Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Well, That Was Interesting, I Guess

It seems I did not have all my ones and zeroes in line, after all.  The ole laptop has not been communicating well, today, with my wireless router so I’ve replaced cables, reset the modem, the router and what not.  I truly dislike having to mess with this tech stuff.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/06 at 12:23 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

It's Always Take, Take, Take

Hillary, “Der Rodham,” Clinton continues to espouse what I am fairly certain she would consider to be her benign socialist vision for Amerika, as I found out after reading this.

During a nationally broadcast forum Monday evening on faith and politics Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) attacked the free market and told listeners in that order to attain energy independence and provide universal health coverage, it would be necessary to “take away from some people.”

And this.

She went on, “The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

Take, take, take, the political mantra which is strangling America.

Via a Townhall.com piece written by Amanda Carpenter titled Clinton: “Something Has to be Taken Away from Some People."

Posted by John Venlet on 06/05 at 07:18 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Theoretical Physicist on Science and Religion

Is the distinctive separation of knowledge, the objective, and faith, the subjective, ...all bound to end in tears, as Wolfgang Pauli asserted?

I don’t have the answer to that question, but there is an interesting article, available via The Edge, which delves into the question, but does not answer it either.

"I assume,” I must have replied, “that Planck considers religion and science compatible because, in his view, they refer to quite distinct facets of reality. Science deals with the objective, material world. It invites us to make accurate statements about objective reality and to grasp its interconnections. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the world of values. It considers what ought to be or what we ought to do, not what is. In science we are concerned to discover what is true or false; in religion with what is good or evil, noble or base. Science is the basis of technology, religion the basis of ethics. In short, the conflict between the two, which has been raging since the eighteenth century, seems founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images and parables of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all. This view, which I know so well from my parents, associates the two realms with the objective and subjective aspects of the world respectively. Science is, so to speak, the manner in which we confront, in which we argue about, the objective side of reality. Religious faith, on the other hand, is the expression of the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we propose to act and live. Admittedly, we generally make these decisions in accordance with the attitudes of the group to which we belong, be it our family, nation, or culture. Our decisions are strongly influenced by educational and environmental factors, but in the final analysis they are subjective and hence not governed by the ‘true or false’ criterion. Max Planck, if I understand him rightly, has used this freedom and come down squarely on the side of the Christian tradition. His thoughts and actions, particularly as they affect his personal relationships, fit perfectly into the framework of this tradition, and no one will respect him the less for it. As far as he is concerned, therefore, the two realms—the objective and the subjective facets of the world—are quite separate, but I must confess that I myself do not feel altogether happy about this separation. I doubt whether human societies can live with so sharp a distinction between knowledge and faith."

The piece is titled Science and Religion, was written by Werner Weisenberg, and at 4,288 words will take a bit of time to read.

Linked via J. Orlin Grabbe.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/05 at 06:55 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Real Time Holocaust Chronicle Surfaces

Most individuals are aware of Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl.

Now, a diary written by a young Polish girl, Rutka Laskier, has surfaced.

The diary of a 14-year-old Jewish girl dubbed the “Polish Anne Frank” was unveiled on Monday, chronicling the horrors she witnessed in a Jewish ghetto — at one point watching a Nazi soldier tear a Jewish baby away from his mother and kill him with his bare hands.

The diary, written by Rutka Laskier in 1943 shortly before she was deported to Auschwitz, was released by Israel’s Holocaust museum more than 60 years after she recorded what is both a daily account of the horrors of the Holocaust in Bedzin, Poland and a memoir of the life of a teenager in extraordinary circumstances.

Polish girl’s Holocaust diary unveiled

Posted by John Venlet on 06/05 at 03:49 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, June 04, 2007

Ayn Rand Talks Available at No Charge

Via the Happy Curmudgeon, who heard about via Craig Ceely’s blog, who heard about via Diana Hsieh,

Thanks to an exclusive permission generously granted by the Estate of Ayn Rand, aynrand.org is now able to offer its registered users, free of charge, an expansive collection of Ayn Rand audio and video recordings. This unprecedented selection includes lectures, interviews, and the complete series of Ayn Rand’s Ford Hall Forum lectures.

If you hit the Craig Ceely link in this post, you’ll be able to view Craig’s listing of the chronological order the Rand’s talks, as he recommends you listen to the talks in that order, but that’s totally up to you.

Here’s a link to The Ayn Rand Institute, which is where you will have to start, as access to the talks requires registration, as noted above.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/04 at 11:26 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Vermont Secession Rumblings

The idea of seceding from the Union, which are these United States, is most often pooh poohed, and understandably so considering the Southern states’ attempt at secession back in the 1800’s.  Remember the Civil War?

But though the idea is most often considered mere crack pottery, there are no laws which expressly forbid such a secession.

The Boston Globe is reporting on this issue in a piece titled In Vermont, nascent secession movement gains traction.

Disillusioned by what they call an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics is plotting political strategy and planting the seeds of separatism.

They’ve published a “Green Mountain Manifesto” subtitled “Why and How Tiny Vermont Might Help Save America From Itself by Seceding from the Union.” They hope to put the question before citizens at Town Meeting Day next March, eventually persuading the state Legislature to declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777 to 1791.

Whether it’s likely is another question.

I wish them success in their endeavor.

Here’s a link to The Green Mountain Manifesto.

Here’s a link to the website of Second Vermont Republic.

Here’s a link to the website of the Free Vermont “200 Towns” campaign.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/04 at 05:26 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

It's None of Your Damn Business What I'm Paid

Here’s a taste of what Susan E. Reed, who is a fellow at the Alicia Patterson Foundation, has to say about alleged salary discrimination in a New York Times op-ed this morning.

THIS year, each of the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court will earn $203,000. The only woman and the only African-American on the court are paid the same as their six white male colleagues. Only Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. earns more than everyone else, $212,100. Their pay is set by Congress, and it is a matter of public record.

Congress should pass legislation mandating that all workplaces create this kind of transparency by requiring companies to post salaries.

Beyond the obvious ridiculousness of Ms. Reed’s suggestion calling for legislation for the mandatory posting of company salaries, as if that information should be displayed like a Burger King 99 cent menu, let’s consider the basis for her folly fueled musing.  The “transparency” of the salaries of the Supreme Court justices.

Ms. Reed’s example, which cites individuals who earn their living out of the pockets of taxpayers, is not so much an example, but rather a canard for a socialist agenda to be applied like a paddle to private industry.

There is no doubt that every professional jobholders’ salary should be publicy displayed, as those individuals live off of the production of private individuals.  But the income of private individuals should remain private.

Ms. Reed’s op-ed is titled Show Us the Money.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/04 at 04:08 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Socialist Pig

Prior to getting all my ones and zeroes back in order in my computer, I had noted Hillary “Der Rodham” Clinton’s recent speech at the Manchester School of Technology.

Cal Thomas also noted Der Rodham’s recent speech, and commented on it, in a piece titled It Takes a Socialist Village, which correctly noted the following.

Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

Doesn’t such a society already exist elsewhere? It’s called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn’t defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is nothing more than a socialist pig, hoping to pen up the real opportunity creators in America, the capitalists and free market proponents, for the purpose of milking them dry and destroying any prosperity individuals may hope to achieve.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/03 at 08:07 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Kevorkian Musings

Jack Kevorkian, whom the media nicknamed “Dr. Death,” was released from prison on June 1st, 2007.  Kevorkian’s release has once again brought the issue of assisted suicide into the national spotlight.

Assisted suicide, the term which the media prefers to utilize rather than euthanasia, because of its galvanizing effect, is a touchy subject for many individuals.  Even so, many individuals who consider euthanasia as wrong, should consider the following, and note that the scenario which I will soon relate is actually no different than the assistance Kevorkian gave to terminal individuals who desired to end their lives.

My father has non-functioning kidneys, and has suffered from this for the past ten years.  Due to this condition, my father has to dialyze every other day in order to maintain his life.

This is a definite burden on my father, and my mother, even though my father has the ability to perform this medical procedure in the comfort of his home.  But, if my father did not dialyze every other day, he would die.

So, here is what individuals should consider when contemplating euthanasia.  My father can, at any time, choose to NOT dialyze.  If he makes this choice to not dialyze, the toxins which accumulate in his body due to his failed kidneys, will kill him.  And my father CAN, and may, make this choice at some point in the future, and he will die.  It may take up to two weeks for my father to die, if he makes the choice to end his dialysis, and it could very well be rather an unpleasant way to die.

If my father does make the choice to end his dialysis regime, is it any different than individuals like Jack Kevorkian performing euthanasia for individuals who may be terminal patients?  And, if the state legislates that individuals may not, because of the “law,” perform euthanasia, is the state also going to legislate than individuals such as my father MUST dialyze every other day of their lives, that they may not freely choose to NOT dialyze and thus end their lives?  Is the state going to coercively force my father to dialyze every other day so that he will live?  Not on my watch.

Kevorkian Released After 8 Years

UPDATE: Dr. David Yeagley posts on this subject in a piece titled Death by Choice: The Kevorkian Quandary. Also, Kyle Markley has a few words to say in a post titled Self-Ownership.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/03 at 06:12 AM
(5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 5 of 5 pages « First  <  3 4 5