The Nation?
Well, it looks like I found the Democratic web site to disagree with. It's name? The Nation.
It has just what I like in a Democratic blog. Casual references to evil greedy corporations, blatant historical inaccuracies, snarky references that undermine the personal morality of other people and disdain for judges who actually take their duties seriously.
Just trying to be balanced and express my disagreement with Democrats and Republicans alike.
Star Parker
Well, I took some initiative and found a few columns by Star Parker to see what she's saying. She has some interesting and well thought out articles, but unfortunately, she's wrong (of course!).
I should mention that the only reason I haven't said that any of the Democrats are wrong is that I haven't gotten to them yet. Don't worry you Collectivist Democratic weenies, you're next! You should have heard me rant about Clinton when his gang was in charge. I didn't have a blog at the time, though.
Fear the Blog of Doom, politicians! You are all tax leeches living off the productive class of working Americans. We're the ones who actually go out and work, create wealth, and make this country great. You just try to figure out ways to spend money that doesn't even belong to you.
Ahem...
Naptime, I guess.
Cliff Kincaid: Abolish Public TV and Radio
Cliff Kincaid: Abolish Public TV and Radio:
Cliff Kincaid says: In a front-page story on May 2, the New York Times accused the new Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of 'aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias...' That was in the first paragraph. If you got to the 22nd paragraph, continued back on page 19, you found that the CPB chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, was insisting that the programs it supports and funds adhere to the federal law requiring objectivity and balance. That law was passed back in 1967 and has been flaunted by public TV and radio ever since...
He also says:
What's needed is a congressional effort to de-fund public broadcasting. In a 500-channel universe, public broadcasting should survive on its own -- if it can. I agree.
Read it all here.
(Via Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.)
What we really need to end is all public funding for all broadcasting of any kind. Abolish the FCC and let the free market decide what goes on the air. Let individuals work out who uses what bandwidth. It's call homesteading and property rights. It is something that common law and courts can settle through lawsuits. While we're at it, lets end all public funding for any government function that isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
House votes to outlaw computer spyware
House votes to outlaw computer spyware
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday voted to
establish new penalties for purveyors of Internet 'spyware' that
disables users' computers and secretly monitors their activities.
By overwhelming majorities, the House passed two bills that stiffen
jail sentences and establish multimillion-dollar fines for those who
use secret surveillance programs to steal credit card numbers, sell
software or commit other crimes.
(Via Privacy Digest.)
I wonder if this applies to government agencies? I'm sure they are allowed to use secret surveillance programs to spy on the productive people without whom they would starve.
The Dollar Derby
Yet another awesome blog.
The Dollar Derby by Anita Sharpe in Business:
'A friend of mine, a businessman who buys companies, told me one of the first things he looks at is the gender of the boss,' writes John Tierney, in a column in today's New York Times. 'The companies run by women are much more likely to survive,' the investor told Tierney.
(Via Worthwhile.)
I've always preferred working for women. Of all the supervisor, managers, directors and other bosses I've worked for, the women have always been the most competent (IMHO). They always had their shit together more than the male managers.
Stupidity averted
A quote from one of my favorite blogs, BuzzMachine:
: So the filibuster meltdown option is avoided. And a good thing it is. I don't think the peopel [sic] would have tolerated political war and a congressional shutdown.
(Via BuzzMachine.)
Personally, I don't think anyone would have noticed a congressional shutdown. I think it's always a good thing when Congress shuts down, because my life, liberty and property are safe for that small amount of time.
Remember when the government shut down that last time? I vaguely remember it but it didn't really affect me and I suspect it didn't really affect anyone else either.
You’re both wrong on Social Security
Another new blog I've started reading from a conservative blogger named Amy Ridenour. This particular article is about Social Security. She agrees with someone named Star Parker (who I've never heard of), who says:
The simple truth is that the Social Security system needs to be replaced with one in which American workers retain their own money and invest in their own retirement accounts. Our task is to devise a plan to let workers opt for personal accounts. And, in the meantime, we must tap our resources to meet existing obligations to current retirees. That's it. Clear and simple.
My opinion: Social Security needs to be scrapped.
Update: 5/25/2005:
Wow! Someone actually read my post. I should mention that even though I don't agree with Ms. Ridenaur on this, I enjoy reading her. We all agree that something should be done. We just don't agree on what.
I should also expand on why I think Social Security should be scrapped, but the basics are that in my opinion it is nothing but a huge pyramid scheme. If anyone other than a government functionary had proposed it, they would be in jail now for fraud (as always, IMHO).
Finally, when I wrote that You're both wrong, I meant Democrats and Republicans, not Ms. Ridenaur and Ms. Parker, although you actually are both wrong as well. 
Can you be a good American without believing in God?
Here's a very interesting point of view on the Anti First Amendment Movement. This is just the kind of blog entry I love to read, because it gets my brain cells working.
I think there is a kernel of truth in this article, but I think it goes sideways at some point, probably near the beginning.
No God, no truth? I call bullshit.
To say that if life has no meaning, that you would be crazy not to put yourself first, is actually correct and I agree with the logic. But, I disagree with the premise. I don't agree that without a God there is no meaning to life.
Mr. Flanagan states that he can't tell us how many atheists have tried to assure him that even though the absence of God means there is no absolute truth, it doesn't mean there are no truths. First, why can't he tell us? I think it is because there weren't any who told him that. I think he is setting up a straw man here. But I rise to the bait anyway. I don't believe that an absence of God means there is no absolute truth. I believe there is absolute truth anyway. Again, because I disagree with his straw man and the premise, there isn't any point in debating the resulting logical construct that he creates from that premise. Later on, we learn about secularists and how they are all trying to take over the country. I would like a definition of a secularist, but I'll assume a secularist is an atheist who wants to freeze out any opinion he or she disagrees with. Keep in mind that with this definition, not all atheists are secularists.
So next, Mr. Flanagan is worried about a couple of things, and rightly so. His thoughts on the Soviet Union are spot on, but are like one sect of atheism, like a sect of Christianity that you can repudiate just like you can repudiate the Jonestown mass suicide as an expression of Christianity. They were atheists and did advocate secularism, but their brand of it is not my brand and I think their brand was wrong. I don't want to set this up in our country, so I can't agree with his conclusions again. I don't want to tell anyone how, where or when they can worship.
His second worry is that secularists (assuming the above definition) have a zeal for saving Christians from their ignorant superstitions. Maybe. I have no inclination to save anyone from what they choose to believe. I will agree that some secularists probably want this, and that some probably want to compromise the First Amendment. I won't agree that they all do.
Mr. Flanagan goes on to state that secular government on a large scale is shown in such states as Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, and even Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Perhaps, but what about states with overwhelming religious values: The Taliban in Afghanistan? The Spanish Inquisition? The Pogroms of Russia under the Christian Tsar? Salem, Massachusetts and their witch trials? I similarly have a lack of faith in religious beliefs when it comes to views of our common worth. I don't think the problem is the point of view that dominates, it is the lack of respect for the rights of individuals which leads to using force against people who don't agree with the prevailing belief.
At the end of his article, Mr. Flanagan makes some points I wholeheartedly agree with. I too would rather live in a society of many beliefs. He makes the point that Secularists don't have the right to tell him where to pray, praise God, or study the Bible. I couldn't agree with him more. But neither should the Christians have the right to tell me any of this.
I think the bottom line is respect for the rights of the individual. When you start infringing on those rights for whatever reason, the safety of the children, homeland security, to protect them from themselves, then your society goes sideways. You have the foot in the door to impose whatever you want after you start.
Here we go again
Yes, I'm a software dilettante. I'm trying out yet another weblog editor. This one is called MarsEdit. It seems pretty good, but I wonder what I think I'm missing in MarsEdit that isn't in ecto. I think it might have something to do with preferences that I set in ecto that I don't seem to have in MarsEdit. I could be wrong.
Differences I can see right away. MarsEdit only stores recent posts from your weblog, while ecto pulls them all and stores them. This is actually somewhat important. If I lost my database online, ecto could restore it pretty easily, while MarsEdit might not be able to. The obvious solution is to have a backup, but with Ecto, I don't need one, do I? Maybe I'm missing something.
I just double checked ecto, and it appears that not all the posts are downloaded into ecto either. Not a big deal to me anyway. It looks like MarsEdit will be just as good as ecto. I also like NetNewsWire which is made by Ranchero Software as well. There is a bundle deal if I buy both, so that is a consideration.
More on my stupid decision later. I think they are both good, both do what I need, and it may boil down to which one handles graphics files better.
The death of a friend, updated.
It turns out Bill died of natural causes, not suicide. There's your damned silver lining. It also turns out that he died while we were still in New England. The week we moved from New Hampshire to Maine. We were in Maine for four months before we left for Texas, and no one let us know.