Should we Secede?

Yes, another one of my crazy, politically incorrect ideas. All right, it's not MY idea, but it's a really good one. If you read this blog, you probably know me, but if by some crazy chance you read this and have no idea who I am, let me explain how I feel about government. I am convinced that the more powerful the government, the worse. It's been going downhill since a few years after this country's founding, but especially since, guess who, Abraham Lincoln. I think that the South was completely right in seceding, and because of the whopper govt. we have today, I say we should do it again! Insane? Maybe. But the only other options for fixing our situation are:
(a) A magical change in majority opinion favoring deregulation and smaller govt.
(b) Start a revolution.
Answer A probably wouldn't happen based on the current trends, which are quite obviously in favor of socialism, and answer B would probably leave us worse off, not to mention the immense loss of life. This leaves us with secession.

Whale Wars

Animal Planet has started a new series known as "Whale Wars." I had seen something about environmentalists boarding a Japanese whaling ship on Youtube, so I suspected that they may be the same thing. Unfortunately, I was right. The story goes something like this: The co-founder of Greenpeace apparently also helped start a group to protect whales from, well, whalers. So far, so good. The group called themselves the Sea Shepherds, and have several ships operating in different areas, at least that's what they imply on the show. All I've seen is about the Antarctic unit, ship named the Steve Irwin. Here's where things go illegal. They desperately want to stop Japanese whaling, which is currently being done under the title "scientific research", which makes it legal, even if no one believes them. However, the Sea Shepherds wanted to stop it by less-than-legal means. All the following can be seen on the show. The Steve Irwin chased down one of the Japs' ships. They then launched a small boat equipped with lots of small packets filled with a type of acid powder and a huge coil of rope. The boat came up alongside the ship,and the goons started throwing the packets onto the ship. ILLEGAL. One type of the powder makes it too slippery to walk, and the other leaves an awful reek for days. The boat then pulled in front of the ship, and dropped the rope with the intention of fouling the ship's propeller and stopping it. ILLEGAL. The fouler missed, so they performed their next stunt with the ship moving. They launched the boat again, and two of the people on board actually BOARDED the Japanese ship. They didn't ahve weapons, but boarding a ship is always illegal. Of course, they're saving whales, so Animal Planet's portraying them as heroes, leaving out the fact that next to nothing they're doing is legal.

National Geaographic and the E.S.A.

You know how in my post about Reader's Digest and National Geaographic I said that N.G. gained a lot of respect from me? Well, they just lost it. Every last bit, and then some. E.S.A. stands for Endangered Species Act, but it should be called the Endangering Species Act. In this issue of N.G., they dedicate one section to the glorification of the worthless Act. They claim that it helped save several different species, including the American alligator and grizzly bear. However, the alligator was saved by a drop in the demand for its skins, which took place BEFORE the E.S.A. was passed, while the grizzly bear that was supposedly saved was only ONE POPULATION. N.G. also says that polar bears are endangered by habitat loss, which they most certainly are not, despite being on the endangered list. They have a picture of one with the number 3500 beside it, which implies there are only 3500 left. However, if you looked closely at one of the little tiny notes, you would see the words "in Alaska." The notes really are tiny, and located so that the average reader wouldn't look at them, since the picture and number are all that most folks care about. The environmentalist argument is that loss of sea ice threatens them, but they happen to be perfectly capable of living on land, and are common in northern Canada. 11 out of 13 populations are stable or rising. Wow, funny how easy it is to go off-subject. Anyhow, the ESA actually encourages elimination of species. Here's how it works: When the government finds out about an endangered species on your land, they essentially take it from you, by not allowing you to do anything
with it. In California for instance, you're not allowed to build a firebreak to protect your home from a wildfire. Why? It might disturb the kangaroo rat! What? You would rather save your house than avoid harming a kangaroo rat?! Get your priorities right! This idea causes harm to the rat by not allowing development for protection, which does two things: either the owner wishes to protect his/her home, so they kill the critter before the Feds find out, or the Feds find out, regulate the land, and a fire kills the things. Same with a certain tree farmer. The gov. discovered a rare type of woodpecker on a section of his land, and, of course, regulated it. He understandably wanted to use the rest of his land (which NG villifies) and promptly clear-cut the rest of his land. I would probably do the same thing.

Honest Abe was a Tyrant

Yes, you read the title correctly. And yes, I am fully aware that this is a perfect excuse to hate me. But, it's a historically accurate title for President number 16. Very soon after Lincoln took office, he sent supplies to Fort Sumter, even though he had promised he wouldn't to South Carolina's governor, which forced the Confederates to act on their threat to fire if they were sent. Just reading this little fact makes it plain that Lincoln was looking for an excuse to invade, and it shows that he was at least partly responsible for the death of over half a million Americans. He began the invasion without calling Congress into session until long after the first major battle. I've read excuses that he didn't have enough time, but it was three months into the war that he finally did it. Since several battles had been fought at that point, he knew that they would never vote against war after blood was shed. One of his most well-known crimes was suspension of habeas corpus. Although the Constitution allows it, it's only in the case of rebellion, which my previous post shows was not going on. He threw many newspaper editors into prison for opposing the war, and shut down many others. Most were in prison for saying things far less harsh than what modern people often say about George W. Bush. Imagine the outcry if HE began shutting down opposing papers, magazines, etc. on charges of "treason." Although this also happened in the Confederacy, it was only very late in the war and they had to deal with actual, armed internal opposition. Lincoln said that if a group of men were discussing his policies and one kept silent, that counted as a crime. Another brilliant, unconstitutional idea of his was the draft. Now, again, this happened in the Confederacy a bit earlier than in the Union, but I don't know anything about their Constitution. Oh, I forgot to mention that a huge import tariff was raised before the war, and he threatened to invade any state that didn't raise it. All the tax money went, you guessed it, up North. Not a penny was spent on the South. Also, Lincoln supported the infamous Gen. Sherman's policy of burning every other town and looting everyone. Look what the "best government ever created" was doing. Acting like a tyrant!

The Truth About 1861-1865

As you probably know, the period in the title of this post is commonly known as the "Civil War." However, it was not a civil war any more than the American "Revolution" was an actual revolution. In fact, the two terms mean the same thing. During one, citizens of a country take up arms and attempt to overthrow their government. The "Civil War" is more accurately called the War Between the States, or even more accurately and much less politically correct War for Southern Independence or even War of Northern Agression. I'm pretty sure you almost never hear those last two names because they equate the South's secession with the early Americans' leaving England. Actually, on secession, the South had just as much if not more reason to secede than the early Americans. Yes, I said they seceded. First among the South's reasons was an extremely damaging import tariff. They depended on imports for many of their supplies such as farming equipment and carriages. The tariff forced them to rely more and more on low quality goods from the North, and not one cent of the tax money from the tariff went to the South, being used instead for building projects in the North. Another common myth is that the war was about slavery, to which I respond: yeah, and maybe pigs can fly. There's no doubt that the issue played a part, but it was mostly with the plantation owners. Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson, the two most well known Confederate generals, both despised slavery, Lee freeing ALL his slaves and Jackson starting a Sunday school for blacks. General Grant, one of the North's most well known, was a slaveowner and said, "If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd hand my sword to the other side." Also, the border states, such as Kentucky and Maryland, were slave states but stayed with the Union. And then there's Lincoln's beloved emancipation proclamation, which made him quite a hero. It didn't take effect until 1862 or 1863, can't remember which. It ONLY applied to the Confederate states, completely ignoring the border states and the absolutely gigantic slave market in D.C. that Lincoln walked past every time he went to visit wounded soldiers in the hospital. I hope you will read your next book on the war with a better understanding of who had the moral high ground.

Reader's Digest vs. National Geographic: The Orangutan

I am really sorry that I haven't posted in forever. I've been meaning to for the past two and a half weeks, but haven't gotten around to it. Anyway, in the latest issue of Reader's Digest there was an article discussing the endangered orangutan. Predictably, they put almost all the blame on evil loggers cutting down habitat, and, predictably, not stating that they probably had to do it to make a little bit of money to survive on (In fact, the Indonesian government pays $16.50 for the right arm of an orangutan, further reducing their numbers). The main cause of habitat destruction in Indonesia is, prepare yourselves, BIOFUELS! As usual, they fail to mention that demand for palm oil for ethanol and other uses encourages more palm oil plantations, and in fact dedicate most of another article to glorifying biofuels. In the latest issue of National Geographic, however, they point out the underlying reason for the problem of constant palm plantation expansion: it's a pretty poor country, and more foreign buyers equals more money. Put yourself in the position of the average Indonesian. Would you rather kill orangutans and end up better off, or save them and remain dirt poor? One study found that when per capita GDP reaches $8000, the public starts to be more concerned about things such as habitat preservation and saving endangered species. I was surprised when NG actually pointed out these problems and including biofuels in the blame. Needless to say, they earned a whole lot of respect frome me.

Global Warming: What do you think?

As you may have noticed, I set up a poll about global warming. I already have an opinion, but I'd like to feel out what the general opinion is. Comments explaining why are welcome.

Prison Reform: What do you think?

In school recently, for current events I had to research prison reform. It's basically a debate over the purpose of prisons, rehabilitation or punishment. I'd like to recieve some comments about what you think prisons should be for.

Global Warming Stupidity

Well, I'm sorry I haven't posted in forever, but I haven't thought of anything to post. In fact, I had thought about deleting the blog. Until, that is, this month's issue of Reader's Digest came in. As I flipped through, I found an article about a little village in Alaska called Kivalina. The caption below the title claimed that it was "melting into the sea." The island that it's located on has been shrinking for the past fifty years, mostly because of erosion. However, with the current warming trend and the global warming hysteria, they're starting to blame climate change. The inhabitants of the town were going to have to move, and since it's because of "global warming", they filed suit against TWENTY FOUR oil, electricity, and coal companies for causing climate change. That was not a typo. And the insanity doesn't stop there! They claimed that some of the companies conspired to create a "false debate" about global warming to "fool the public." First of all, the debate is real, and if anyone's attempting to fool the public, it's the other way around. Second, does Reader's Digest protest this stupidity? No! They claim that "global warming and its effects on the arctic are well-documented", implying that it's proven. I'll post again if I find out if they win the case.

Code Red!

What would we do without liberals?

Stupidity... Sheer Stupidity

I found this article at townhall.com. It's unbelievable how easy it is to "offend" someone! I understand being offended by racist jokes, but black hole? I fail to understand how comparing something to a collapsed star is offensive to anyone.


At a recent meeting of city officials in Dallas County, Texas, a small racial brouhaha broke out. County commissioners were hashing out difficulties with way the central collections office handles traffic tickets. Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield found himself guilty of talking while white. He observed that the bureaucracy "has become a black hole" for lost paperwork.

Fellow Commissioner John Wiley Price took great offense, shouting, "Excuse me!" That office, the black commissioner explained, has become a "white hole."

Seizing on the outrage, Judge Thomas Jones demanded that Mayfield apologize for the "racially insensitive analogy," in the words of the Dallas Morning News' City Hall Blog.

Houston Chronicle science blogger Eric Berger notes that everyone should be "very glad that the central collections office has not become a white hole, a theoretical object that ejects matter from beyond its event horizon, rather than sucking it in. It wouldn't be fun for Dallas to find itself so near a quasar."

Maybe so, but speaking metaphorically, if it were a white hole, that might suggest central collections was actually doing its job, ejecting paperwork in a timely fashion.

Call me nostalgic, but there was a time when this sort of stupidity actually generated controversy. Remember the Washington, D.C., official who used the word "niggardly" correctly in a sentence only to lose his job? That at least generated debate.

But these days, stories like this vomit forth daily and, for the most part, we roll our eyes, chuckle a bit and shrug them off.

Obviously, there's something to be said for ignoring the childish grievance-peddling that motivates so much of this nonsense. But the simple fact is that ignoring political correctness has done remarkably little to combat it. Meanwhile, people who make a big deal about it are often cast as the disgruntled obsessive ones.

The only people allowed to take political correctness seriously are the writers for "South Park," "Family Guy," "The Simpsons" and the like. Of course, they take it seriously because it's their bread and butter to mock the absurd pieties of daily life. But nearly everywhere else, the rule of thumb is that we should either defer to this stuff or quietly ignore it.

Now, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. There is stuff that gets labeled political correctness that is entirely defensible. Because of the erosion of traditional authority that has marked the last half-century, for good and ill, society has been forced to re-create what defines good manners largely from scratch. Women, blacks and other historically marginalized groups have finally and deservedly gained an equal place in society. Treating fellow citizens with respect and dignity shouldn't be lumped in with the more radical agenda that also exploits political correctness.

For example, ditching the word "colored" from the vocabulary when it comes to describing blacks might have been seen as political correctness by many in the 1960s (though the phrase wasn't widely used), but that in no way means it wasn't the right thing to do. Or consider the idiots who shouted "iron my shirt" at Hillary Clinton (assuming it wasn't staged to help Clinton burnish her victim status). That's not bravely fighting political correctness. It's just rude and stupid.

But there's a separate agenda that parasitically clings to the more defensible aim of crafting new good manners. The left uses Western society's admirable desire not to offend to bludgeon competing ideas and arguments. Inconvenient facts are ridiculed as "insensitive." Refusal to go along with the multicultural agenda, for example, is cast as a sign of backwardness and bigotry. We're told we must have a frank conversation about race, but when conservatives take up the challenge, they are immediately demonized for the insensitivity of their honesty.

One of my favorite recent examples is when Newt Gingrich argued last year that bilingualism makes it more difficult for Hispanics to learn English, which has the unfortunate result of leaving some Latinos trapped in the "ghetto." He was immediately denounced by the usual suspects and forced to issue an apology, which he promptly did.

Harvard President Lawrence Summers was tarred and feathered after merely hypothesizing about the data on cognitive differences between the sexes.

In Britain this week, the National Children's Bureau advised that day-care centers treat aversion to unfamiliar foreign food by children as "racist." It was also reported that two children were punished for their bigoted refusal to kneel and pray to Allah in a religion class.

This strikes me as something beyond mere tolerance. This is will-to-power masquerading as tolerance. This sort of thing needs to be resisted, because there is no end to where thinking like this can lead. Indeed, if it doesn't cause too much offense, one could even say it's a black hole.

First post!

Well, I've finally created a blog. As of right now, I'm both excited and nervous. Although, I do look forward to venting my frustrations upon innocent victims. Still, I'm worried that I might do something dumb and regret it. But then, that's how I feel whenever I do something new. Enjoy!