Hannity. You would be very wrong in that assumption.

Share This

I just made a comment on a recent Slashdot article, but unlike some of my political viewpoints, this one is not based on a lot of research into the issue. I don’t know a lot about patents and why they should or should not exist. But my relatively uninformed opinion says to do away with them.

Full comment follows:

But where did this idea come from that the inventor has exclusive right to “benefit completely from its investment and effort”? I’m comparing this to deregulation. Regulation fixes prices at artifically high levels, increases cost of business (compliance), and more.

Let’s compare to patents:

• fixes prices (corp partnerships and duopolies collude)
• increases costs of doing business (legal, licensing)
• Plus, it allows monopolies to form

I don’t see any positives. But I’m not a reserach scientist Why do researchers publish their findings? Is it to:

1. Help mankind
2. Fame/prestige
3. Make money (by selling their ideas)

You can do A and B without patents. You can only do C if you sell under NDA before publishing your findings, but you would in fact make less money because a company will pay less if a stipulation of the purchase is that the idea is still published, thus opening the company up for competition.

I guess the compromise here is for those scientists who wish to make money off of their ideas to sell under NDA, but bargain for their own sort of patent arrangement. This takes the control away from the government and corporations and gives it to the citizens, right? How can anyone (on slashdot anyway) not like that?

Comments please–this is not my area of expertise.

Share This

Word of the Day:

Mercantilism is stealing from the majority to support a minority that the majority didn’t want to support at the price they were asking.

dada21

Share This

In response to IOERROR’s Has America become fascist? The 14 defining characteristics of fascism:

I think this is a good list. Certainly good fodder for discussion. However I think it has some big holes. I do agree with serveral statements though.

I think my favorite comment in the referrer is:

There never has been a more Fascist sounding governmental name than The Office Of Homeland Security.

Kinda reminds me of the Ministry of Love.

Anyway, the things I tend to disagree with (on casual thought during work hours) are:
- Nationalism in moderation is not bad.
- The author uses relative terms to describe the problems as he sees them. That’s just like saying “Buy new Tide! Now cleans 50% better than the other brands!”. I mean, it’s hard to do it otherwise, but this guy’s yardstick differs from mine.

Another thought I just had was that if you took the opposite view of most of the above comments and applied them to the U.S., you would end up with an extremely left-leaning government. Our founding fathers knew the problems with democracy and the whims of the masses. Some of the tactics used in a constitutional republic can look facist, but that’s because the people with the yardstick feel disenfranchised. But that of course is the whole point. You can’t please everyone, and you can’t govern by polls. So Bush’s picture of how it should be done (or a few Supreme Court justices, or a Senate majority) may not match what you like, and strictly on the scale it is somewehat facist, yet averaged out it simply keeps the nation on an even keel.

Share This

I’m fairly proud of my latest jab against the socialist majority on Slashdot. Too bad nobody reads my comments but you guys.

Texas Wireless Ban Has Failed

Share This

Man I hate Slashdot politics. I’ve pretty much given up on the site entirely, but from time to time I’ll see an interesting article. Then I accidentally scroll down and read comments seemingly written by 8-year-olds. *sigh* Here’s a rant I was forced to write.

MPAA Blames BitTorrent for Star Wars Distribution

Share This

Favorite Quotes

“The human race likes to give itself airs. One good volcano can produce more greenhouse gases in a year than the human race has in its entire history.”

– Ray Bradbury

Share This

And what a great day it would be if we had no Income Tax! If you don’t like doing taxes, and you don’t like the thought of giving more than your fair share, and you don’t like the invasion of privacy that the IRS is entitled to impose upon you, then please visit the Fairtax website today for a fair alternative.

Today’s Nuze makes some great points about our Federal Imperial Government’s income tax system. boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today’s Nuze

Share This

Prodded by some things to respond to on Planet Jabber, and some recent Psi activity, I think it’s time to pen another post. Er, type.

First, I’ll talk about self-censoring. stpeter brought up the topic recently and it struck a nerve with me. Why? Because I do self-censor. When I first decided to see what this blogging thing was about, I made a conscious decision to not talk politics. I was 100% apolitical up until my wife wore me down around age 24. Six years later, I’ve cultivated some pretty strong opinions. In fact, they are so strong, I was surprised to be labeled [insert direction here]-wing in one of those online surveys that map your beliefs onto a graph. As anyone who pays the least bit of attention to such things knows, it’s been quite a polarizing time in the United States and worldwide during the past several years.

But overall I’m a nice guy. I like to think that people like me. If someone dislikes me, sometimes I feel that I’ve done something wrong, and I want to fix it. This is not always the case, but generally speaking, it’s true. This puts me in a bit of a bind. Do I speak all of my mind, and really piss off 60% of the people who read my ramblings? Or do I self-censor and acheive a wider audience. Or at the very least, I have the potential to communicate with a wider audience.

And now that I’ve re-read what I just wrote, I have to laugh. I am the last person who would tolerate “political correctness” in that place > two feet from my computer. I actually despise the concept of it! Conforming for the sake of conforming. The most easily-offended person actually compels the behavior of everyone else in that society. It’s ridiculous and maddening. Here is a classic perfect example from one of my nation’s “most respected” and “premier” and “Ivy League” university campuses, Harvard.

Oops, there I go speaking my mind. See, I could go on for pages about that article. But…I won’t. You see, I desire for people to be interested in what I do. It’s a bit flattering. But even more, I don’t want people to be disposed to actually dislike the things I am associated with, such as Psi or Jabber or Flyspray.

I have however thought of putting up a separate blog, or perhaps a set of essays. Could happen sometime.

Wow, that long post had nothing to do with Psi. Ok, I’ll try again.

Share This