Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"

Tue - July 29, 2008

What brings people to my vigil?

In case you are interested, here are my five most popular entry pages at the moment.

Things blamed on global warming

The real reason behind Prohibition

Sex on the web - Update

FAQ - KYFHO: Keep Your Freakin' Hands OFF!

Naked Pictures At WalMart? Send in the SWAT team!!

My KYFHO FAQ usually is one of the top two, I am surprised that it dropped to four this time around.

If I were driven by what people want, obviously I need to write more about sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, and naked people.

That may not be a bad idea...

Posted Tue - July 29, 2008 at 03:45 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Libertarian anarchist dares to talk about abortion

I'm probably going to vote for Sarah Palin or Kent McManigal come November. And if you haven't heard of either of those two worthies, you SHOULD have. Kent wrote a straight forward bit on abortion that is worth your time. Here's a few samples of his thinking.

First off, I will say that no one, including me, knows for certain if abortion is right or wrong, they just think they do. That is because there is not enough scientific data to make a truly rational decision. Emotions on both sides cloud the mind and make coherent thought difficult.

<snip>

This brings us to the religious objections. Almost all objections to abortion are at the core religious objections, which is fine until you try to impose your religion on someone else who does not share your same religious views. Murder is wrong, but opinion is divided if abortion qualifies as murder. Not that "majority opinions" should decide any issue for anyone. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe humans have "souls". And if they do have souls, are those souls installed at conception or sometime later?

<snip>

I would not use public funds to finance abortions or any other medical procedures, because there is no such thing as "public funds"; it is all stolen ("tax") money.

Go read. Go think. Go make up your own mind.

Posted at 01:14 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Say what? How did race get involved in the global warming argument?

This is me being shocked.

Just when I thought the anthropomorphic global warming debate could not possibly get any sillier, along comes this.

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s now an issue of race, according to global warming activists and policy makers.

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.

Got that?

Global warming (despite being UNPROVEN) affects African-Americans more because they are perpetual victims. who can't get an even break from the Man. Only the Democrats can save them.

And if you dare question AGW or deny that humans can do anything about it, why, you are Racist.

Gee, do you suppose anyone told the people actually living in Africa? Or the Australian bush? Or maybe the American Southwest? How about the Asian steppes?

This "argument" doesn't have any factual basis, it's designed to suppress dissent and perpetuate victimhood.

Posted at 12:59 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

A non-story or a buried story?

I didn't want to cover the John Edwards love-child thing, there doesn't seem to be anything radically new.

Politico makes noises about family values, has mistress on the side, gets caught. This type of story has been done to death.

But this one has a twist that I don't think has been seen since the days of JFK, most of the press is "ignoring" it.

Which makes the press more hypocritical than the politicians it is supposed to be covering.

And that makes me ask, what else on the Democrat side are they ignoring?

Enquiring minds want to know.

*grin*

Posted at 12:31 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Computer tech takes down San Francisco city government

I'd love to say that this would never happen in the private sector, but I would be lying.

After years of study and hard work, they say, he landed a job building a network that handled San Francisco's payroll documents, law enforcement records and other sensitive information. He spent his nights and weekends building a system that he wanted to protect, not tear down, his defenders say.

All well and good, prosecutors counter. But why won't he simply come clean about everything he has done? What about the menacing encounters with bosses at work?

They conclude that Childs went overboard, turning the city's computer system into his own "private network" after lying about his violent past to get his job. They point to his prison stint for aggravated robbery, another arrest for assault and what police recently found - ammunition in his Pittsburg home that he shouldn't have had.

Everyone who has had contact with Childs, however, agrees on two things: He was a master in his field, and he was entrusted, for good or ill, with near-total control of the city computer network.

Here's a lesson I learned long before companies and governments because so dependent on computers. You never rely on just one person for global access. You get at least two, give them slightly different objectives, and then let them watch each other. Whenever you can, break out physical access from system access so extra parts (like modems or hidden cameras) can't be installed by just one person. And never, ever, ever put payroll, email, operations, and legal research on the same servers.

Hat tip Gizmodo (wrapup).

Posted at 12:25 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Mon - July 28, 2008

Is Barak Obama really what he is made out to be?

This is definitely the year I don't like any of the candidates.

But I don't think Obama deserves the coverage he is getting.

I'm still trying to figure out why he made campaign stops in Europe where they can't vote for him.

Posted Mon - July 28, 2008 at 01:44 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

A little perspective please

Don't get me wrong, there are some major economic problems today. Most of them brought on by government action, but don't believe all the press.

