The Philipic

Conservative View of Global Warming

Ξ February 28th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

This is the best summation I’ve come across of what I think the conservative intelligentsia think of Global Warming.  It doesn’t say that there is no such thing – or even that man doesn’t contribute to it.  What it does argue is that we simply don’t know enough about it – and what’s more how to differentiate between that which we can control and that which we cannot – to warrant any sort of precipitous and sweeping action to try and “control” the weather.

Understanding Predestination

Ξ February 26th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Theology |

In Christianity, there is a theological division amongst Protestants that roughly breaks down into two camps – those that believe in John Calvin’s Predestination and those that believe in Jacob Arminius‘ Free Will.  Having been raised in the tradition of the latter, it always struck me as the most obvious thing in the world – that is through our actions and decisions we are saved or condemned.  The concept of Predestination – that God has already assigned to us our salvation or damnation – was completely odd to me.  What does it matter, then, if we do good or evil if the outcome will not change?

The sheer peculiarity of it has always struck me, so I’ve thought about it quite a bit, to try and understand it.  People accept and believe in it for a reason, obviously, even if that reason aludes me.   So I began to think of the origins of Calvinism.

(more…)

Nuclear Grade Duct Tape

Ξ February 26th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor |

No, I am not kidding.

Available on Amazon.

Obama is an American citizen

Ξ February 24th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

These sorts of things really annoy me.  The truthers and “Bush stole the election” conspiracy theorists annoyed me under GW, and the “Obama isn’t an American citizen” annoy me now.  Not everything is a giant conspiracy.

Remember how the North Pole was melting?

Ξ February 19th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Interesting |

Not so much.

Funny, when they said that the arctic would be ice-free this year, it was headline news all over the place.  Haven’t heard much about the announcement that they basically missed 500,000 km of ice.

I’m all for clean air and efficent use of resources, but so much of rabid environmentalism is little more than a shakedown and power grab it’s scary.

Rules For A Gunfight

Ξ February 17th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor |

Found At Field & Stream

Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight

1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap – life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap – funerals are expensive

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell “Fire!” Why “Fire”? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will…. and who is going to summon help if you yell “Intruder,” “Glock” or “Winchester?”

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Stretch the rules.  Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work. “No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy.”

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don’t drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That’s how you live if hit in your “good” side.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don’t (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.)

19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.

22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4″.

25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.” At a practice session, throw you gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.

26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.

27. Regardless of whether justified of not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.

28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, “He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I’m sorry, Officer, but I’m very upset now. I can’t say anything more. Please speak with my attorney.”

Finally, Drill Sergeant Frick’s Rules For Un-armed Combat.

1. Never be unarmed.

I Like Her

Ξ February 16th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Our new Senator, that is.

Steny Hoyer for Speaker

Ξ February 14th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

I continue to be impressed with the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.  When discussing the vote on the stimulus package, he said

I would hope that every member on this floor, of whatever party, of whatever ideological persuasion, would pray that this bill works. Not for political purposes, because if this bill works we will create those three and a half million jobs. Am I absolutely sure that it will? I am not. I regret that I am not.

Now, politically, there was no way he could vote against it.  But it was refreshing to see that sort of honesty – and had he been speaker I think the whole process would have been a lot more amicable.  Certainly he would be a major improvement from the insufferable Nancy Pelosi.  Hoyer for speaker!

Stimulus

Ξ February 14th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Well, the stimulus got passed.  It costs more than we’ve spent in the Iraq war to date, doesn’t actually do much this year and doesn’t seem to actually be necessary.  We were told that, “In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.” – so the legislation that could not be physically read before being voted on, was posted well short of the 48 hours promised.

I’m sorry if I sound a little bit bitter, but Republicans were heavily criticized (justifiably, I might add) by many of the Democrats that are supporting this legislation for doing similar shady things.  And I distinctly remember Bush and Congressional Republicans being accused of fear-mongering to get their agenda through – I don’t see how that’s very different from claiming the economy is going to collapse unless we get this bill through quickly – this bill that doesn’t spend the vast majority of it’s money until subsequent years.

The Democrats are operating (or at least claim to be) under Keynesian economics.  Keynesian economics (in brief) call for government investment in the economy during economic recession and taxes and high interest rates to keep a hot economy from generating too much inflation.  The key here is that recession-busting government investment needs to take place in a short amount of time – otherwise that government investment feeds into inflation after the recession ends.  I don’t see how a stimulus package that has large outlays all the way to 2011 can really claim to be working under a Keynesian economic model.

With TARP, the Bush administration dealt with the immediate problem – that was a problem of liquidity back in the fall.  We still haven’t spent half of that, but according to Stratfor, the immediate threat of lack of liquidity has passed.  At this point, it seems as if the Democrats seem to be pushing for governemnt funding of a plethora of liberal causes under the guise of economic urgency, and the bill doesn’t actually seem to be designed to stimulate the economy the way the Democrats claim.  I just hope the Heritage Foundation is wrong about how the stimulus bill destroys welfare reform.

Politicization of the Census

Ξ February 13th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Constitutionally, the census takes place every ten years, in a manner set forth by Congress (that is, the Constitution actually assigns that power to Congress with the only requirement being that it’s done every ten years). Congress, by statue, assigned the role of managing the census to the Secretary of Commerce. Obama let it be known that he was going to have the directory of the Census report to Rahm Emmanuel, the President’s chief of staff and key political advisor, and not the Secretary of Commerce. This followed the announcement that Obama was going to ask Senator Gregg, a Republican, to be Secretary of Commerce.

If Obama didn’t care about the political implications of the census but only that it was done correctly, he shouldn’t care whom the census bureau eventually reported to, so long as they did it competently. If he was worried about the competence of Senator Gregg, then he shouldn’t have nominated him for the position in the first place. That only leaves the conclusion that he wanted to make sure that the census results benefited Democrats. That is an obvious politicization of science – something he criticized Bush for not three weeks ago.