The Greek youth riots continue, since December 6, 2008:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467567,00.html
I only have two questions about this.
First question: If you have a loaded gun, and someone intent on causing you injury attempts to throw a gas-filled explosive device at you, from close range, what would you do?
Second question: Where are the PARENTS?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Iraqi Shoe Bomber
Check out the following excerpt from FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467524,00.html):
"Those experiences helped mold a deep resentment of both the U.S. military's presence here and Iran's pervasive influence over Iraq's cleric-dominated Shiite community, according to his family.
'He hates the American physical occupation as much as he hates the Iranian moral occupation," Dhirgham said, alluding to the influence of pro-Iranian Shiite clerics in political and social life. 'As for Iran, he considers the regime to be the other side of the American coin.'"
Since he hates Iranian influence as much American influence, is he going to visit Iran and throw his shoes at Ahmadinejad? Not likely. I wonder why?
My take: A cowardly and highly emotional response, from a very unprofessional journalist. He knows that in a "democratic" society he can get away with that sort of thing. Why didn't he throw shoes at Sadam Hussein while he was in power, especially when he was torturing and killing Shiites and Kurds in droves?
Average Iraqi take: He's a hero.
This is why I think we should never have invaded.
"Those experiences helped mold a deep resentment of both the U.S. military's presence here and Iran's pervasive influence over Iraq's cleric-dominated Shiite community, according to his family.
'He hates the American physical occupation as much as he hates the Iranian moral occupation," Dhirgham said, alluding to the influence of pro-Iranian Shiite clerics in political and social life. 'As for Iran, he considers the regime to be the other side of the American coin.'"
Since he hates Iranian influence as much American influence, is he going to visit Iran and throw his shoes at Ahmadinejad? Not likely. I wonder why?
My take: A cowardly and highly emotional response, from a very unprofessional journalist. He knows that in a "democratic" society he can get away with that sort of thing. Why didn't he throw shoes at Sadam Hussein while he was in power, especially when he was torturing and killing Shiites and Kurds in droves?
Average Iraqi take: He's a hero.
This is why I think we should never have invaded.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Real Socialists Are Upset With Obama
Check this out:
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2008/12/08/still-in-turmoil-the-liberalleft-and-obama/
Wow, they actually thought Obama was a real socialist. Think again. They got played - big time. First of all, the last thing a real socialist would do is go to law school, I don't care how liberal he is. If they wanted a real socialist, the liberal left should have split from the Democrats (who are only pretend socialists), and formed their own socialist party outright. Then they should have nominated Bill Ayers for president.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2008/12/08/still-in-turmoil-the-liberalleft-and-obama/
Wow, they actually thought Obama was a real socialist. Think again. They got played - big time. First of all, the last thing a real socialist would do is go to law school, I don't care how liberal he is. If they wanted a real socialist, the liberal left should have split from the Democrats (who are only pretend socialists), and formed their own socialist party outright. Then they should have nominated Bill Ayers for president.
9/11 Suspects Confess
So, they finally admit it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial
Now before anyone gets all teary-eyed for these thugs and want to claim these confessions were coerced, realize that this is the absolute best thing that these guys could do for themselves.
Why? Becuase prosecutors in this case are seeking the death penalty. Being the devout Muslims they are, according to their beliefs, this is the only sure way to secure a place in heaven. Islam teaches that there are no guarantees that despite leading a relatively good life, that anyone will be allowed into heaven. The "prophet" Mohamed was quite fickle about this actually. Some Muslims even believe that EVERYONE goes to hell for a period of time, and after they have been adequately punished for their sins, they will allowed into heaven. The ONLY way, according to the "prophet" Mohamed, that someone can guarantee they can get into heaven, and not go to hell, is to sacrifice their lives in defense of Islam.
If they confess and get the death penalty, they sincerely believe they will go to heaven. In fact, it is the only way they can be sure they'll go to heaven. Seems like a no brainer, to me.
I don't think it is a coincidence that these confessions are timed to coincide with the Hajj, either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial
Now before anyone gets all teary-eyed for these thugs and want to claim these confessions were coerced, realize that this is the absolute best thing that these guys could do for themselves.
Why? Becuase prosecutors in this case are seeking the death penalty. Being the devout Muslims they are, according to their beliefs, this is the only sure way to secure a place in heaven. Islam teaches that there are no guarantees that despite leading a relatively good life, that anyone will be allowed into heaven. The "prophet" Mohamed was quite fickle about this actually. Some Muslims even believe that EVERYONE goes to hell for a period of time, and after they have been adequately punished for their sins, they will allowed into heaven. The ONLY way, according to the "prophet" Mohamed, that someone can guarantee they can get into heaven, and not go to hell, is to sacrifice their lives in defense of Islam.
