I was standing on my porch finishing up business with my friend Larry when the Vietnam vet pulled into his driveway with his 13-year-old daughter catercorner across the street. Larry and I stopped talking when we heard yelling coming from inside the car, whose windows were closed.
Then the daughter opened her passenger-side door a bit and we could hear the full-blown tirade of the father. We saw his hand being raised over and over and then heard the slaps onto the girl and her screeches each time. The father yelled each time before each hit "Yes or No!" ... "Yes or No!"
I pulled out my cell to call 911 and Larry flew across the street yelling, "Don't you do that! Don't you hit that girl!" As Larry stood by the vet's car demanding that the vet stop, the vet continued unabashedly to hit his daughter for another 30 seconds. The vet and I have had several conversations in which he makes no sense and tends toward stream of consciousness. I avoid him as much as possible. I did not join Larry at the house for that reason, as well as not knowing whether the vet was armed and the fact that my daughter often plays in my yard not 70 feet from the vet's own yard. I cannot watch her every minute.
I stayed on the phone with the 911 dispatcher as he dispatched the police and asked me to keep him updated on what played out in the vet's driveway. The vet eventually exited the car and argued with Larry saying that he had a right to hit his daughter to discipline her. The two men argued so loudly that the dispatcher could hear them. The girl stayed crouching inside the car.
The police arrived 5 minutes after the call, took statements from Larry, me, the girl and the vet. Soon afterward, they handcuffed the vet and took him to jail on a charge of simple battery and domestic abuse.
Last night, someone knocked on my door at 9:45. I opened the door slightly and saw the vet standing there with a pink children's camera in his hand and nothing in his other hand. I opened the door wide. He said, "Here. I want you to have this. I took pictures of my daughter's shoulder and there is only a tiny red mark. Nothing else. When I go to court, I would like you to testify that I brought this to you the day after the incident. Will you do that?"
"Yes," I said. "I will testify to everything that I know."
He nodded his head and tried to rationalize his behavior for a moment or two, saying that children have to be kept in line. I offered no response. He picked up on my disapproval and soon left.
One thing this revolting episode (which no doubt occurs tens of thousands of times each day for children in our country) brings up is one's values and how to act. I had, coincidentally, been discussing this very subject of intervention with strangers just two days before the vet episode, and I told my friend Chris at the time that I would only intervene if I thought that my four most important values weren't compromised or endangered then or in the future: my life, my business, my health and my daughter.
In this situation, my immediate thought was of myself and my daughter and the potential repercussions of dealing strongly with a potentially deranged man in our midst daily. These values trumped any physical action in the moment. It might've been a questionable call if Livy didn't live with me anymore and I felt like I could physically handle a potential threat from the vet at any time, but because the vet wasn't using his fists on the girl, she was not in mortal danger, so I probably wouldn't have gotten physical anyway.
Cherishing my lovely daughter, I can hardly imagine any parent EVER hitting their child even once, much less repeatedly. Incidents such as this really bring home the gulf between the rational and irrational in our world. I'm glad my daughter has two wonderful parents and will never know the physical and psychological pain of even a single abuse. I'm sorry that the girl across the street must live with the threat of abuse daily. I hope that the jail-time and more than $1,000 in expenses will go some way toward mitigating the vet's abuse.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Telling an officer I'm about to be robbed by the biggest gang in history
I wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal concerning my knowledge about a giant conspiracy.
________________________
It was a joy to read the column by David Rivkin and Lee Casey on mandatory insurance being unconstitutional, and it echoed comments by me and my friends for the last couple of months. It also brought to mind a half-joking thought experiment I’ve suggested to my friends.
I walk into my local police station and state that a gang is conspiring to rob me of up to $3,800 each year for the rest of my life. I tell the nice police officer that the gang has 536 members and that its leader calls himself Barack Obama, and he lives in a big plush white house kept up by the loot accumulated from a century of robberies dating back to something the gang calls “the glorious tax amendment of 1913.” (The gang reportedly secretly calls wealthy Americans once a year in February, the month of ratification of the amendment, and harasses entrepreneurs and wealthy people with its enchanted slogan: “Yes, we shot you down, you wealthy, ingrate bird; remember, remember February 3rd.”)
The gang has been around for more than a hundred years and has had such infamous “initials” leaders as TR and FDR and LBJ and has used such pass-codes as “Social Security” and “Welfare” and “New Deal” and “Great Society” for its major heists, including the biggest gold robbery in the history of civilization in April 1933 and trillions of counterfeit inflationary dollars.
The other 535 members of this capital (not to be confused with “capitalist”) gang nest nearby on a hill (though the “liberal lion” of that gang has recently died and reduced the gang’s number by one). The gang has bizarre beliefs, such as that the CO2 that I exhale is a pollution, that having lots of money is very very bad and suggests some sort of immorality, and that other gangs are OK as long as they call themselves “unions” or an “acorn” or “dictatorships.” The gang’s leader is so busy with a score of planned thefts that he has czars to help with planning and execution.
This giant gang is, however, not without empathy. After it robs me of my $3,800 (and 40% of the rest of my hard-earned money), it doesn’t plan to just use it on its own private, er, public jets and cruises and “fact-finding” missions to exotic locales; it also plans to give my money away to people who choose not to work or who choose not to manage their finances properly or who choose to not take care of their bodies or who choose to not plan for getting old and frail or who choose to give the gang lots of hush money and run big companies into the ground and beg the gang for a couple of billion here and there.
I will, of course, warn the nice police officer that he or she is up against a mighty arsenal. The gang has at its disposal 50 militias and a million or so brave people in fatigues who may become unwitting mercenaries for the gang if the nice police officer decides to try to arrest any member of the gang. I won’t begrudge the officer if he or she tells me I’m on a fool’s errand or that the forces of evil are simply too big to challenge – even if I emphatically remind the nice officer that what the gang is doing is pathetically unconstitutional.
________________________
It was a joy to read the column by David Rivkin and Lee Casey on mandatory insurance being unconstitutional, and it echoed comments by me and my friends for the last couple of months. It also brought to mind a half-joking thought experiment I’ve suggested to my friends.
I walk into my local police station and state that a gang is conspiring to rob me of up to $3,800 each year for the rest of my life. I tell the nice police officer that the gang has 536 members and that its leader calls himself Barack Obama, and he lives in a big plush white house kept up by the loot accumulated from a century of robberies dating back to something the gang calls “the glorious tax amendment of 1913.” (The gang reportedly secretly calls wealthy Americans once a year in February, the month of ratification of the amendment, and harasses entrepreneurs and wealthy people with its enchanted slogan: “Yes, we shot you down, you wealthy, ingrate bird; remember, remember February 3rd.”)
The gang has been around for more than a hundred years and has had such infamous “initials” leaders as TR and FDR and LBJ and has used such pass-codes as “Social Security” and “Welfare” and “New Deal” and “Great Society” for its major heists, including the biggest gold robbery in the history of civilization in April 1933 and trillions of counterfeit inflationary dollars.
The other 535 members of this capital (not to be confused with “capitalist”) gang nest nearby on a hill (though the “liberal lion” of that gang has recently died and reduced the gang’s number by one). The gang has bizarre beliefs, such as that the CO2 that I exhale is a pollution, that having lots of money is very very bad and suggests some sort of immorality, and that other gangs are OK as long as they call themselves “unions” or an “acorn” or “dictatorships.” The gang’s leader is so busy with a score of planned thefts that he has czars to help with planning and execution.
This giant gang is, however, not without empathy. After it robs me of my $3,800 (and 40% of the rest of my hard-earned money), it doesn’t plan to just use it on its own private, er, public jets and cruises and “fact-finding” missions to exotic locales; it also plans to give my money away to people who choose not to work or who choose not to manage their finances properly or who choose to not take care of their bodies or who choose to not plan for getting old and frail or who choose to give the gang lots of hush money and run big companies into the ground and beg the gang for a couple of billion here and there.
