- These terrorists are taking the name of Allah in vain, and in so doing, besmirching an entire religion, and their God.
- The Islamic doctrine really does teach that violence in the creation of a worldwide caliphate is justified.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Obamacare, the VA scandal, the IRS scandal--these are just a few examples of what happens when we give government huge power without oversight.
It's about to happen again--the Obama Administration is fighting for a government takeover of the Internet and the Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That's why I am writing you today--I need your help to stop this.
President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.
You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law--fees companies pass on to customers.
Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.
This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.
The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.
What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:
Who do you want in charge of the direction of the Internet: people at dot-com startups that brought us game changing companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Uber; or nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in our nation’s capital?
There is another aspect of this that gets overlooked: the Internet is an incredibly important force for freedom, for liberty, and the rights of free speech that we hold dear. It is an existential threat to tyrants in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia who seek to keep information from their people.
We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.
I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.
We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today--not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today. Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.
Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.
Senator Mike Lee
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.Of course, he means "climate change denier", not "climate denier", as the article explains. But enough about them This my blog, and this is all about my opinions.
I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. Huge difference. Climate change may or may not be happening. We have, or can get incontrovertible data that will confirm or deny it (although it seems rather inconclusive and open to interpretation at the moment. And it depends heavily on what you choose as initial conditions -- a very common concern for anyone who has ever even dabbled in science).
The thing that I am skeptical about is the hypothesis that there is a strong causal link between human activity and whatever is happening in the climate today. Hear me now and believe me later: The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. As I see it, the burden of proof is nearly overwhelming, because there isn't even any real consensus about where the data is trending. Until that is sorted out, all we have is some weak correlation, which is a huge leap from establishing a cause.
Reproducible experiments are most likely impractical, which means anything we do to counteract whatever it is, would have to be based solely on faith. Without scientific evidence, the watermelons want to invoke the precautionary principle. But without reproducible experimental results, we have no clue what will really work. Whatever random straws we grasp would be no more predictable than religious incantations.
According to Wikipedia,
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.Notice the use of the word "consensus". I always wondered where that came from. Science is based on experimental evidence and proof, not consensus. Now we have a deeper understanding of the narrative. Oh, and see what they did there? Look at the convenient shift of the burden of proof! Welcome to the Church of Our Lady of Anthropogenic Global Whatever.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
We have a serious culture clash between Islam and the West going on right now, and maybe it is best not to allow these two cultures to interact, or even touch each other, if the outcome is always violence. Unless ... one culture or the other wants to adapt.
Should the West adapt? Would we like to treat women as property? Do we want to force women to cover themselves, and not become educated, or go out on the street without a male escort? I think Western women would have something to say about that.
Would we like to stone homosexuals to death? Virtually no Westerner, even those who prefer not to celebrate the gay lifestyle or promote the gay agenda, support the idea that homosexuals should be executed.
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh" ~ Robert Heinlein
Funny, I'm not laughing.
Monday, December 22, 2014
"We need decentralization," wrote Hayek, "because only thus can we insure that the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place will be promptly used." In contrast to the kind of knowledge that Ipsos MORI and Caplan have studied, "The most significant fact about [the market] system is how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action."and
If voluntary society already contains within it the means of directing specialized knowledge to the benefit of the general welfare while minimizing the consequences of our ignorance, then the solution to our irreparable ignorance is simple: we need less government policy and more voluntary interaction.
What is a constitutionalist? A person who respects the Constitution, and the principles it represents.
I frequently say, "The US Constitution is STILL the official specification for the United States; the binding contract between We the People and our government. Any regime that distorts or disregards our Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous."