Would you like a side of Fascism with that?

(I wanted to talk about this due to the return of The John Hawkins Blah Blah Blog and his discussion on helmet laws.)

Has anyone seen that legislators are starting to consider "Fast Food Taxes" and other regulations that will try to infringe upon (or perhaps deny) citizens' choice of what to eat? I've heard about it more recently, but most of the links I found refer to Detroit' s attempts last summer.

See Detroit Considers Food Tax.

Seat belt laws... helmet laws... obesity laws... how far will our government go to protect us from ourselves?

I'm genuinely curious as to where my peers draw their line for the amount of government regulation that is appropriate in our lives. So if you don't comment normally, I'd appreciate hearing what you think is OK. I'll even promise to stay out of the comments section of this one... so fear no well-deserved tongue-lashings from me.

(I have to admit that I also wanted to post this because due to my comment in Johnny H's blog, I couldn't get this image out of my head and had to create it.)

U.N. Summit for Global Gun Ban

For those of you that don't know, the United Nations is holding a summit from June 26 to July 7 to further the U.N.'s plan for global civilian disarmament. This summit ironically coincides with our Independence Day. I wonder how our boys would've done in 1776 fighting Britain with rocks.

It has been given the catchy title: "United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects."

I will only focus on one point at this time and ignore the bigger picture of how the U.N. has no right to preach to the USA about gun control considering their current disarmament policies continue to enable corruption, sex scandals, and genocide. I also won't discuss the fact that basically every Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that is participating in this summit operates solely with anti-gun agendas. (See... not even a mention.)

All I wanted to discuss is the feeble attempts by Kofi Annan and other summit leaders to try and dupe us by saying their intent is not for a global gun ban or to prohibit civilian ownership of firearms.

Hilarious.

I could quote several statements and point you to various hypocrocies, but perhaps my sources would be called into question. Let's see what the U.N.'s official website concerning this summit has to say.

The conference's official FAQ webpage lists:

Q:Is there an official definition of small arms and light weapons?

A: ...“small arms and light weapons” mean any man-portable lethal weapon that expels or launches, is designed to expel or launch, or may be readily converted to expel or launch a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive.

“Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns.

Wow. I guess they're not at all concerned with firearms that civilians would own, just the small number of guns that are designed to expel or launch bullets.

Further, how does the summit define "illicit trade?" A delegate from Indonesia defines it by saying:

“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.”

How can they claim they're not concerning themselves with civilian ownership when their official website and own delegates say otherwise? No matter how you feel about firearms, this is a very dangerous time considering what happens to other civilian populations that the U.N. has disarmed. Think Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, etc, etc.

Famous Horsemen for $200, Alex

"Whore, like your Mother..."

I don't remember anything about this,

From this page on MSNBC.com:

"Sean Connery has cancelled his plans to participate in the Scottish Parliament’s Festival of Politics because the man heading up the organization is raising the touchy subject of Connery’s views about violence towards women. ... he was once quoted in Playboy magazine as saying, “An openhanded slap is justified — if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a [bleep], or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it..."

Of course it's justified if a woman is "bloody-minded continually."

OH YOU DIDN'T KNOW?

Due to my superior intellect (proven by knowing which professional wrestler is associated with the title of this post), I always enjoy encountering a question for which I have no answer. Today someone asked me, "What's the difference between a nautical mile and a regular mile?"

Me didn't know.

From HowStuffWorks.com:

"A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel.

A nautical mile is 1,852 meters, or 1.852 kilometers. In the English measurement system, a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles, or 6,076 feet."

And just for fun:

"A knot is a unit of measure for speed. If you are traveling at a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour, you are said to be traveling at a speed of 1 knot."

Oh-Freaking-Early

I think civilians that use military time are annoying. I do think the notion itself is superior because some jackass never fails to ask, "AM or PM?" and be punished with a very obvious and sarcastic answer from me. "Why would I schedule a teleconference for 5AM?..... Jackass."

My company works on a lot of government contracts, so we interact with military and DoD personnel all the time. Therefore, the use of military time has migrated into our collective behavior. I'd be OK with it if people adopted it due to efficiency, but I'm pretty sure they just think their emails sound cooler.

And I always feel like a poser when I use it in front of military officers.

And I hate it when people always convert it in a questioning manner even though they know how the conversion works. "1400 -- That's 2:00? I'll be there."

Who's Schmoozing Me Now? Part 2

The Constitution Party

Party Platform Preamble:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

• That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
• That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
• That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
• That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
• That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

My Summary: The Constitution is just as relevant today as it was when it was written. Government must limit its powers to those enumerated in the Constitution. We say that it's OK if you don't believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ, but we don't mean it.

Pros:

• The Constitution is the founding document for our government. That document lists specific roles for which government is supposed to assume and the powers should be limited to what is enumerated.
• Government Reform: "The Congress of the United States has become an overpaid, overstaffed, self-serving institution. It confiscates taxpayer funds to finance exorbitant and unconstitutionally determined salaries, pensions, and perks. Most members of Congress have become more accountable to the Washington establishment than to the people in their home districts..."
• Healthcare: "The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment.

Cons:

• Basically a theocracy.
  
• Therefore, no separation of church and state. One example:"All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.
• "Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony..."

I basically think of these folks as a mix between a confused Libertarian and the albino guy from The DaVinci Code that whips himself. If they could hold off on the thumping and protect religion as a personal right rather than a government mandated practice, I would definitely be able to get on board with everything else.

Supposedly, the rights of the individual are all well and good. Except we will force religion into schools, create porno police, and have fines if you don't go to church enough. Do we really need more theocracies in the world? Thousands of years ago, religious nations waged wars against each other in the name of their gods.

[sarcasm]
Thank goodness the world has moved on.
[/sarcasm]

I Love the Fifth Inning

Why? It's the Ford Home Run Payoff Inning! I always enjoyed submitting my Kent State postcard. You can sign up online now at: http://www.wewilltakeyouthere.com/ Don't get your hopes up though... they only pick women that don't listen to the radio broadcast anyway.

Go Tribe!

Why All Guns Should Be Outlawed

Just a few tidbits I stole from Soldier of Fortune magazine, Dec. 2004, pp. 14-17, 75 that I thought might stir up some discussion someday. There are 40 in all, I just picked a few that spoke to me.

1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged, take your gun away from you, and kill you.

3: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

4: The phrases “Right of the people to peaceably assemble,” “ right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals. However, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

5: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

6: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

7: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

8: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

9: “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need “assault weapons;” you do not.

10: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

11: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.

Century Club with Cream and 2 Sugars

I think that the reader(s) of this blog are not about to abstain from drinking beer anytime soon. Did you see this article in The Wall Street Journal?

Coffee's List of Possible Benefits Gets Another Entry

"Coffee may protect against alcoholic liver disease, according to a study that adds to the growing body of literature on the diverse health effects of the popular and addictive brew.

For every cup of java, up to four a day, the study charted about a 20% decline in risk of alcoholic cirrhosis. People drinking four cups a day had about an 80% lower risk. Although the study suggests coffee may be protective, it doesn't prove drinking it actually caused the benefit."

Who's Schmoozing Me Now? Part 1

The Libertarian Party

Party Platform Preamble:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

My Summary: Responsible adults should be free to make their own decisions, so long as those decisions do not harm any other responsible adult.


Pros:

• Individual rights are emphasized
• Government is limited to matters of importance that the people can not possibly provide for themselves (National Defense, Police, etc.)
• Responsible adults are allowed to choose how their earned money is spent rather than having it taken away by sheer force and doled out as an allowance for services that aren't necessarily wanted
  
• "Victimless crimes" should be abolished so that resources can be spent on getting the most serious offenders off our streets
  

Cons:

• Open border immigration policy
• Strict isolationist foreign policy
  
• While I trust in the theory of a market-based society and everything I've read makes sense (e.g. private owners have more of an incentive to take care of Yellowstone National Park than the government), I have a vague uneasiness in trusting everything to corporations.

