Press "Enter" to skip to content

Thursday miscellany

  • Uh oh. The Fibbies have done it again.
  • And the R-party will, too. Of course. But you’ve gotta admit, the rapidity with which they tap-dance around their own alleged principles is dazzling.
  • Now that’s a headline.
  • “Finding My Spending Identity. Because New Years is coming up and a lot of us are thinking about that sort of thing.
  • More zero-intelligence school policy on guns. This time the victim is an honor-roll girl. But this time the place is … urk! — Montana??? (Tip o’ hat to PT.)
  • No surprise. All the serious thinking about Assange and WikiLeaks (and “CyberWar I”) is coming from free-market anarchists and the noble remnant of the old civil-rights, anti-war left.
  • “How much evidence should the U.S. government be obliged to show before it kills you? None, according to the Obama administration.”
  • So where do we line up to get a little of that billionaire charity? Some of the “causes” they put it to are … urk. More millions poured into public schools? More regimentation of health care? Um … no thanks. I actually know one of the 16 gazillionaire pledgers on the list. Haven’t seen him in years, but knew him uncomfortably well at one time. I’ve followed his career closely. And I can assure you that he never committed an altruistic deed in his life and never will. He’s a double-dyed bastard and a total narcissist who’d like to rule the world — and all the people in his world would be mere objects for his use. I suspect that’s true of the whole lot of them. “Charity” can be such a devious control mechanism.
  • Pay silver for a Backwoods Home subscription — and get a free copy of Hardyville Tales.

10 Comments

  1. Kevin Wilmeth
    Kevin Wilmeth December 9, 2010 10:06 am

    “the rapidity with which they tap-dance around their own alleged principles is dazzling”

    I still like the idea of mailing out 535 Groucho Marx masks with the following classic quote:

    “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”

    Wear ’em with pride, guys and gals. You’ve earned it.

  2. Scott
    Scott December 9, 2010 10:13 am

    When I was in high school, I refinished/reblued my grandfather’s ancient single-shot 16 guage as a graded project-the shop teacher kept it locked in his office. I wasn’t the only one to do so. A local factory donated used industrial hacksaw blades and sheet Amphenol(a 1940s era fiber-reenforced plastic for handles) that were turned into kitchen/hunting knife projects. No problems ever occured with either.
    Maybe the “least corrupt” nations are just better at hiding it..

  3. It's Me
    It's Me December 9, 2010 12:22 pm

    Glad that the world is safer from that “terrorist”. Her life being ruined is clearly something that was worth it. [/sarcasm]

  4. Kevin Wilmeth
    Kevin Wilmeth December 9, 2010 1:30 pm

    “Maybe the “least corrupt” nations are just better at hiding it.”

    No doubt, Scott. And sadly, we (The People) are complicit here, in part because we put so much faith in (lies, damned lies, and) statistics.

    Ponder this: my wife at one time did campus tours for her alma mater, during the time that the big push to more freely report rape, as a crime, was having a direct affect…at “raising” the rape rate statistics for the college. (It of course was having that same affect everywhere.) And you can imagine that the college really didn’t want people to see that the “rape numbers” had jumped so much, so recently, right? Cathy related that this was the single most common question asked by parents on these campus tours.

    Did rape really “increase” at that time? Who knows? It’s hard to draw valuable conclusions when such a major methodology change gets thrown into the works. What does seem clear is that 1) the institutions that are “evaluated” on those statistics did everything they could to marginalize, deflect and even invalidate their importance; 2) those who profit off of exploiting the fear of increased crime/risk, as ever, made quite sure that they could make it all better with the standard Faustian pact (just sign here!); and 3) the public at large didn’t seem to question any of it.

    And with that latter, the institutions learned that corruption works, the protection racket developed its art a little further, and both observed that We The People will bemoan the state of it all–including keeping our kids out of one of “those” schools–but do nothing to stop it.

    This is in no way different than observing corruption in quantitative terms, is it? Should we really care about whether one state is “more corrupt” than another? Can we even trust a “measure” of a concept like corruption? That’s actually a pretty funny concept in and of itself.

    (BTW, just to be clear, I’m in no way picking on Scott. I just found the phrase “least corrupt” to be amusing, and my typical diarrhea-of-the-mouth problem kicked in. 🙂

  5. Brogan
    Brogan December 9, 2010 2:43 pm

    Bill Gates donated great sums of money to develop new vaccines. Sounds good right? Until you see the video where he say that the population can be reduced by 10 or 15% with vaccines. HUH? Reduce the population with vaccines? Just what kind of crap are they making? And he is one of those billionaires that donated all that money to charities (vaccine developers)… I smell a rat.

  6. Claire
    Claire December 10, 2010 8:34 am

    Brogan,

    It took me a while to get down to watching the video because, frankly, I didn’t believe Bill Gates was going to say any such thing. I figured it would be some remark taken out of context and misinterpreted. But you’re right.

    The first thing that struck me about the video is what a pompous twit he appeared to be. Acting like an expert on global warming. Giving that incredibly simplistic “equation” about the effects of CO2 production (the sort of “equation” you might give to first-graders if you weren’t a very good teacher). Then … yep, that statement about vaccines, health care, and reproductive services reducing the world’s population.

    Charitably (pardon the pun), I expect that he means that once people can be persuaded to have fewer babies, we’ll reach his desired population decrease. But indeed he does say that vaccines and better health care (seeming to mean the new, more government-regimented “care”) will be factors in reducing the world’s population.

    Thanks for the link. That was creepy. And Bill Gates comes across as a most useful idiot, instructing smaller useful idiots.

    ADDED: Thinking more about this … Since people in the industrialized countries — whom Gates identifies as the overwhelming worst producers of CO2 — have already long-since reduced their reproduction, he appears either to mean that he wants fewer poor brown-yellow-black people in the world, even though they aren’t the CO2 culprits or — back to your point — that he wants the developed nations to reduce their populations further via “vaccines and health care” (since we’ve already done the “reproductive services” portion of population reduction). Weird. Definitely creepy. But also nonsensical.

  7. Pat
    Pat December 10, 2010 9:33 am

    Apart from the non-logic of Bill Gates re population, his CO2 fact is way off. If we cut down to Zero CO2, we wouldn’t have life on earth at all.

    And THIS video sounds like V is about to be invented in the lab. “Secret Billionaires Club – Planning the future of the world” is quite interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMoS5hgd_c&feature=watch_response

    Which makes me think his emphasis on “vaccines” may well be malignant. Which vaccines would he inject into his human guinea pigs, and how would they know what they’re getting until it’s too late?

  8. Scott
    Scott December 10, 2010 10:16 am

    Well, Kevin, I didn’t think I was being picked on-you pretty much said what I thought. Numbers can be made to sing any tune you want them to. Mix in a little hype,and you can have instant disaster/success, depending on what you want. That’s why it’s important to back up and look at the big picture, if at all possible.
    There’s no international standard measure of corruption. For many things there are no accepted standards, so when reading these statistics, I place very little faith in them..
    Completely off the subject, but has anyone heard of scanners(vague as to what type) used at moie theatres? A coworker told me this-I had been to this theatre a month or so ago, and they weren’t doing it then. Has anyone else had this happen?

  9. Tom
    Tom December 10, 2010 2:18 pm

    Earkmarks were a red herring in the first place. Eliminating them just moves power from Congress to the Executive who will not get to decide how all the money is spent.

  10. Claire
    Claire December 10, 2010 6:10 pm

    Tom, I agree. The R’s went after earmarks first thing after the election to fool a lot of people into believing they were serious about reducing “wasteful” government spending. Funny that they seem so surprised now about the results. But their backpedaling does show (as if every smart person didn’t already know it) how unserious they are.

Leave a Reply