Ketchup and Pickles Only

Specter gets it... er... half right

2008-06-17T20:26:00.000-07:00

Senator Arlen Specter has decided he won't hold Congressional hearings regarding the NFL's Spygate Scandal. Specter originally wanted a Michell Report like investigation into the allegations of cheating in the NFL. While he hasn't completely ruled out a future investigation, he does hit one point right on the mark: "I'm not going to call for hearings because...we've got too many other bigger problems to deal with."

I'm sure members of Congress have far more important business to deal with; you know, like pushing their pork-laden bills through the legislature so they can put more of our taxpayer money into bridges that go nowhere.

Youtube videos

2008-06-07T12:33:00.000-07:00

Um... Youtube says I need to post on my blog to be able to post Youtube videos... so yea here we go.

"Freedom is Popular"

2007-07-08T22:00:00.000-07:00

A speech by Doctor Ron Paul, presidential candidate of 2008. Check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLcQiHKhic

I'm almost afraid to post this...

2007-06-23T00:21:00.000-07:00

This article and post is on a very controversial subject. Right now it's waaaay too early for me to write all I want to on this subject, especially since I have to work in 5 hours. But anyways, if you have time, read through this article. It's well written, presents a lot of viewpoints, and raises some interesting questions. I plan to write a more in depth post on this with my analysis, but I might not get to it; so just in case keep this in mind: think of how much less trouble we would have with stuff like this if the government didn't have such a tight regulatory hold on our healthcare system.

Hopefully more to come!

Lil Bush

2007-06-21T23:07:00.001-07:00

So Comedy Central has a new show on called Lil Bush, and the other night I we just happened to have the tv on CC when the show was on and I caught part of the episode. All I can say is wow, what a funny show. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching it. New episodes air Wednesday nights at 9:30pm cst and shown again at 11:00pm. You can also see a good part of the series online here. It's a very funny show that makes fun of all of our political figures from Lil Cheney's rrarararrar's to Lil Condy's attempts to hook up with Bush to Lil Barrak smoking weed. Good stuff.

There is a little hint of seriousness in this post. Besides advertising Lil Bush, it does raise the point that we really do have freedom of speech in our country. Think about it: where else in the world can we so openly rip our political figures? Europe? Maybe, but probably not. We'd probably be executed for this show in the Middle East, and Asia would probably censor it as well. As bad as the US government can get, I guess sometimes we do have to step back now and then, look at things like Lil Bush openly mocking everything about American politics, and say, "wow, thank God the founders wrote the Constitution the way they did." It's a good thing that something as offensive and funny as Lil Bush can be shown in our country without retaliation from the government; and for that I am happy.

More government waste

2007-06-21T00:57:00.000-07:00

Check this out. For all you people who like to drive fast, be careful because now it's ok for the government not only to fine and ticket you, but they can also destroy your car.

This whole thing seems like a huge waste to me. For one, the idea that the cops can just take your car and destroy it is flat out wrong. It may have illegal modifications (illegal... why is the government telling us what we can and can't put in our cars?) but seriously, the common sense thing to do is seize the illegal parts, find someone who can legally buy them, sell them off, and like the guy in the article says give the money to a charity. You could at least let the owner of the car keep part of his car. But that's government for you: no common sense, trying to make it seem like they're in control. But come on, honestly is this going to stop street racing? No. Is destroying these cars going to convince someone not to race? No. It may look good for the police to say, "Oh yea, look we're doing something about it!" But they're not. I ask you readers, is seizure and destruction of $20,000+ worth of property really a fair punishment for the crime of going fast? Ladies and gentlmen, I give you government. Enjoy.

Interesting story with a money quote

2007-05-17T21:24:00.000-07:00

Well, I thought this headline sounded kind of interesting, so I read this story, and I found a gem of a quote in it that pretty much sums up a big part of my worldview (that is, things are best done by those closest to the situation and the smallest possible level). Talking about disciplining children:

"Patricia Mathis, assistant principal at Gardner Middle, said she supported Spann's right to discipline her child.
"My theory is this: Parents know their children far better than we do as educators," she said."

Big Brother Knows

2007-03-28T20:41:00.000-07:00

This Friday is prom. Huzzah. In honor of this joyous day, our school administrators decided today was a good day for Big Brother to come talk to our school and bring his propaganda for show. Before I begin, let me state: I have never consumed alcohol outside of church, I do not intend to drink on Friday, and if you do drink and drive I think you're incredibly stupid. That said, on to Big Brother.
Today, instead of getting to attend choir rehersal (yea yea I'm a choir nerd I know), I was forced to be "graced" by the presence of a couple of Bellevue Police Department, Sarpy County Sheriff's Office, and (I believe) Sarpy County Attorney. They felt it necesarry to come and tell us how they KNOW. I swear they must have said, "we know," or, "we WILL know," or something to that extent at least once every 2 minutes. As we're sitting through their presentation on why drinking is bad (which isn't going to stop anyone from drinking: those who want to drink will drink, those who don't won't. In my opinion, talks like that only make minors more curious and rebellious, but that's another point for another day) all I could think of was 1984.
The presentors kept talking like they were omniscient and knew everything we do. One that really stuck out to me was, "when you drink and drive, there are consequences you can't possibly imagine, but we know." I honestly felt like I was living in a police state. Now, I know they have good intentions, but the way to gain my respect is NOT to tell me you know things that I don't. As the discussion continued, they eventually opened it up for questions, and I was curious, so I asked what constitued probable cause for searching a car; the response I got made me angry. I was told a long list of the expected things, but at the end, our sheriff added, "basically anything."
Now, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know a bit about my rights, and I know that it takes a bit more than, "anything" to search my car. Personally, if I get pulled over, I will not let an officer search my car if they ask; and if they continue to search, I will tell them I am going to file harrassment charges. I plan to let them defend their probable cause in court. But I digress. As if their talk wasn't enough, Big Brother, in his quest to always look out for us and make sure we're never being bad, decided to send his propaganda machine to our school.
The police department parked a large wrecked car outside the building all day and just let it sit there. It was supposed to remind us of the dangers of drinking and driving, but honestly, all I could think of when I looked at it was, "wow, this is government propaganda."
I sure feel safe now that I know Big Brother is looking out for me! In closing, to all you who read this; remember, Big Brother knows! You can't possibly imagine the consequences of your action, but it's ok because Big Brother knows.

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

A quote from my theology book

2007-03-25T20:35:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting quote from Pope Pius XI that I ran across while doing my homework. I really like it; it defines the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

"Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also is it an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate associations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them."

Well said.

Ron Paul

2007-02-22T22:52:00.000-08:00

Saw this video on the Liberty Papers... worth watching if you believe in human liberty! This guy certainly has my vote as of now in the upcoming election. Good luck Congressman Paul.

If you're interested, check out his website

Goldwater

2007-01-10T20:57:00.000-08:00

I was researching some stuff on presidents and I came across a quote from Barry Goldwater (not a president but I needed some info on him). This man had incredible foresight. Speaking about the state of the Republican part, Goldwater said,

"When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

I wanna say the quote was from 1994? Around that time. We're now in 2007, and look what's going on. Brilliant man.

A bit of math

2007-01-10T20:16:00.000-08:00

With the new minimum wage in effect, my buddy and I were debating it. Here's some real quick math to show you the effect on a small business.

This is roughly what will happen. Figure the raise is from $5.15 to $7.50, for easiness of math, we'll say about $2. Let's take small business X. X employs 10 workers who work 40 hours a week. X has very slim profit margins. With this raise, X now has to pay employees:

$2/hr * 40 hr/week * 52 week/year = $4160/year per employee * 10 employees = $41600/year in expenses.

X, with its small profit margins, cannot afford this, so X has to either fire some employees or cut back their hours. Either way, someone loses. That, of course, is best case. Worst case is that X goes out of business. Now the owner of X and his/her family lose their business and all 10 of X's employees lose a job, and instead of making $7.50 an hour, they make $0.00 an hour. Good job government, you've managed to screw it up again.

Interesting article

2006-12-17T18:49:00.000-08:00

Check this out.

It seems to go well with my previous post on the government's role and social justice.

Some thoughts

2006-12-16T22:24:00.000-08:00

We've been talking a lot about social justice in my theology class (appropriately entitled "Social Justice") recently, and it's stirred a few thoughts in my head, mostly about a bit hypocrisy inside the Catholic Church.
We learned that the Church teaches that every individual is entitled to private property: good. We also learned about a principle called subsidiation, which says that all jobs should be carried out by a group closest to the thing or object it is working with and these tasks should not have to go through a beaurocracy type system to get done (basically, if I can do it, let me do it, don't make someone else whose job is to do something else do my job). These are two principles I agree with and fully support.
Now, here's where I disagree with the Church. They say that we are all entitled to a form of justice called distributive justice. This idea says that a government owes its people services such as healthcare and food (welfare). Now, as the readers of this blog know, I don't believe in welfare on both practical and moral grounds. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with my faith supporting these things, except that by this principle of distributive justice, the Church essentially goes against the first two ideas I mentioned above.
You see, the idea of social welfare is based on the idea of taxation and an idea of the collective responsibility of the state to pay for the existence of people. However, the church claims to believe in private property rights and subsidiation, and according to these principles, social welfare is wrong. Money is property, and if I truly have a right to my private property, the government should exist to protect my right to property, not to take (steal) my money from me. So unless the church wants to advocate theft, I don't see how they can endorse welfare. Plus, according to their principle of subsidiation, a private charity (whose function is to work with the poor) should be taking care of charity work, not the government (whose purpose is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property). When the government gets involved in charity, it becomes bureacratic and poltically motivated; charities are far more efficient and knowlegeable in their own field, let the government stick to theirs.
I don't see how the Catholic Church can advocate social welfare, especially when they look at examples of its failure (medicare, medicaid) and see how it doesn't work. The Church has two great principles in subsidiation and private property rights, I hope they stick to professing those and rethink their stance on the role of government when it comes to helping people.

Real Quick post

2006-11-29T23:14:00.000-08:00

Alright, real quick here cuz I need sleep. But anyway, I found an article about San Diego voting essentially to ban Wal-Mart from the city, read it and you'll see. Anyway, one of the opponents of the ban on the city council put my philosophy on the issue in words about as well as I think you can say it; I just want to highlight it.

“Quite simply, I do not think it is the role of the San Diego City Council to dictate where families should buy their groceries,” said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who opposed the ban.

There you go folks, I don't see why the other 5 members who voted for the ban can't see this guy's way.

All you need to sue a business.

2006-10-30T12:23:00.000-08:00

"The Center for Science in the Public Interest sued KFC earlier this year, claiming the food chain’s use of cooking oil containing trans fat is unhealthy."

There you go, just because a private restaraunt that forces no one to eat there serves something unhealthy you can sue them... good job world.

More nanny state nonsense

2006-09-27T18:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/wid/11915773?GT1=8506

It's happening folks, the government attack on "bad things" has turned itself towards one of our most precious and sacred vices: fatty foods. NYC is proposing a ban on trans fats, which obviously are bad for you, so the government should regulate them, right? Wrong. Now, obviously it's on online unofficial pole, but the live vote on msnbc said about 75% of voters disapproved of the government banning trans fats, which tells me two things. One it tells me Americans are people who try to twist the rules to best suit themselves (there's an argument for capitalism right there, but that's another post for another day) because they're all for banning smoking but they hate this ban on fatty foods. Two, it tells me that we do still have some sense in this government tyrany.

One thing that disturbed me about this article was a quote I read, "“It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient,” [NY health commissioner Thomas] Frieden said. “No one will miss it when it’s gone.” We don't care if no one will miss it! The problem with this law is the idea that government knows what's best for us and that it can tell us what we can and can't do. Too many people today have this idea in their head that the government is an almighty, omniscient force that exists to better the world, when in fact it is the opposite. It is an inefficient, oppressive organization that needs to be kept in check so that it serves its purpose (protecting rights). This latest government intrusion into the lives of citizens scares me. Thankfully Americans seem to be reacting negatively towards it, and hopefully they'll realize the government isn't always right: then perhaps we can start to grow and up and not need Nanny Washington.

Jumping on the "Pope post" bandwagon

2006-09-18T19:46:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't written much on the subject of Pope Benedict's remakrks, but I saw this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888444/

The response from the Middle East has been completely uncalled for. Why I may or may not agree with what the Pope said, at least I'm keeping myself civil. The muslim radicals' (key word radicals, I still have some faith that there is a peaceful side to Islam) response of declaring war on Christianity has proven the Pope right. The fact that the western world can tolerate this unacceptable behavior by Islamic militants is disgusting. It would really make my day if Pope Benedict would retract his appology to these savages. Animals like them deserve no appology from anyone.

A quick insight into my theology class

2006-09-05T19:52:00.000-07:00

My theology instructor opened class today by announcing we would be discussing "currect events" with an "anonomous ballot". In other words, he puts a question on the board, we jot down a couple sentences on a slip of paper, he collects them, and reads them all in class. Then we discuss and class ends. Today's topic was "Do you think it is morally justifiable to have gay marriages?" So naturally, being the libertarian I am, I asked him if he meant politically or religiously, and I was told to answer with respect to the eyes of the state. I gave the typical libertarian response of marriage is not a government issue, let the church decide it, as for civil unions they're fine for whoever, blah blah blah.

Now, all this discussion was meant by my instructor to introduce the topic of common law. As class wound down, said instructor defined common law as 'everything has a useand to misuse something is morally wrong.' Now, while I agree with this principle, I don't think you can call this common law. Common law, to me, is something more to the effect of 'one man may not deprive another man of his natural rights to life, liberty, and property'.

My theology instructor's idea of common law seems too subjective to be set as a law. The "purpose" of an object is too subjective to for one to define without drawing into moral values, which are established by one's personal beliefs, opinions and views. If the government begins telling people what to think, they are violating the true common law of depriving a man of his right to liberty, which, to me, is a greater wrong than someone using something "in the wrong way", provided said wrong way harms no other individual (i.e. consentual gay sex).

While it would be nice for everyone to abide my theology instructors idea of common law, to force an individual into accepting the majority's views of what the proper purpose of something is is a great evil that we as a society must defend against. Remember, just because we think something is disgusting doesn't mean it's a crime!

This isn't really ketchup and pickles but...

2006-09-03T21:07:00.000-07:00

...I don't think it's mustard either. I'd just like to note that today while eating at Buffalo Wild Wings, I was talked into taking the 'Blazin Challenge'. That is, I had to eat 12 Blazin wings in 6 minutes. After much talk, my buddies at the waiter managed to talk me into attempting, and what do you know, I did it. So, if for some reason you care at all, I am now a winner of BWW's Blazin Challenge... huzzah!

