Home
Thoughts and Rants [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Frater Seraphino

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

It's my favorite chocolate brownie recipe. [Jul. 9th, 2009|10:41 pm]
Ultimate Chocolate Brownies

In other news my wife and I are signed up to take a class on making ice cream.
LinkLeave a comment

Jackpot. [Jul. 9th, 2009|09:30 pm]
I've always believed e-books would come into their own when you could replace shelves of law books with a small hand-held device.

We've hit that day. Today. Amazon's Kindle to Sell Law Books
The PLI said 67 of its 90 titles are now available in the Kindle format. "Our average book is easily over 1,000 pages, and a number are multivolume sets, so you're talking about a lot of information," said William Cubberley, who oversees the PLI's publishing program. "You'll be able to carry an entire law library on your Kindle."

The Kindle doesn't have to be great as a computer; it only needs to be great as an e-book reader, which means a handy way to search all your texts. By shipping law books for the Kindle, it will allow lawyers to do legal research right from their Kindle.
LinkLeave a comment

How is it the rich and powerful are so damned... lame... [Jul. 9th, 2009|09:28 pm]
Via Vodkapundit: Sen. Ensign admits parents gave money to mistress and family

Getting your parents to pay off your mistress? Lame.

Seriously.
LinkLeave a comment

*snort* [Jul. 9th, 2009|08:23 pm]
GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions
The push for conversion to plug-in electric cars will do nothing to stop carbon emissions, a report by the GAO warns, throwing cold water on a push by Democrats to get more plug-ins on the road. In fact, the problem could be made worse as demand goes up at coal-fired electrical plants. Plus, the need for batteries may just have the US changing the dictators to which we’re chained, as IBD reports: ...
What surprises me about this report is that I thought this was painfully obvious.

The point of switching to an electric fleet is not to reduce energy consumption: the amount of energy it takes to accelerate 2,800 pounds of vehicle and person is the same regardless if the energy source is coal-fired generated electricity or gasoline or ethanol or hydrogen. The point of switching to an electric fleet is also not to reduce pollution: the immediate pollution of energy generation is shifted to a different location. Further, between the heavy metals required for creating battery storage technology (which itself produces a whole host of problems) to the amount of material waste that will result from replacing one set of infrastructure to another, there is an awful lot of pollution that will take place that no-one is talking about.

No; the point of switching to an electric fleet was to move the power generation problem from millions of small kilowatt generators on wheels to upstream generation facilities where there is greater flexibility in the raw source of the energy that would be generated--so we can easily switch out the 1.4 terawatts of energy we now get from oil and replace it with coal if the price of oil goes up. That is, it allows us to tell the middle east to go take a hike if they decide to engage in energy market manipulation.

What surprises me is that in the inevitable march towards socializing our country the brilliant marketers, lawyers and politicians who have been creating the jingles and the scare ad campaigns, using energy as the source of fear to force our country down this particular path, that someone forgot to keep track of which policy was being advocated for what.

I think there is someone in Obama's administration who richly deserves to be fired.
LinkLeave a comment

Shit; I don't want to be replaced! [Jul. 8th, 2009|05:30 pm]
Human Sperm Produced In the Laboratory

Well, it looks like soon enough half of our species will be obsolete, and sex superfluous. Thank goodness I'm also good at catching spiders and carrying heavy things--at least I have something left to fall back on!
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

Really? You're shitting me. I never would have guessed. [Jul. 8th, 2009|05:26 pm]
Promises, Promises: Obama tax pledge unrealistic

Huh. Who would have guessed?
LinkLeave a comment

What is it with Democrats and the whole Patriotism/Treason meme? [Jul. 8th, 2009|02:17 pm]
For years we were told questioning someone's patriotism was off-limits. Often the complaint would come from a Democrat who would also assert that someone's questioning of their policy was questioning their patriotism.

Now we have the opposite: L'etat, c'est Obama--questioning President Obama's policies is tantamount to opposing the United States of America. Questioning Obama, in other words, is treason. Combine this with the whine from the California Secretary of State that people who complain about their politicians are terrorists--and we have a very common thread here: the people in positions of power in our country are thin-skinned whiners.

It's sad, really.

I will not interpret this, by the way, as a dangerous precedent that seems to be promulgated by the Right side of the Blogosphere. The idea that "The State is Obama and Obama is The State" only graduates from egotistical narcissism to dangerous precedent when the concept is backed with the force of police officers armed with guns. When people actually start disappearing in the middle of the night, then it's dangerous precedent.

But until then, it's a sad and pathetic day when the rich and powerful whine like little cry babies.
LinkLeave a comment

Front Row Seats at the California Circus. [Jul. 8th, 2009|10:36 am]
California Screaming: The Golden State's political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens' revolt.

Sadly, they missed the best quote of all, made by California Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, who was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying:
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Because speaking your mind and telling your representatives what you want--well, it's terrorism.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Okay, the debate is over. Al Gore has lost. [Jul. 7th, 2009|02:22 pm]
Godwin's Law:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
...
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. ...


This fine tradition apparently has been forgotten by Al Gore, Inventor of the Internet: Gore and Nazis, which links to this article, originally titled: Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Are people becoming more conservative? Or just more worried? [Jul. 7th, 2009|10:26 am]
GALLUP: Nearly 4 in 10 Americans say their views have grown more conservative.

My own theory is more prosaic than the belief that suddenly 4 in 10 Americans have had a "coming to Jesus."


First, I believe that the vast majority of people, if they gave any thought to their political beliefs (most don't) could be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. More precisely most people start from the fundamental principle "leave me the fuck alone; I know what I'm doing", and from that fundamental principle derive their other beliefs as they come up, and as their personal experience dictates.

Second, I believe both political parties do not drive themselves from this fundamental principle. On the "right" you have the Republicans who, if left to their own devices, would do away with large swaths of the Federal Government which intrude into our lives by demanding high taxes and regulatory normalization--but then they'd sit back, comfortable as local communities pass more "vice" laws. On the "left" you have the Democrats who, if left to their own devices, would suppress local community standards and thus expand social freedom, but then massively intrude into corporate regulatory reform and increase taxes and Federal oversight--essentially sitting back comfortable as creeping socialism picks our collective pockets.

For most people, our personal alignment--that is, if we call ourselves "liberal" or "conservative", therefore, is driven by two factors:

(1) Which we think is more important: social reform or economic reform.
(2) Which side we have more problems with: social restriction or economic restriction.

If you're more worried about social reform than economic reform, you'll call yourself a liberal. If economic, you'll call yourself a conservative. This despite the fact that if you call yourself one thing, you probably agree with 90% of the guy who calls himself the other thing.

It's also why politics in the United States is usually fought between the 40 yard lines, as famously noted by Charles Krauthammer: the vast majority of people, despite what they call themselves, have their beliefs on the 50 yard line--and any deviation from that spot guarantees pissing off at least half of the people.


So when people say they have "become more conservative", I don't believe it.

I do believe, however, that more and more people have started becoming concerned by Obama's economic actions. And by becoming more and more concerned, they are starting to call themselves conservative--because economic issues are more important to them than social issues. People still, however, want to be left the hell alone.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Welcome to Los Angeles. [Jul. 7th, 2009|09:35 am]
They've pre-empted all 4 major networks with live video of the Michael Jackson funeral here in Los Angeles. I noticed this when I opened the windows to allow the cool morning air in, and was welcomed by the low buzz of a dozen helicopters following the precession.

Nuclear war could break out in the Middle East this morning, and they'd chip in the video of the nuking of Jerusalem in the lower corner while continuing to follow the Michael Jackson funeral.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

Having the fox guard the hen house. [Jul. 6th, 2009|02:59 pm]
Financial Agency IGs Say Bill Threatens Independence
Inspectors general at five financial regulatory agencies are objecting to legislation that would elevate their positions to the presidential-appointment level, arguing that the move would compromise their ability to conduct independent investigations.

The bill would elevate the five officials at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Supporters of the measure say the five IGs need greater flexibility and more distance between their work and possible interference from agency leadership, especially amid the economic meltdown.
The problem is the leaders of those agencies all are answerable to the Executive Branch. By making the Inspectors Generals also answerable to the Executive (rather than appointed and answerable on an ad-hoc basis depending on need), it aligns power of oversight of an Executive Agency the the same executive branch, thus eliminating one of the most vital aspects of our government--the constant checks and balances which puts powerful people at odds.


Government exists to pass laws (which restrict our freedom) and to exercise political power (which again restricts our freedom). Beware the politician who wants "efficient government!"
LinkLeave a comment

Storage just gets cheaper and cheaper. [Jul. 6th, 2009|12:44 pm]
1 terabyte, $100.

Not recommending the product; just surprised at the price.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Crapping in your water supply. [Jul. 6th, 2009|12:10 pm]
Thoughts on a Schizophrenic Society
Here it goes again: The state has unbounded natural wealth. It has the nation’s largest population. Its economy is the most diversified. California should be awash in cash, given that both its income and sales taxes are also the highest in the United States. Instead its deficit is also the largest in the nation.

Economists, of course, have explained why the state is broken — and their exegeses are truly multifaceted, a perfect storm of sorts: State government is far too large. Employees enjoy pensions and compensation far above that found in private enterprise. Spending exceeds the rate of growth and inflation. Plentiful oil is not drilled; rich farmland is taken out of production; available timber is not always logged; nuclear power is shunned; key roads are delayed; natural wealth is considered nature’s, not man’s; yet men are not to live natural lives.
The bottom line is this: we have government in California run for the benefit of those who work for California, which makes much of the leaders of the State of California more akin to a racketeering effort than a government--in the sense that there is no long term public interest at play here, only short term private interest.

Combine this with the public sector choosing the least competent to administer programs that should be privately handled, and we have a perfect storm of failure which will eventually destroy the state.


This is, by the way, the success that Obama wishes to emulate federally.

And it won't work, simply because the one thing California has going for it which the rest of the nation does not: California has a perception about it of an ideal place to work and live which draws people who--if they otherwise knew how things really are--would never come.
LinkLeave a comment

If you think this is news, please remove your head from your ass. [Jul. 6th, 2009|09:35 am]
Public Pensions Cook the Books: Some plans want to hide the truth from taxpayers
Here's a dilemma: You manage a public employee pension plan and your actuary tells you it is significantly underfunded. You don't want to raise contributions. Cutting benefits is out of the question. To be honest, you'd really rather not even admit there's a problem, lest taxpayers get upset.

What to do? For the administrators of two Montana pension plans, the answer is obvious: Get a new actuary. Or at least that's the essence of the managers' recent solicitations for actuarial services, which warn that actuaries who favor reporting the full market value of pension liabilities probably shouldn't bother applying.

Public employee pension plans are plagued by overgenerous benefits, chronic underfunding, and now trillion dollar stock-market losses. Based on their preferred accounting methods -- which discount future liabilities based on high but uncertain returns projected for investments -- these plans are underfunded nationally by around $310 billion.
With all due respect to the Wall Street Journal, the underfunding amount is probably significantly greater than $310 billion nationally.

Years ago our politicians made the calculated decision that in order to attract people to public service, they would pay below private industry, but offer a generous pension plan and a generous retirement timeline: in many government jobs you can collect a pension after serving 20 years. This means that if you enter government service in your 20's, you can retire with a pension in your 40's and take a second career.

While this looks like a good deal, the problem is that it defers to the next generation the cost of hiring this generation's employees. And it makes it the next generation's politicians problems. Further, no politician wants to be the bad guy: telling the public employees unions that they are going to have to lay people off because you don't have enough money to pay the retirees (who dutifully put in 20 years in a crappy job on the expectation of a payoff in the end) is political suicide. So is telling those retirees there is no money--and telling the public "guess what? We're going to have fewer police officers" is also political suicide.

It's a no-win situation for this generation of politicians--and the problem is, the bill is coming due. Already a large part of California's $20+ billion debt is driven in large part by paying for underfunded retirement packages--and a lot of teachers are going to be losing their jobs because of this. Combine this with the agenda by politicians to engage in massive social engineering projects (such as Los Angeles's subway system, which cost tens of billions, or the new high-speed rail project approved by voters), and we have the recipe for a financial disaster.

If you are a government employee expecting a pension at the end of your service, I wouldn't hold my breath. The bottom line is that the politicians who made the promises didn't fund those promises--and if the money isn't there, the money isn't there.
LinkLeave a comment

Seems I'm not alone on the whole "Facebook causes you to give up too much privacy" thing. [Jul. 6th, 2009|09:28 am]
Wife blows MI6 chief's cover on Facebook
The wife of the new head of MI6 has caused a major security breach and left his family exposed after publishing photographs and personal details on Facebook.

Sir John Sawers is due to take over as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in November, putting him in charge of all of Britain’s spying operations abroad.

But entries by his wife Shelley on the social networking site have exposed potentially compromising details about where they live and work, their friends’ identities and where they spend their holidays. On the day her husband was appointed she congratulated him on the site using his codename “C”.

The mind boggles.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

This isn't good. [Jul. 5th, 2009|09:28 pm]
Speaking of the Honduras: Military ordered to turn back Zelaya's jet
Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya said he was getting on a flight home to reclaim his post on Sunday, accompanied by the U.N. General Assembly president and a group of journalists.

The interim government said it ordered the military to prevent the landing of Zelaya's plane. If turned away, it will likely land in El Salvador, where a separate flight was headed with Latin American leaders who support Zelaya's reinstatement.
What puzzles me is that the President of the United Nations General Assembly should be going along with trying to establish a dictatorship in the Honduras.

Update: Zelaya's plane circles Hunduran runway, can't land.

Guess the military didn't allow him in, so he went on to El Salvador.

One footnote: "His Venezuelan pilots circled around the airport and decided not to risk a crash."


After attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government, former President Reagan (see my previous hypothetical answer) attempted to return to reassume the Presidency he illegally tried to hijack, piloted back to the United States by Chinese pilots.

You tell me that wouldn't be seen as a fucking foreign invasion.
LinkLeave a comment

That pesky Constitution thing. [Jul. 5th, 2009|01:14 pm]
This whole "let's ignore the rule of law to get what we want" thing is starting to look like a pattern with the Obama Administration: US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty

Guess what? Article II, Section 2:
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...


How many "extraordinary" measures whereby we side-step the Constitution must we endure before protesters--so quick to protest an "Imperial Presidency" under George Bush for "pushing the boundaries" of the letter of the law--start stirring and complaining about President Obama completely ignoring the letter of the law?
LinkLeave a comment

It's a complicated world. [Jul. 5th, 2009|12:59 pm]
Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran
The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.
The Muslim World has two common threads:

(1) They want to conquer the world and convert it to Islam.
(2) Each Muslim country wants to be the leader of that Islamic world.

Step 2 keeps step 1 from happening.

Oh, and remember also that Iran is not Arab; it's Persian. And the Persians consider the Arabs as a filthy, lying and disgusting race. Which means that the Arab world may like the idea of Iran promulgating a Muslim world--but they sure the fuck don't want Iran leading it any more than Iran wants anyone in the Arab world leading it.
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

A country of laws, not men. [Jul. 5th, 2009|11:05 am]
The Man Who Would Not Be King (George Washington)
After the (revolutionary) war, there were calls for (General George) Washington to claim formal political power. Indeed, seven months after the victory at Yorktown, one of his officers suggested what many thought only reasonable in the context of the 18th century: that America should establish a monarchy and that Washington should become king. A shocked Washington immediately rejected the offer out of hand as both inappropriate and dishonorable, and demanded the topic never be raised again.

One can honestly say that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and of national personalities) in very large part because of George Washington's refusal to take the crown and convert the United States into a monarchy. Alexander Hamilton once called for George Washington to use his generalship and the army to "threaten" the Continental Congress to assure payment and to strengthen the national government--but Washington would have none of it: "The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with." With the support of Representative Hamilton, General Washington could have very easily marched on the U.S. capital in Philadelphia and claimed the crown and throne. President Washington could have stayed for a third term and rewritten the Constitution to assert lordship over the lands. But instead, after 8 years as President, Mr. Washington stepped down and returned back to Mount Vernon and resumed farming. And for that--for reminding us that the laws of our newly formed nation were more important than the man carrying out those laws--we are eternally grateful.

A republican government is a government of laws, where representatives are elected by the people to refine those laws and insure their enforcement. It is a government based on a foundational law, a Constitution, and ideally it enshrines the basic and fundamental principles of the equality (before the law) of all men.

When a government becomes a cult of personality, or when it is lead by a strongman to the point where the customs and principles of the law are swept aside for a leader or an individual, it stops being a republican Democracy and slowly sinks into Dictatorship.

This is what happened in Venezuela: Hugo Chavez, a failed revolutionary who served time in jail for attempting to overthrow the government, was finally elected President then illegally rewrote the Constitution to permit him to stay in permanent power.

This is what failed to happen in the Honduras. Yet Barack Obama doesn't get it, calling the ouster of former President Zelaya for illegally attempting to rewrite the Honduran Constitution to permit him to establish permanent power a "coup".

This is also what may or may not happen in the Philippines: The eyes of Tejas are upon you
At the moment, many Filipinos are worried that the current President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, will amend the constitution in order to extend her term. It may not ring a bell in Washington, but the parallels are obvious in Manila. Bautista writes:
The parallels between the Philippines and Honduras are uncanny. As we all know very well [Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's] GMA’s allies in Congress have been assiduously pushing for charter change … Zelaya’s ouster was precipitated by his insistence on having a constitutional convention … Both moves are seen as attempts to extend the president’s term of office. GMA’s allies want to proceed with a con-ass [constitutional assembly] even without the Senate (clearly unconstitutional), while Zelaya wants a referendum on the convening of a con-con [constitutional convention] without congressional authorization as required by Honduras’s constitution. …
Mr. Bautista’s piece might remind Washington that Third World Countries striving to become countries of “laws and not men” also have to struggle with problem of preserving their institutions even as they are tempted to take shortcuts to solve ’social justice’ problems. The idea that Zelaya ought to be supported by Washington because he is considered by some NGOs to be a “man of the people” may or may not have moral validity. But even if he were, restoring him in violation of Honduran laws also has a downside. Those who worked for years to restore the semblance of constitutional rule in a Third World after a dictator has torn them up know how that it is much easier to scramble an egg than to unscramble it. Once the laws of Honduras are circumvented with a wink and a nod the temptation to circumvent them again will be irresistible. Honduras and the Honduran constitution may not mean much beyond a narrow circle in Washington, but to the Hondurans, it is all they have.

There are probably a great many ambitious leaders in the Third World who are watching how Washington handles the Honduran crisis. It is all the more reason to act carefully and wisely.

This is why the Honduras are vitally important.

One of the complaints from the 1970's cold war was the Realpolitik of the Nixon Administration, being willing to support dictators and dictatorships which oppress their people in order to advance U.S. interests. Starting with President Carter and ending with President Bush, the United States has moved towards a policy of supporting democracies--that is, of considering the style of government we're getting into bed with before we hop into bed. The Bush Doctrine of promoting Democracy around the world is the ultimate statement of this move in thinking: a statement that we should take an active role in spreading Democracy.

While it may be too much for the United States to take an active role in spreading Democracy around the world through active force--the primary criticism of the Bush Administration's policies--it is unbelievable to me that the Obama Administration should swing so far in the opposite direction: taking an active role in the destruction of Democracies around the world.

But that is exactly what is happening in the Honduras, and that is what appears to be starting up in the Philippines.


Supporting Democracy around the world is unpopular in the international community--because by shining a spotlight on the crisis in the Honduras, some of that light spills into Venezuela. Shine too bright a spotlight on the Philippines, and we run the risk of alienating an ally, and some of that light may find itself spilling over into southern Mexico. It's why the OAS is willing to call what happened in the Honduras a "coup": many of the member states in the OAS are led by people who achieved power through creating a cult of personality which swept away the rule of law.

None of those states have a George Washington amongst them, nor would they understand the lesson taught by George Washington or why he was such an important man.

It is customarily been the role of the United States to demonstrate to other states through our refusal to go along with the support of a wannabe dictator, to reaffirm the lessons of George Washington around the world, in deed if not in words.

But what do you do if your President does not understand the lessons of George Washington? Or worse, if you have a President whose rise to power revolves around a cult of personality rather than a respect for law?
LinkLeave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

Advertisement