"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39

Via The Federalist

Why Leftism will lead to Totalitarianism

Via QandO comes a link to this excellent essay by Dale Franks:

Populist Leftism: Our Social Cancer

There are many great quotes, here are a few:

Quite simply, I believe that modern Populist Leftism (which for convenience, I will refer to as PL) will destroy our civil society, and replace it with totalitarianism. Indeed, I believe that PL must lead inexorably to totalitarianism by its very nature, because the philosophical principles upon which it is based are antithetical to both self-government and personal liberty.

...

PL policies are simply not predicated on rational evidence or historical experience, but rather on ideological suppositions that are immune from proof. In another context, we would refer to such ideological suppositions as a "religion".

...

The second danger inherent in the ideology of PL is the concept of government it promotes. Rather than conceiving of government as a means of protecting persons and their property from the predations of another, the PL concept defines government as a tool for perfecting humanity. The PL assumes that human nature is perfectible, and that the power of government can be harnessed to achieve this perfectibility. Rather than taking a pessimistic view of human nature, PL is utopian. By definition, this means that, for the PL, the power of government is not best used in preventing you from doing evil, but requiring you to do good. There is a vast difference between those two concepts. Under such a concept, the power of government is limitless as a practical matter, which invites the most egregious abuse.

...

We graduate children from high school who are functionally illiterate, but who know beyond doubt that animals have "rights", and that capitalism destroys the environment. One hundred years ago, the average high school graduate spoke and wrote in English, Greek, Latin and probably German, knew algebra and trigonometry, and would have laughed uproariously at the very thought that he had a moral imperative to become a vegan.

Summary and analysis

Over at Triggerfinger is a concise summary of what happened in the Senate over the past five days regarding Senate bill 1805. It pretty much sums up what happened and why. I would like to add something, though.

Basically what we saw here was a case of the anti-gun-rights crowd in the Senate trying to have their cake *or* eat it. The ideal situation was that they do neither but, in this case, they got the least objectionable of the two. By corrupting the bill with the amendments that were tacked onto it, they put themselves in a win-win situation. If the bill fails, then efforts to bankrupt the gun industry via baseless lawsuits can continue. If the bill succeeds, they get their precious AWB extended and expanded, as well as other things. I think that's what they were truly hoping would happen because, so far, no lawsuit of the type that would have been prohibited has succeeded. They wanted something tangible rather than something that was only potential. In the end, we the people came out ahead. Once the bill was amended we were never going to get a pure victory. But we did get the better of the two possible outcomes.

Much credit must go to Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, the author of the bill, who fought so vigorously to protect what he crafted and who had the courage and integrity to call for its death when he saw how mangled it had become.

Much shame must go to those who voted for those heinous amendments and especially to those who authored and introduced them. Of particular note are Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer. GeekWithA.45 sums it up rather well in this post.

Look at me!

When Harvey looked at my blogroll, and noticed his site was included, he posted about the experience of seeing his site's name listed with the others.

Look at those names. It's like a who's freakin' who of blogdom... come to think of it, it looks a lot like my first blogroll.

Except this one's got MY name on it.

I think I can relate, though. Because I felt a similar feeling, though probably not to the same degree. The reason was this: Someone on my blogroll *noticed* me, took the time to post about me, and even requested that I write something about myself so that he could "make fun of [me] properly." It's like having a celebrity call you by name and ask you to come hang with her.

When I started this little foray into the 'net I basically figured that a few people here and there might come and read what I write. That's basically how it still is. However, I feel like I've crossed some kind of threshold. Harvey is read by a lot more folks than I am but now they're going to see what he wrote about me and maybe, just maybe, they'll click the link and see for themselves just who this Radar Rider guy is and what he's all about. And maybe, just maybe, they'll like what they see and come back again a while later to see if there's anything new. Who knows?

Actually, this isn't the first time this has happened. One of my other blogrollee's, Joe Kelly at The Sake of Argument, put me in his blogroll and, when I saw that, I felt that same sort of giddiness. He didn't post anything about me, though.

And now the possibility exists that someone will read this and want to ask, "How did you come to their attention in the first place?" Well I'll tell you... (he's going to tell, he's going to tell)

I did it be leaving comments on their weblogs and trying to make them insightful. Sure, I could just leave a note that says, "Hey! Look! I have a blog, too! Come see!" It may get one or two clicks but not many. Unless you provide some idea of your writing style and what you think, most people probably aren't going to be interested. But give them something good, something that makes them think, and (in my opinion) they'll be more likely to take a look at the rest of what you got.

Wow, look at that! I've only been at this for six months and I'm already giving advice about blogging. Is this arrogance or hubris? I guess only time will tell.

In the end, the reason most of us do this is because we want people to want to read what we write. It's like the Open Source Software community where many if not most of the members write and modify software for the recognition. With a few notable exceptions, people who author weblogs do not make any money at it. We do it for pure enjoyment, to get our words out on the net, and in the hope that someone will stop by, read what we wrote, and say, "Good job."

Senate Bill 1805 has been defeated

Senator Larry Craig, the primary sponsor of the bill, was the last to speak before the final vote. In his own words: "I believe it is so dramatically wounded that it should not pass, I ask my colleagues to vote against it." As GeekWithA.45 said, he called for his own bill to be taken out behind the barn and shot.

The final vote was 8 yeas and 90 nays. This effort to extend and expand the AWB has failed.

Oh bloody hell

GeekWithA.45 and Publicola, among others, have been keeping an eye on the Senate debate over S. 1805. This is the new designation for S. 659, the bill that would prohibit frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers whose lawfully-sold and non-defective products are used in crimes. Unfortunately, there have been three anti-gun amendments added to the bill.

• Requiring all guns to be sold with a gun lock


• The McCain amendment to "close" the so-called "gun show loophole"


• Renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban that is scheduled to sunset this coming September

In addition, another amendment has been added that would give law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed weapons in other states, but not other citizens who have a concealed weapon permit. As GeekWithA.45 says:

The message I'm getting is pretty clear: Annointed agents of the State are noble and holy, and peasants "have no right to military weapons".

Other amendments are coming up for a vote later today.

The House has already passed a clean version of this bill but the Senate bill is now irreparably poisoned. It's possible that, should the Senate pass this bill, the amendments would be stripped back out in the committee to reconcile it with the House version or that, if they aren't, the President would veto it (he has stated he wants only a clean version). But I don't know if we can take that chance. I'm leaning toward the opinion that it would be better to kill this bill now and not risk passage of these amendments. Let the AWB ban sunset and then try this bill again next year.

New subdomain

I now have the site set up so that it's at radarrider.stormy-night.org. Any page requests at the old subdomain should bring you to the equivalent page in the new one, including those with anchors (i.e. of the form http://[domain]/[page]#[something]) to specific posts on the page. I'm working on making the entire site conistent with my handle, Radar Rider. I still have one thing left to do but that will likely result in the loss of any comments so far. But since there are less than ten total I'll probably just go ahead and do it.

Seattle and France

(Via LGF)

As a resident of the Seattle area, I find this article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer particularly interesting. David Horsey is an award-winning editorial cartoonist for the P-I. Recently, he and three other cartoonists attended a cartoon festival in France. Mr. Horsey is not noted for his love of the current administration but, after reading this article, I find myself respecting him more than I did before (not that loving the administration is what you need to do to earn my respect given that there are many things about it that I don't love either). Some excerpts:

At one point, as we stood onstage getting our pictures taken with yet another student being awarded a prize for yet another anti-American image, I turned to Benson and said I felt like one of the Dixie Chicks, the all-girl country singers who got heat in the heartland for denouncing their president at a concert in Europe. We realized it was one thing for us to point out our country's flaws in our daily cartoons and quite another to see our homeland portrayed in such brutal imagery by French schoolkids echoing what they hear from their parents and teachers and see in the media.

As sharp critics who, nevertheless, love our home, we tried to point out that the America simplistically rendered in the children's drawings was a mere caricature, that our country, like theirs, is a complex society struggling to make real its founding principles of liberty, justice and equality. But it was impossible to move the conversation far from the president and his triumphalist foreign policy. Europeans are preoccupied with their disdain of Bush.

...

Bush-hating has also given Europeans a marvelous distraction from their own failures; their failure in the Balkans, their failure to come up with a constitution for the European Union, their failure to build an independent military force, their failure to put together a single, coherent European foreign policy. In so many ways, Europeans who once ran the world now feel impotent to affect international events or even get their own house in order. They float like a lovely but rudderless old yacht in the surging wake of an American aircraft carrier.

So, Europeans do the one thing that makes them feel superior: revile Bush, the lunatic cowboy, and all those gun-toting, overweight, money-obsessed, religion-crazed Americans who chose him as their president.

It's nice to see a well-known critic of the administration that knows the difference between thoughtful criticism and mindless hatred.

Raq and Roll

My girlfriend likes country music and, while I'm not a true fan, I have lately come to appreciate what it has to offer even for an old rocker like myself. We usually listen to the local country station on the way in for that reason and because they have the most frequent and complete traffic reports of any station in the area. On the way in this morning we heard the new single by Clint Black, "I Raq and Roll." It's an unabashed song in support of the troops and America and we had to check it out when we got to our respective workplaces and web access.

Turns out it's not on his latest CD, out tomorrow, but you can download the song in mp3 format from his website, as well as view the lyrics. Clint Black has also established a charity fund for the families of soldiers killed in combat. Here's the excerpt from the news page:

Clint Black Establishes Charitable Foundation -- The Clint Black Foundation has established a fund to benefit the families of soldiers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Clint Black is providing all the necessary administrative costs to make sure 100% of the proceeds will go to the families. One way to contribute to this fund is to purchase a specially designed t-shirt with a design that highlights his latest single, "I Raq & Roll." Those who do not want to purchase a t-shirt, but want to make a donation, can simply make out a check to The Clint Black Foundation, Families Of The Fallen Soldiers Fund and send it to: The Clint Black Foundation, C/O Sussman & Associates, 1222 16th Ave South, 3rd floor, Nashville, TN 37212.

The song can be downloaded here (right-click and save as). The lyrics are here.

The duToits visit Dachau

Kim writes with uncommon power even for him after he and his family visit the Dachau concentration camp in Germany.

At the end of the trip, we turned to the kids and said: "One day, someone may say to you that this never happened. You are here to bear witness that it did. Never, ever allow those lies to take root and spread. Make sure your children know that this happened, too. This cannot be allowed to happen again." (emphasis in original)

He also has some strong words for those who equate Bush with Hitler.

What I care about is that by trivializing the issue, by using your absurd hyperbole, you dishonor the suffering and the loss suffered by the people who were victimized by the real Hitler. Your own illusory suffering at the hands of this Republican president is not only trivial, it is non-existent, and do not even think you can begin to equate the two.

I can take it further. Your grotesque equation of the two leaders is a profound exaggeration: and it's the same kind of gross exaggeration used by Hitler and his henchmen to inflate the "Jewish problem" into a manifest danger, whereby people could ignore the excesses of places like Dachau as being justified. In case that isn't clear enough to you, let me connect the dots. George W. Bush isn't using Hitlerian tactics, you are. (emphasis in original)

I would like to add to his words the following: If you say that Bush is the same as Hitler, the fact that you can say so and have not been imprisoned or killed is unequivocal proof that you are wrong. I believe Kim when he says there will never be a Dachau in the United States. There are simply too many armed citizens to let that happen.

Since it dovetails nicely with the above, I would like to direct you to the website of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. They understand that there's only one way to ensure that the words "Never Again" have meaning.

List of gun quotes

Harvey links to a list of gun-related quotes and includes the list because "they're just that good." Most of them are right on but I would like to comment on a couple of them:

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.
Only one of these applies to my Glocks. :)

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.
Actually, we need to eliminate most, if not all, of the gun control laws that we currently have.

The Machine

So, since this site is "Musings of a Techno-Geek" and since almost all, if not all, of the posts so far have dealt with politics, here's some technology. It occurred to me that there is a small, but non-zero, probability that at least one person who reads this is interested in what I use for a home computer. Thus, I present you with the specs for...

The Neue Regel

• CPU: Athlon 2800+


• RAM: 1 GB Corsair SDRAM


• MB: Asus A7N8X Deluxe with nVidia nForce2 chipset and SoundStorm digital audio plus two integrated network adapters


• Video: ATi Radeon 9800 Pro with 128 MB RAM


• HD's: One 120 GB Western Digital Ultra ATA and one 40 GB Maxtor Ultra ATA


• Optical: One Asus DVD-ROM drive and one Plextore CD-RW drive


• Power Supply: Antec TrueBlue 480W with lighted fans


• Case: Antec/Chenming-style aluminum case with window


• Monitor: Viewsonic VX800 18" LCD flat panel at 1280x1024


• Mouse: Logitech MX500 optical mouse


• Keyboard: Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro


• Joystick: Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback


• Additional: Antec 80mm blue LED fan on CPU heatsink with adapter, two blue LED fans in the front of the case, and a cold cathode light that I never use because the LED fans light up the interior just fine

It's totally a gaming rig, which means it will do everything else plenty fast as well. The aluminum case and flat panel monitor are especially nice when hauling it to LAN parties. I've yet to encounter a game that it can't run totally smooth at 1024x768 resolution or higher. Most games I run at the monitor's native resolution of 1280x1024 with all the visual goodies turned on and maxed out. I bought this machine in anticipation of Half-Life 2 and Doom 3. Well, I have to wait a bit longer than I originally thought but the system should still run both titles with no problem.

Trackback

Not like anyone actually reads this site but I now have trackback ability through Haloscan. It's kinda clunky right now but it works and the Haloscan guys assure their users that they will be working to simplify it in the future.

Real corporate welfare

Via QandO

From John Stossel's article in Reason Online:

Ronald Reagan memorably complained about "welfare queens," but he never told us that the biggest welfare queens are the already wealthy. Their lobbyists fawn over politicians, giving them little bits of money -- campaign contributions, plane trips, dinners, golf outings -- in exchange for huge chunks of taxpayers’ money. Millionaires who own your favorite sports teams get subsidies, as do millionaire farmers, corporations, and well-connected plutocrats of every variety. Even successful, wealthy TV journalists.

That’s right, I got some of your money too.

He goes on to describe just how that happened. Here's the answer he was given when he asked about why it's done the way it is:

Why does Uncle Sam offer me cheap insurance? "It saves federal dollars," replied James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), when I did a 20/20 report on this boondoggle. "If this insurance wasn’t here," he said, "then people would be building in those areas anyway. Then it would cost the American taxpayers more [in relief funds] if a disaster hit."

That’s government logic: Since we always mindlessly use taxpayer money to bail out every idiot who takes an expensive risk, let’s get some money up front by selling them insurance first.

He then proceeds to detail several types of government handouts that benefit primarily the wealthy. For example, he brings up the reason why the Coca Cola you get in Canada tastes better than that which you get in the US:

When public interest groups compile lists of corporate welfare recipients, a company called Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is usually at the top of the list. You may never have heard of ADM, because its name rarely appears on consumer products, but it’s huge. Its products are in most processed foods.

ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government’s mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high?

Because this artificial price elevation doesn't occur in Canada, real sugar is cheap enough that they can use it in their soft drinks.

Here's what I consider the most profound sentence in the entire article:

Letting businesses fail is vital for the creative destruction that allows the market to work.

I think those who are complaining about "tax cuts for the rich" are missing the point. The rich still pay a hugely disproportionate amount of the total amount of income tax collected by the IRS. But, as this article shows, it's true that some of them are getting handouts and kickbacks that they don't need to stay rich, let alone stay in business.

I also noted that he didn't focus on one political party. He mentions the Bush and Kennedy families, Richard Gephardt, and Alan Keyes. This is the kind of stuff that makes we with we had a real, viable third party in this country.

Harvey commandeth and I must obey

I left a couple of comments over at Harvey's blog, Bad Money, and he, for some strange reason, decided to take a look at my blog. Then, for a yet more unfathomable reason, he deigned to mention it in one of his posts and even provide a link to it. He ended said post with:

And Radar Rider, you need to get an "About Me" post up sometime soon so that I can make fun of you properly ;-)

Therefore, I feel compelled to do as he asks and provide grist for his humor mill.

So... about me... *ahem*

I'm a 30-something computer geek who lives in the Pacific Northwet [sic], specifically the Puget Sound area, and works for one of the software companies located here. Some people who work with computers during the day go home and don't want anything to do with them. I, on the other hand, spend an inordinate amount of time in front of my home rig playing games, surfing the web, and other pursuits that are no doubt corrupting my fragile mind and will end up with me as the center of attention in a large, humming chair. Or not (as The Emperor is fond of saying).

As far as my political views go, I guess I would say I'm conservative with strong leanings toward (little "L") libertarianism. Like most people, though, I don't think I can really pigenhole myself, especially as my political views are constantly evolving. I really only became "politically aware" in the last four or five years and it's rather interesting to note how much I have come to agree with my father's views. The older I get, the more I look like him so I guess it's not surprising that I think more like him as well. I just hope this doesn't mean I'm all grown up now and have to stop acting like an overgrown kid.

A few other tidbits: I enjoy riding motorcycles and I'm a licensed private pilot. I live with a wonderful woman and a cute but somewhat neurotic cat. I leave finding out more about me as an exercise for the reader; it shouldn't be hard as I haven't tried seriously to be an anonymous blogger.

Can't wait to see what Harvey does with this....

Another one of my favorite weblogs is The Sake of Argument by Joe Kelley. He also has a rather down-to-earth and practical style. Here is his latest on gay marriage. Some excerpts:

As a conservative, I can’t understand how America would be would be set back by encouraging promiscuous homosexuals to engage in long-term, committed monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are fighting for access to health insurance, pensions, family medical leave, hospital visitation, bereavement leave, and a variety of other basic legal protections for families and children. None of these options will be available to them if they are divorced from (or not married to) their partners, thus establishing government-regulated encouragement to stay committed. With less promiscuity, we’ll see less sexually transmitted diseases and lower private and taxpayer-funded health insurance payments.

...

In absence of a good argument supporting it, I can see no reason to expressly prohibit homosexual marriage through a Constitutional Amendment. The solution, as I have previously argued, is to take the state completely out of “marriage” and grant all couples, both homo and hetero, civil unions. Allow marriages to be the sole property of churches.

...

Frankly, the two functions of the existing DOMA are in contradiction of each other. You cannot allow states to create their own marriage laws for the benefits of the participants if the participants can’t benefit from the marriage laws.

The ideal role of Uncle Sam would be to Constitutionally prohibit one state from defining marriage for other states and to recognize marriage (for purposes of federal law) as defined by each individual state.

Mike on SSM

One of the weblogs I like to read the most is Cold Fury. The author, Mike Hendrix is a fellow biker (though he might argue that I'm not a *real* biker as I don't ride a Harley) and he always presents a down-to-earth and practical viewpoint. He posts about same-sex marriage and the proposed Constitutional amendment here and here. These two paragraphs from the first post caught my eye (emphasis mine):

Gay activists are speaking of marriage as if it were a fundamental human right, one whose abrogation calls for the strongest possible resistance as a matter of simple human decency. But is it really? My off-the-cuff answer is that it isn’t, not at all. Marriage as it has been traditionally understood is a function of churches and state governments; it’s something that carries the stamp of religious and state authority, which is one of the primary reasons I’ve never had any personal interest in subjecting myself to it. I want as little state and church interference in my personal life as I can manage, thank you, and have never felt the need for any lawyer’s, bureaucrat’s, or priest’s official seal of approval on my romantic attachments. I forego certain benefits because of this attitude, but that’s my choice, and so far I’ve stuck with it, although that may not always and forever be the case. It doesn’t stop me from loving anybody, from being truly committed to any relationship, to living my life in the way I choose to live it. It doesn’t, and it hasn’t, and it won’t.

I can understand the point made by the SSM advocates: I’ve made a choice not to bother with the institution of marriage freely and without much in the way of restraint (even though living with someone out of wedlock is still illegal in my state), but I can also change my mind about that. They can make one choice but not the other. They don’t think that’s fair, and they’re probably right. I can’t really see how allowing them to make a similar choice will threaten the institution in any meaningful way. The institution of marriage has probably been battered and bruised more by no-fault divorce and meaningless Hollywood marriages that are undertaken as much for publicity’s sake as any other reason than it ever will be by two people in a long-term relationship who happen to be the same sex being allowed access to it.

The Washington Times on Kerry

This Washington Times editorial doesn't mince words when it comes to Kerry's recent "open letter" to the president.

Sen. Kerry's dead letter

This is the money quote:

Mr. Kerry's accusation against Republicans constitutes McCarthyism of the first water, and should be shunned and condemned by responsible citizens and news organizations.

The Washington Times also has this article on Kerry's voting record:

Kerry opposed key weapons

Over at the RNC site is a page which details Kerry's voting record when it comes to specific weapons programs. There was a post someone made that just listed out the things he's voted against that I wanted to use but couldn't find it so this'll have to do:

Senator Kerry's Specific Record - Again!

And just because Kerry is playing off his service in Vietnam so much, I had to include this:

Veterans Sound off on Kerry

This is interesting

Whether you agree with the author's conclusions or not, I find it very interesting that this article was published in the Village Voice of all places.

When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A. by Sydney H. Schanberg

Probably a good idea but still...

Blackfive posts about why he believes we must elect George Bush in November. What caught my eye was this:

We simply need more troops to protect our freedom. The Pentagon just cancelled the Comanche helicopter program. This comes on the heels of the cancellation of the Crusader missle system. This is the right train of thought - cancel the expensive tech programs and focus on what works.

He's probably right. But, damn, the Comanche sure is a kick-ass piece of hardware and it's a shame it had to be cancelled.