Obama Doesn’t Like Technology

This article perfectly portrays the meaning of double speak. Apparently Obama believes the following:

“What Jefferson recognized… that in the long run, their improbable experiment — called America — wouldn’t work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn’t have the best interests of all the people at heart.

“It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship.”

I actually agree with Obama on something, namely this. I think part of the problem with America today is the apathy of its citizens and their lack of being informed. If you ask most Americans who their state representatives are they won’t be able to tell you. Of course if you ask a really important question like who won American Idol they can tell you right off of the spot.

One of the best things about technology is that is provides you with a constant 24/7 stream of news and information. There is no excuse to not being in the know these days. Thankfully Obama is bringing this to light and asking everybody to embrace this technology… oh wait:

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

Like everything Obama says:

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

So being in the know and having access to information is great unless that information doesn’t jive with what he thinks. For instance it’s just crazy to believe that people could be cooking the books on global warming climate is changing OMG!!!! climate change. It’s also crazy to think that GM used government money to pay back their loan from the government.

I love how Obama is all of the sudden an expert on technology that he admits to not knowing how to use. Seriously what a smug asshole.

Honduras Still Receiving Backlash for Enforcing Their Constititution

A while ago there was quite a stink over Honduras actually enforcing their Constitution and removing their then president from power. Well a lot of well respected neighboring states including Venezuela and our own government didn’t like the idea of a country actually obeying it’s own laws and threw up a stink.

Now they are threatening (promising?) to not attend the yearly European Union-Latin America summit if Honduras’s current president, Porfirio Lobo, attends. See they don’t recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Lobo’s seat because a potential dictator was removed lawfully to put Lobo in place. I love this:

An aide to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio Garcia, said: “If Honduras attends, then at least 10 Latin American presidents will not go to Madrid, starting with the president of Brazil.”

I wonder what types of governments those 10 countries have. Probably something along the lines of what Venezuela has which is idealistically opposed to what the summit is apparently about:

But correspondents say its goals of development and democracy-building remain far off.

Yeah that’s not sounding like a threat so much as a promise.

If This is the Best They’ve Got

I’ve mentioned Tom Emmers on this site before. He got the nod from the G.O.P. to be their endorsed candidate for Minnesota governor. I have mixed feelings because overall Emmers is a pro-liberty guy. Sadly he recently stated Arizona’s new illegal immigration law was a good first step. I’ve mentioned my issues with that law but alas it is what it is.

On Facebook I have several hardcore D.F.L. friends. I see they are starting the mud slinging already now that Emmers has the nomination. Well this is the one they all posted yesterday:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULalnzQ6M5A&feature=fvw]

If that’s the best they have they’re in trouble. Frankly I think it’s hilarious and it makes me want to vote for the man. I’ve been through countless meetings in my life that made no sense and were boring as Hell. I’d have given anything for a CD player and easily concealed ear buds.

It’s videos like this that make me like Emmers because it shows three things: he’s not a politician, he likes to play things his own way (in other words he has a backbone), and he’s human. Seriously D.F.L.ers you’re going to need better mud to sling than this if you want to dirty Emmers’ image.

On Government Sanctioned Assassinations

Bruce Schneier has a link to an interesting piece [New York Times so you might hit the pay wall and be unable to read the article] talking about Obama’s recent authorization to kill an American citizen. The article doesn’t get into the politics so much as explain why targeted killings of terrorist organization leaders is a bad idea:

Particularly ominous are Jordan’s findings about groups that, like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, are religious. The chances that a religious terrorist group will collapse in the wake of a decapitation strategy are 17 percent. Of course, that’s better than zero, but it turns out that the chances of such a group fading away when there’s no decapitation are 33 percent. In other words, killing leaders of a religious terrorist group seems to increase the group’s chances of survival from 67 percent to 83 percent.

The data is referenced from this study [PDF]. Needless to say killing the leader more often than not increases the likelihood of the organization surviving. That makes sense considering these organizations believe they are being targeted by their enemies and seeing a demonstration of such is going to strengthen their resolve.

End the Mandate Act

Since most people I know oppose the Mandated Health Insurance Act this should be interesting. Ron Paul has introduced the End the Mandate Act which would repeal the section of the Health Insurance Enrichment Through Government Abuse Act forcing Americans to purchase government mandated health insurance.

Whether you love him or hate him you had to admit he’s consistent and has a point.

Remember These People Make Regulations

I’m always harping on government interference in our every day lives. Lately I’ve been looking at peoples’ desire to get the government further involved in Internet regulations. Well I’ve already shown the United States government’s incompetence in selecting people to work on Internet regulations when they put Mr. Series of Tubes, Ted Stevens, in charge. Well the latest episode of No Agenda shows us that Britain isn’t any more competent at finding people to work on Internet regulations:

The Right Honourable Stephen Timms is the UK’s “Minister for Digital Britain.” He’s the guy behind the Digital Economy Bill, which makes the US DMCA look good by comparison. Seriously, this is some terrible, terrible lawmaking.

OK got that? Here’s his disqualifications:

Here’s what appears to be a letter the DigiMini sent to another MP, explaining why the Digital Economy Bill needs to go forward. It reads, in part, “Copyright owners are currently able to go on-line (sic), look for material to which they hold the copyright and identify unauthorised sources for that material. They can then seek to download a copy of that material and in so doing capture information about the source including the Intellectual Property (IP) address…”

Yup that’s right. Mr. Minister for Digital Britain himself believes IP in the term IP address stands for intelectual property not Internet protocol (which is actually is). Remember these are the kinds of people making decisions in government. Think about that for a good long time when you decide the government should get involved in regulating anything.

