Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Friday, December 25, 2009

Charlie says, "Merry Christmas!"



This is Charlie, potentially the best dog in the whole world. Several times a day we tell him that he's a good boy, and he does, in fact, earn the praise. Charlie is almost 5 months old, and weighs about 8 lbs.
He has a lackadaisical attitude about walking and eating. He drags his feet when we start a walk, but hauls ass on the return home. While most dogs wolf down their chow instantly as it is placed in front of them, Charlie has never finished a meal in one sitting. It generally takes him several sitdowns over 3-6 hours to finish a plate of food. We have tried different foods and even "toppings" like Nutrical, yogurt and salmon oil.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Will Work for Corporate Approval




The following is from a Craigslist Ad for employment:

We have a relaxed and informal culture that encourages
individuality and innovation. You will be motivated, enterprising and enthusiastic. Company
culture is such that you need to be able to “check your ego at the door”, be a self starter, and
possess a sense of humility. You will work well under commercial pressure and thrive on being
given challenges and responsibility. You will communicate clearly and be confident and persuasive.
You will have a high level of integrity and understand the need of complete confidentiality.

Uh, this is a human being we're talking about here, right?

Monday, December 14, 2009

Old Testament Government



I have a hard time understanding why anyone could think government is a good thing. I think government is just a different kind of belief, a religion.
Religionists come in all stripes. Some are lukewarm on the concept. Some are Fire-and-Brimstone, Old Testament(or Koran), Wrath-of-God Believers. Even Atheists are a variant of Religionism. How can you be against something you don't believe in? If this is possible, then why don't we have Anti-Bigfooters and Anti-Nessies? Agnostic is a term that offends me. I prefer Non-believer. I try not to have any beliefs, but I'll listen to anyone, time permitting. I keep a frame-of-mind that says, "Well, maybe."
I've called myself an Anarchist, but I've never felt comfortable with the term. I'm more a Non-Archist. I'm not against Government. I think everyone should be able to hold any belief they want, as long as they hold it to themselves. If you use threat of force to "convince" others to accept or obey your beliefs, you cross a line between thought and action. And have you ever noticed that when two people argue, the louder one is usually wrong?

Get to the point, UC. OK, OK, OK.

Most people, when asked, will tell you they believe in government. It's just that, well, it's not working out. So the first thing most believers of government will advocate is More Laws. Or stick to the Constitution(Old Testament). Or tax the rich. Problem #1 is that all laws have unintended consequences that are usually worse than the problem they intended to solve. Problem #2 is that most laws are "positive"--they force you to do something you'd rather not. That pisses people off a lot more than a "negative" law that just expects you to refrain from doing something.
The Constitution was a clever attempt to reconcile people's belief in government with the glaring problem of its atrocities. The big problem with the Constitution is that all the "thou shalt nots" are directed, not to people, but to a concept--the concept of government. Since only a person can be punished, government can do pretty much whatever it wants. Pay no attention to that government behind the curtain.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

How to Argue



Let's dissect an argument. How about Guns?

Pro:
  • Guns are necessary to self-defense
  • Our right to pack heat is acknowledged in the Constitution
  • Hunting rifles are a sacred tradition
  • Shooting guns is a popular sport
Con:
  • Guns are used to commit crime
  • Negligent discharges cause loss of life
  • Guns have only one purpose--destruction
  • Only police and military need guns
Compromise:
  • Sensible gun laws
  • Gun registration
OK, which side won the argument? The Con side, of course. The reason the Cons won is because the Pros are lousy at arguing. Let's use a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate how principles make argument easier.

Freedom:
  • Do anything as long as you harm no one
  • Go anywhere, buy anything
Slavery:
  • Population is controlled, and secure
  • Homogenous society. Deviants not allowed
Compromise:
  • IRS, DMV, CIA, Police, FBI, NSA, Assessor, Legislature, etc...
  • Sensible Laws
The usual argument for freedom is that it provides the highest prosperity possible. That is a horseshit argument, a bribe to persuade people to choose freedom. L. Neil Smith said it best--people that have to be talked into freedom don't deserve it. Freedom may or may not be the road to prosperity. It's just a road to one thing--freedom.
The horrible truth is that most people are more comfortable with slavery. People don't like their neighbors ingesting wierd substances, performing atypical sexual acts, possessing scary things, and thinking different thoughts.
How much freedom do you want?
   

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Fargin' War



If you think we will be withdrawing from Afghanistan completely in 2011, put down that crack pipe.
RS Janes                    

RS Janes wrote a wonderful short article. To read more, click here. He says the real reason that Obama is sending more troops is that Pakistan and Iran are unstable and an occupied Afghanistan is the perfect place to keep an eye on things.
Clicking on these cartoons will make them bigger. Maybe.