House of Eratosthenes

“In my view…the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.”

– Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, commenting on the Atkins v. Virginia case

We got an awful lot of self-righteous people, usually with no small amount of condescension and just plain-ol’-snottiness, telling us the death penalty is inconsistent with “evolving standards of decency” or some such rot. More often than not, those snots live in well-to-do ivory tower enclaves and are unlikely to suffer personally from the vagaries of people who have no respect for the sanctity of human life but run free anyway.

One of Associate Justice Scalia’s colleagues does a dandy job of representing these goo-gooders — who are just barely enough in-touch with what passes for a moral compass, to avoid dispensing justice, even when it’s their designated occupation and sworn duty to so dispense.

I’ve already lost this link once, and now that I’ve found it again I wanted to save it onto this page so I’d never lose it again. It’s a great article, because it cites exactly what I’d cite, and highlights exactly what I’d highlight.

Lawprof and legal journalist Jeff Rosen had a very interesting New York Times article about Justice Stevens a week ago. The whole thing is much worth reading; but here I wanted to comment just on one part:

[Justice Stevens] won a bronze star for his [World War II] service as a cryptographer, after he helped break the code that informed American officials that Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was about to travel to the front. Based on the code-breaking of Stevens and others, U.S. pilots, on Roosevelt’s orders, shot down Yamamoto’s plane in April 1943.

Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty. “I was on the desk, on watch, when I got word that they had shot down Yamamoto in the Solomon Islands, and I remember thinking: This is a particular individual they went out to intercept,” he said. “There is a very different notion when you’re thinking about killing an individual, as opposed to killing a soldier in the line of fire.” Stevens said that, partly as a result of his World War II experience, he has tried on the court to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty and to ensure that it is imposed fairly and accurately. He has been the most outspoken critic of the death penalty on the current court.

I recognize that much can get lost in such pieces, even when they are written by experienced, thoughtful, and sympathetic interviewers such as Rosen. Perhaps Stevens gave some further explanations that were omitted, or perhaps Rosen’s paraphrases are not quite right. But what I see in the article strikes me as a perplexing chain of reasoning.

There follow three bullet points which, if you’re a right-thinking rational individual like me, will line up hand-in-glove with the explosions of “Whisky Tango Foxtrot” percolating between your ears as you read through Justice Stevens’ hackneyed preponderances.

Justice John Paul Stevens has, at the very least, achieved the first milestone of insanity and probably the second as well. He’s in some wonderful company there. But more seriously than those, he’s failing to uphold his sworn duty. He is what Scalia was talking about in the quote above.

Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »

On Sermon-on-Mount Liberals
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

I haven’t been reading Lydia Cornell lately. I should, because she has claimed to be a former Republican and I have all-but conclusively judged this statement to be full of crap, without really having too much foundational information. But of course I do have some…since it’s such a frequent occurrence gorgeous Lydia says a bunch of stupid bullcrap only a dedicated donk would say…

Democrats are stronger on terror because we know the value of human life. We will win the war on terror by gathering our forces and fortifying our homeland. By first bringing our troops home and strengthening our own borders, ports, airports and train stations and using our resources wisely. We can’t afford to lose a single human life. We’ve lost over 2,600 troops, and another 16,000 missing arms and legs, and we’ve spent over 300 billion dollars on a war that has DEFINITELY CREATED MORE HATRED AND TERRORISM throughout the whole world against us.

Democrats will go out and communicate with our enemies: we will bridge the gap and open diplomatic channels. Syria, who was helping us right after 911 will be helping us again. Everyone wants to be on the side of the Peacemaker who brings a higher vision to conflict. In the time that George Bush and the Three Stooges have been in power, they have created more enemies than ever before in America’s history. This is the most shameful time in our country. We must get these primitive self-serving oil barons and Neanderthals out of power before they destroy the world.

Sometime back when the war was a newer thing, Lydia had put up a post describing how she had once been a Republican but couldn’t abide the wild contradiction between the Republican platform and her interpretation of The Gospels, so she switched to the donks because they were the more biblically-pure party. She is, therefore, perhaps the most physically-appealing specimen of a large and growing sect tens of millions strong: The “Sermon on the Mount” liberals.

These are the kookburgers who insist the Lamb of God, voting today, would punch a straight-donk ticket because those Republicans have strayed from His word. The title of the post excerpted above shows you the depths to which this lunatic thinking ultimately drags an innocent mind: “We Will Win War on Terror by Getting Out of Iraq.”