If they confess and get the death penalty, they sincerely believe they will go to heaven. In fact, it is the only way they can be sure they'll go to heaven. Seems like a no brainer, to me.
I don't think it is a coincidence that these confessions are timed to coincide with the Hajj, either.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Political Philosophy
Since this is a new blog, I will take this opportunity to express my political philosophy. I guess I most fit the mold of a Libertarian. However, I do understand that the Libertarian philosophy only works in a world where EVERYONE is a moral, ethical, responsible individual. So sue me for dreaming! What I appreciate most about Libertarian ideals is the respect and recognition of people as INDIVIDUALS. Theoretically, American society and politics in general is supposed to respect and recognize citizens as individuals, however, there is much about government and politics that fails to do so. Whether you are talking about Liberal Democrats that tout the importance of "ethnic diversity" or Conservative Republicans that wish to ban gay marriage, the major political parties generally want to push group ideals onto society in general. I am not naive, I do realize there has to be a line drawn, but seriously, does hiring someone of a different race, just because they are of a different race, really promote diversity? If so, that is racist - simple as that. And is banning gay marriage somehow going to prevent people from being homosexuals? (I feel differently about abortion becuase it involves the life of another human being that cannot defend him or herself . It is also for this reason I support WELL RUN government orphanages. What grown folks of at least adequate intellegence do, is another matter.)
If you're wondering, I did not vote for Obama, or McCain. That's right, I am one of the less than one-percent that voted my ideals - Libertarian. I didn't vote for Obama, becuase deep-down, I knew he was just lying through his teeth to get elected, and I have serious disagreements with much of his political strategy. I didn't vote for McCain becuase he had no political strategy at all.
I feel the goverment has two basic responsibilities: 1) protection of the lives and rights of individuals through the provision of law and order, and 2) defend the borders. Those two basic responsibilities alone create more than enough government for any nation, and if done properly would keep plenty of people busy. All of this other stuff (marriage ceremonies, hiring policies, public education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, etc...) would ultimately best be left to the people to maintain. Sure, our economy won't be as large, and our communities would probably be much smaller on average, but I feel in the long run, things would be better. And far more sustainable.
In my political utopia, would we still have the internet? I say yes, becuase it was initially developed for the purposes of aiding national security, which falls under the category of defending the borders. That's my theory anyway. What do you think?
P.S. - I did not always feel this way. I was once a die-hard liberal - when I was a bit younger, and "far less experienced" (i.e., politically correct for "far more foolish"). Currently I am a registered Independent.
If you're wondering, I did not vote for Obama, or McCain. That's right, I am one of the less than one-percent that voted my ideals - Libertarian. I didn't vote for Obama, becuase deep-down, I knew he was just lying through his teeth to get elected, and I have serious disagreements with much of his political strategy. I didn't vote for McCain becuase he had no political strategy at all.
I feel the goverment has two basic responsibilities: 1) protection of the lives and rights of individuals through the provision of law and order, and 2) defend the borders. Those two basic responsibilities alone create more than enough government for any nation, and if done properly would keep plenty of people busy. All of this other stuff (marriage ceremonies, hiring policies, public education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, etc...) would ultimately best be left to the people to maintain. Sure, our economy won't be as large, and our communities would probably be much smaller on average, but I feel in the long run, things would be better. And far more sustainable.
In my political utopia, would we still have the internet? I say yes, becuase it was initially developed for the purposes of aiding national security, which falls under the category of defending the borders. That's my theory anyway. What do you think?
P.S. - I did not always feel this way. I was once a die-hard liberal - when I was a bit younger, and "far less experienced" (i.e., politically correct for "far more foolish"). Currently I am a registered Independent.
The Financial Crisis - SOLVED!
So, potentially millions more people could be laid off, many of our major industries are failing, we are still fighting two wars, and there seems to be no end in sight.
No problem! What you say? That's right all of this can be solved, for most of us, with one simple solution - move in with your mother. Or have her move in with you. If that doesn't work, move in with your cousin, uncle, aunt, college roommate, or anybody with a job.
Problem solved! :)
Seriously though, I think many of us would benefit from coming together as families and communities, to best utilize our resources. This will require that many of us become far more humble, far less selfish, much harder working, much less wasteful, and hopefully much more appreciative of the other human beings in our lives. There may be a silver lining to this after all.
I pray that all experiencing these difficult times find their needs met and their faith sustained.
No problem! What you say? That's right all of this can be solved, for most of us, with one simple solution - move in with your mother. Or have her move in with you. If that doesn't work, move in with your cousin, uncle, aunt, college roommate, or anybody with a job.
Problem solved! :)
Seriously though, I think many of us would benefit from coming together as families and communities, to best utilize our resources. This will require that many of us become far more humble, far less selfish, much harder working, much less wasteful, and hopefully much more appreciative of the other human beings in our lives. There may be a silver lining to this after all.
I pray that all experiencing these difficult times find their needs met and their faith sustained.
The Reason I am a Christian
The path to, or from faith, for many people can be complicated. For many others, it is rather simple. I guess you could say my path is unique to me, as are all paths for all people. There may be similarities in the paths we follow, yet, the paths are unique, because all people are unique.
Having said that, aside from logical conclusion based on academic studies of different religions, I guess I have to say that one of the main reasons I am a Christian is due to the fact that I am "Holy Spirit" convicted. Yes - that means I have spoken in tongues, as well as seen visions.
Now, I assure you, I am not mentally ill, with no family history of mental illness - that I am aware of (not counting that one crazy great-uncle, who may have just been demented from old age). The only drugs I use are birth control pills (I am married with three children - cut me a break). So trust me, this is not the raving of a lunatic here. In fact, before my encounter with the Holy Spirit, I would very much say I was a "Doubting Thomas". But like Thomas, seeing, and hearing, and feeling, is believing. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't believe in Jesus Christ, before my experience. However, before that point, I wasn't CONVICTED that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and Life. Most people who know me would say that I am a fairly intelligent, highly logical thinking person.
So for me, it's a matter of what I cannot logically deny, based on my experience. I wish my faith were greater, however, before my experiences. It was an unpleasant road that led to my conviction. Perhaps with greater faith before hand, I would have been spared much of the bad that I have experienced in life.
While the Holy Spirit is a main reason, the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is just as important, in part, for this reason:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/12/07/damon.lok.arafat.walk.cnn
Notice the comments from the Doctor at about :54 seconds into the video.
How sad that with all that Jesus Christ has done, is doing, and will do for mankind, people still feel compelled to go through great personal expense and hardship to gain something they can never seem to grasp - forgiveness. Ladies and gentlemen, enough. As He said - IT IS FINISHED.
Having said that, aside from logical conclusion based on academic studies of different religions, I guess I have to say that one of the main reasons I am a Christian is due to the fact that I am "Holy Spirit" convicted. Yes - that means I have spoken in tongues, as well as seen visions.
Now, I assure you, I am not mentally ill, with no family history of mental illness - that I am aware of (not counting that one crazy great-uncle, who may have just been demented from old age). The only drugs I use are birth control pills (I am married with three children - cut me a break). So trust me, this is not the raving of a lunatic here. In fact, before my encounter with the Holy Spirit, I would very much say I was a "Doubting Thomas". But like Thomas, seeing, and hearing, and feeling, is believing. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't believe in Jesus Christ, before my experience. However, before that point, I wasn't CONVICTED that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and Life. Most people who know me would say that I am a fairly intelligent, highly logical thinking person.
So for me, it's a matter of what I cannot logically deny, based on my experience. I wish my faith were greater, however, before my experiences. It was an unpleasant road that led to my conviction. Perhaps with greater faith before hand, I would have been spared much of the bad that I have experienced in life.
While the Holy Spirit is a main reason, the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is just as important, in part, for this reason:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/12/07/damon.lok.arafat.walk.cnn
Notice the comments from the Doctor at about :54 seconds into the video.
How sad that with all that Jesus Christ has done, is doing, and will do for mankind, people still feel compelled to go through great personal expense and hardship to gain something they can never seem to grasp - forgiveness. Ladies and gentlemen, enough. As He said - IT IS FINISHED.
The Power of the Logos
This blog is named the "Power of the Logos" for one main reason - in homage to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, also known as the "Logos" (see John 1 in the New Testament of the Bible). The fact that He is referred to as the "Logos", which is Greek for "Word", expresses to me the tremendous power of words that the Creator intended them to have. I believe that God created language, along with all else, and that the power of words in language is merely a hint at the infinite power of God. Also, I realize, that if we can speak or write words, we are all, at least a little powerful, in our own right.
Having said that, I will also say this - while I do consider myself a born-again Christian, I am respectful to ALL human beings. In the category of human beings I include: Atheists, believers in all faiths, all races or ethnicities of people, individuals of all political and social ideologies, and sexual orientation. I must say, however, I may need a little help regarding pedophiles - I have to REALLY pray when it comes to them. Respect does NOT mean agree - it just means I will treat you with the same dignity and consideration that I would expect in return.