Thanks in part to journalism of that caliber, consumers are more apprehensive than they have been in decades. Consumer confidence is at a 16-year low, and more Americans than ever, 84 percent, think the country is headed in the wrong direction. The New York Times devoted one-fourth of Saturday's front page to illustrating ways in which the economy is mired in "A Slowdown With Trouble at Every Turn" - and continued the gloom for a full page inside.

Voices of reason keep trying to point out that conditions are not nearly as bad as they were the last time consumers were this despondent. That was in May 1980, during the final year of the Carter administration, when the "misery index" - the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates - hit an excruciating 21.9. Inflation was then at 14.4 percent; unemployment was 7.5 percent. The numbers today are 5 and 5.5 respectively.

But voters don't want to be told to buck up. When former senator Phil Gramm, an economic adviser to John McCain, said last week that America had "become a nation of whiners" and described the current slowdown as a "mental recession," the backlash was immediate. McCain repudiated Gramm's remarks and quickly issued a statement assuring voters that he "travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump, and worrying about how they'll pay their mortgage."

Well, that's politics. Politicians who want to get elected genuflect to what Bryan Caplan, in "The Myth of the Rational Voter" calls the pessimistic bias: the "tendency to overestimate the severity of economic problems and underestimate the (recent) past, present, and future performance of the economy."

I'm amazed that despite seven years of constant carping against Bush, the economy is in as good shape as it is.

Hat tip Cafe Hayek.

Posted at 01:31 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

John McCain is dead wrong. Again.

John McCain blames Wall Street for the mortgage meltdown.

Somehow he overlooks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Somehow he overlooks Congress for giving those agencies unconstitutional and anti-free market powers.

Somehow he overlooks the Federal Reserve for debasing the currency.

I say he needs a mirror.

And to STAY OUT OF THE WAY.

KYFHO, now and forever.

Posted at 01:25 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Yahoo Music goes bye-bye

This is why consumers don't like DRM music. Or DRM movies. It's not that most customers don't want to pay for their music, it's that they want to keep what they paid for. When you buy a book, you don't depend on Simon & Schuster staying in business so you can read it. You don't depend on AOL-Time Warner existing so you can read last week's People. Once published, the material exists independently of a signal from a computer server tucked away somewhere.

Posted at 01:20 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

A responsible librarian and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding"

I ran across a great bit from a librarian. You should really read the whole thing, but this stood out. Emphasis added.

You suggested that the book could be “placed in an area designating the subject matter,” or “labeled for parental guidance” by stating that “some material may be inappropriate for young children.” I have two responses. First, we tried the “parenting collection” approach a couple of times in my history here. And here's what we found: nobody uses them. They constitute a barrier to discovery and use. The books there – and some very fine ones -- just got lost. In the second case, I believe that every book in the children's area, particularly in the area where usually the parent is reading the book aloud, involves parental guidance. The labeling issue is tricky, too: is the topic just homosexuality? Where babies come from? Authority figures that can't be trusted? Stepmothers who abandon their children to die?

Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the story. It seems to me – as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years – that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of the matter: not every parent has the same value system.

This is dicey. I'm not a parent. But it seems to me that if we really live in a free society, parents must make the decisions for their kids until the kids can make the decisions themselves. There is no universal solution, we should stop pretending that there is. "Society" doesn't necessarily know better, it's just louder.

I've said it before, government has lousy ethics and worse morals. Officially, the politicos should take their moral cues from their constituents . Mala prohibita laws don't work precisely because those laws impose moral values that aren't universal.

Posted at 01:13 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Sun - July 27, 2008

Pizza order

This one has been making the rounds for a while, but it is still disturbing.

Posted Sun - July 27, 2008 at 02:40 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Emptying the global warming links file

Since I have spent so much time in the past on global warming, I don't want to spend much more time rehashing what we already know. Instead I'll just point out these links.

Argula causes global warming.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat.

A Word to Environmentalists.

Bills to double to pay carbon costs.

And my favorite this time around.

NASA is out of line on global warming.

None of these are the "final argument," but then I never said that debate was over.

On the contrary, I want to see debate on the subject.

Posted at 02:34 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Talk with Jeff Sharlet

i still have to finish Jeff Sharlet's new book. I had a delectable distraction. But here's the conversation we had in the comments thread. Of course, I get the technopagan green and Jeff is the midnight blue.

Hi, Neo -- we're probably in greater agreement than it seems. I don't think the Family has a "generations-long secret plan to take over the country." I think it's a generations old ideological movement with enduring influence on the shape of conservative thought. That's not quite as exciting a claim, but it's still important. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Jeff Sharlet | 07.09.08 - 6:21 pm

Hi there and thanks for stopping by.