I believe that the majority of people are good. We have the ability to decide how to best take care of ourselves, our family, and our community... what makes some politician more capable than you? The following isn't rhetorical, I always like to discuss this:

Can you name a tax-funded government agency that has worked? Has it worked better than what the market could have provided?

For more information:
Libertarian National Committee
Libertarian Party of Ohio
The Cato Institute

The bright side of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

So I'm perusing MSNBC.com and get to the article "Hawking says humans must go into space."

OK article... yada yada yada... But check out Hawking's nurse! If I were him I'd hurry up and invent a religion called AsstroScientology that insists upon specific praying practices for medical professionals.

"Can I Help You Sir?"

So I spent most of last week at a conference in DC. It was basically a showcase of advanced technologies to try and get more development money from government agencies. Pretty typical patrons : older, over-weight, men in bad suits and government IDs.

Except for this one African American gentleman. He was styling! We're talking bright yellow suit with pinstripes, black and white alligator shoes, gold tooth, hat, cane... the works. I'm pretty bored and kept thinking to myself, "What kind of technology is this guy looking for?" The only thing that kept popping into my head is:



















Pimpbot 5000!

Pimpbot 5000 combines the classic stylings of a 1950's robot with the dynamic flair of a 1970's street pimp.

• "Got a brand new high-speed modem and a silver plated scrotum."
• "Got a nose full of candy, and an ass made by Tandy."
• "I gets regular tune ups from all my sluts, they polish my bolts and tighten my nuts."

Speaking of Cartoons...

No fewer than 10 of the finest Pabst Blue Ribbon beverages led me to watching an episode of The Smurfs this Friday evening. I used to wake up early every Saturday morning when I was young and never missed an adventure.

1) Gargomoyle (sp?) is not the biggest dick on that show. That honor belongs to Brainy Smurf. He's one of them and still acts like an ass all of the time. At least Gargomoyle has an excuse. He's obviously bat-shit and thinks smurfs are the most delicious things in the world. I've never tasted one, so I can't contradict the man. Brainy screws over his brethren every chance he gets.

2) If I were a smurf, I'd do anything possible to stand out in the crowd. Tattoo me, give me some spectacles, let me wear a different hat, whatever. It's the only way to get any respect (and air time) in the smurf world.

3) I still get mind-fucked when I think about the fact that a smurf is supposed to stand three apples high. Anybody else picture them a couple inches tall at most? Those must be some big fucking mushrooms they live in since they contain beds, doors, and windows. Also, those full sacks of smurfs Gargomoyle catches in every episode must be heavy.

Political Affiliation

I really struggle when it comes time to cast my vote. As you will see, I am most comfortable in the Libertarian camp, although I do oppose some of their positions (e.g. open borders, foreign relations). Should I voice my conscience and basically throw away my vote? Should I vote for the lesser of two evils? If I don't vote for a third party, how will the system ever change?

I am registered as a Republican as they used to stand for "Small Government" and I absolutely detest the fact that many Democratic principles closely resemble Socialism.

• I am Pro-Choice
• I believe in capital punishment
• I believe in the separation of church and state
• I believe in the 2nd Amendment as it was written
• I believe that most victimless crimes should be legalized
  

Ultimately, I believe that our seemingly inevitable regression into a socialist "nanny state" where responsible adults are not allowed to make decisions for themselves will be the downfall of our way of life.

Anyway, I found something to help other confused souls. All you have to do is take The World's Smallest Political Quiz. By answering ten simple questions, you'll know exactly how to vote! How convenient! Merely boil down a complex process into a 30 second survey. Anyway, here are my results:





















Where do you fall?