2006-08-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Sorry about the delay in posting guys, school and such has taken up my time. I'm going to share this video, it's anti-war on drugs, great video. Enjoy!

Stop trying to make the world perfect!

2006-07-25T20:27:00.000-07:00

Hey! Let's make it so people can cruise through life on state aid paid for by a select few who have actually done well in life! Or wait, even better, let's force everyone to be uptight moral people who can't do anything 'out of the ordinary' like drugs or sex! Heck while we're at it, we could do both! Then we would have a world where everyone gets through life on the labors of a few and they would all act the same and have no individuality!
No? Well why not? You want to be your own person? You say you can't stand being lazy and would work anyway and wouldn't want other people to mooch off you? Are you crazy? You must be a libertarian...

It seems to me that the two mainstream political parties both have their own idea of a utopian society and they're trying to force it on the world. Now, to me, a utopian society is an impossibility because, obviously, the definition of a utopia is different for each individual. Because of this, the world needs to be as free as possible so that each individual person can work to better his or her life without someone else trying to impose their own utopia onto said individual: this is the problem I have with the major political parties.
The Republicans, who I will probably align myself with because I agree with their policies a bit more than the oppositions, seem to have this idea that they are morally superior to everyone and can make choices for everyone else so that no one is offended. Their recent flag rights bill is one example of them telling private groups what they can and can't allow people to do on their property because the Republican party feels everyone has a right to display an American flag, even if it's on someone else's property or against the terms of an agreement etc etc.
The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to love the slacker's utopia. "Yea we'll get you through life, you're just as good as the other guy who works 10 times harder than you, don't worry!" Now, while the democrats are a bit less morally intrusive than the Republicans, they're very adament about stealing money from one group to give to another, which is why I refuse to align with them, plus they're pretty weak on national security.
Utopia is a nice idea, but it will never work. Hopefully one of the political parties will realize that their utopian values are not for politics and will change their views to the classic liberty based thought of the early American nation.

This one time, at band camp, I...

2006-07-23T13:07:00.000-07:00

Yea so I'm back from camp. I just thought I'd share this year's "one time at band camp" story, soooo...

This one time, at band camp, I discovered the secret of life: girls = cheeseballs because they're so bad for you, but they're soooooooooooooooooo good.

Ah band camp... Anyways I'm back, good to be home.

Gone

2006-07-17T23:03:00.000-07:00

Just so the few of you who read this know, I'll be gone from Tuesday to Saturday... not that I haven't taken such absences from posting before, but hey this one's formal. I've got band camp, so wish me luck in the 100+ degree heat, woot!

Some thoughts on collective mentality

2006-07-17T00:01:00.000-07:00

Just some thoughts guys, and amazingly not inspired by a news article. Anyways, a friend of mine and I were arguing about something and it made me think about collective mentality. He said something to the effect of, "all you have in the world is you." I would agree with this statement on a political level, but that's about it.
Politics and government is compulsory, meaning you are forced to be in it. Since there is no way to get out of it, it's all about you and yourself being comfortable. You're not volunteering to be in it, so you should have desire for the advance or success of the group, you really should only be caring about you and yourself, but not Irene (sorry, bad movie reference). That's part of the reason I'm so for liberty, because I'm forced into this system of government, I want to be able to live for myself in terms of politics.
Now, there are times when a collective mentality, and "working for the better of the group" is needed. If you're in something such as an activity, the military, or even a job, you need to have the mentality of "I'm working for the greater good of this group", not the idea of "I'm in this so I can have a good time at the expense of others." This collective mentality, when not compulsory, is what drives things to greatness, and I think it's fair enough to hold people to certain standards and expect certain things from them if they voluntarilly join a group. These include working for the better of the group and respecting basic authority set before you. No one is forcing you here, you are in by your own choice, and by joining you are accepting these conditions.
Collective mentality can be a powerful force. It is what drives greatness, just look at all the great sports teams and such if you need examples. As much as I hate them, the Detroit Pistons are a great example. However, when collectivism becomes compulsory (aka in government), such as in communism, the system fills with corruption and will eventually fail. As long as I'm forced into something, I want to be able to work for my own betterment, which is why I'm for liberty.

Good news bad news

2006-07-14T12:54:00.000-07:00

I've got some news from close to home. It appears a federal court has upheld a Nebraska state law banning gay marriage. This is both good and bad. It's bad because my state is still trying to define marriage, a religious concept that it should have no say in. But that's really not what I want to emphasize here.
The good part of this report is that the federal court did not make it's on ruling on a state affair. "The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the amendment “and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”"
This is a good thing in that the federal government has chosen to let a state handle it's own affairs. Now, since I personally disagree with this ban, I (in a year) can vote against it in my own state at a much more local level than something like a federal ban. It's nice to see a little power given back to the states every once in a while. Hopefully the federal government will come to its senses and return more power to the states. I doubt it will happen, but it never hurts to hope.