Well I’ll have to agree that at times, George W. Bush has been a dangerous man. But he’s never been this dangerous.

This is “run with scissors in your hand and marbles all over the floor,” electric-fence-pissing dangerous. The “Sermon on the Mount” liberals are named for a passage from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5, they themselves like to cite frequently; in some cases, the person so speaking is familiar with this passage of the Bible, and none other.

³⁸Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

³⁹But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

⁴⁰And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

⁴¹And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

⁴²Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

⁴³Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

⁴⁴But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…

According to our “Sermon on the Mount” liberals, therefore, all violence is contrary to the will of God. There are no exceptions to this. If such an interpretation were sincere, of course, there would be ample occasion and motivation to translate this snotty lecturing into Arabic, since the Islamofascists that attacked us are also supposed to believe in a god who champions peace, and they also are supposed to have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion.”

I know of no such translation effort that has ever taken place.

Perhaps the prospective translator-lecturers are terrified of getting their empty little heads lopped off.

But uh…getting back to the “Sermon on the Mount” liberals. They are quite an interesting bunch. There is this book out there, millenia old, arguably the most influential book on the affairs of men out of any other book ever compiled, no close-seconds. It is a dauntingly thick book, chock full of instructions about how to achieve everlasting life. These “Sermon on Mount” liberals have picked up on the one passage that might, with sufficient effort, be interpreted as endorsing self-destruction, and this is the one passage that they parrot endlessly, avoiding and ignoring all others.

Well, I shouldn’t say that. Some of our peaceniks are pretty enthusiastic Bible-study people, who I’m sure could quote circles around me. But it is interesting — they get this frenzied frothy notion that The Lord wants us out of Iraq, and He is greviously offended at us for going in there in the first place. If you were to take the Bible, and drop from it Matthew 5:38-44, leaving all other passages intact, their argument would dissolve completely.

Is Matthew 5:38-44 subject to a singular interpretation? No! It may very well be the most ethereal and nebulous chronicling in those pages, since Noah built the ark.

It doesn’t pass the “If I were God” test. If I were God, would I build a species of people in my image and give them instructions to…embrace those among their brothers who wish to do them harm. Coddle venomous serpents close to their own bosoms. Expose their soft fleshy bellies to their snarling, slobbering countrymen, who are brandishing knives and swords and sharp farm implements, looking for a place to stick ‘em. Why? Why would I want this people I had built, to do such a thing?

It crumbles under the weight of it’s inherent silliness when we consider third parties. Do we interpret the Sermon on the Mount literally when we come across two men, one bad and the other innocent, when the bad man wants to do harm to the innocent? “Sermon on the Mount” liberals can always be counted on to change the subject when confronted by this, because that innocent man could just as well be a woman. Or a child. Or a handicapped person. They, therefore, are forced by their own reasoning to endorce acts of violence on the innocent and weak, who cannot defend themselves — to condemn any efforts by stronger people to come to the aid of those who are innocent and weak. Not supposed to do it. It’s gotta make some sense down the road, after all it’s what Jesus said.

Well, it isn’t what Jesus said. And it gets much worse than that, when you start to consider a lot of our “Sermon on the Mount” liberals don’t even believe in God. Consider that for a second. You’ve got this passage from the Bible, subject to a variety of interpretations but, okay, one of those interpretations says you’re supposed to treat enemies as friends, even in situations where logic and reason tell you this is self-destructive. Somewhere down the line, possibly after your demise, this all makes sense. But the guy interpreting this for you doesn’t believe it himself.

Just think on that. You’re getting this snotty, condescending lecture about how you shouldn’t allow violence to take place, even if it is defensive violence…because Jesus said no…but you’re getting the lecture from someone who doesn’t practice this himself, and can’t practice it, because he doesn’t believe in Jesus. Which in all likelihood means, the guy doesn’t even believe what he is telling you — and what he’s telling you is there’s something virtuous in self-destruction.

Ergo — your snotty condescending lecturer wants you to destroy yourself. Through non-violence. Allow others to rape and pillage and burn you, even though he himself would never dream of doing the same thing.

