Nov 03 2008

A BUNCH of knockout videos, short, sweet, and to the point: bumped AGAIN!

Category: election 2008,McCain,Obama,politicsharmonicminer @ 9:01 pm

I think these videos are so great that I just want to keep them up front and center, so I may promote them occasionally. Here they are again!

This is the campaign to defeat Obama, in a nutshell.

I watched them all.  Obama supporters may complain about interpretations, but these videos do not have a factual error I can see.  They’re quite concise, delivered engagingly, and make their point very clearly.

The McCain campaign should take a lesson from these people.

Tags: , , ,

Nov 03 2008

Thomas Sowell’s closing argument against Obama

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 6:34 pm

Thomas Sowell is brilliant economist and observer of culture, one of the handful of African Americans, it would seem, who won’t be voting for Obama. (read it all)

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

In 5 years, I wonder how many people will admit to voting for Obama. I remember 1981, when no one would admit to having voted for Carter….

via Powerline and RealClearPolitics

Nov 03 2008

The Left is STILL stealing Yes on 8 signs: bumped

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 3:41 pm

UPDATE:  The battle of the Yes on 8 sign continues unabated at our local elementary school.   The last one I put up (the third replacement I put up, to replace one someone ELSE had first installed, in a public area with many political signs) was defaced by having the YES torn out, and the word NO put on with a marker.  I left it there, as was; it seemed a good way to illustrate to passersby that those demanding tolerance were the most intolerant of all.  This morning, when I took my daughter to school, someone had replaced that sign with a fresh, new YES on 8 sign.  I smiled, knowing there was a fellow traveler out there somewhere.  But when I picked up my daughter today, that new sign had been completely stolen.  NO other signs in that area are touched, ONLY the YES on 8 sign.   The lesson is clear, isn’t it?

PREVIOUS POST: Earlier, I reported on all the Yes on Prop 8 signs that are being stolen and defaced. (More at the link.)

When I came back, the sign I put on the corner of my property was gone, again. I will never, never let any person from the Left tell me about how the Left is about tolerance of diverse viewpoints. I have observed many instances of the Left shouting down the (very) rare speaker from the Right on college campuses, while the reverse virtually never occurs. This is my first experience with it happening on my own property, and in my own relatively rural community, however. Bottom line: the Left is about shutting up the opposition, not merely about winning the argument. The Left is not in favor of diversity, the Left uses diversity-speak as a tool, plain and simple. Pay attention. You will hear this material again.

Since that post, I’ve put up several signs, and had them stolen or vandalized (sometimes they just rip out the YES, and scribble NO on it), both off my own property and on public property where other political signs are left alone. Uniquely, I have not heard of or noticed any missing or defaced signs for candidates, just Yes on Prop 8 signs.

Here’s my latest attempt on my own lot:

This is the corner of my 5 acre property.  I added the additional sign “My Land, My Sign, Hands Off!!” just in case some Lefty miscreant thinks that it’s public property and so he can do what he wants to my sign….  Not that I expect it to do any good.  But you do what you can.

So, I’m taking bets:  this sign went up today at noon.  How long will it last?

And I have quite a bit more information now, enough to know that “NO on 8” signs in my community are being left alone, and no candidate signs are being touched…  it seems to be ONLY Yes on 8 signs.  So none of this “moral equivalence” nonsense, please.  Everybody isn’t doing it.  It’s the Left, period, around here, and apparently statewide, from all reports.

Nov 03 2008

What goes around comes around

Category: humorharmonicminer @ 2:33 pm

Augusta Chronicle, augusta news, augusta weather, augusta sports, augusta golf, augusta georgia

Cartoons by Rick McKee


Nov 03 2008

The only way the government will get my 401k is to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers

Category: economy,election 2008,leftharmonicminer @ 1:02 pm

Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? – Capital Commerce (

I hate to use the “S” word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta’s Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn’t that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.
Continue reading “The only way the government will get my 401k is to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers”

Tags: , ,

Nov 03 2008

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, even for heterosexuals

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 10:29 am

John Mark Reynolds makes the case that the denial of gay marriage is not discrimination in the sense of “denial of a basic right”.  (It’s worth reading it all, it isn’t long.)  Key graphs:

Traditionally, the government has supported marriage as a benefit to encourage the formation of strong families to produce future citizens. There may be other good relationships (friendship for example), but the state hands out no special benefits for them because it has no compelling reason to do so.

The hidden assumption of the Feinstein case is that marriage is a right and not a privilege. We should not discriminate in cases of human rights, but marriage is not one of those rare and precious things.

You don’t have the right to get married . . . not even under California law. You cannot, for example, marry a plant, a comic book character, or your mother. We (rightly) discriminate regarding the privilege of marriage.

I would just add that there are quite a few people I cannot marry, even if we decide we are “in love”.   And I would add that I can’t legally marry TWO women in the USA, even if we all are “in love”.   In fact, even under current California law, three men who are “in love” cannot all marry each other.

When marriage is untethered from its traditional meaning, no reasonable case can be made for not allowing 3 men and 2 women to marry, to have various bisexual arrangements within the group, to raise children AS a group, etc.   And while we’re at it, since parents may give permission to a child under the age of 18 to marry, there is no reason why parents could not legally give their blessing for 6 teenagers to marry each other in a group marriage… won’t the prom be fun?    These are not “scare stories”, or “extreme cases”, they are the logical result of the line of reasoning now used to support gay marriage, that “being in love” trumps all other considerations.  If there is no applicable traditional standard, then there is no standard at all, and anything is allowable, if people are in love, right?

Let’s face it:  the age of 18 for majority is a purely social construct.  It has been different and IS different in many other societies.  I’m entertained by gay activists who righteously assert, because they are sensitive to the accusation of “recruitment” of children and teens, that they would never support or encourage sex between “under 18” and “over 18” partners.  Well, why NOT?  What arbitrary reasoning is involved in picking the age of 18?  Why not 17?  Or 16?  Or 15?  Especially if they’re “in love”?  How can we deny them, in good conscience?  Aren’t we just imposing our values on them?

The funny part about this is that these people have decided that this fairly arbitrary number deserves enshrinement in law and must never be challenged, rather as if it is received wisdom from on high, while the REAL received wisdom from on High is ignored.

My point here is not to suggest that most gays are incipient pedophiles, not at all.  I know better.  My point is to suggest that their utter faith in age 18 as the magic boundary is largely opportunistic, and is a way of trying to seem in agreement with society on one norm (the age of majority, which has varied from culture to culture), while completely challenging another (heterosexual marriage, which is the only type that has ever existed anywhere) that has even firmer roots in tradition and biology than the one they are challenging.

John Mark Reynolds’ point is that since marriage is privilege, not a right, it is reasonable for society to place restrictions on it that serve society’s best interests (essentially the encouragement of children and families), and not to be swayed by particular circumstances of particular individuals, however sympathetic they may be.

You can vote YES on Prop 8 and continue to love your gay friends.  I plan to do exactly that.