Condolences to Poland

Although it’s probably old news to everybody here I didn’t get a chance to blog this over the weekend so alas I’m offering my condolences to the people of Poland. A good chunk of their government was recently wiped out in a plane crash on April 10th. From the article:

As well as the president and his wife, Maria, a number of senior officials were on the passenger list.

They included the army chief of staff Gen Franciszek Gagor, central bank governor Slawomir Skrzypek and deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Kremer.

I also noticed that this event has sparked a look into Poland’s travel policy for government officials. One of the first questions I had about this crash was why so many high ranking government officials were on the same flight at the same time. Apparently Poland has no policy preventing that which I hope they change soon.

Danger of The Census

As everybody knows the United States Constitution requires the population of the United States be recorded every ten years. This is done by the Census Bureau and many of us are angry that they ask questions beyond what is constitutionally requires. Of course we’re called paranoid and asked what danger could possible exist by answering the other questions. Well that extra information has been used before to persecute a group of Americans.

The article talks about what happened shortly after the bombing at Pearl Harbor:

In the 1940 Census, the Census Bureau loudly assured people that their responses would be kept confidential. Within four days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Census Bureau had produced a report listing the Japanese-American population in each county on the West Coast. The Census Bureau launched this project even before Congress declared war on Japan. The Census Bureau’s report helped the US Army round up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans for concentration camps (later renamed “internment centers”).

Yup that extra “harmless” information in the Census helped the United States Army to round up a group of “undesirables.” If something has happened before it can happen again. People need to remember every time government tries to gain more information about you they will inevitably use it against you.

Political Party Nonsense

I try to avoid talking about politics in a generic term here because it’s a boring topic that only incites anger. But after some berating for not being a member of “The Right Party” I thought I’d drop some note on here. Everybody who knows me eventually learns that I describe myself as a libertarian. Notice the lower case “l” there? Libertarian with a capital “L” is the name of a party while libertarian with a lower case “l” is a political belief.

This is important as I’m not a member of any party. People seem unable to wrap their heads around this concept though. For instance although I’m a libertarian I attended the Republican caucus. Why? Because I want to see Tom Emmers get the candidacy for the Republican party. I work with individuals who agree with my ideals (At least as close to my ideals as I can get but more on that in a minute). I don’t give a wooden nickle if a candidate is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or even a member of the Communist Party (Granted most of these parties are unlikely to have a candidate I support), if they agree with what I believe I’ll support them.

And this my friends brings us to the Tea Party. Notice the capital letters? Yes I’m not talking about the tea party movement but the various political entities call themselves the Tea Party. I have nothing against these groups but my rant is going to be focused on certain individuals. Many people who have become disenfranchised with the Republican and Libertarian parties have moved to one of the various Tea Parties. I got into a conversation with one of these people a while back. His belief was the Republican party is corrupt (No duh, it’s a political party. They’re all corrupt.) and the Libertarian Party is now evil because they let Bob Barr run as their presidential candidate. That meant he had to jump ship to another party because Odin forbid you actually try to correct the problems in a currently established party.

Well our conversation eventually lead to me being a libertarian. This is the point of the conversation where things turned emotional for him. He got onto a long rant about how the Libertarian Party is corrupt and all real supporters of the Constitution must jump ship and go to the pure and perfect Tea Party. He couldn’t grasp the whole concept of me being a libertarian not a member of the Libertarian Party. It was inconceivable to him that somebody could identify themselves by a political belief instead of political party. And herein lies the problem in my opinion.

Our political system has become about party memberships instead of political beliefs. People will often join a political party because of one strong belief and ignore the fact that party doesn’t agree with any other belief they hold. For example many people join the Republican Party because they believe abortion should be illegal. On the other hand many people join the Democrat Party because they want gay marriage to be legal. In both of these cases the issue mentioned is the primary core belief and they are will to ignore all other party beliefs because, I believe, they are unable to wrap their head around the idea of not being a member of a party. For example using the cases I set forth the person who joined the Republican Party may be in support of gay marriage or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The person who joined the Democrat Party may be against government controlled health care and labor unions. These individuals are fine with imperfect candidates (Perfect being those who completely agree with your beliefs). There are even people in these parties who are willing for force themselves into believing the rest of the party’s platform so they can be a “full member.”

Then you have the Tea Party members (Once again note the capital letters). Many of the people in these parties are unwilling to accept imperfect candidates. Often times members of the Tea Party were at one time members of the Republican Party, then left to join the Libertarian Party, and finally left for the Tea Party. When prodded why they left X Party they will usually say it’s because of one member who wasn’t perfect. What these people want is in fact impossible. They want to be a member of a party that consists only of people who completely agree with them. In other words they want to be involved in an organization that consists only of themselves. No two people have the exact same ideals hence you can’t have a party consisting only of people who agree with you.

So here comes to point I want to make here. Learn the difference between ideals and political organizations. Realize you don’t have to be a member of any single party. This is the only way you’ll be able to work exclusively with candidates you like. Don’t like the person the Republican Party fielded? That’s OK because you can go vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. Are you angry with who the Democrat Party picked? Then go vote for the Green Party person. Is there an individual running independently that you like? Go support that candidate. For those of you who joined a Tea Party because the other parties are all “evil and corrupted political groups run by special interests” come talk to me in ten years (If your specific Tea Party lasts that long). Chances are you’ll find that at some point during that decade span your Tea Party fielded an “unworthy” candidate and thus you’ll want to jump ship to a new “pure and perfect” political party. Or come join those of us who have no party affiliation and thus have flexibility.

In summary get people who get over the party mindset and start thinking for themselves again. Rant mode disengaged.