It’s insulting on so many levels. It’s like going fishing by rowing out in the middle of the lake and expecting the fish to jump into your boat. And it presumes an inimicable relationship, which may or may not be justified by preceding events. And probably isn’t. But most of all, it is so intellectually insulting. It presumes that by babbling the correct gibberish at you, he can motivate you to do something both he, and you, logically understand makes no sense at all.

These people haven’t been reading the Bible. They’ve been watching old Star Trek episodes in which Kirk and Spock destroy ancient alien computers using that all-powerful Kirk-and-Spock secular humanist logic. They’ve seen the old trope played out so many times, they figure it’s easy and want to try it out themselves.

Now, these true-believer Bible-studier types, I’m gathering their minds have been wrapped into little pretzels by these Star Trek watching secular humanist types. Wherever violence takes place, they figure, the will of God has been thwarted and they must dispense their insulting lecturing…only to the side of the conflict that speaks English, though, so their heads won’t get lopped off. Their flaw is in presuming that peace is easy, that it’s simply an absence of war. They think peace is available when the right people are asked…like ordering a pizza.

Blogger friend Rick ran into a few of those types over at some place called Waving or Drowning. Usually I avoid these scraps in which Rick immerses himself, dealing with interpretations of scripture I find somewhat meandering and arcane. That gets into my own interpretation of the Bible, which is a little too complicated to go into here…but it’s also pretty thin. To bottom-line it, I think we got put here. At significant cost. We weren’t put here to play video games, guzzle Starbuck’s, and bitch about bad weather; we’re supposed to find something meaningful to do with our lives, get ‘er done, and encourage those around us to do the same. Once you proceed from that assumption, it’s been my general experience that all these squabbles about Sodom and Gomorrah and the Levitical Priesthood pretty much sort themselves out.

So for a few days of visiting his blog, I skimmed past this one post of his and jumped to his next post. I ended up sorry I ignored this for so long, because when I finally clicked my way into this skirmish I saw something pretty amazing…posted by Rick’s declared antagonist “Sonja”:

Ahhh … Rick, now you’re being disingenuous. You and I both know that if it were not for the fact of our troops being in Iraq and and the Commander In Chief having given direct orders which caused this war, those pictures would not have been taken. Whether or not our troops were directly responsible for them or not is hardly the point, now is it?

The “disingenuous” question Rick posed, had to do with some gruesome pictures posted by Sonja of injuries received by children local to the conflict in Iraq. Sonja had directly implied that the pictures were representative of “good” things “that the US military is doing.” Rick was inquiring — disingenuously, I suppose — as to whether or not Sonja knew, for an absolute fact, that it was the United States that had done these things.

Here’s Sonja declaring it to be a non-issue. The United States started the conflict, ergo, all ensuing violence was to be laid at the feet of the “US military,” and anyone with the temerity to suggest otherwise or even question it is being “disingenuous.”

So this started a big back-and-forth during which time, the “Sermon on the Mount” liberals threw in all kinds of red herrings about Rick’s involvement in Republican politics, and his employment status with a DoD contractor. Rick, meanwhile, persevered as best he could trying to get an answer to his question.

So after I waded in and picked out just three of the questions I was inspired to ask, Mike, the owner of the blog, shut off commenting. I honestly don’t know if I did that or not. I would have to assume so, since the back-and-forth continued for quite awhile before I showed up, I only said one thing and right after that the Jenga tower collapsed. I thought I was pretty polite and cordial. Maybe not cordial enough.

Our “turn the other cheek” people, it turns out, have some pretty thin skins; it’s not what you’d expect at all, is it?

So I think we have some lessons to learn from this. One, we’ve got a lot of people walking around thinking violence is an elective thing, ALL the time — there can be no exceptions. I would have to imagine most of those folks are virginal where violence is concerned. If you’re fortunate enough to live in a place where you have the right to own a gun, and you exercise this right — and then in the middle of the night someone breaks into your house, he’s got a knife, you’ve got a gun, he’s a lot more concerned about getting away un-caught than about your personal safety…you don’t have a lot of choices, do you? Or if a man attacks your wife right in front of you and you have the means to stop him. There’s only two speeds in that scenario, go and stop. So I guess these are people inflicting their impractical and untested fanciful notions of “peace” on all the rest of us. They can’t possibly know too much about what they’re talking about, if they honestly think that’s how it works…one guy wants to fight, the other one doesn’t, so the pacifist just drones on about a bunch of stuff until the bully doesn’t want to bully anymore.

It don’t work that way in real life. Sorry.

Two. Isn’t it interesting…Iraq is supposed to be the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. It is supposed to be an “illegal and unjust war.” But it seems everyone who is opposed to the violence we have supposedly caused over there, is opposed to any & all violence as well. This isn’t true of everyone who’s opposed to our operations in Iraq, of course. But very nearly everyone. Ninety-nine percent or more, I’d say, are “Sermon on the Mount” liberals who labor under this irrational, slobbering delusion that war can be brought to an end for all time, if enough people will it to be so. That says unflattering things about the remaining one percent.

Three. It occurs to me that if you hate people and want to destroy them, but you don’t believe in fighting, this is just a natural tactic to take isn’t it? Like I said above, just demand the fish hop into your rowboat. Or like I said over at Rick’s place, go hunting and simply talk the deer into committing suicide.

I think that’s what “Sermon on the Mount” liberals are really all about. They like fighting and destroying people who disagree with them, every bit as much as anybody else. Except they’re afraid to admit it, and the people and aparatus they have made a lifetime-dedication to hating, has a lot to do with fighting itself. So they’re using words as weapons, because that’s the only option they’ve left to themselves.

They say to their enemies, hug venomous vipers to your chests, because it’s what Jesus wants you to do. Expose your jugular to the nearest tarantula, it’s what you need to do for your salvation. Most of them don’t even believe in Jesus. Like Kirk facing off against an ancient alien computer, they figure if they say the right stuff their enemies will destroy themselves.

It’s the dream of a sissy.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Helping Hillary
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

We have to help Hillary, for the good of the country. My argument here is based on a column Peggy Noonan wrote in January of ‘04 called The Dean Disappointment about a then-candidate for the Presidency.

I want to like Howard Dean. I don’t mean I want to support him; I mean I want to like him, or find him admirable even if I don’t agree with him. I want the Democratic Party to have a strong nominee this year, for several reasons. One is that it is one of our two great parties, and it is dispiriting to think it is not able to summon up a deeply impressive contender. Another is that democracy is best served by excellent presidential nominees duking it out region to region in a hard-fought campaign that seriously raises the pressing issues of the day. A third is that the Republican Party is never at its best when faced with a lame challenger. When faced with a tough and scrappy competitor like Bill Clinton, they came up with the Contract with America. When faced with Michael Dukakis they came up with flag-burning amendments. They need to be in a serious fight before they fight seriously.

A little closer Nearly four years later, this is the slot occupied by hapless Hillary. She could be like her husband, or she could be like tank-commander Dukakis. The country needs her to be strong, so that when she gets her ass beat she leaves in place a Republican victor who will actually stand for something. And kill me some terrorists…not pass flag burning amendments.

So I thought I’d go through all of Hillary’s qualifications to be our next President, and come up with some bumper sticker slogans. I really racked my brain on this one and eventually…came up with…twenty-five. Probably seventy or eighty percent of which are too long to fit on a bumper sticker. But I really couldn’t think of any more than this, or polish up the ones I had any better. When her primary qualification to be President is that her husband cheated on her, it’s not like you’re working with a lot of material. I thought I did pretty well.

As a service to her, for the good of the country, I thought I’d post them.

Vote for Hillary…
1. She’s superior to you
2. Or else you’re a male chauvinist pig
3. We need a President who is condescending and cranky ALL THE TIME
4. It’s alright, she isn’t really a woman you know
5. Because wives who make their husbands unhappy deserve representation, too
6. She can find a villain in any issue. Any issue. Any at all. Just watch her.
7. We’ve tolerated capitalism and free enterprise long enough
8. It’s not like she’s the one who cheated on Bill…so far as we know
9. Isn’t it time we lost that unfashionable, out-of-style right to bear arms?
10. So John Paul Stevens can give Rosie “fire doesn’t melt steel” O’Donnell his seat
11. So we can punish all the rich people. For being rich. Except her, of course. And George Soros.
12. And no one will ever accuse you of sexism again. Ever. Well, for about thirty seconds.
13. Because it isn’t fascism when women do it
14. Because that other guy is kinda-sorta black…and the OTHER guy is kinda-sorta gay…we don’t need that
15. She’s just supposed to be President. C’mon, everybody knows it. It’s hers. Give it to her!
16. You want to see pantsuits in style, you know you do
17. Because as soon as women are in charge, we can really change things…like, I dunno…outlaw booze again
18. And Canadians will never barge in for their emergency medical care ever again, why would they want to?
19. Because Bill cheated on her, and that’s all the qualification she needs
20. She targets all the right dirty-rotten-scoundrels, and you know she’ll make them pay
21. Let’s do whatever it takes to get Bill back in there…they’ll start living together again, we’re pretty sure
22. This “pay some actual attention to terrorism” stuff is, well, pretty boring
23. Because electing a woman President doesn’t count, unless she’s unpleasant
24. Anybody who cackles like that deserves to be President
25. That “first woman House Speaker” thing worked out really, really well