I live in an isolated area and I have to do most of my book shopping online. Your book is on the way and I will even move it to the top of my "to read" pile when it gets here. I should warn you, that probably means a review.

That being said, I've seen both progressives and conservatives accuse the other of having a hidden agenda that governs their actions and shape the government.

I'll give your book a chance, but color me skeptical.

(just so you know, skeptical is a light blue set off with tasteful bone highlights)
NW | 07.10.08 - 1:55 pm

Empire is hardly a hidden agenda; it's one of the two great visions of what America can be. Contrast Walt Whitman's "democratic vistas" with the vision of John Foster Dulles, Ike's Sec. of State and the man widely credited as the "architect of the Cold War." Dulles, a very conservative Christian, saw the world as divided between the forces of Good, as represented by the U.S., and the forces of Evil, as represented not just by the USSR but by anyone who didn't agree with his vision. To ensure the victory of the Good, he set the pattern of U.S. support for dictators who agreed to cooperate in the struggle. That wasn't a "hidden agenda"; it was the Cold War, and then the Vietnam War, the overthrow of Allende in Chile, support for the Contras in Nicaragua and Jonas Savimbi in Angola and Siad Barre in Somalia and General Park in South Korea etc., etc. No accusations necessary -- that's all in the history books. The question becomes: How did well-intentioned leaders make such bloody, and, by all accounts, counterproductive alliances? Anticommunism alone doesn't explain it. But when we review the documents, we find an aggressively expansionist theology at the heart of much of foreign policy. Not a conspiracy; not a "hidden agenda"; ideas that won the political fight in Washington. But not necessarily democratic ideas.

Anyway, my two cents on top of the heap of pages winging their way by mail to you right now. Thanks for your interest. Ready to take my lumps, if necessary.
Jeff Sharlet | 07.10.08 - 3:41 pm

I'm really trying to give your book a chance, Jason's picks are usually well worth it.

But pardon me, your bias keeps showing.

Two great visions? Only two? Is that really all you see?

Not even Whitman limited himself to that. Precisely the opposite in fact.

Anyway, I'll read your book.
NW | 07.10.08 - 7:58 pm

What is my "bias"? I write pretty openly as a critic of what I argue is an imperial tendency. That's not a "bias," that's a perspective, only stated it.

Of course there are more than two visions of America; the point I was making was that there are two broad categories that have shaped foreign policy, economic policy, etc. Both have left and right flanks, both draw from many different ideological streams. There have been imperialistic democrats and democratic Republicans and independents of all varieties.
Jeff Sharlet | 07.10.08 - 9:30 pm

Your answer to Jason's first question sounds remarkably like some of the accusations leveled against "secular humanists" over the years.

That's what I mean by bias. I want to think I am wrong and that there is something more to your argument than the flip side of Christian fundamentalism. Although judging by the comments there, some of my fellow pagans don't necessarily make that connection.

When you talk about two alternatives, or even two "major" alternatives, it sounds suspiciously like the "EITHER/OR" thinking that I have learned to associate with fundamentalism of all stripes over the years. I'm historian enough to know that government is usually reactive.

It's very seldom that the "elites" set policy, and even less that one group sets policy over the continued objections of other groups.

Again, I'm reading the interview and I see more than a shadow of modern-day McCarthyism. "They're ALREADY HERE and they want to CONTROL OUR WAY OF LIFE."

Believe me, I am one of the last people who defends Christianity, especially evangelical Christian involvement in government. You should read some of the stuff I have said about the Faith Based Initiative.

We'll see when your book gets here if I am getting excited about nothing.
NW | 07.11.08 - 2:09 pm

Hardly. I've been very critical of the lockstep secular hysteria around fundamentalism. When I say there are, generally speaking, two great visions of what America should be -- democracy and empire -- I'm not aligning those visions with religious beliefs. Indeed, one of the greatest and most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century, William Jennings Bryan, was fierce anti-imperialist. As was Dorothy Day -- hardly a fundamentalist, but far from secularism, too. Secularism has no monopoly on democracy. And empire claims more than fundamentalism. Indeed, JFK, one of the great secularists of the 20th century, was also one of the more imperially minded presidents.

Ultimately, though, The Family is about a group of people and what, according to their own documents and secondary verification, they did and meant to do. You may interpret those actions as you wish.

But as for your argument that it's seldom that elites set policy -- I'm completely confused. If not elites, who else? Last I checked, the Senate was a pretty exclusive club.
Jeff Sharlet | 07.12.08 - 1:04 am

Hmm, with your permission, when we finish with our conversation in this comment thread, I'd like to copy/paste it into a regular entry so Google and the other search engines will pick it up.

I was referring to the various versions of secular fundamentalism. Anthropomorphic global warming is the obvious example, but there are others. Political speech codes are another example, as are the definitions of "race" that mean that some groups are more deserving of government largess and special treatment than others. Everything that you have said about The Family can also be applied to the groups pushing for these objectives. Fundamentalism and crushing dissent doesn't change that much in tactics, no matter who does it. I just don't like to see it excused because the "right" people practice it.

The elites don't often set policy, government is reactive, not proactive. The classic example is slavery. Even through the opening salvos of the U.S. Civil War, the abolitionists weren't given much credence. Lincoln's own writings show that abolishing slavery wasn't even one of his goals at first. He was more interested in collecting taxes. It was only AFTER that he decided to go after slavery. Even then, he was pretty selective about it. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states who had seceded.

I talk about the civil rights movement in one of the entries below.

When it comes to social policy, government almost always reacts to a small and vocal minority.

Your book did come yesterday, I'm about to have a late lunch and start it.
NW | 07.12.08 - 3:18 pm

Permission granted, of course. Conversations such as these are what make the internet worthwhile to me.

I agree that there is such a thing we could call "secular fundamentalism," though not on your examples. The defining quality is not a particular practice but a tendency toward absolute belief, toward certainty, and toward the conviction that MY way is the only way. Secularism has some automatic safeguards built in to protect it against this way of thinking -- the scientific method, for instance, constantly revises thinking about global warming. Don't like today's theory? Wait for tomorrows. Policies around race are also subject to revision. (I suspect you and I disagree very strongly on this front.) But secularism can still fall prey to fundamentalism, particularly in the form of nationalism. Indeed, the point of my book -- and why I was a little annoyed that you kept insisting I was some mini-Hitchens -- is that for decades liberalism, secularism, and ELITE fundamentalism blended together very smoothly into the toxic mix of the Cold War. And they are doing so again around the idea of "Islam."

As for elites vs. grassroots -- that's a delightfully optimistic theory. Also, very narrow. Tell me, please, which "vocal minority" was responsible for the grassroots revolt that led to the 1999 Silk Road Act, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback and Rep. Joe Pitts, Family brothers, funneling money to "key men," as Brownback calls them -- "dictators," as the rest of the world calls them -- in Central Asia? Or how about The Family's policy of support for Siad Barre in the 1980s, through which General John Vessey, then-chair of the Joint Chiefs, Senator Chuck Grassley, defense contractor Bill Brehm, and others advocated for increased military support for killer Barre?

I suppose you could call a senator, a general, and a defense contractor a "small and vocal minority." You might also call them "elites." They do, themselves.
Jeff Sharlet | 07.13.08 - 8:55 am

Thanks for your permission.

Actually your definition of secular fundamentalism is pretty close to mine.

http://www.paganvigil.com/C11631...5926/ index.html

"But the one thing that I have found in all True Believers is an absolute belief that their particular book, method, faith, interpretation, or silly hat is The Only Acceptable Choice. They will ignore anything that anyone else does if it doesn't adhere totally to The True Way. Worse, they will overlook mistakes and abuses made by the people on the correct side, even as they violate the principles they hold central to their belief."

I've found that secularism doesn't have as many safeguards as you might think. People cherish their passions, rationality seldom even places in THAT race.

I was actually trying to go out of my way not to classify you until I had read and finished your book. It's just that there were all sorts of little signs that I have learned (much to my regret) to associate with certain types of thinking. You get major kudos for taking the time for this conversation AND for sticking around when it's obvious we don't share a lock-step agreement on every subject under the sun. That's rare no matter what your politics, I admire it.

I wasn't talking about grassroots, I was talking about government reacting to a "small and vocal minority." Even in your example, there were more than three people involved. From what I can see, the group you've called "The Family" is predicated on exactly that premise. My question at this point is just how big a threat they are. It doesn't change my opinion though, government usually reacts.

Which of course raises the question why we give government so much power to begin with? But that is outside the questions raised by your book, so I won't deal with it here or in my forthcoming review.   I am still reading your book. Even though I read fairly quickly, I still have to find time here and there, mostly meal times and a little bit before I shower. Lately I've found that if I don't balance my political reading with fiction, I rapidly lose interest in the politics. So that does slow me down a bit.
NeoWayland | 07.14.08 - 4:55 pm

Posted at 02:06 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Would-be saints unleashing chaos and destruction

What if taxes made sense?

Taking more than it gives

To help the American taxpayer, we're going to raise the gas tax

The Obama they don't talk about

If I were going to say I told you so...

Diebold and the 2002 election

Not even fair taxes

Reverend Magdalen update

Passing through, let's see how many of these links I can hammer out