I will, of course, warn the nice police officer that he or she is up against a mighty arsenal. The gang has at its disposal 50 militias and a million or so brave people in fatigues who may become unwitting mercenaries for the gang if the nice police officer decides to try to arrest any member of the gang. I won’t begrudge the officer if he or she tells me I’m on a fool’s errand or that the forces of evil are simply too big to challenge – even if I emphatically remind the nice officer that what the gang is doing is pathetically unconstitutional.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Kanye West and the modern culture
I've never watched the VMA and probably never will, but the "singer" Kanye West got so much publicity for "dissing" the sweet Taylor Swift that I had to check out the YouTube video. And then K-West did himself one better with his mealy-mouth, head-hanging, poor-little-me shtick with Jay Leno the next day. Notice how he doesn't hardly look Leno in the eye and he doesn't explain explicitly and extensively how he outright shit on Swift and her achievement. Luckily, the classy Beyonce gave Taylor a second chance to talk DURING Beyonce's own award presentation. Luv ya, Beyonce.
K-West's jungle antics came just a few days after this preciously threatening tirade by Serena Williams at the U.S. Open tennis tournament HERE and HERE. The line judge said that Williams threatened to kill her. So far, confirmation on what Williams said is this: "I swear to god I'm fucking going to take this fucking ball and shove it down your fucking throat! You hear that? I swear to god!"
When you consider rap music and the in-your-face antics of modern sports, there's undoubtedly a decline in sportsmanship and a lack of gentlemanly behavior that characterized previous eras. Even my cherished bastion of relief from modern culture (Sunday golf on TV) has descended into occasional catcalls and "You-da-man!" Eloquence and high-mindedness have been supplanted by stuttering, butchered grammar and low-brow threats.
My hero Jack Nicklaus of the 1960s and 1970s never threw a golf club, never cussed, never blamed anyone but himself. Tiger Woods (who is perhaps even better than Nicklaus in his prime and a wonder to watch) does all of the above -- and he's often a smoldering brat. The heroes of yesteryear could be boring, but they were never brutish. They could be too even-keeled, but they were never stage hogs. Their stoicism often punctuated for us viewers some mysterious inner struggle to maintain concentration and perfection on the grand stage of sports.
They were men and women of dignity. They were dignified. They were classics.
K-West's jungle antics came just a few days after this preciously threatening tirade by Serena Williams at the U.S. Open tennis tournament HERE and HERE. The line judge said that Williams threatened to kill her. So far, confirmation on what Williams said is this: "I swear to god I'm fucking going to take this fucking ball and shove it down your fucking throat! You hear that? I swear to god!"
When you consider rap music and the in-your-face antics of modern sports, there's undoubtedly a decline in sportsmanship and a lack of gentlemanly behavior that characterized previous eras. Even my cherished bastion of relief from modern culture (Sunday golf on TV) has descended into occasional catcalls and "You-da-man!" Eloquence and high-mindedness have been supplanted by stuttering, butchered grammar and low-brow threats.
My hero Jack Nicklaus of the 1960s and 1970s never threw a golf club, never cussed, never blamed anyone but himself. Tiger Woods (who is perhaps even better than Nicklaus in his prime and a wonder to watch) does all of the above -- and he's often a smoldering brat. The heroes of yesteryear could be boring, but they were never brutish. They could be too even-keeled, but they were never stage hogs. Their stoicism often punctuated for us viewers some mysterious inner struggle to maintain concentration and perfection on the grand stage of sports.
They were men and women of dignity. They were dignified. They were classics.
Proof that the media do not count (double entendre meant)
The Tea Party folks that showed up in D.C. on Saturday numbered between 1 million and 2 million -- or just the tens of thousands, if you're in the media.
Capitol police have been handling such demonstrations for hundreds of years and they estimated the crowd at 1.2 million. ABC actually was one of the very few media outlets that was, for once, honest about something related to the liberty protests. ABC estimated the crowd at 1.5 million. Other estimates topped out at 2 million.
The modern media in America has completely swallowed the agenda of the early 20th century "progressives," who sought to cripple industry, capitalism and liberty, thus relegating the media to the position of eminence grise (gray eminence) -- the power behind the thrown, the unofficial advisor and propagator of the official socialistic line. They can be counted on to virtually never be objective and rational; they are the mouthpieces and (in the case of vermin like Paul Krugman) the intelligentsia giving rationale to authoritarian legislation.
To say the media are the bedfellows of fascists/socialists is to soil the metaphor. Let us say they are the accomplices, the henchmen, the bullies, the enablers.
Let us say that they are an essential point in the Axis of Evil: presidency, congress, media. They no longer count in the fight for liberty -- and they cannot count.
Capitol police have been handling such demonstrations for hundreds of years and they estimated the crowd at 1.2 million. ABC actually was one of the very few media outlets that was, for once, honest about something related to the liberty protests. ABC estimated the crowd at 1.5 million. Other estimates topped out at 2 million.
The modern media in America has completely swallowed the agenda of the early 20th century "progressives," who sought to cripple industry, capitalism and liberty, thus relegating the media to the position of eminence grise (gray eminence) -- the power behind the thrown, the unofficial advisor and propagator of the official socialistic line. They can be counted on to virtually never be objective and rational; they are the mouthpieces and (in the case of vermin like Paul Krugman) the intelligentsia giving rationale to authoritarian legislation.
To say the media are the bedfellows of fascists/socialists is to soil the metaphor. Let us say they are the accomplices, the henchmen, the bullies, the enablers.
Let us say that they are an essential point in the Axis of Evil: presidency, congress, media. They no longer count in the fight for liberty -- and they cannot count.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The fight is coming
Dead Eyes and the rest of his Vandals want to make me buy insurance -- health, not auto, which government has already successfully coerced Americans into. The Vandals also seek to take more of my hard-earned money to hand out to losers. The Vandals are printing money faster than even their own jackals can take it away from those of us who live responsible lives, thereby causing inflation and reducing the already diminished power of my dollar.
At what point do I and the rest of the liberty lovers in America say, "It's time for a revolution"? For me, it's now, though it would be fruitless. There would have to be a critical mass of sentiment like mine that could conceivably topple the Vandals and intimidate the obsequious, licentious masses.
So, for the moment, we teach the liberty lovers why they need to revolt, and we teach those who may be liberty lovers why they need to revolt. And when we get enough of them on our side, we revolt. We then make America better than America ever was. We make it truly free. We make government our servants again instead of our masters.
The fight is coming.
At what point do I and the rest of the liberty lovers in America say, "It's time for a revolution"? For me, it's now, though it would be fruitless. There would have to be a critical mass of sentiment like mine that could conceivably topple the Vandals and intimidate the obsequious, licentious masses.
So, for the moment, we teach the liberty lovers why they need to revolt, and we teach those who may be liberty lovers why they need to revolt. And when we get enough of them on our side, we revolt. We then make America better than America ever was. We make it truly free. We make government our servants again instead of our masters.
The fight is coming.
To the moon, Alice!!
It's long been my policy that if somebody's gonna steal from me, they had better at least use the loot wisely. Well, that's not exactly a "policy," but ...
So, if I had a choice between being robbed by government to the tune of $800 billion for welfare recipients (including Bank of America et al) or being robbed to the tune of $3 billion so NASA can make regular manned trips to the moon and Mars, then the latter gets my vote -- well, if I actually VOTED.
But not so, says the jackals (that's the "government," to you unwashed liberals), who, with their fearful leader, have poo-pooed any NASA plans for such an extraordinary sum -- which, by the way, is about equal to one day's debt by this formerly great country.
If my calculations are correct, for an extra $5 billion, we could rocket all the occupants of the White House and Congress to a base on the moon. That $5 billion would not pay for a protective dome in a vacuum bombarded by solar radiation. But then, look what the jackals did under their current dome. Doubt they need it.
So, if I had a choice between being robbed by government to the tune of $800 billion for welfare recipients (including Bank of America et al) or being robbed to the tune of $3 billion so NASA can make regular manned trips to the moon and Mars, then the latter gets my vote -- well, if I actually VOTED.
But not so, says the jackals (that's the "government," to you unwashed liberals), who, with their fearful leader, have poo-pooed any NASA plans for such an extraordinary sum -- which, by the way, is about equal to one day's debt by this formerly great country.
If my calculations are correct, for an extra $5 billion, we could rocket all the occupants of the White House and Congress to a base on the moon. That $5 billion would not pay for a protective dome in a vacuum bombarded by solar radiation. But then, look what the jackals did under their current dome. Doubt they need it.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Would you walk into store, rip it off and run out?
All my friends know that I LOOOOOOOOVE technology. It has made all of our lives richer by making businesses more efficient, thereby lowering prices -- and the gadgets, well, the gadgets are just mind-blowing.
Technology has also made it easier to be immoral. You can steal with stealth. You can copy CDs, DVDS, Internet music and movies and games and much more with just a flick of the finger. No need to walk into stores anymore and risk being seen by cameras or the eagle-eyed clerk. Just click. The "savvy" shopper can get almost anything he or she wishes.
Technology has become the new litmus test for morality. With things so easy for you to steal and get away with it (without actually doing all that physical stuff like walking and running and grabbing and looking around), can you blank out your mind for just a few seconds and then, Voila, you have new stuff. "Wow, that was so easy! Hey, look at this!"
I bring this up again because an acquaintance of mine just blithely mentioned that he had copied some DVDs from a friend, and the DVDs pertained to a company I'm now working for: Beachbody. That theft now means that Beachbody's profits will be less and, therefore, my profit-sharing with the company will be less. Beachbody and I both got ripped off. He'd also nicely asked in his email if I would help him with his workouts. Hmmm.
This acquaintance obviously doesn't know me too well, or he would not have approached me with all this information. He does know NOW. I asked him to burn the DVDs and buy new ones, if he still wanted the fitness videos.
I bring all this up again because I want to stress the importance of remaining completely integrated in thoughts and actions, so that your morality doesn't slip. It is wrong to steal. Period. If you do it, you have no right to complain when others do it to you, and you certainly can't live with your conscience long-term if you do. It eats away at self-esteem and tells you, essentially, that you are not competent enough to handle reality with your own mind and actions.
Objectivism is the only philosophy that provides that kind of intellectual understanding to give you the moral fortitude to reject the electronic snatch and grabs -- as well as everything else. When you buy a product, you do honor to those who created it. When you steal it, you shit on them. Which will it be?
Technology has also made it easier to be immoral. You can steal with stealth. You can copy CDs, DVDS, Internet music and movies and games and much more with just a flick of the finger. No need to walk into stores anymore and risk being seen by cameras or the eagle-eyed clerk. Just click. The "savvy" shopper can get almost anything he or she wishes.
Technology has become the new litmus test for morality. With things so easy for you to steal and get away with it (without actually doing all that physical stuff like walking and running and grabbing and looking around), can you blank out your mind for just a few seconds and then, Voila, you have new stuff. "Wow, that was so easy! Hey, look at this!"
I bring this up again because an acquaintance of mine just blithely mentioned that he had copied some DVDs from a friend, and the DVDs pertained to a company I'm now working for: Beachbody. That theft now means that Beachbody's profits will be less and, therefore, my profit-sharing with the company will be less. Beachbody and I both got ripped off. He'd also nicely asked in his email if I would help him with his workouts. Hmmm.
This acquaintance obviously doesn't know me too well, or he would not have approached me with all this information. He does know NOW. I asked him to burn the DVDs and buy new ones, if he still wanted the fitness videos.
I bring all this up again because I want to stress the importance of remaining completely integrated in thoughts and actions, so that your morality doesn't slip. It is wrong to steal. Period. If you do it, you have no right to complain when others do it to you, and you certainly can't live with your conscience long-term if you do. It eats away at self-esteem and tells you, essentially, that you are not competent enough to handle reality with your own mind and actions.
Objectivism is the only philosophy that provides that kind of intellectual understanding to give you the moral fortitude to reject the electronic snatch and grabs -- as well as everything else. When you buy a product, you do honor to those who created it. When you steal it, you shit on them. Which will it be?
Now THIS is how you talk to a jackal ... er, Congressman
A young lady stood up at a town hall meeting in front of her jackal-congressman and gave a two-minute philosophical tongue-lashing and ended it with a goosebump, jump-out-of-the-chair flare. You've GOT to see this video, my friends.
As my friend Dan Puckett (who sent me this link) said: If only every American would do (and think) as this great American girl does!
As my friend Dan Puckett (who sent me this link) said: If only every American would do (and think) as this great American girl does!
Two letters in same day at WSJ on Trotsky and the Scots
I had two letters published at the Wall Street Journal in the same day a week ago, one on Leon Trotsky allegedly being a "good man," and the other on how the Scottish need to do a sequel to "Braveheart" called "Meekheart," after their recent release of the mass murderer in the Lockerbie plane crash.
First time I've ever seen a letter writer get two letters printed in the same edition of the WSJ, so I'm very proud of that.
First time I've ever seen a letter writer get two letters printed in the same edition of the WSJ, so I'm very proud of that.
Had to happen. Obama Dead Eyes is copying Hitler
I wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal on Dead Eyes' attempt to turn the brains of schoolchildren to the "nation" instead of their own individuality.
________________________
The main question I had when Barack Obama said he would talk directly to the schoolchildren of our country was this: “Why is the president of the United States talking to schoolchildren instead of doing the only job he has the privilege to do: protecting Americans?”
The primary objective of any proper government is two-fold: Keep citizens safe from the initiation of force or fraud and prosecute those who attempt to initiate force or fraud against us. There should be a complete separation of state and religion, economics (including health care), consumption, post office, roads and, yes, schooling.
When the line between state and any of the above is violated, you hear such slavish, guilt-ridden altruism directed at Americans as “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” or, in the case of Mr. Obama, “If you quit on school, you’re not quitting on yourself – you’re quitting on your country.”
Indeed? You’re not quitting on yourself? Your country is more important than your own education and your own happy, productive endeavors? If the citizens of this country ever needed an insight into our current commander-in-chief, they need look no further than his sentence above. Adolph Hitler understood perfectly that to breed a new generation of do-gooder nationalists who put country above their own happiness and life-goals, he must first indoctrinate the youth and place foremost in their minds the nation, not individuality. Our current leader understands, explicitly or subconsciously, that you first change philosophy – the body will later follow.
This country’s great Founders made some small mistakes in this regard, but they generally understood that the best government was that government which, to use a modern metaphor, acted like a good software program: non-intrusive, behind the scenes, essential, effective and protective. Our current president will have none of that. He’s a scene-stealing, in-your-face, ubiquitous Orwellian presence, who has now taken his statist message directly to those most vulnerable to his sacrificial-lamb ideology: our children.
He’s not stupid. I’ll grant him that.
________________________
The main question I had when Barack Obama said he would talk directly to the schoolchildren of our country was this: “Why is the president of the United States talking to schoolchildren instead of doing the only job he has the privilege to do: protecting Americans?”
The primary objective of any proper government is two-fold: Keep citizens safe from the initiation of force or fraud and prosecute those who attempt to initiate force or fraud against us. There should be a complete separation of state and religion, economics (including health care), consumption, post office, roads and, yes, schooling.
When the line between state and any of the above is violated, you hear such slavish, guilt-ridden altruism directed at Americans as “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” or, in the case of Mr. Obama, “If you quit on school, you’re not quitting on yourself – you’re quitting on your country.”
Indeed? You’re not quitting on yourself? Your country is more important than your own education and your own happy, productive endeavors? If the citizens of this country ever needed an insight into our current commander-in-chief, they need look no further than his sentence above. Adolph Hitler understood perfectly that to breed a new generation of do-gooder nationalists who put country above their own happiness and life-goals, he must first indoctrinate the youth and place foremost in their minds the nation, not individuality. Our current leader understands, explicitly or subconsciously, that you first change philosophy – the body will later follow.
This country’s great Founders made some small mistakes in this regard, but they generally understood that the best government was that government which, to use a modern metaphor, acted like a good software program: non-intrusive, behind the scenes, essential, effective and protective. Our current president will have none of that. He’s a scene-stealing, in-your-face, ubiquitous Orwellian presence, who has now taken his statist message directly to those most vulnerable to his sacrificial-lamb ideology: our children.
He’s not stupid. I’ll grant him that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)