Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for November, 2011

Hit The Tip Jar

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/11/07

As Dana Pico mentioned, my personal and professional time have expanded greatly to eat up my overall time. I will not go into detail as undisclosed reasons make very clear (hey, pollutico can use undisclosed sources for undisclosed allegations of undisclosed activities and undisclosed words and undisclosed gestures of a certain disclosed Presidential candidate and still maintain the facade of a serious, honorable site among the unwashed masses).

Let’s start with HEY, EVERYONE, I GOT A JOB!!!

I have a temp-to-hire job where I make barely above minimum wage for the next 3 months, and then a full dollar-per-hour raise. And longer term, a substantial opportunity for advancement.

But here’s my problem:

I currently have a very substantial support structure which will vanish within a very few short months. When I moved to Texas, I had 2-year Ohio tags on my car, which expire exceedingly soon. Ohio doesn’t have inspection but Texas does, and my car would never, in the time I owned it, passed the current Texas inspection. I have never had high beams. The switch doesn’t “click”. Not only are high beams part of the Texas inspection, the indicator light for those high-beams are part of the inspection. My windshield wipers work when they want to and don’t work when they don’t want to. And I have an exhaust leak. Those are three fails that I know of.

To add insult to injury, Saturday night, one of my 10-year-old tires decided to shred its sidewall, so now I have to replace it immediately and my car requires tires that run over 100 apiece (my only vehicle is a 1994 Camaro Z28 I bought in 2001). And all 4 tires should be replaced due to their age and the Texas environment. And now the donut needs replaced because I’m using it for my 80-mile round-trip for work.

On top of that, my new income from my new job is too low for decent housing, let alone in a place where crime is a four-letter word. But shortly, I should be able to afford just that. But tomorrow isn’t here and will never get here. I have to deal with today.

Rather than deal with the government stealing money from the top half of the population to give freebies to the bottom half of the population, I am depending on folks to give to a needy cause because it’s the right thing to do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Just A Reminder

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/11/07

I think now would be a good time to remind visitors to TBD — old and new alike — about my strong advice to read my “about” and “comment policy” sections. Dana didn’t ban anyone from CSPT so far as I understand; I have already banned at least 2 from TBD (Ben Hoffman, the foul-mouthed guy who ran around with his name linked to Drudge ReTort, and Robert L Hymers, Jr, about whom everyone experienced with Little Miss Atilla has already been warned.)

I’m an unabashed attack dog. I can handle raucous, as can this site. But there are things I deem out of line, which are covered in the aforementioned sections of TBD.

Now, I’m going to pick on AOTC. Since this is the age of Women’s Lib (actually, that happened in the 70s and 80s) and equal rights and equal responsibilities and no difference between the genders (my choice, Foxfier, because I prefer not to use the proper term), I’m all in on that count. I have no problems sucker-punching a woman, or kicking her when she’s down. Equal treatment and all that. So, since AOTC’s down, Ima kick her.

When I moved to Texas, I brought my two dogs with me. My Great Dane, Duchess (my gravatar), and my German Shepard, Nastia, both pedigreed. When they played around together, they got raucous. Lots of barking, growling, snarling, attacking, fighting, but no blood. Never any blood. They were safely violent with each other.

My daughter had a dog. His name was Titan, because he thought he was one. And he decided he was going to join in and be master of the back yard against the biggest dog in the yard. That would be Duchess. So, Titan barked, snarled, growled, viciously attacked Duchess. And I swear, I heard Duchess laugh at him. You see, Titan is a Miniature Pinscher (and my daughter is peeved someone snagged him and kept him for themselves). How did Duchess handle Titan? She nuzzled him play-aggressively (her head was bigger than Titan’s entire body), put her front leg on his back in a classic wrestling move, and over-all, just bantered gently with the china doll. Size, ability, fragility mattered to Duchess (and I still miss her): if you were little, she treated you like a china doll but if you were bigger than her, she gave as much as she got, if not more. And humans were measured the same way: little kids got the gentle motherly treatment; grown adults who showed an interest in rough-housing got beat up; all who were placid got placid back. (yeah, that’s a sidebar) The point is, Duchess knew the size of things and the level of aggression in play she could use whereas Titan thought he was all that and a box of rocks.

The point of the story is… AOTC is feeling bad, thinking she over-Titaned things over at CSPT while mixed with all the Duchesses and Nastias (and a couple feral dogs) in da howse.

You want raucous, you can have raucous over here. But if you bring raucous, also bring logic. And also bring the knowledge this is a Conservative blogsite first and foremost. This is not a free-speech zone. This is my house. And all of you are my guests. My stable of authors are very privileged guests. I am the only administrator here, meaning I am the only one with the golden banhammer. But most of my privileged guests have editing authority, so they can delete or allow comments as they see fit.

Knowing each of my stable of authors as I do, it would actually take some work for them to make like Houdini with a third-party comment. Because they all like seeing contrary opinions if logically or common sense based or grounded in accurate history or the like. As do I. Jeff, aphrael, Matt — You Liberals who are always wrong but always argue in good faith (at least as I have experienced your arguments), I’m talking to you. I do not want an echo chamber, nor do any of my stable of authors.

But I’ll be danged if I’ll let this place be overrun by passive-aggressive Socialists, outright Socialists — both of which lie just as easily as they breathe — or Liberals who have no problem with Identity Theft in order to augment their Defamation of Character. Or 9-11 Truthers. Or “Bush stole the election” idiots. Those types of people can kindly sod off as they will find their stay here artificially truncated.

Oh, by the way, “raucous” does not mean “swearing”, I guarantee. Look the terms up. You’ll find they are not synonymous. A couple of my authors have gotten away with using words in my moderation filter because they’re authors. I wouldn’t doubt on a rare occasion, I, too, have gotten away with it, dang me. As my naive-to-the-world mother says, “If you can’t think of a word instead of a swear word, you’re not very intelligent.” And on that point, she’s right. People use swear words because they’re not smart enough not to. And when I get my Irish up, I can be pretty darned stupid in that regard. But common, everyday, throwaway swear words (such as dealing with the final results of the digestive system in action or inappropriate vernacular for body parts (AOTC, I’m looking at you and your sig-link (where I made the special effort to alter my mod filter))) still find their way into moderation. And will, 93 times out of 100, be altered in order to get permitted.

Politics is rough-and-tumble. I realize that, and I play within that parameter. But if you’re too far gone, you can choose to self-regulate or leave; or, failing those two, you can choose to watch me ban you or watch my authors delete your comments.


For those astute readers, there is plenty of humor mixed in with the boom-hammer warning of the ban-hammer. But of course, it’s Hitchcock humor. Only an elite mind can appreciate all the nuances and jocularity of it. But there will be strangers who wish to believe they have an elite mind who will claim to have understood.

I’m not a snob.
Ask anyone.
Anyone who counts.

Posted in Blogging Matters | 1 Comment »

The Jim Thorpe 2011 Veterans’ Day Parade

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/11/06

Parades are done differently in a small town!

More pictures after the fold. You can click on any picture to enlarge. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in military, Photography | 1 Comment »

CSPT has closed

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/11/06

With the closing of my original site, Common Sense Political Thought, I will be blogging on Mr Hitchcock’s site somewhat more frequently. Our esteemed host has been busier of late in his personal and professional life, and thus has been able to contribute less, and I will attempt to take up some of the slack, as he has done for me when I was too busy to maintain CSPT, but I do not want to be seen as somehow “taking over” TBD. I’m certain that Mr Hitchcock would appreciate some additional help from the other co-bloggers here, Yorkshire, DNW, Foxfier and Hube. (I hope I haven’t left anybody out!)

One thing I do know is that Mr Hitchcock was proud of the slow but steady increase in readership on TBD, and help from anybody and everybody will certainly be appreciated.

Posted in Blogging Matters | 16 Comments »

I can’t say that I am surprised

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/11/06

I’ll admit it: I didn’t think very highly of President Clinton. I thought that he was a self-serving opportunist and a thorough egotist. As his final term in office was nearing its end, he said that he loved the job of being President, that it was the greatest job in the world, and that he’d love to be able to run again, and that if he could, he’d have won a third term.

But whether President Clinton agreed with the 22nd Amendment or not, he obeyed its restrictions, and didn’t make any noises about repealing it.

However, when it comes to socialists and communists, they don’t worry about letting any silly laws get in the way of their ambitions!

Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega renominated for president, despite term limits

Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega is finishing his second term in office, the maximum allowed under the Constitution. But on Saturday he accepted the Sandinista Party’s nomination to run again.

By Tim Rogers, Correspondent / February 28, 2011

Managua, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega on Saturday accepted his party’s nomination for the presidency, even though his reelection is barred by the Constitution.

Despite an outcry over the allegedly fraudulent presidential bid, early polls show Mr. Ortega is favored to win the November election. And given Nicaragua’s bleak political panorama, the Sandinista strongman is increasingly considered the least-bad option here – at least by the country’s sizable poor population that has benefited from new social programs and government handouts.

“I don’t think that the Nicaraguan citizen relates to the issue of legality or legitimacy as long as fundamental services are provided in an immediate way – and this government is very effective in delivering the fundamentals,” says Arturo Cruz, a political science professor at INCAE Business School and Ortega’s former ambassador to the United States.

A Sandinista majority on the Nicaraguan Supreme Court overturned part of their own Constitution, “allowing” President Ortega to run for a third term.

It’s nothing really new, of course. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had the rules changed, which allowed him to run for reelection in 2006, and then, in 2009, had the constitution amended so that he could run for a third full term in 2012.¹ Given Señor Chavez domination of the Venezuelan media and virtually all of the political machinery in that poor country — and why a major petroleum exporting nation should be so poor is beyond me — about the only thing which will stop his re-election to a third six-year term will be his failing health.

One of the problems for our friends on the left is that they fail to understand that what they see as socialism and communism, some sort of vaguely defined sharing of wealth among everyone and the uplifting of the downtrodden, is not how people like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez see socialism and communism. To them, those terms are simply the means by which they hold on to political power. When the late Libyan strongman, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, came under seige, Señor Ortega was right there to offer his encouragement, not to the people striving for freedom in the “Arab Spring,” but to Colonel Qaddafi. As for President Chavez, the Arab Spring saw his demonstrations of support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as Colonel Qaddafi, and he has previously expressed his strong support for the truly whacked-out President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only Arab dictator whom Señor Chavez was glad to see fall was Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, because Mr Mubarak was a close ally of the United States.

Since the publication of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, generations of idealistic and enthusiastic readers have fallen for the egalitarian notion that their depressed lot in life isn’t their fault, that they are simply on the oppressed end of the class struggles between the Bourgeois and Proletarians, but that the day will come when the far more numerous working class, proletariat, fighting in the class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeois, will eventually triumph, replacing private property with common ownership — though they probably would not have extended that to their personal stuff — and the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, the great (and not so great) socialist/ communist leaders of world history, saw the phrase dictatorship of the proletariat, and stopped reading after the first word. That is why the “socialist” leaders are so chummy with dictators of other philosophical stripes; the dictatorship part is the only truly important part to them, and power is to be surrendered not due to constitutional limits, but only due to death or incapacity due to old age.
¹ – Mr Chavez was elected in 1998, then pushed through a new constitution which increased Presidential powers, but imposed a two-term limit. He was re-elected in 2000, and then re-elected in 2006.

Posted in Elections, Socialists, term limits | 13 Comments »

I disagree with what they are doing, but at least they are going about it in the right way

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/11/02

From Think Progress:

Senators Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

By Zaid Jilani on Nov 2, 2011 at 9:50 am

One of the overarching themes of the 99 Percent Movement is that our democracy is too corrupted by corporate special interests. This corruption was worsened last year by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed for huge new unregulated flows of corporate political spending.

