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

Tue - January 6, 2009

Sacred Mountains

I apologize to my readers.

Even though the San Francisco Peaks are in my "backyard," I really can't bring myself to write again about the Snowbowl, religion, and wastewater.

This one has been talked to death by my friends and neighbors. I've heard all the arguments backwards and forwards and sideways and upside down and inside out and so on and so forth. I've made more than my fair share.

I'm really burned out on the whole thing, although my sympathies lie with the Diné.

Instead I am going to refer you to Jason Pitz-Waters over at the Wild Hunt Blog, he has some geographical distance and his coverage is pretty good.

Again, I am sorry, but I've dealt with this way, way too much.

And for me, that's really saying something.

Posted Tue - January 6, 2009 at 04:01 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Want ice with that?

Remember that bit about the North Pole melting? I do.

Except it didn't happen.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

And as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, 1979 was also the year that Time and Newsweek did stories about the coming ice age.

Investor's Business Daily had a decent piece on it too.

Do you suppose the global warming alarmists will be quiet? Or at least acknowledge they made a mistake?

I don't think so.

I think there's going to be a lot of hot air (pun intended) as Congress tries to "fix" the "problem."

Posted at 03:45 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Giggle quote of the day

The feminist, pro-gay, secular left in Britain (i.e. Danny's "liberal opinion") is now siding unequivocally with misogynist, homophobic religious fanatics. I can understand (all too well) why Neanderthal elements of the socially-conservative blogosphere are anti-Israel, but what is the left's excuse?
— The Last Ditch, Waiting for the One

I loved it!!

Posted at 03:33 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Government goes after big screen television

There are days I feel like a song.

I was an environmentalist when environmentalist wasn't cool.

Loses something in the translation, doesn't it?

But I do want to know whose bright idea was it that government could regulate the amount of electricity appliances use?

Now California is going after televisions.

Of course the blame is on the state's strained power grid.

Which was caused by subsidized water and power.

And was made worse by state regulation.

So the answer to a government screwup is… more government?

Until the revolt, anyway.

Californians unite, take back your television.

Posted at 03:29 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Matter of faith

A slightly different version of this entry appeared in
response to this thread at Sunni and the Conspirators

Religion is one of those loaded topics that pops up quite often. In the last few years, I've had to defend the very idea of religion from "brights" who would just as soon outlaw it.

No, I am not kidding.

I even created this blog to show that you could be a person of faith (but not one of the Big Three), be passionate about the issues of the day, and still be a reasoning individual.

In many ways it's the same argument I've had time and time again with people about guns. Or global warming. Or representative government (there are liberals out there that firmly believe Republicans should be legally banned from holding public office, and of course libertarians are stealth Republicans).

In each case, dissent is not only a DANGER, but must be prohibited for the common good. To which I say codswallop.

I've a better reason than most to dislike the Big Three Monotheisms. To the groups, it's pretty much an article of faith that I am a clear and present danger.

But (and here's the important bit)…

There are individuals in those faiths. Most of those individuals don't see me as a danger. A little weird yes, but overall a pretty decent guy.

One of my little irrational beliefs is that the individual is more important than the group. I don't have "black" friends, I have friends who happen to have a different color skin.

I also have Diné friends and Hopi friends who have a much more unified culture than any group of "blacks" I've ever met.

Honestly, can we please do away with that whole "race" thing? Biologically speaking, there's only one race and that's human.

Yes there can be some cultural differences even in the same country, but for me at least, it seldom has anything to do with skin color. For a guy who grew up in Arizona, Boston is nearly another country. I've a much harder time dealing with East Coast types than others, and that's probably because I am not as good at reading their non-vocal cues.

I don't have gay friends, I have friends who happen to be gay. The individual is more important to me than any group identity.

Although there was one time I did go looking for a lesbian bar. It cost me a few rounds of drinks, but I learned some things that have been very handy over the years. Emphasis on handy.

I've friends who happen to be Christian. I've other friends who happen to be Jewish. Of course I have friends who happen to be Pagan. Quite a few friends who happen to be atheist actually, I think it has something to do with the libertarian movement. And probably a smattering of other faiths that I am not remembering before the caffeine kicks in.

Frankly I don't care what religion someone is. Or what their sexuality is. Or what their politics are. As long as it's not an excuse to control me and mine, why should it matter?

I've written about this several times on this blog. It's also one of my main discussion points when I meet new people and we disagree on politics, religion, or sex. I do agree that religion is one of those things used to justify far too much political control. That's another thing I've written about extensively.

But to lump all religious types together, regardless of their faith and despite their personal actions, well, it's hard to see that as anything other than insulting.

I'm not Jeremiah Wright, I'm not Robert Schuller, and I am not David Wolpe.

I'm not even Isaac Bonewits.

I'm not going to prove religion because it's a matter of faith.

I believe that by reaching for understanding, humanity taught itself science. The quest was more important than the guesses and assumptions that we used to get there. It could be a matter of brain structure, it could be acknowledging Something greater than ourselves. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

The question makes us reach beyond our minds and our little world. It's what makes us face the unknown.

Later we rationally go back and draw the map.

Posted at 07:08 AM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Mon - January 5, 2009

Best quote of the year so far

I wonder when someone will notice Obama was never fully vetted either.
— Tammy Bruce, Barkey Appoints Richardson to Under the Bus Secretary

A classic quote.

Posted Mon - January 5, 2009 at 02:39 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

In line for that bailout cash

I haven't reported on the accountants or the travel agents.

But there are five states in line.

And now the steel industry.

According to BailoutSleuth, there are now 282 banks, thrifts, and lenders participating in the bailout.

Where does it end?

John Stossel says it won't end with Obama. Emphasis added.

So they will "transform our economy." Obama's nearly trillion-dollar plan will not merely repair bridges, fill potholes and fix up schools; it will also impose a utopian vision based on the belief that an economy is a thing to be planned from above. But this is an arrogant conceit. No one can possibly know enough to redesign something as complex as "an economy," which really is people engaging in exchanges to achieve their goals. Planning it means planning them.

Obama and Emanuel want us to believe that their blueprint for reform will bring recovery from the recession. Yet we have recovered from past recessions without undertaking a radical social and economic transformation.

In fact, reform would impede recovery.

This is not the first time a President chose reform over recovery. Franklin Roosevelt did it with his New Deal, and the result was long years of depression and deprivation. Roosevelt's priorities were criticized not just by opponents of big government but by none other than John Maynard Keynes, the British economist whose theories rationalized big government. Before FDR had been in office a year, Keynes wrote him an open letter, which was printed in The New York Times:

"You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform; -- recovery from the slump and the passage of those business and social reforms which are long overdue. For the first, speed and quick results are essential. The second may be urgent, too; but haste will be injurious. "¦ (E)ven wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action. "¦ Now I am not clear, looking back over the last nine months, that the order of urgency between measures of Recovery and measures of Reform has been duly observed, or that the latter has not sometimes been mistaken for the former."

Note Keynes's concern. Government interventions, such as the cartelizing of industry through the National Recovery Administration, "will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action." In other words, investors will not take the risks necessary for recovery if their profits and freedom are subject to unpredictable government action. Economic historian Roberts Higgs calls this phenomenon "regime uncertainty."

It's too late to fix it. Grab some popcorn and watch, it's going to be a sharc gib.

That's big crash spelled backwards. Afterwards the politicos and technocrats will be whimpering as the rest of us pick up the pieces.

The economy is not something that is controlled from the top down by Washington. They just haven't learned that yet.

It will be the most expensive lesson in history.

Posted at 02:28 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Orgasmic birth?

Here's one of those things I honestly don't know how to categorize.

I was watching the TV out of the corner of my eye and it was a promo discussing orgasms during childbirth.

Lord and Lady, I thought, if that works it makes a helluva lot of sense.

Now let be clear, I've never had kids as far as I know. But anything that makes childbirth easier without drugs has got to be worth investigating.

Besides, I'm a bit libertine and very sensualist in my values.

So here's a brief piece about it.

Here's a dissent.

Here's the trailer for the film, and of course, it's not safe for work.

Based on all this, I don't have enough to judge if it's the latest fad or not. But I do think it's worth investigating more.

Posted at 02:12 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Resolutions

Thanks to Liberty Maven, I finally saw Harry Browne's famous New Year's Resolutions for Libertarians.

A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions

by Harry Browne

1. I resolve to *sell* liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than *preaching* to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.

2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.

3. I resolve to *listen* when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.

4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek — a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society — and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.

5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don’t have to approve of their subsidies or policies — but if I don’t acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.

6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.

7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America’s defects will make me a tiresome crank.

8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government — not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.

9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.

10. I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it’s important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.

11. I resolve to remind myself that someone’s “stupid” opinion may be an opinion I once held. If *I* can grow, why can’t I help *him* grow?

12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.

13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free — and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.

14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.

— Harry Browne

Pretty good all in all.

Posted at 01:35 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Your mileage may vary

A while back I told you that North Carolina wanted to tax milage.

Now it's Oregon. Also here.

Is there any justification other than they are greedy for revenue?

I can't see any.

Posted at 01:30 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Sexual offense

Stores about sex offenders get my attention. But not for the reason you think.

I'm a naturist, I haven't made any secret of it here. There's enough plant cover in my back yard that I don't have to worry about an audience. It's tough to see in the windows of the house too.

Now if I got arrested for indecent exposure, I'd be labeled a sex offender. I'd be filed along with the rapists and pedophiles. Even though my only crime would have been to shed clothes.

In some places, ordering sex toys through the mail is a crime. In some places, anal sex is a crime. And I haven't even touched on things like BDSM yet.

Sex crimes are incredibly subjective.

I know of a few times when the lady was willing and not because she was drunk. That didn't stop her from claiming rape afterwards. It never happened to me, but I know guys it did happen to.

To hear some people say it, mere possession of pornography is enough to make you guilty of sex crimes.

That's why stories like this worry me.

Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses.

Georgia joins a small band of states complying with guidelines in a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders, but it is among the first to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well.

A federal judge ruled in September that a similar law in Utah violated the privacy rights of an offender who challenged it, though the narrow ruling only applied to one offender who had a military conviction on sex offenses but was never in Utah's court or prison system.

No one in Georgia has challenged the law yet, but critics say it threatens the privacy of sex offenders and burdens cash-strapped law enforcement officials.

"There's certainly a privacy concern," said Sara Totonchi of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights. "This essentially will give law enforcement the ability to read e-mails between family members, between employers."

Pay special attention to this bit.

State Sen. Cecil Staton, who wrote the bill, said the measure is designed to keep the Internet safe for children. Authorities could use the passwords and other information to make sure offenders aren't stalking children online or chatting with them about off-limits topics.

Staton said although the measure may violate the privacy of sex offenders, the need to protect children "outweighs a lot of the rights of these individuals."

Got that? "We have to protect the children" outweighs the rights of the individuals.

It's way too easy to be falsely labeled a sex offender.

I wonder if this parent thought about that?

Here's what people forget. Well, actually, there is a whole list starting with "nudity does not equal sex."

This whole "protect the children" thing is a 20th Century invention. It didn't really take hold in America until after World War II.

And it's not universal.

That's very important to remember.

In accordance with this opinion, Augustine referred to the male and female sex organs as obscoenae partes (obscene parts) and viewed all "carnal" desire with barely concealed disgust. Moreover, he was convinced that all decent people everywhere felt the same way. Yet, in actual fact, his attitude was not universally shared even in his own time. There were still tribes in distant parts of the Roman empire who preserved their old "pagan" customs and delighted in group sex and various sexual displays. Thus, Augustine's statement about the "shame attending all sexual intercourse" was not really true. It was only much later, and only through Christian influence, that it became true for most Europeans. Outside of Europe, however, many societies developed very different sexual values. When, after centuries of isolation, Christian explorers finally discovered such societies, they were amazed and incredulous. For example, when Captain Cook came to Tahiti he was greatly surprised to find that the Tahitians had sexual intercourse in public and "gratified every appetite and passion before witnesses". Thus, he reported in his Account of a Voyage Around the World (1769):

“A young man, nearly six feet high, performed the rites of Venus with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age, before several of our people and a great number of natives, without the least sense of its being indecent or improper, but, as appeared, in perfect conformity to the custom of the place. Among the spectators were several women of superior rank who . . . gave instructions to the girl how to perform her part, which, young as she was, she did not seem much to stand in need of.”

In spite of his consternation, however, Captain Cook apparently kept his composure and did not try to stop the performance. After all, he was not a moral crusader, but a practical Englishman, a seasoned world traveler, and a son of the Age of Enlightenment. It was left to the Christian missionaries of a later time to become outraged and to eradicate the traditional island customs. Indeed, one can easily imagine the effect the sexual spectacle would have had on Augustine, had he been able to witness it. One can also assume that it would not have changed his opinion. Instead of admitting that he had been proven wrong by the "shameless" islanders, he would probably have condemned them all as slaves of the devil.

Obviously I am not suggesting that adults go out and have sex with an 11 year old.

But I am pointing out that in a society that sexualizes girls from a very young age, there's some very screwy stuff going on.

In a country that can get excited because of an exposed nipple shield in a half-time show, somehow everyone forget the song lyrics.

And people are arrested because they have a glass dildo. Or because they dare to be bare.

For this, the State of Georgia wants passwords.

Just who gets to decide what is immoral or not?

See, that was a giveaway. That goes back to our talks on the roots of government power. I say it's not a real crime unless it inflicts measurable harm. Rape is a crime under that definition. Me exposing my hide in the summer sun isn't. And under that definition, most sexual offenders may be sexual but they aren't offensive.

We can't afford to let government make ethical decisions.

And we certainly can't trust them to do the right thing.

Posted at 07:49 AM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Wed - December 31, 2008

Free markets vs. Capitalism and Mercantilism

I'm seeing more and more articles that I would file under Free Market. And it's dawning on me that this political struggle and this financial crisis is defined by who's going to control the economy.

Free market advocates like me will tell you that the solution is less law and less regulation and a very restrained government.

Everyone will tell you that government should be more involved, either by direct control or by "encouraging" the right companies at the right time.

But the facts don't support either of those cases.

Detroiters continue to embarrass themselves by placing the auto industry collapse into an us-versus-them framework. In the midst of all the whining and begging for a bailout, the South has been declared the new enemy, along with the foreign-car manufacturers who are producing cars — in Southern plants — that consumers want to buy. The army of politicians and opinion columnists in Michigan who lay the groundwork for resuscitating this fading industry don't bother to acknowledge that it is in the best interests of any public company to maximize quality for its customers and efficiency of production and profits for its shareholders.

Instead, Toyota and Honda are pegged as evil because they are thriving. They are especially evil for building plants that aren't located near Detroit. However, it is important to remember that foreign auto manufacturers are able to build plants where they want to build them, according to what fits best into their strategic plans and potential for profit. The US automakers have UAW officials making those decisions for them for the sole purpose of enriching the union's overpaid officers and dues-paying members.

Moreover, the whole South is considered evil for luring foreign plants into the region. Sure, the massive subsidies granted to foreign automakers to lure them to the South are the quintessence of corporate welfare. But no country, no state, no region, is immune to such politics. Michigan does the same to lure high-tech companies to the state, and most recently, it offered huge incentives to Volkswagen to build a new plant in the state. The game is played the same everywhere.

Here's the real telling paragraph. Emphasis added.

The free-market method would be to allow for a business environment that would be ideal for businesses to thrive (no taxes or stifling regulations); thereby encouraging companies to relocate to low-cost states on a mutually cooperative basis. This would engender competition among states that would drive down all costs everywhere. But that would mean that the people in power — the politicians and government planners — would become less influential and less wealthy; it is for that reason the free market has not prevailed.

I can't stress that enough. Not only is government using this to take YOUR freedom away, but even when things "work" the way that government types say it should, it results in you paying higher prices.

That's BEFORE they pick your pocket to pay for a "bailout."

Posted Wed - December 31, 2008 at 02:23 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

"The Man Who Said No to Walmart"

Here's an article about a company making the right choice.

Oh, and facing Walmart down in the process.

Talk about coming to the table with different agendas. Wier was in Bentonville to pull his mowers from Wal-Mart's stores. The vice president was offering a greater temptation: Let's join hands and go head-to-head against the home-improvement superstores.

Which is when Wier said no.

"As I look at the three years Snapper has been with you," he told the vice president, "every year the price has come down. Every year the content of the product has gone up. We're at a position where, first, it's still priced where it doesn't meet the needs of your clientele. For Wal-Mart, it's still too high-priced. I think you'd agree with that.

"Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."

The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did.

"My response was, we would take a look at that," says Wier. "The reason I gave that response was, it was a legitimate question. In my own mind, I knew where I'd go with that"--no thanks--"but at that kind of meeting you at least have to be willing to say, I'll investigate." And that was it. "The tone at the end was, We're not going forward as a supplier."

No lightning bolt struck. Except that Snapper instantly gave up almost 20% of its business. "But when we told the dealers that they would no longer find Snapper in Wal-Mart, they were very pleased with that decision. And I think we got most of that business back by winning the hearts of the dealers."

Worth your time.

Pay attention to the bit about the office furniture, that's pretty telling too.

Posted at 02:11 PM in

Permalink ◊ ◊ ◊

Excuse to meddle

Bye bye VHS

Is this the next big thing?

Memorial. Freedom. SEIZURE!

Proven right again

"...they promise happy, pain-free solutions."

Taxing cattle methane emissions, or, The Fart Tax

Another state delivers bailout demands

Celebrity Psudeoscience

"2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"