This blog is intended to cover any and all topics - although I tend to write and think more heavily on subjects such as politics and social policy, and religion. I also like sports, American football in particular, science and technology, and movies.
Thanks for visiting!
Having said that, I will also say this - while I do consider myself a born-again Christian, I am respectful to ALL human beings. In the category of human beings I include: Atheists, believers in all faiths, all races or ethnicities of people, individuals of all political and social ideologies, and sexual orientation. I must say, however, I may need a little help regarding pedophiles - I have to REALLY pray when it comes to them. Respect does NOT mean agree - it just means I will treat you with the same dignity and consideration that I would expect in return.
This blog is intended to cover any and all topics - although I tend to write and think more heavily on subjects such as politics and social policy, and religion. I also like sports, American football in particular, science and technology, and movies.
Thanks for visiting!
The Case Against the Legalization of Illicit Drugs
The “War on Drugs” has been waging now for two decades. The many detractors of “The War on Drugs” point to the continued prevalence of the illicit drug trade in many inner cities and increased use in rural and suburban areas as evidence that law-abiding society is losing the war. I contend that the detractors are perhaps overlooking the possibility that perhaps they misunderstand the real intentions of the “Drug War”.
To those detractors, I say, define “victory”. What exactly does it mean to “win” the Drug War? Could it be, perhaps, that the Drug War is doing and achieving exactly what it was designed to?
I propose this: the Drug War is being won in that it is achieving the actual aim of confining the majority of violent, illicit drug use to definable, geographic areas that can be relatively, (I will explain “relatively” later) easily policed. I contend that the Drug War was never about eliminating the use of illicit drugs (that would be like eliminating prostitution, which would increase the divorce rate by another 25%). Rather, it was about controlling the prevalence of drugs in polite society. By that standard, I would have to say the Drug War is an astounding success. If you are skeptical that this is true, then why is it that tabloids and mainstream media alike make great fair in the arrests of celebrities for illicit drug use? If the Drug War were not successful, a celebrity drug arrest would garner no more news than a celebrity parking ticket.
That brings me to my second proposition, and the real subject of this writing: the case against legalizing drugs.
One reason against legalizing drugs is that it would undermine the control of drugs in polite society, thus making it far more difficult to police the abuse of these drugs. This is where “relatively” easily policed geographic areas come into play. While it is by no means easy for the many hardworking and dedicated police officers that deal day in and day out with the harsh and dangerous realities of drug-infested inner city neighborhoods, imagine having to police those neighborhoods, in addition to the more affluent areas of the city, along with the surrounding suburbs in much the same fashion. Whether or not the affluent city areas and suburbs would reach the level of crime and violence as the inner-city is not the question. The question is how much increased illicit drug use in polite society do we really want to tolerate?
The second reason against legalizing drugs, and perhaps the best, is that it would not eliminate illegal drug use, rather it would actually serve to increase it. To understand why, simply ask a drug dealer why he or she deals drugs. The answer is simple: what other business can you start with virtually no capital or start-up costs, little or no overhead, tax-free, and no bureaucratic labor laws or regulation, that will garner you an almost instant profit? Answer: prostitution – which is also illegal, not as profitable as drug dealing, just about as dangerous in many instances, and on top of that, most drug dealers ain't that pretty. Besides, drug addicts want drugs even more than johns want sex. Right now, from where I sit, I can drive about 5 miles from my home, and become a drug dealer. No resume, no interview, no W-4, nothing. Just a vehicle and the ability to do very simple math. On one good night, I could probably make more than I make at my legitimate job in a month. Guess what happens when you legalize drugs – all of those benefits go away. Now, it becomes “legitimate”, with the all of the overhead and regulation that comes with it, especially with the medical red-tape that would come with legally selling drugs. How many drug dealers in East Baltimore would actually have the motivation and basic business sense to deal with the hassle of running a legitimate business. See, in a legitimate business, if an employee steals from you, you have to have hard evidence (video-tape or paperwork), call the police, file a report, press charges, go to court, probably never get your money back, and if you can't prove the employee stole the money, if you fire him or her, you might even have to pay unemployment compensation. BIG HASSLE, with a high risk of loss. In traditional drug dealing, an employee steals from you, you kill them and hire someone else. SIMPLE, with low risk of loss. This is where good 'ole capitalism comes into play, and the black market kicks in. With the legalization of drugs, the overhead of drug dealing goes through the roof, vastly increasing the cost of the product, giving the black market, “traditional” drug dealers the advantage because they have almost no overhead and can offer the product at a substantially reduced price. The only thing legalizing drugs would really accomplish is giving greater access to drugs to those who would now not normally pursue them. Eventually, once the addictive quality of the drugs kick-in, and funds get low for what was once monthly trips to the “spa”, now turning into daily trips, these new users will abandon the high cost of legal drugs and go straight to the black market. So now, the “traditional” drug dealers not only have their regular customers of inner city natives, they have even more business from polite society, willing to pay even higher prices than their inner city counterparts. All this serves to make “traditional” drug dealing more lucrative and competitive, and thus more violent..