Another news story

2006-07-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

I don't really have time (or the thoughts) for a real post right now, so I'm going to leave you with this story. Once again, government butting it's ugly head into the economy has resulted in nothing but trouble. Politicians... oiy.

Guns and a bit more

2006-06-21T22:46:00.000-07:00

If you can't tell, I get a lot of news from msnbc, it's my homepage so every time I open it I glance at the headlines, and, again, I have come across an article that caught my attention. A plot by the U.N. to ban gun ownership on the 4th of July. Sadly, I wouldn't put the idea of no private gun ownership past certain lawmakers.
As wrong as it is that the U.N. is making any sort of law regarding gun control, I do give them some credit for leaving it up to nations to decide who can and can't own what guns inside their countries. However, the part that provoked this post was that the U.N. wants to stop illegal gun trade. The article also mentions advocates of even stricter gun control.
In my mind, gun control is a microcosm of a lot of things including the drug war, the fast food industry, and other issues of the government regulating things 'for the common good' so to speak. There are two main problems I see in issues like these: one, you can't tell people not to do something unless that something violates another person's rights and two, the people who want the controled substance are going to get it one way or another.
Owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights. If I owned an automatic weapon, I wouldn't use it to hurt anyone, I would only use it in self defense if I absolutely had to. So why is the government able to tell me that I can't have an automatic weapon? Sure others have abused them, but I won't. You can put me on watch or make me take a class, whatever, but I should still be able to own it. In terms of government, it's not right to take something away from someone because others have abused it.
Also, the other problem with controling things is that the people who want them or going to get them. Drugs, alcohol, fast food (if the health freaks have their way), and guns are all going to be obtained by the people who really want them, and they're going to get them illegally. Therefore, we might as well legally sell them and stop giving power to organized crime and the black market. I know you've probably heard that argument for one thing or another before, but it's so true I feel it worth posting again. Another thing to add to this argument: human curiosity is a powerful force. When someone won't tell me something, 99% of the time it makes me want to know it more. When the government regulates things, it usually makes people want them more, which causes them to buy them illegally and further support the black market.
Government regulation never works; it denies people their right to property and it empowers organized crime and the black market. While the people behind these bans probably have good intentions, they really need to slow down, rethink the consequences of regulation, and really consider what they're doing.

Well I'm back

2006-06-14T21:16:00.000-07:00

Appologies to the few of you who read this for the lack of posting, just got back from Florida with the band and choir. It was good fun, survived Alberto and such. Anyways, I read Animal Farm for the first time. Good book, worth reading. That's all I got for now. Till I get the will to write something, enjoy life.

The Dumbassists

2006-06-07T22:28:00.000-07:00

Well, we have a new blogroll created by a friend of mine and myself, and since I don't want to write about it, I'm going to copy paste my buddies post about it right here.

"New blogroll

Also, a friend of mine has started a new blogroll. The idea started in an IM chat tonight when we were discussing the possibility of me running office someday. I said that I'm much too honest and plain-spoken, to which he replied...
him: i dunno maybe you'd pull an ernie chambers
him: become the most hated and loved person in the state
me: haha
me1: maybe, but not for the same reasons
me: he's that bc he's a racist
me: i would be it bc im a dumbassist
me: i discriminate towards stupid people

Thus was born the idea to create an "I discriminate towards stupid people" blogroll/group. I made the slight adjustment to include one of my favorite phrases, "stuck on stupid." So the finished product is, "I discriminate against those who are 'stuck on stupid.'" Or, for short, dumbassists."

So, with that, you can email me at ryan.hotovy@gmail.com if you want to join.

Communism, freedom and anything else I feel like talking about

2006-06-04T22:31:00.000-07:00

Alright, first off the promised commentary on the Communist Manifesto. In a summary, the document talks about communist views. It says there's a class struggle, workers versus those who control the workers, it's time for the workers (proletariat) to rise up and overthrow those who control production (bourgeois). They want a state where ownership of property is eliminated and everything belongs to the state. This is communism, an elimination of one of those inalienable rights given to us by the constitution: property.

You know, I used to think communism in an ideal situation where no one was corrupt would be a good idea, and I hear a lot of people praise the system: they say if it actually worked communism is great. I'm firmly renouncing that. Communism, even if it works, is stupid! I don't know about you, but I like the idea of being able to own my own property/business/stuff/whatever, and know it does not belong to the state or community.
Anyways, as I read the Communist Manifesto, I highlighted some quotes that caught my eye for one reason or another: here they are and some commentary with them.

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers."
So if these people weren't wage laborers before the bourgeoisie 'dishonored' them, what were they and/or what did they do? Did they just work for free? Just because someone works for a wage doesn't take any away from them. I still have great respect for what doctors do, even if they do work for a wage.

“These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

So, competition should be eliminated? Competition is what drives the market and what drives development. Without competition, laziness kicks in: there’s no motivation to do anything. Workers compete in order to keep their job, which means they produce more and are held to higher standards of work in order to keep their job. Without competition, an economy will fail.

