|
Blog
|
Tuesday, 05 July 2011 22:56 |
"The republicans blame Obama on the high unemployment figures, yet yesterday 6/22/11 the republicans voted down funding for a federal employment act that has created jobs. This is not the first job act the repubs have blocked or tried to block. As an American worker ask yourself WHY" [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 7/5/2011].
Anyone who has even casually analyzed the trillions of dollars in "stimulus" which was "invested" in so-called "job programs" and the still record-high (and under-stated) unemployment rate would conclude that these programs haven't worked. They have merely taken from the productive and given to the unproductive -- mostly unions and other political friends of the Democrats. Meanwhile, everyone else suffers a worse economy as a result.
Why would any American tax-payer (other than unions and other political friends of the Democrats) in their right mind still favor such programs?
|
|
Tuesday, 21 June 2011 13:19 |
|
To everyone calling for the County government to establish an animal shelter: why do you think this is a job for government? Just because you don't want to take responsibility, you think the government should do it for you by stealing in the form of taxes? I love animals and have adopted strays, but a love of animals is not justification for violence against men. If you want a shelter to get strays out of your hair or to give them care, then stop complaining and do something about it. Start a non-profit organization and seek out donors to get a shelter built. I'll be your first voluntary donor. But try to tax it from me and I'll fight you. |
|
Monday, 13 June 2011 21:40 |
Are the Saudis upset about selling us all of that oil because it raises their local prices? Are the Chinese lamenting stocking our Walmarts instead of their local boutiques at rock bottom prices? Of course not. Selling our natural gas to foreigners will be a boon to our region. Hundreds of thousands of new millionaires will be minted among Pennsylvania landowners and all of the businesses they'll support with their newfound ability to consume -- restaurants, malls, dealerships, builders, you name it. And it won't raise gas prices because producing anything in bulk drives efficiencies of scale. Wealth locked underground does nobody any good.
|
|
Thursday, 09 June 2011 18:10 |
Wendy Lee [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 6/9/2011]: this is the last time I'm going to respond to your pathetic pleas for attention. I don't care about you. I don't need to smear you -- you accomplish that wonderfully on your own. My only purpose in pointing out your dismal approval rating amongst your prior students was as a response to your incessant nagging to subject myself to your educational sadism. I humored you in providing a reasoned response, but you used the opportunity for further pretentious browbeating. What am I after? Nothing from you. Please go back to your leftist echo chamber. My time, and I'm sure everyone else's reading this, is far too valuable to waste on you.
|
|
Wednesday, 08 June 2011 16:47 |
"President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money." -- Washington Examiner
Liberals have a similar argument for paying taxes. And then they wonder why unemployment is rising and wealth creation is plummeting! Atlas is shrugging, liberals! It's time to come to our senses and start rewarding hard work instead of laziness. You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. We need to cut taxes on income and capital gains and start rewarding success again.
|
|
|
Thursday, 26 May 2011 22:47 |
Bloomsburg Man [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 5/26/2011], the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 did not cause a 66-year delayed earthquake. The bombs were "only" around 20 kilotons of TNT and they were detonated around 2000 feet above the ground in order to maximize casualties, not earth-shaking. They were also dropped in the south of the island. The recent earthquake, which caused the subsequent tsunami, was a result of plate tectonics. It occurred off the northeast coast of the island. The earthquake released energy equivalent to approximately 9,321 gigatons of TNT (according to the USGS), or about 600,000,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. It shifted the Earth's axis by about 9.8 inches and changed the rate of rotation, resulting in the length of the day becoming shorter by about 1.8 microseconds.
If the energy of the earthquake could have been harnessed, it would meet current worldwide energy demand for 80 years. This doesn't even take into account the 900 aftershocks since the main earthquake, about 60 of which registered over magnitude 6. Despite the unfathomably larger energies involved in the earthquake, it and the tsunami combined killed "only" a little over 15,000 people versus the atomic bombs' death toll of up to 250,000. This is because they were detonated directly over major cities while the earthquake occurred tens of miles out at sea off a relatively less populated coastline and was primarily dissipated via movement of earth and water rather than fireballs. That's a good thing, because 600 million Hiroshima bombs detonated near the Earth's surface would most likely destroy all life on the planet.
|
|
Monday, 23 May 2011 14:29 |
Although suggested tongue-in-cheek, Praise be to Homer! Man [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 5/21/2011] actually makes an interesting suggestion. Matt Groening is the creator of a successful comic strip, over a dozen books, and two Emmy award-winning television series which parody and lampoon culture, society, and the human condition, and cover wide-ranging topics about politics, love, media, school, relationships, economics, angst, depression, government, work, death, and more. A "School of Groening", if done right, could be a perfectly viable contender for education dollars. Who's to say it wouldn't be better than government or religious schools if parents have the choice? I say let all options compete in the marketplace and the best ones will succeed. Perhaps the "School of Groening" would be a horrible failure or perhaps it would be the greatest thing ever for education. How would you know unless you allow parents the choice and the ability to evaluate the results for themselves?
|
|
Monday, 23 May 2011 13:50 |
To Wendy Lee's former student [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 5/22/2011]: I'm familiar with ad hominem fallacies -- as evidenced in these pages, your esteemed professor is an expert! E.g. how she challenged my manhood should I refuse to enroll in her class. I took the high road and evaluated the offer as if legitimate (rather than the posturing it surely was), just as I would any other sales pitch, e.g. for a used car. Turns out that I wouldn't buy a car that received a 3.6/5 rating from prior owners nor one that "has a different agenda than transporting you; only drives where it wants" (to paraphrase a student). By the same standard, I can't recommend Ms. Lee's classes either.
|
|
Monday, 23 May 2011 13:16 |
Ms. Lee, your citing of quotes in favor of your class hardly justifies your accusation of me lying "and badly" [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 5/21/2011]. In fact, what I stated was entirely accurate, using actual quotes from ratemyprofessor.com. The favorable ones you cite do not cancel out the negative ones. In fact, I specifically mentioned that there were some naive kids (whom you cite) who don't understand that you have "a different agenda then educating students; uses class as a platform for her own thoughts", which is a verifiable quote from an actual student. It's laughable that you think I'm threatened by you -- I was merely responding to your invitation to take your class. My answer: no, thank you.
|
|
Friday, 20 May 2011 07:03 |
Wendy Lee, before calling people dumb [Press Enterprise, 30 Seconds, 5/20/2011], perhaps you should ensure you have the facts. So here's some education: the basis of property rights is self-ownership. It is a core attribute of life itself, from the smallest protocell which establishes its bubble of phospholipids as a bulwark against invaders. ALL other rights derive from this core principle of self-ownership. Now property rights rarely translate well across species, but nonetheless just try to deprive bees of their hive or a lion of its den... each will fight for their innate sense of self- and territorial-ownership.
Human society too only survives with well-defined property rights. Your sole ownership of your body and the products of your body, i.e. your skill and labor, those unclaimed parts of the environment you put to productive use, and anything for which you can trade for any of these, are the very basis of all inalienable human rights -- life, liberty, privacy, freedom of conscience, right to self-defense, et cetera. You cannot construct a coherent philosophy of human rights without first establishing self-ownership and the rights to property which derive from that. It is the very purpose of society. What good is a civilization which cannot protect you from trespass, theft, and murder by way of establishing and defending the mutually-agreed property boundaries between us? A lion or a barbarian may not respect your self-proclaimed right to your own neck, and that is specifically why humans evolved/created a social structure in the first place. To attempt to abandon that fundamental precept is to dissolve society itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
Quote of the Day
Are you libertarian, conservative, liberal, centrist, or statist?
|