Having stated my very simple case, I will say that I am speaking primarily of hardcore drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth. In my opinion, the jury may still be out on marijuana.
What do you think?
To those detractors, I say, define “victory”. What exactly does it mean to “win” the Drug War? Could it be, perhaps, that the Drug War is doing and achieving exactly what it was designed to?
I propose this: the Drug War is being won in that it is achieving the actual aim of confining the majority of violent, illicit drug use to definable, geographic areas that can be relatively, (I will explain “relatively” later) easily policed. I contend that the Drug War was never about eliminating the use of illicit drugs (that would be like eliminating prostitution, which would increase the divorce rate by another 25%). Rather, it was about controlling the prevalence of drugs in polite society. By that standard, I would have to say the Drug War is an astounding success. If you are skeptical that this is true, then why is it that tabloids and mainstream media alike make great fair in the arrests of celebrities for illicit drug use? If the Drug War were not successful, a celebrity drug arrest would garner no more news than a celebrity parking ticket.
That brings me to my second proposition, and the real subject of this writing: the case against legalizing drugs.
One reason against legalizing drugs is that it would undermine the control of drugs in polite society, thus making it far more difficult to police the abuse of these drugs. This is where “relatively” easily policed geographic areas come into play. While it is by no means easy for the many hardworking and dedicated police officers that deal day in and day out with the harsh and dangerous realities of drug-infested inner city neighborhoods, imagine having to police those neighborhoods, in addition to the more affluent areas of the city, along with the surrounding suburbs in much the same fashion. Whether or not the affluent city areas and suburbs would reach the level of crime and violence as the inner-city is not the question. The question is how much increased illicit drug use in polite society do we really want to tolerate?
The second reason against legalizing drugs, and perhaps the best, is that it would not eliminate illegal drug use, rather it would actually serve to increase it. To understand why, simply ask a drug dealer why he or she deals drugs. The answer is simple: what other business can you start with virtually no capital or start-up costs, little or no overhead, tax-free, and no bureaucratic labor laws or regulation, that will garner you an almost instant profit? Answer: prostitution – which is also illegal, not as profitable as drug dealing, just about as dangerous in many instances, and on top of that, most drug dealers ain't that pretty. Besides, drug addicts want drugs even more than johns want sex. Right now, from where I sit, I can drive about 5 miles from my home, and become a drug dealer. No resume, no interview, no W-4, nothing. Just a vehicle and the ability to do very simple math. On one good night, I could probably make more than I make at my legitimate job in a month. Guess what happens when you legalize drugs – all of those benefits go away. Now, it becomes “legitimate”, with the all of the overhead and regulation that comes with it, especially with the medical red-tape that would come with legally selling drugs. How many drug dealers in East Baltimore would actually have the motivation and basic business sense to deal with the hassle of running a legitimate business. See, in a legitimate business, if an employee steals from you, you have to have hard evidence (video-tape or paperwork), call the police, file a report, press charges, go to court, probably never get your money back, and if you can't prove the employee stole the money, if you fire him or her, you might even have to pay unemployment compensation. BIG HASSLE, with a high risk of loss. In traditional drug dealing, an employee steals from you, you kill them and hire someone else. SIMPLE, with low risk of loss. This is where good 'ole capitalism comes into play, and the black market kicks in. With the legalization of drugs, the overhead of drug dealing goes through the roof, vastly increasing the cost of the product, giving the black market, “traditional” drug dealers the advantage because they have almost no overhead and can offer the product at a substantially reduced price. The only thing legalizing drugs would really accomplish is giving greater access to drugs to those who would now not normally pursue them. Eventually, once the addictive quality of the drugs kick-in, and funds get low for what was once monthly trips to the “spa”, now turning into daily trips, these new users will abandon the high cost of legal drugs and go straight to the black market. So now, the “traditional” drug dealers not only have their regular customers of inner city natives, they have even more business from polite society, willing to pay even higher prices than their inner city counterparts. All this serves to make “traditional” drug dealing more lucrative and competitive, and thus more violent..
Having stated my very simple case, I will say that I am speaking primarily of hardcore drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth. In my opinion, the jury may still be out on marijuana.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)