Monthly Archives: October 2008

BarackObamaTest.com

1
Posted by Anthony Martin on 30 October 2008 – 8:07 pm
Filed under Political
Tagged as

I took a test on BarackObamaTest.com and it appears that I DISAGREED with the Barack Obama position on 41 of the 48 test questions (whew).  This means I disagree with the Obama position 85% of the time.  But I have a few problems with some of the questions:

  • Q: Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska point out that drilling could cover an area that covers 2,000 of the total 19 million acres that make up ANWR. Should the U.S. begin drilling in ANWR even if we won't realize the potential benefit for several more years?
    • I answered "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "Show me where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulate drilling (or any other area of the free market)."
  • Q: "How do you feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters? Do you favor or oppose increased offshore drilling?"
    • I answered "Favor" because they didn't have an option for, "Show me where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulate drilling (or any other area of the free market)."
  • Q: Please consider the two statements below and choose which one agree with:
    • A. There needs to be new and tougher gun control laws to help in the fight against gun crime.
    • B. There are enough laws on the books, what is needed is better enforcement of current gun control laws.
      • I answered "B" because they didn't have an option for, "Let's repeal some or all of the 20,000 laws on the books!"
      • Furthermore, B. isn't really that good.  If we were thinking strategically, and I could only choose A and B, answer A would be better because adding many many more laws means all laws are harder to enforce, bogging down the whole process, but I realize that's really just stupid. 
  • Q: Should someone who is not a U.S. citizen, being held under suspicion of terrorism, be afforded Constitutional rights?
    • I answered "No" because they didn't have an option for, "There is no such thing as a Constitutional right, so stop using that stupid phrase.  The Constitution is designed to restrain government and does not grant rights to individuals.  Obviously, by flipping it around, government is now able to abuse the restrictions clearly set forth therein.  We even got people tricked into thinking we should amend State and the US Constitutions to restrict the definition of marriage, which is stupid because these documents restrict government, not individuals."
  • Q: Should the U.S. negotiate with Iran without preconditions?
    • I answered, "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "'Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none," as Thomas Jefferson recommended.  I realize this is one of the few times where my answer agrees with Obama.  This is probably the only thing Jefferson and Obama agree on, although I think Obama is lying.
  • Q: If American deaths in Iraq are greatly reduced and stability has returned to the Iraqi government, should American troops withdraw in 18 months, or should they withdraw gradually over a longer timeframe?
    • I answered, "Withdraw in 18 months" because they didn't have an option for "Leave now like the Iraqi people want."
  • The entire "Social Values" section is something the Federal Government should leave to the people to decide on their own or leave to the several states and has little or no bearing on picking a president, from the standpoint of signing legalization or setting administrative policy.
    • For instance, Q: Should America's laws be written following Judeo-Christian values or should America be an entirely secular society, devoid of any decisions based upon Judeo-Christian moral values?
      • I answered, "Judeo-Christian" even though I don't believe "Judeo" should even be in there (show me even one "Judeo" founding father) and because there wasn't an option for, "The more religiously informed the law, the more local the law should be, such that federal should be the least religiously informed while states can be perhaps more religiously informed, followed by municipalities and small localities being the most religiously informed, followed by local church government which is only religiously informed."


Overall, this test made me sick.  The real purpose is to sell some book (not that there's anything wrong with that).  Even the question of the "leftness" or "rightness" of the Supreme Court was difficult for me to take a position due to the incomplete nature of the answers offered.  There's more than just "left" and "right."  There's "up" and "down."  It seems like the only to the federal government is to subsidize it or ban it when in reality, there should be a "take no position" option.

I recommend the following test to understand what I mean about "up/down" in addition to "left/right": World's Smallest Pollitical Quiz

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Best Of

Proposition 8

1
Posted by Anthony Martin on 29 October 2008 – 9:19 pm
Filed under Political
Tagged as , ,

Well here we are. It's the mob rule, also known as "democracy." Over here in California, we have a proposition on the ballot to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But there's a circus to go along with the proposition:

A man wearing a "No on 8" button was beaten with a "Yes on 8" lawn sign in Torrance this week in what police characterized as a possible hate crime.

Source: Proposition 8 may have been at center of Torrance assault

The police might have classified it as a possible hate crime, I classify it as plain old stupidity on both sides. The paper reporting this story is a local rag called "The Daily Breeze." I don't know the political slant of this paper because I don't read it very much. But the overall circus is a lot bigger than the story makes it out. This video was shot by me yesterday (October 28th, 2008) on the corner of Hawthorne & Artesia in Redondo Beach, CA. I think it speaks for itself:





I believe marriage is defined by the culture. The culture is defined by the people who live in that culture. Democracy really doesn't have much of a role in changing marriage when the culture has already spoken. The culture has taken marriage and destroyed it. The idea that we should now vote on it is absurd. Marriage has been attacked again and again by the very people who want to define it as between a man and a woman. Even changing the California Constitution will not change the divorce rate. This circus will certainly not convince people either way.

I originally planned to vote against this proposition, but now I abstain all together from casting a position on it. I originally signed the petition to get it on this ballot, but now I decline from endorsing either position.

I define marriage as between a man and a woman. But marriage has gone millennium without help from the state. If we truly value marriage, let's uphold marriage as sacred. Protect marriage by protecting your marriage. And stop the circus.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Best Of, California, Rule of Law

Tax/Lend Insanity

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 29 October 2008 – 6:29 am
Filed under Political
Tagged as , , ,
Albert Einstein probably said:
 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 
First, I'd like to introduce the underpants gnomes:

As these banks and institutions are reinforced and supported with taxpayer funds, they must meet their responsibility to lend, and support the American people and the U.S. economy.  It is in a strengthened institution's best financial interest to increase lending once it has received government funding.

- Source: White House tells banks to stop hoarding money

Got that?  Here are the steps:

  1. Government "supports" banks by taking $2,000 from every man, woman, and child in America.
  2. Government urges banks to increase lending to "support" every man, woman, and child in America by lending the money they just taxed back to them.
  3. Profit!!

Here's an analogy from the underpants gnomes when they only planned corporations and before they figured out what step 2 was:

By the time they figured out step 2, the underpants gnomes had moved on to planning governments instead of just planning corporations.

Somehow, we can tax and lend ourselves to prosperity.  Does anyone else still think this is a good idea?  I'd really like to know!

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Analogy, Best Of, Economic, Humor

Federal Indoctrination vs. State's Rights

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 27 October 2008 – 11:48 am
Filed under Political
Tagged as , ,

This is a picture I snapped with my mobile after attending a meeting at my son's school.  I am totally against the public indoctrination centers, but my son Benjamin goes to this school for reasons I don't really want to get into at the moment.

Anyway, this is part of a drawing hung outside the school in plastic to protect it from the weather.  It was just part of a larger drawing which was one of many on the chain-link-fence facing the street.

You can see a person at a podium who appears to be the president ("go presidant (sic)") saying, "I want to [ban] drugs from the whole country."  Further down, someone is responding to the president saying, "I like that law."  That last quote bubble got cut off from when I took the picture.

I know this is one tiny corner example and it doesn't in any way represent the entire school system, but then again it does.  I didn't really assess the whole display, but it looked like everything was centered around the Red Ribbon Week indoctrination program.  Torrance, the city I live in and the city this school is located, is aligned with the federal drug laws.  In 2006, Torrance City Council passed a resolution to ban the sale of medical marijuana.  I think this photo is a perfect window into the priorities and views the Torrance Unified School District favors.  The State of California does not believe the president has the power to control these substances, but Torrance Unified believes and teaches a different role of government to our young children.

Drugs are bad, umkay?  But teaching children that the president has the power to override state's rights with an executive order is bad too, umkay?

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Best Of, Home Front, Memory Hole

Evidence of Rights

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 23 October 2008 – 7:59 pm
Filed under Theology
Tagged as , , , ,

All rights derive from property.  In other words, I receive my rights through the ownership of property.  One must own property in order to have rights.  This is true with life, liberty, and private property.

Now understand, as a believer in God, I believe God is the originator of all rights.  But I just said property is how rights are made manifest.  Is that a contradiction?  We'll get into that.

The Father does not manifest as a physical entity, meaning God the Father is not a man with a body and physical form.  God is spirit and as such, cannot interact with sinful man.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Also understand, I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.  Unlike the Father, the Son does have physical attributes.  That may seem like a contradiction if you don't understand the Trinity.  But even the most well studied Christians have trouble understanding the Trinity.  I'll get into that in another article.

I believe God transmits our individual rights through ownership of individual property.  God originates rights and makes them physically manifest through property.

That means we have a right to life because we own our own life.  The physical evidence of our right to life is that our heart is beating.  That's pretty much all it takes to make this claim.

Here's the shocking part.  One need not believe in God to believe all rights derive from property.  I believe Christians, Atheists, New Age Believers, etc. can stipulate that all rights derive from property without having to stipulate to the nature of God.

There are those who regard God as an analogy like "Mother Nature."   If someone believes God is an analogy, does that mean they believe their rights are also an analogy?  If rights derive from property and property is real, rights are real.  Someone who believes God is an analogy may have trouble convincing themselves that there is an originator of rights, but we can at least all agree the rights exist because we can all see the property.

So there's no excuse to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and private property if we all stipulate that rights derive from property.  Christians have no right to treat an Atheist poorly just because the Atheist lacks certain beliefs.  The Atheist has a right to life regardless of their belief in God because they have a beating heart.

It just so happens that the Christian belief can explain the origination of rights from God through property.  I believe the Atheist has a philosophical liability to account for.  But I don't think laws need to account for this philosophical liability.  And the New Age Believer thinks he/she is God and his/her property is God, but it doesn't impact the actual existence of rights.

So if believers and non-believers can agree to stipulate to property rights, both should be satisfied with the laws and governance upon them.  If we agree that it's against the law to beat people up and steal their stuff because it violates property rights, we are able to agree to a civil society.

Atheists don't forfeit their rights just because they can't explain the ontological origin of their rights.  There are many things that people take as given that they can't readily explain.

On the other hand, one might say that Christians forfeit their own right to life by becoming a follower of Jesus.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
See: I Corinthians 6:19-20

The arrangement defined in I Corinthians 6:19-20 does not extend to anyone else.  It is only between the believer and God.  It is true that many believers hold to this, but it does not mean the believers are owned in joint with one another.  It reflects the realization that the individual believer comes from God and belongs to God.  One cannot aggress against person merely because either or both parties voluntarily submit to God.

In that regard, it is a personal journey.  Personal journeys appeal to individualism.  But individualism can lead to the "Lone Ranger" effect which is a common result of Christianity in America.  Real spiritual growth happens in the called out assembly, where believers interact with other believers.

Believers can impress their understanding of scripture on one another.  But one believer cannot forcefully impress a particular view on another believer's heart.  And since believers cannot, they have no standing with non-believers either.

It doesn't mean that the understanding of scripture is subjective.  It just means one person's belief cannot be inferred upon others by force.  It is this use of force that contributes to the totalitarian society, even when they're based on Christian values.

There is an excellent video about this subject.  But it tends to offend Christians.  It does this because it doesn't start with God.  We should approach this video knowing that all truth is God's truth.  This video happens to start with "property rights" even though the Christian philosophy starts at an earlier point.  Don't let that distract you from the truth.

Learn more ...

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Best Of, Epistemology, Faith, Liberty, Ontology

Bush's Bogus Bailout Blunder

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 11 October 2008 – 9:19 pm
Filed under Political
Tagged as ,
After the bailout was passed (October 3rd), the Dow fell 400 points by the end of the day. Now, it has fallen by greater than 2000 points since the bailout was passed. By my calculations, the Dow has lost at least $1.4 trillion, and they haven't even spent the $700 billion yet.

Since cheap credit and over stimulation caused this financial meltdown, then obviously we need more cheap credit and more stimulation to fix it. Even after the bill was passed, articles were popping up that hinted it wasn't enough. Well no wonder.

Yet our bailout money will be recouped, at least? We got it straight from the horses mouth when President Bush said (emphasis mine):

As the banking sector and the market for troubled assets recover, the government will begin to recoup some of the taxpayers' funds invested in the recovery. In other words, some of these assets that were taken are at a depressed value. Home ownership -- homeowners -- home prices are down, the value of the assets are down. Eventually, we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars will be recouped.

Source: White House

So the President flat out disagrees with Jim Rogers (skip to time index 5:19, if you don't have time to watch the whole thing):

Which person do you think is more well informed on the subject? Jim Rogers, who has been right more often than the Fed Chairman himself, or all the President's men?

Another odd statement from the President:

Every American knows the burden of taxes. During the tough economic time, that burden falls especially hard. A lot of people are wondering whether or not their taxes are going to go up. One of the interesting things about the package I signed is that it does prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in, which would have cost 26 million Americans $2,200 apiece. During this economic uncertainty, we don't need to be raising taxes.

Source: White House

The President did not need this bill to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in. The President has distorted the truth again. In fact, it was illegal for the Senate to attach this tax revision to a previous bill in this manner. Illegal, kind-of like when the House authorized the President to go to war with Iraq. We have checks and balances for a reason. If not, why have them? The rule of law means nothing to our illustrious government.

By the way, if you don't know what the Alternative Minimum Tax is, and you are in favor of the Fair Tax, shame on you! That's one of your platforms!

I wish I could snap my fingers and make what happened stop. But that's not the way it works. And I told you, I made a decision that is really opposite of my philosophy. I basically believe if people make bad decisions in the marketplace, they ought to fail. The problem is, in this case, failure would have cost you. What appeared to be something that might have been isolated in New York, would have cost you the job. And that was unacceptable to me.

Source: White House

Seems like the same dilemma Andrew Jackson faced during the banking crisis of his day. Jackson made the right choice, Bush made the wrong choice. Bush totally blundered. How do I know? Because Bush ignored the Constitution. He ignored his oath to protect life, liberty, and private property. More people will suffer from his decision than if he had pulled the plug on the economy himself.

Now see if you can decode this "question" from one of the people who attended:

I mean, just to give you some quick numbers. We're a $3.5 million dollar company, and we rely on a $500,000 home credit line to support our business, which means we have to roll this money over six, seven times a year. That's how much we need this credit. And now the -- we've got a notice or a letter from a bank -- or from the bank that runs our credit line -- that says home values are going down a little bit, and if you pay down your principle a little, we're not going to give you quite as much back. And so our strategy is don't pay it down, to keep it maxed out all the time.

... to continue ...

And so we're comfortable now, and we're able to take care of our business by doing this. But it's so important for you to emphasize the need that small businesses have for the use of that credit. And I thank you so much. You're really working hard --

Bush's response:

Thanks for hanging in there.

That is totally sick. This business is operating in a perpetual half-million-dollar hole, and the president just thanks him for hanging in there? I feel bad for people who are in this mess, but even if it was me, I wouldn't expect the government to bail out my bad decisions. Up until now, we seem to have thought it was perfectly normal for a giant percentage of businesses to be in debt. This is why easy credit is bad. It distorts our thinking and the free market.

By the way, this entire discussion smacks of being completely scripted from beginning to end, especially the Q-and-"A". How's that for bogus? All to sell us on a bill that was passed using fraud, bribery, and threats of violence.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

  • Share/Bookmark


Tags: Best Of, Economic