“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. “

There you have it. What I said above. If you care, the document tries to explain itself by saying the laborers essentially have no property because their labor does not produce enough capital for them to own anything. I don’t know what they’re talking about, just look at all of those American Dream stories and then tell me if workers can’t succeed and move up in life.

“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

See above.

“You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

The impression I get when I read this document is that the bourgeois is the bad guy. Somehow because they have done well and succeeded in life they are evil and must be eliminated. So basically, if I do well and make it good in life, it’s somehow a crime against someone that I dare enjoy my life.

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty“

This one really irks me. My parents did a great job educating me and they didn’t need the government or the state to help them! As the son of a son of farmer, I still have a bit of that individualistic, make-it-on-your-own attitude embedded in me, and I don’t want anyone except my family trying to raise me. It’s no job of the state to educate: that right belongs solely to parents and family.

“And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”

Well, we know my thoughts on education.

Now the document predicts what it feels can and will happen when a communist revolution actually happens.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Again, the property thing.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Why should those who do well be punished at the expense of those who fail especially because of laziness?
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Why should the government decide who gets MY money when I die?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I don’t get this in the slightest.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Don’t talk economics with me, but centralizing something is usually never a good thing
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Again, eliminates competition, institutes monopoly, leads to economic failure, government overstepping it’s power, you know the drill.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Again, why should the government be involved in the economy? It’s job is to protect our rights, not to own businesses or to worry about the soil.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Heh, you have fun convincing me to work if I don’t have to (without competition, why should I work harder? The state is still going to provide for me anyway).
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
No comments on this one.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Education… already wrote on it.

And finally, a warning to the world:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Be afraid, be very afraid.

That’s my commentary on the Manifesto. Just a few other things, I watched a very interesting documentary on the Free Masons on the history channel, it talked a lot about liberty, enlightenment, conspiracy theories, etc… Worth watching if you can find it somewhere; Masonry is pretty cool stuff (even though they’re an ‘enemy’ of my church, haha).

In closing, communism is directly against the American way of life. Private ownership, capitalism, choice, family, liberty and minimal government are key principles of America. Communism turns to the state to make decision for people because somehow it can do it so much better than the average citizen. Anyways, I hope I gave you a few good laughs at this outrageous form of government. If not, I hope I showed you some interesting stuff, and if not; sorry for wasting your time.

Some more socialism

2006-06-02T14:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13090060/

Government telling business what to do, yippee...

Have a nice day.

Self Defense

2006-06-01T23:16:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the barage of small posts, but I really don't have anything long to write about right now; though I am reading the Communist Manifesto, and I'm highlighting parts of it, so expect my commentary on that soon. Until then, check out this story about an ex-marine and some unfortunate criminals.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13048641/?GT1=8211

Self defence - great principle. Now if we could only get those gun control activists to realize that arming the population is a good thingWell, one can hope.

Anti-PC League

2006-05-29T17:44:00.000-07:00

Well, I have submitted my application for membership in the anti-politically correct league. Check out the blogroll and the website in the sidebar!

Found a funny bit of irony

2006-05-24T21:09:00.000-07:00

Not gonna take sides on this issue, but I was reading the Liberty Papers and the quote running across the top read,
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March, 1861"
Ironic that Lincoln is best remembered for preventing the South from "revolting" and overthrowing the government. Just a bit of irony I thought I'd share.

Schools watching blogs

2006-05-23T23:12:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple stories about school districts that are now monitoring what students post on their blogs and will take disciplinary actions against students who post stories about any breaking of the rules.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12934462/from/RL.2/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12937962/

If you read the rest of my blog, you'd probably expect me to say something to the effect of, "wow this pathetic; government is way overstepping it's power," or something to that effect, I'm going to acutally side with the schools on this issue.
I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. If you decide to post about how you broke the rules the school has every right to punish you. You chose to write about it knowing that other people would read it, so suck it up, be responsible, and don't complain when you get what you deserve.
So now I would expect you to give me one of two arguments: how can you support this if you're for self determination and isn't this an invasion of my privacy? I'll rebute the first with this: I am a state's rightest. I do not believe in anarchy. This is not an action of the federal government, it's an action of the local district, which means that if people don't like it, they can leave that district and go elsewhere. This is a key principle of America: voting by foot. That's why I'm not saying this is supremem governnment oppresion or something to that effect.
As for an invasion of privacy, it most certainly is not. Remember, you chose to post your information on a public website. No one forced you to post this information. If you wanted to tell someone about it, do it in private, over the phone, or even in an IM. One student in the second story mentions that schools reading personal websites is as much of an invasion of privacy as looking in on other people's phone calls, IM's, e-mail, etc... It's not! These things are meant to be ways of private communication. Remember the whole point of blogging is so lot's of people can read your thoughts at will. If you want privacy, stick to the phone.
EDIT: changed closing paragraph to this:
I have rethought this issue a bit, and would like to say this: My above thoughts apply only to private education, which in my ideal world are the only ones that exist. So obviously we're caught in a bit of a pickle here; it's hard for me to advocate this when the majority of our schools are public, but anyways, think about it, and please don't get upset when your school forces you to take responsibility for your actions.

The War

2006-04-29T21:28:00.000-07:00

As the last few minutes of my birthday wind down, I present to you this article.

“We are here today because the war is illegal, immoral and unethical,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton. “We must bring the troops home.”

Let me reitterate, he said the war is illegal, immoral and unethical. How is this war illegal? We haven't broken any laws. There was a legitimate threat to U.S. security (and an attack on our soil never the less) so we took the logical response and went to seek justice. Immoral... I don't see how fighting to protect American lives and to free Iraq from a corrupt ruler is immoral; in fact that seems pretty moral to me. And how can you say the war is unethical if we're fighting to defend our country's system of beliefs? We're fighting to protect democracy and people's rights against the evil of a dictatorship. Al Sharpton certainly seems to have his words mixed up.

The article goes on to talk about the death tolls in the past few months and it talks about Cindy Sheehan again (you'd think she'd just go away). Now, I don't want to sound heartless, but these people joined the military on their own. They CHOSE to enter the military, meaning they are not forced to be in it. They knew that when they signed that contract that they may have to go to combat, and if they did they run the risk of injury or death. These protestors need to realize that it is a war. People die, that's just the way war is. I'm not saying I'm happy about these deaths; I'm sad when I hear about them, but I know that it's part of life.

I'm going to give a little tribute to those soldiers who have died: they died fighting to protect me. They died for my safety and comfort. Thank you to all you soldiers in Iraq, I have the ultimate respect for you, and quite frankly you are better men and women than I will probalby ever be. Thank you.

To pull out of Iraq now would be a dishonor to everything we've been fighting for and to those who have already died; not to mention the threat to our security it would pose. These protestors (as people usually do) seem to lack common sense and the inability to look past their own personal connections to war and look towards the overall picture.

Well.... at least I go to private school

2006-03-11T19:32:00.000-08:00

This morning as I was skimming the headlines in the Omaha World Herald, I ran across an interesting article. I would link you to it, but on the World Herald's website the article is available to memebers only, and I don't want to mess with a user name right now. Anyways, the article was about how there is going to be a federal mandate on food for its schools. Great, now the federal government is somehow smart enough to determine what students can and can't eat. Not the students, not their parents, not their doctors, but the federal government.

I quote "Every district that participates in the federal school lunch program must have a 'wellness policy' that provides guidelines on what is served at lunch and what foods are available in the vending machines, during fundraisers, or at school stores... the policy must incroporate nutrition and healthful decision-making into classroom lessons and work to get the community involved in student wellness."

The article goes on to say the goal of the program is to stem childhood obecity... That's nice, except why is the federal government doing this??? What I eat is no business of the federal government, that's up to my parents when I'm younger and then me when I get older, not Congress.

There's a great quote from Omaha School Board VP Shirley Tyree that really shows the pathetic mindset the nation is in, "'We're part of that village that we talk about all the time,' Tyree said, referring to the adage that 'it takes a village to raise a child'".

Since when does it take a village to raise a child??? Parents are perfectly capable of raising their children on their own. The biggest part I have with this whole issue is the part in italics, because those are things that studnets buy on their own outside of class. Students are not forced to buy anything out of a vending machine, from a fundraiser, or from a store... they can get the lunch that is provided to them. If schools want to have healthy alternatives in their vending machines, whatever, but don't get rid of the candy bars!

This is basically just another example of how the federal government likes to butt into my life and tell me what I can and can't do because somehow they know better than my parents and I what I can and can't eat. Once again, the government tries to do the job of my parents, and no one tries to stop them.

A little follow up

2006-03-06T17:45:00.000-08:00

Real quick before blogger goes down on its two hour maintanence, South Dakota's governor has signed a law banning all abortions in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Here's the story.
Like I said in my previous post on abortion, this issue should be left up to the states decide, so I'm pretty glad that S.D. is challenging Roe v. Wade. Hopefully the S.C. will overturn the '73 decision and leave the decisions up to the state. All we can do now is wait.

A Tough Subject

2005-11-28T08:49:00.000-08:00

Abortion

I’m against it, others are for it, it’s another debate in the world. It’s a hard subject to cover without taking a religious stand on it, but I think we can all agree on one thing: Roe v Wade is wrong.

I don’t believe we should have a constitutional amendment or even a federal law for or against it. Why? Because the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. By the 10^th amendment, powers not listed in the Constitution are given to the state or the people themselves. Therefore, the 10^th amendment gives to power of making laws against or for abortion should be a state issue. You may argue that the Constitution lists the right to life as a right for a person, however I don’t believe that you can classify an unborn child as a person without getting into religious debate. Therefore, since separation of church and state is vital to our government, the Constitution and the federal government cannot make a law regarding abortion.

So what do we do? We defer it to the states, and this is why Roe v. Wade is actually unconstitutional! Naturally, today’s government officials who are already overpowered would NEVER go so far as to give power back to the states, but we need to find a way to get Roe v. Wade overturned so the matter can be taken to the states! Once in the states, well then it’s up to the people themselves, and I’m not one to impose my views on others. In my opinion, abortion is wrong, so I would hope for a state law banning abortion in every state.

I’m not one to force views upon you, but one thing I think we all can agree on with regard to Roe v. Wade is the fact that the case is unconstitutional, and we need to overturn it and make it a state matter. Once this happens, well I hope the best happens, but I’m not one to force views on anyone. Like I said, abortion is a tough subject to tackle, but we need to change Roe v. Wade and set an example that the federal government will not deny us of our constitutional right of setting our own laws within our state that are not listed in the Constitution. Hopefully then, people will make the right choice.

The Right Thing?

2005-11-27T19:41:00.000-08:00

“We have a responsibility to the public to do the right thing,” says Tom Bailey, a Tennessee school superintendent. Apparently the “right thing” is government censorship. Yes it’s true folks, we have another example of an overpowered government denying people (students in this case) of their constitutional rights.

In this story from the AP, we see a high school newspaper confiscated for printing an article on birth control and running a photo of an unidentified student’s tattoo. Mr. Bailey feels that some students are too young to read such ‘adult material’, after all, “We’ve got 14-year-olds that read the newspaper.”

Now, as a member of my school's newspaper staff this flat out pisses me off. I’ll admit we never run anything incredibly controversial in our paper, so I’ve personally never been involved in one of these conflicts, but if someone were trying to censor my publication, that would just put me over the edge. The school board is flat out denying these students their first amendment right to freedom of the press because somehow they know that this article is too controversial for others to read.

It’s bad enough that the school won’t allow this paper to be read, but to add to it, the school board says that the newspaper can be reprinted on one condition, that the articles are edited and the photo isn’t run. Now they’re not only denying the students the right to write what they want, they’re also forcing their own views upon the student body. If this isn’t flat out censorship, I don’t know what is.

Speaking of imposing one’s views on others, this article adds strength to my last post on how public schools are a threat to our constitutional rights; denying students of their freedom of press, just like imposing one’s religious views, is a prime example of why we need to decentralize education.

If we continue to these sorts of incidents to go uncontested, what is going to happen to the student press? Worse than that, who’s going to stop the government from censoring professional public newspapers? This is one of the first steps down the sad road to socialism, and if we don’t address it, the United States may find itself walking that gloomy road.

Schools

2005-11-09T19:59:00.000-08:00

Recently, the Kansas Board of Education passed a new education bill regarding the topic of evolution vs. the theory of a higher power, basically creationism. If you care to read about it, here's a link to the AP story:
Here
I don't care if you want to believe in evolutionism, creationism, or whatever the hell you want, I may not agree with it, but hell you're entitled to your own opinion. What I want to write about is how our public school system is a failure, and how we would be much better off by privatizing education.
Now, I'm going to use the Kansas situation as an example of how privatized education would be far superior to the 'traditional' public school system. In all schools, not just those in Kansas, public education deprives students of their right to freedom of religion. In Kansas, the new education bill is forcing students to be taught something they don't necessarily believe in (creationism). Imposing certain views and beliefs on others... hmm, sound a little fascist or dare I say socialist to anyone?
Now, in a private school where we keep the government out of our business, the school is free to decide what it wants to teach on the creation of the world and if the parents of the children attending the school don't agree with that or don't want that particular view taught to their children, they could simply send their child to a different school that taught the view they supported.
Now, you may say that that's a load of bull because a school could teach whatever they wanted. Therefore we make a few guidelines on what's acceptable, i.e. there is a list of classes approved by the government where all the theories allowed have substantial evidence behind them to be considered legit. This list is flexible and open to change like when new theories surface.
One may also ask how to fund it; the simply obvious answer is government vouchers. Pure and simply, nice and easy.
Apart from depriving people of their constitutional rights, our public education system is a segregational elitist organization that favors the wealthy and deprives those less fortunate of their rights. Those with money can send their children to the best schools, be it private or public (they have the money to move to areas with better public education should that be their choice), while those who are not as fortunate are forced to live in the same area and send their kids to schools that are well below par when it comes to educational standards.
One would think the United States would have learned some lessons from the mistakes it made long ago. Today's education system greatly resembles the Cotton Kingdom of the Southern United States in the early 1800's. As the southern planters wore out the soil, the elite few with money and slaves would move away to better land to plant more crops there while forcing the majority who couldn't afford to plant cotton behind on worn out crap land.
King Cotton was a primary cause for civil war, and today those who live in poor areas of towns and go to 'lower standard' schools have higher crime rates and are generally less successful in life than those who go to better schools. It took a war and the loss of thousands of American lives for us to learn that a monopolistic elitist system was a failure. One would hope American could learn from its mistakes before more American lives are ruined and/or lost due to a poor education system.