We need this candidate to come out with all she has. She can come up with plans until she’s blue in the face, but the reasons to vote for her are a little bit…well, they’re just not there. It comes down to, you feel sorry for her for having an unfaithful husband, you like the idea of her yelling at him, and that weird schoolmarm duck-like nasal resonance is pleasing to you.

Hillary’s strengths need to be talked up, or she’s a dead duck. And that would hurt everybody.

So if anybody can think up of any more advantages to a Hillary administration, I’d like to see what those would be.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

On Huck
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

Courtesy of John Fund’s column in the Wall Street Journal, Friday. It’s headlined “Another Man From Hope” and it calls into serious question the conservative credentials of Gov. Huckabee.

Mr. Huckabee attributes his support to the fact he is a “hardworking, consistent conservative with some authenticity about those convictions.” He is certainly qualified for national office, having served nearly 11 years as a chief executive. I have known and liked him for years; on the stump he often tells the story of how we first met outside his boarded-up office in the state Capitol, which had been sealed by Arkansas Democrats who refused to accept he had won an upset election for lieutenant governor in 1993. But I also know he is not the “consistent conservative” he now claims to be.

Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once “his No. 1 fan.” She was bitterly disappointed with his record. “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,” she says. “Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.”

I don’t have too much of a problem with the abortion issue, but the tax thing disturbs me mightily and I’ll tell you why: Because it’s 2007. It is logically offensive to continue debating supply side economics. Show me three politicians who want to raise revenue by increasing taxes, and I’ll show you a liar, a liar, and another liar.

That’s not a statement of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.

Things don’t look good for the Huck…are you listening, Buck?

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

How to Go Insane
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

This is probably the most useless thing I’ve ever written (I’m sure some folks would dispute that), since everyone interested in following these instructions is already doing it. But I’m close to 100 percent sure they do what they’re supposed to do, because I’ve seen them put into practice, with great success, so many times.

Thought I’d jot ‘em down. Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Reasons to Not Trust Scientists
Saturday, October 27th, 2007

This article is cynical and inflexible and uses deliberations of fact in a childlike way…for example, “There is no such thing as objectivity and logic is a tenuous, frail, possibly mythical animal…”

But I see a lot of merit in each of the points that it makes. In fact, I’ll bet there are a lot of folks who have a big problem applying these considerations to scientists, but would have no problem applying them to others.

Like bloggers.

In fact, the article is really all about being human. So you could fairly apply these, or at least consider them, in regard to carbon-based life forms in any profession. Like…it occurs to me…journalists. But like Winnie The Pooh says, that is a story for another day.

I tell ya, every time I see people pontificate about the glowbubble wormening ManBearPig, and someone all-but-’fesses up to just believing what “scientists say” on the strength that hey, they’re scientists, at least I’m not blindly going along with what someone else says…as if to say, y’know, we’re all following pied-pipers I’m just following the right one…it gives me a real “don’t know whether to laugh or cry” moment. And kind of a sharp migraine.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Possible Definition of Insanity
Saturday, October 27th, 2007

…thanks to our current Secretary of State. Please tell me there’s some plot twist, some sharp corner in the road, some ace-up-the-sleeve, some “Solomon cleaving the baby” moment up ahead.

Anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has turned to former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for tips ahead of her own conference this year.

Rice invited Carter, a vocal critic of Bush administration policies, to the State Department on Wednesday where the two discussed his Arab-Israeli peacemaking efforts in the 1970s, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Friday.

Their talks were “good and cordial,” he said. They focused on the Middle East and not Carter’s recent criticism of President George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

Which is kinda like inviting O.J. Simpson and not discussing Nicole.

Hey, I can relate to this. The other night I wanted to find out how to drive an oil taker so I invited Captain Joe Hazelwood to dinner to tell me how to do it. And the night before I was concerned about preventing epidemics, so I held a seance and summoned the spirit of Typhoid Mary to give me some helpful pointers there.

So you see, getting some help from Carter and Clinton about peace in the Middle East, that just dovetails right on in…

No, I don’t think Dr. Rice herself sees the logic in what’s being done here. I’ve seen her interrogated in the chambers of Congress, about things that already did make sense, as if those things did not. I’ve seen her face off against people who are genuinely unhinged from reality. She’s not like them. But it’s abundantly clear to me that now, today, she is beholden to people like that.

Or maybe she is batshit crazy.

Either way…just say it to yourself a few times if you need a demonstration of how nutty this is. Three times should be enough for anyone. We’re getting advice from Carter and Clinton about the Mideast peace process. We’re getting advice from Carter and Clinton about the Mideast peace process. We’re getting advice from Carter and Clinton about the Mideast peace process.

If that still seems sensible to anyone…just pick up some history books. I mean, like, dang.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Bear Rescue
Friday, October 26th, 2007

Bear So this bear wanders down the highway near Truckee. A couple cars come along and scare the living hell out of the poor bear, right while he’s on one of those half-mile high bridges, and he clambers over the side. I must confess at this point I don’t have a lot of personal first-hand knowledge about bears where fear-of-heights is concerned, or lack thereof. I guess this fella didn’t have much. Or he had more for the cars.

Authorities tried their best to rescue the bear, and I would have to suppose there’s a limited number of methods you could try at such a thing. They gave up for the afternoon, came back the next morning, found the animal snoring away still stranded. Strung up a net, shot him with a tranquilizer and let him drop in the net.

That’s a cool story, I was I was there to experience it or see it first hand. Maggie’s Farm has more photos.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

The Second Most Important Issue II
Friday, October 26th, 2007

Have you signed the Pavley Petition yet? (H/T: Boortz.) It says we here in California have to stop George Bush, because he’s been throwing the monkey wrench into the works of good legislation designed to curb the global warming emissions that caused the wildfire down in San Diego.

This is the kind of nonsense that threatens to crumble under it’s own weight, like a beached whale, simply by being taken seriously. This is, in my opinion, exactly what we should do.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The most important issue of the 2008 elections is, who’s going to bring us the biggest pile of scorched terrorist carcasses. You can pontificate and bluster away about gun control and minimum wage to your heart’s content, none of it matters if you aren’t going to run out there and kill me some terrorists. Second most important issue is, is the democrat party stupid or full-blown crazy. The Pavley Petition is advancing a nugget of lunatic logic that is a repeat of what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already said this week. Questioned about this immediately afterward, Reid himself didn’t seem to put too much stock in his own remarks:

Officials said Tuesday the winds and high temperatures are expected to continue. But when the fires do stop, lawmakers likely will debate the cause of the fire.

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

I think it comes from that huge win the donks had right after Watergate: They seem to be everlastingly convinced that if the news cycle will barf up some all-consuming item that commands everyone’s attention for a week or more, all those bad donk ideas will suddenly look good. It’s as if they’re saying to themselves, hey it worked in ‘74, it can work anytime. Bad idea, plus a high profile bit of news that has some real legs to it…equals a good idea, or something that sufficiently resembles a good idea.

Hmmm…now that I think on it, since 2002 this one of the few things on which most of them have been consistent. It’s like they don’t know what to do about Iraq, but they’re dedicated to waiting around for the perfect news item to make their bad ideas look good. Why they don’t just get ahold of a genuinely good idea, so that what’s happening this-day or that-day becomes irrelevant, is something I don’t understand. You’ll have to ask them.

But ideas the donks think are good, seem to have it all in common that they appear to look good, at a given time. They’re conditional. We must keep talking about Abu Ghraib, because that’s when ignoring Saddam Hussein looked in hindsight like a good idea; we must talk about Terri Schaivo, because that’s when they look almost sensible; we must talk about Hurricane Katrina, Jena 6, global temperatures in 1998…etc. Everything is justified by some event, which may or may not be repeated.

It’s like they’re steadfastly opposed to figuring out what makes sense all the time.

No wonder they get so pissy when Dick Cheney says things like “Nine one one changed everything.” He’s stealing their schtick.

Funny thing is, though — killing terrorists does make sense all the time. What nine one one changed, was that up until then we didn’t see it.