Yesterday, six Democratic senators — Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennett (CO), Tom Harkin (IA), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Jeff Merkeley (OR) — introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Citizens United case and restore the ability of Congress to properly regulate the campaign finance system.

The amendment as filed resolves that both Congress and individual states shall have the power to regulate both the amount of contributions made directly to candidates for elected office and “the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

I have no sympathy at all for the government trying to regulate people’s opinions or expression, but at least the six Democratic senators have understood the proper method of doing so.

The text of the proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on—
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I have suggested before that if our friends on the left are dissatisfied with the scope of the First Amendment, they ought to press for a constitutional amendment to repeal or revise it.

Amendment XXVIII

  • Section 1: The First Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
  • Section 2: Freedom of speech, publication and broadcasting is guaranteed, save that speech which incites hatred, animosity or violence based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification may be prohibited.
  • Section 3: The free exercise of religion is guaranteed, save that no individual expression of religious faith may be professed in public. No religious belief which would discriminate against any person based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification is protected by this amendment, or may be protected by any statute of any level of government.
  • Section 4: Neither the United States nor any political subdivision therein may recognize, promote or protect any form of religious institution, belief or opinion. The Congress and the states shall have the power to enforce this provision through appropriate legislation.
  • Section 5: (a) The freedom of speech applies solely to individuals. No company, corporation or other organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources may claim the right to unrestricted speech under the provisions of Section 2, nor may any organization other than a registered campaign organization or political party, engage in any speech or spend any money in support of or opposition to any political candidate.
    (b) No individual member of any organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources, may claim individual status to circumvent the provisions of Section 5 (a) unless certified by the Federal Election Commission.
  • Section 6: The Congress may enact any legislation required to enforce the provisions of this Amendment.

Now, the Censorious Six did not go quite as far as what I proposed, but it is clear from what they proposed that they would give the Congress the right to regulate speech. Consider proposed Section 1:

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

My site, Common Sense Political Thought, really isn’t expensive, but it isn’t free, either. I pay my site hosting service, Blue Host, $107.40 a year for hosting my sites¹, and $10.00 per year for each sponsored url. Considering that my Monthly Bandwidth Transfer is unlimited, that’s not bad at all! Further, though my advertising is meager, I have actually realized a small² profit on this site; this site could be defined as a for-profit enterprise.

But, were the Censorious Six’s proposed amendment actually passed, the Congress would have the power to declare that my paltry expenses nevertheless constitute the “spending of money (or) in kind equivalents” and limit or even forbid “expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

That is, in fact, what the McCain-Feingold Restriction on Speech Act attempted to do. McCain-Feingold banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. While such would not effect CSPT the way it was worded — I use the internet, though for many people their internet service is delivered by cable — and I am not incorporated, though the proposed amendment would not require that any future limits be restricted to corporations.

We have many problems in this country, but I can think of no problem that is so great, so overarching, that the proper solution is to limit the freedom of speech and of the press. If people don’t like what I have to say, they have every right to not read what I write; if people don’t like the political commercials on television, the thing comes equipped with a selector for changing the channel or even [horrors!] turning the damned thing off.

I rather doubt that the Censorious Six will get anywhere with this. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds super-majority in each House of Congress, followed by the ratification by three-quarters of the states. I’m sure that the Democrats will express some support for this — the Democrats just love restrictions on people’s liberties! — but the Republicans won’t buy it in the least. But, at least the senators proposing the amendment have gone about it in the constitutional manner.
¹ – This includes all of the sites I sponsor: CSPT, a site our host hates (Bridging the Gap), a website for my church, and, as of last weekend, the Carbon County Republican Party’s website.
² – Normally a couple hundred dollars a year, though I have received two royalty payments totaling about $1,100, in year’s past.
Cross-posted on Common Sense Political Thought.

Posted in Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, politics | 4 Comments »

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: