The Mystery Box: It Could Be a Boat!

All right, people, strap yourselves in, this is going to be an outrageously random mixed bag of blogging. I've got a lot of thoughts on my mind at the moment and very few of them are sports related. I'm going to dive off the deep end of my Libertarian philosophy for a bit and show you just how screwed up a mind can be when it's tired.

Airplanes, Russia, and Separatist Rebels

As you should all know by now, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine recently, killing nearly 300 people. Conspiracy theory abounds as to what actually happened to this plane. The best I can gather, it appears as if Russian-backed separatist rebels had possession of a missile launcher and used it to bring down the plane. It's possible they thought they were bringing down a Ukrainian military plane. Reportedly, intelligence agencies intercepted telephone communications from a Russian separatist claiming that they shot down a plane, though they later backtracked on that statement.

However, Russian troops were relatively close to the area, and it looks like they, along with some of the separatist rebels were able to gain control of the crash site before the Ukraine could. Per international law, the Ukraine has priority rights to the site, and should lead the investigation. If Russia took control first, knowing that rebels backed by their government were the ones who brought the plane down, then the site is fully compromised, and likely the black boxes have been confiscated and destroyed.

Meanwhile, the Russian government is basically thumbing its nose at the rest of the world. As a friend of mine wrote on Facebook the other day: Vladimir Putin is the best James Bond villain since Dr. No.

Elizabeth Warren: Progressive Beacon

Please note, for my liberal readers, what you are about to read contains satire, cynicism, sarcasm, and blatant attempts at humor. It is also a serious opinion about Elizabeth Warren's socio-political positions.

It looks as though Elizabeth Warren is positioning herself for a presidential run in 2016. This is the same woman whose claim to a mixed racial heritage including Native American came down to stories her grandmother told and her own high cheekbones. But I digress...

Warren recently published her "11 Commandments of Progressivism." Eleven. Just like a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to have to try and upstage the Lord. More on that in a moment. I thought it would be nice to copy Ms. Warren's 'commandments' here, and offer a conservative-libertarian rebuttal. These are basically my thoughts from initially reading the list.

1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.

It is a well known ideology of those who believe statism to be effective that, in order to either disprove or deconstruct capitalism, it is necessary to tie the hands of an industry through regulation to the point that the marketplace of the industry cannot effectively solve its own problems, and then claim that freedom of the marketplace has failed, and thus stronger regulations and stronger means of enforcement are needed. Wrapping more and more regulations on the economy will not help. If anything, you stifle the opportunities for future growth. Is a type of regulation required? Yes, I don't doubt that. But when Reagan inherited a poor economy from Carter, he deregulated and the economy began growing. Find a happy balance between Reagan and this liberal desire to hyper-regulate, and we can probably start improving the economy. The federal government is not the only entity strong enough to stimulate the economy. The American people are stronger, so long as that same government leaves them alone.

2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.

Of course we have a responsibility to protect the Earth. Even those who "don't believe in science" [read: those crazy, backwards theists, especially the Christians] know that, from our own holy scriptures, God set up man to be a steward of the Earth. And, just as man feel from grace, we also failed at taking care of our planet. But we have a chance to work toward making things better, unless you buy the hysteria that says the ice caps are mere minutes from total collapse, the earth will be flooded to the top of Mt. Everest and we'll all have to live on boats and drink our own urine from a Mr. Coffee.

The answers to environmental issues tend to trip up the conservative side of the aisle because, more often than not, they involve some means of tearing down developed economies at the expense of their people. There is no overnight solution to oil usage. Ethanol is, at best, a stop-gap measure. The future of energy production is obviously in renewable source. But right now the methods of renewable production are still a bit cost-prohibitive to the average person. And it scares us when our own president is on record saying his policies would necessarily make energy rates skyrocket, and his own Energy Secretary (at the time) stated that the US had to get gasoline prices to European levels.

We'll work with you to make energy production better and to conserve the planet. But we don't have to destroy countries to do it.

3. We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.

I struggle with internet issues, mainly because I'm not sure that the internet is a right. By that logic, television is a right. Having a set of encyclopedias is a right. Is it? I wasn't handed those books when I was born. According to the United Nations (and we all know how effective and important the UN is), having access to the internet is a basic human right.

That said, if the internet is a human right, then I completely agree that it should not be controlled by massive corporations. Nor should it be controlled by governments (the world is looking at you North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Libya!). It might just be me, but I trust the government less than I trust corporations.

4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.

My biggest issue with this philosophy is the threat of escalation. Where does it stop? The whole point of a minimum wage job was for low-skilled workers and teenagers just entering the workforce. No one is meant to try to raise a family on a minimum wage job. Now, if you absolutely want to get the government involved in this one, then try instituting some entitlement programs that will actually get people off the government dole and into a level of personal responsibility. Create some government sponsored classes to train workers for new skills.

This is also where churches, synagogues, and mosques should be stepping up and helping those in need instead of the government doing it. Try all you want to justify it, but using the police power of government to take wealth from one person in order to supply it to another is not charity.

5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

See the response above. Regardless what some of these companies think, you really shouldn't be making a career with McDonald's. I know what it's like. I was looking for a part time job a few years back and went to a local restaurant. I won't say the name, but let's just say there were lots of crackers in a barrel. I asked for an application and actually met the manager right then and had an impromptu interview. I told her that I was needing a part time job for some extra cash to make ends meet. She told me that they were only hiring career-oriented individuals.

I am career-oriented, just not with a restaurant. And that's the deal. People no longer seem to have the drive or the desire to better themselves, but rather seem to fall into this trap of waiting for someone in a position of authority to come by and save their day. Jacking up the minimum wage won't help them. Better training and getting a generation of young people to give two craps about their education might actually make a difference.

6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

Okay, that's fair. But that begs a question: is an education beyond high school a right, or a privilege? If it were a right, then everyone would go, but college deny students all the time. I've yet to be denied my right to free speech, because it is a right. I was privileged to go to college. I can understand the argument against collegiate debt, but at the same time, how do you solve this issue?

7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

I have a right to retirement!? Really? So I don't really have to work for it. Yay, government will help me.

Sorry, this is dumb. You have a right to retire so long as you properly plan for it. If you think retiring from McDonald's is going to last you through your golden years then go own a gobble down the Big Macs so you head out early and get to enjoy that money for the six months that it lasts.

(See, kids, angry sarcasm!)

8. We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.

Sure. Define "equal." Is "equal" working the same number of hours? Is "equal" accomplishing the same tasks? Look, I'm all for equality in the workplace, sure. But if we want equality then let's look at what this blog is best at: sports. If men and women should have equality in the workplace then why do female tennis players only have to play three sets while male tennis players have to play five? Why are the tees for female golfers so much closer to the hole than the tees for male golfers?

I'm not saying this to be a jerk. Just pointing out a stark inconsistency in the drive for equality. If two people of opposite sexes can perform the same task, then yes, they should be equally paid...assuming you remove all caveats for seniority, levels of prior training, and field experience. And assuming the tasks can be accomplished within a reasonably-same amount of time.

I would love to discuss this one...

9. We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.

I'll just cut to the core here, this is a statement about gay marriage. And here's the thing: from a theological perspective, I don't agree with gay marriage. But theology is not politics. If we were a Christian nation, meaning if the Christian religion ran the government, then that would give the right to Muslim governments, Hindu governments, and Jewish governments could be formed in this nation. And truthfully, I know a lot of Christians that I would not want to see running the government.

From a political point of view, I don't understand what the government has to do with marriage. I don't understand why your marital status should have any bearing on your tax status. I can see it for benefits when it comes to insurance, which used to be an issue between you and your employer. If the government is overseeing insurance, then the government has, by default, made this a political issue.

10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.

...and that means amnesty...and it just so happens that those being amnestied tend to vote Democrat. Convenient. I don't understand this mentality that wants to amnesty people who broke our laws by sneaking into the country, and continue to break our laws by being here and not being productive members of the government's war chest, I mean, tax base. It would be like me moving onto my neighbor's property, and instead of being charged with trespassing or breaking & entering, I was given a free pass, and basically allowed to stay on his land.

Yes, immigration built this country. And yes, immigration can be a boon for this nation. But if there is anything that needs close monitoring and regulation, it's immigration. Instead, the current administration is basically turning a blind eye to the issue and forcing border patrol to cease enforcing the laws of the country because they're too busy issuing humanitarian aid. All the while, a criminal element is encroaching. The immigration issue is couched as this overflow of children into the nation. Children should be helped, no doubt. But children make up only about 15-20% of the influx of immigrants at the moment.

This is where government should be stepping up, instead of trying to cater to criminals. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it. What good are our laws if they are not enforced?

11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

Ahh, abortion. Yes, that's what this is about. "Women have a right to their bodies" is progressive codespeak for "abortion" and typically for "abortion on demand." I'll be honest with you; I don't like abortion. I think it's wrong. It definitely should not be used as a means of birth control simply because someone is inconvenienced by a pregnancy. I read a liberal blogger opine that he was glad his girlfriend got an abortion because a child would've been a huge inconvenience in his life. That made me sick.

But I also understand that outlawing abortion will do nothing but push the practice underground and lead to unsafe conditions in non-sterile environments. I suppose, then, that something would have to be done to stem the tide of abortions.

Invoking the name Hobby Lobby is just a means of enraging a base. The fact is, of 20 forms of contraceptive offered under the ObamaCare legislation, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of them. Only four forms of contraceptive are not covered by Hobby Lobby. To hear liberal pundits talk, you would think Hobby Lobby has placed an executive in every female employee's bedroom to monitor their...ummm..."activities." You would think a Hobby Lobby executive follows each female employee to the doctor to make sure they don't get these contraceptives.

No, female employee's of Hobby Lobby can still get these contraceptives, they just can't count on their boss to pay for it.

The American Lannisters

Look at this poster! Look at it! It's the Clintons photoshopped as the Lannisters from Game of Thrones.
Ha!

A Little Bit of Everything

Politics

Let’s get the heavy stuff out of the way first.

President Obama with Bob & Jani Bergdahl

Very recently the United States negotiated the release of a captured US Soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, the only American POW in Afghanistan. Not all the information is yet available, so it’s not really a good idea to jump to any conclusions about this entire episode, but I feel compelled to at least share my reaction.

Bergdahl was a captive of the Taliban, though reports exist that he originally deserted his post and at one time sought to renounce his US citizenship. The latter is his right, I suppose, should he so desire. The former, however, is a very bad thing. Especially considering that several other soldiers lost their lives searching for Bergdahl. It’s all very tragic.

So the opportunity arose for a deal to free Bowe Bergdahl. A total of five inmates from the Guantanamo Bay facility were traded to the Taliban for Bergdahl’s freedom. Bergdahl’s father, Bob, and mother, Jani, were invited to a Rose Garden press conference. The elder Bergdahl, reports state, began studying radical Islamic philosophy in an effort to understand his son’s captors. He refused to shave or trim his beard in the years after Bowe’s capture. He is reported to have become more liberal in his politics, especially campaigning against the use of drones and the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay. Bob Bergdahl’s recent tweets include “Democracy is a cult in the West” and “I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!” (this last tweet was deleted).

Once President Obama introduced the Bergdahls, Bob Bergdahl (a native Idahoan) stepped up to the microphone and claimed that he was having a difficult time speaking English. The next words out of his mouth were “bism allah alrahman alraheem.” As far as I can work out, from what little research I can find through the magical power of Google, this phrase is recited at the beginning of each chapter of the Quran (except the ninth chapter) and is often translated as “in the name of god, the most gracious, the most merciful.”

Some talking heads are saying this amounts to an Islamic claim on the White House. I wouldn’t go that far at all, as it seems a bit over-reactive. That said, it doesn’t really sit right with me. Call it a gut instinct if you want to… Imagine the general reaction if an Iranian prisoner was released and the parents of that prisoner went before the Iranian Parliament and saying “We thank God the Father and His son Jesus Christ…” or if they said “Praise be to God, Shalom and Amen.” The reaction would likely be far different.

Again, I’m just sharing my initial reaction. I would really like to think the best of my fellow man, but the last few years have somewhat soured me on the ideal.

Senate Democrats and that Pesky Bill of Rights

Over forty Senate Democrats have joined forces in announcing a plan to craft an amendment that would limit the amount of money any single person, institution, or corporation can give to a political campaign. The problem is the language they are using is so broadly defined that it could eventually topple the First Amendment itself. The proposal is so vague that it could allow the federal government to actually ban all campaign spending period.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke out in favor of this proposal, saying that this is an opportunity for both sides to “work together to change the system, to get this shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic principles of one American, on vote.” That’s all well and good, until one remembers that we are not, nor have we ever been, a “democracy.” For a long time, the word “democracy” was frowned upon, because then it was seen for what it really is: mob rule. A true democracy, if you’ll pardon the cliché, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

In true Harry Reid fashion, the Nevada Democrat pointed the finger of blame at the Koch Brothers. 

Personally, I’m taking this one with a grain of salt, as Reid also listed the Koch Brothers as a primary cause of climate change. I rarely agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but he summed it up well in saying that Reid’s attack on the Koch Brothers was a diversion away from how truly awful this proposal is.

The wording of the proposal is deliberately vague, as all things political are in this day and age. The proposal would allow the federal government and the state governments to set limits on how much any one person or group could spend on a campaign. The press would not be restricted in any way by this bill. Of course, the press is largely liberal in their political leanings. It brings to question just who would qualify for exemption as a member of the press.

This proposal would give the government (read: federal) the power to tell an individual just how much they could spend on an issue they support. Now, I’m all for limiting campaign spending, as I hate the idea of a person spending millions of dollars for a job that will only pay them a few hundred thousand. But I don’t want the government telling me what I can and cannot spend. To me, that’s like telling someone they can support any issue they want, but they can only talk about it for five minutes. Once those five minutes are up, they can only support it at the ballot box. No more talking.

Chuck Schumer tells us how Thomas
Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights.

And yes, I believe this would become a strictly federal power. The Constitution has this wonderful clause in it, called the Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to outrank state law. I can see this topic being brought up on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause and the federal government being able to overrule a state mandate.

New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer weighed in, saying “I think if Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, were looking down on what's being proposed here, he'd agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” Nice one, Chuck. Oh, one other thing…Jefferson didn’t write the Bill of Rights. James Madison did.

Formula 1 in Canada

Okay, so the heavy lifting is over. Let’s talk about something fun… This weekend Formula 1 rolls into Montreal for the Grand Prix of Canada at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. This in one of my absolute favorite tracks.

This is pretty much how the Canadian Grand Prix should end...

The Mercedes AMG Petronas factory team is simply dominant this year. No one can touch them. But Canada has a tendency to level the playing field. It’s one of the tightest circuits on the calendar, with little run-off area, meaning little room for error.

Red Bull Renault is in an interesting spot at this point in the season. Daniel Ricciardo, theoretically Driver #2 for the outfit, is basically out-performing his much more successful teammate, Sebastian Vettel, at every turn. But Red Bull is so far behind Mercedes that the RBR team is actually talking about billing Renault for damages. The 1.6-Liter turbocharged V6 engine that Renault manufactures for Red Bull has given the outfit problems, and because they are lagging so in their title defense, it could lead to “lost revenue.”

Anyway, here’s how I think Montreal plays out, in the form of a podium prediction:

First: Lewis Hamilton – Mercedes AMG Petronas
Second: Nico Rosberg – Mercedes AMG Petronas
Third: Daniel Ricciardo – Red Bull Renault