I think the donks should write this into the party platform next year. Come on donks, it’s a news event. By the time of your convention, the event will be just nine months old. Talk about those awful fires in California, and how they were caused by global warming…write it into the platform…and four months after that, we’ll all get together and vote on whether you have command of your mental faculties.

Next year’s second most important issue, easily.

Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

The List
Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I’m no angel, and Gerard’s no fool…

…but good golly, he rushes in where even I fear to tread. And I have very little restraint about such things, so that’s saying something.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Is IT a Bureaucracy?
Thursday, October 25th, 2007

This is a great article that makes some great points. The thread that opens up underneath it, started out laughably foolish, but afterward rose to the occasion and some great points were made there as well.

The article itself is a response to an indictment that appeared last month. And the response is just a bunch of bullets — why IT, in general, is dissolving into a puddle of bureaucratic goo when the challenges it is built to confront, demand anything but a bureaucracy. Interestingly, it has no preamble; just a two-liner from the editor and then launches right in.

Six is my fave, and when I look back on my career I see I’ve been guilty of this:

IT doesn’t ask why. They respond to the same problems over and over without implementing permanent fixes. They operate and support redundant applications even though no one uses them. They do not question business priorities and complain when all requests are listed as high priority by the business.

The last of the eight bullets is denial. IT doesn’t want to admit it’s becoming a bureaucracy, when it’s in the stages of becoming one. And then the first dozen or so comments in the thread pop in and essentially prove it.

I will need to allocate some time to sit down with this and figure out who’s pointing out more substantial stuff…the author of the article, or some of the commenters who came in later and have contributed some items I wouldn’t want to miss. Looks like a close call. But in my own twenty years, I have noticed that if there is one big problem that acts as a stumbling block against the endeavors of IT sub-organizations everywhere, it is human nature. I have yet to see an IT executive confront it directly.

The mission of Information Technology is to do more with less, and to deliver it as close to Right Now as possible, without disrupting production. Keep it working, and in the meantime go look for a cheaper way to do more quicker. This demands an awkward juxtaposition of creative-individualist and harmonious-collectivist thinking. This means the best and brightest should be promoted into positions where they can find out exactly what has to be done, and go shopping for ways to accomplish it, with all the less-creative folks standing behind them and lending support. Once the product is installed, information needs to be shared down to a substantially technical level, so that if there is a disruption in service someone will be around to make sure business is resumed as seamlessly as possible.

I have not yet seen this happen in my career. Anywhere. I don’t think I’ll see it.

Self-interest always gets in the way. Once you’re the “(blank)” guy, and you replace “(blank)” with whatever it is the company needs that is your specialty, you want to hoard the information. And why shouldn’t you? If you train someone else how to do the same thing, they’re probably going to start brown-nosing the boss, pretending that they’re the ones who got trained first and you’re the Johnny-come-lately…and if your boss is a dimwit, he might believe them and they’ll get all your plumb assignments. The boss, meanwhile, will pick out the guy who does things in a manner that most closely resembles the way he’d do things if he were they. And that guy will get all the “yummy” training…the expensive training…the training on all the yummy new products that are going to be in demand next year, or the year after. And so all the hoarding of information will be for nothing. But year after year people will continue to do it anyway.

It’s gotta be that way, if there are layers of management looking at IT trying to find ways to pare it down. And that ingredient will never be missing, of course. IT is in the business of delivering, among other things, economy.

So jealousy will have something to do with what motivates IT; therefore, elitism will drift in, sooner or later. I have yet to see any exceptions to it. An IT department staffed with, say for example, fifty highly energetic, skilled, experienced and resourceful engineers, will draw on the creative juices of………..four or five of those. At the most. The other ninety percent will be called upon to support that “Big Five.” …or not. Will that Big Five come up with the creative, resourceful, Indiana Jones “out of the box” types of solutions that will keep the department from drifting into a bureaucracy? Perhaps. Maybe. Probably not…the highest part of any mountain is it’s center.

Are all IT organizations neck deep in this problem? I would have to say no, since they’re disconnected entities functioning within private enterprises, with good specimens as well as bad ones. But I think it’s safe to say all the IT organizations that aren’t yet bureaucracies, are in danger of becoming those, since they’re staffed by ordinary people.

Ordinary people don’t really work that well together. Not once the advancement of one man’s career, is seen as a detriment to the career of his colleague.

And so I would reserve my most scathing criticism for the folks who skim over the Spanos article, and snear something to the effect of “not in my citadel.” Those may be bright people, but they’re engaged in a somewhat foolish thing.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

I Made a New Word VIII
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Harry Reid BULLCUSE (v.)
1. To accuse a second party, usually in a grandiose and theatrical way, of deeds or thoughts that are actually quite out of harmony with the truth or the speaker’s perception of it. The purpose is ostensibly to uncover one or several hidden agendas and lay them bare, but in reality the purpose is to gain a tactical advantage in front of third parties. 2. More broadly, any act of accusing someone, which is blessed by a substantially greater quantity of bluster than genuine confidence. 3. To accuse someone of something based on feeling rather than thinking.

BULLCUSATION (n.)
A specialized ad hominem fallacy capable of jettisoning logic and reason from any debate, for the advantage of whatever party finds logic and reason to be injurious. An accusation designed to shift the focus of an argument, usually deployed when the speaker has been cornered by inconvenient facts. It is a rhetorical weapon designed put the offensive on the defensive and put the defensive on the offensive. Highly effective, although nearly certain to end any rational discussion.

The word is inspired by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bullcusing Rush Limbaugh of “calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, ‘phony soldiers’.” It is a bullcusation unless one is willing to suppose the Majority Leader actually thought, in his own beady-eyed little head, that Rush said something like this…which seems dubious at best. Senate Majority Leader Reid, therefore, accused Rush of saying something that Senate Majority Leader Reid, himself, knew Rush didn’t say. Senate Majority Leader Reid accused, for the purpose of deceiving others. Senate Majority Leader Reid bullcused.

It has been easier and easier to find examples of this, for the last several decades as information has flowed to more people more quickly. The still-exploding artform of performing in front of the cameras, has made the bullcusation a frequent occurrence.

Commenting on this over the weekend, I said…

…we have got to find a word for this someday. This thing liberals do. Where you come up with this accusation out of thin air, and you know the facts aren’t on your side so of course there will be a discussion about whether the accusasion is true or not — which it isn’t. Then, you see to it that instead of being pursued…the discussion is instead prolonged…since, if the discussion were pursued, it would be a very short discussion indeed.

The casual observer will assume the accusation has some merit to it, but that’s a secondary payoff. The primary reward is that there is something you don’t want discussed, and now you’ve generated a distraction from it.

The classic Vaudeville version of this is “When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?” For the uninitiated, the trick is that if you aren’t a wife-beater, there’s no correct way to answer the question. This is a close cousin to that. You come up with an argument which, plainly, has an inimicable relationship to truth and common sense — like — “we need twice as much money so let’s raise the tax rate twice as high.” I offer the counter-argument that plainly puts the kibosh on yours: “If you raise the tax rate significantly, people will change what they do to pursue their individual interests, and you won’t raise the revenue you expect to; this is basic economics and has proven to be an accurate prediction of human behavior, time and time again.” And you say, “you want the government to run out of money and you want poor people to suffer!”

It is an unfounded inference, one that enjoys no genuine confidence. You would not bet your life, your liberty, your treasured possessions on the axiom that I want the gover

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

Pearl Harbor and the Death PenaltyWednesday, October 31st, 2007

On Sermon-on-Mount LiberalsTuesday, October 30th, 2007

Helping HillarySunday, October 28th, 2007

On HuckSunday, October 28th, 2007

How to Go InsaneSunday, October 28th, 2007

Reasons to Not Trust ScientistsSaturday, October 27th, 2007

Possible Definition of InsanitySaturday, October 27th, 2007

Bear RescueFriday, October 26th, 2007

The Second Most Important Issue IIFriday, October 26th, 2007

The ListThursday, October 25th, 2007

Is IT a Bureaucracy?Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I Made a New Word VIIITuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Pearl Harbor and the Death Penalty
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007

On Sermon-on-Mount Liberals
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

Helping Hillary
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

On Huck
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

How to Go Insane
Sunday, October 28th, 2007

Reasons to Not Trust Scientists
Saturday, October 27th, 2007

Possible Definition of Insanity
Saturday, October 27th, 2007

Bear Rescue
Friday, October 26th, 2007

The Second Most Important Issue II
Friday, October 26th, 2007

The List
Thursday, October 25th, 2007

Is IT a Bureaucracy?
Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I Made a New Word VIII
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007