Floating tech incubator piques interest of more than 100 startups (Wired UK):
One of the problems with our immigration system is that we can't give enough visas to scientists and engineers that want to come here and work for US corporations and pay high taxes. Anyone who wants to come here illegally, however, is going to be able to get government support and funding and not pay 1% of the taxes one of those engineers we are keeping out would. Tech companies in Silicon Valley have been talking about putting a cruise ship just outside US waters so those engineers and scientists could work here via 'day passes'. Another group is considering building labs and offices on a former cruise ship so they would have access to the US for employees and material but not be hemmed in by government regulations.
There's a movement called 'seasteading' that thinks we could build communities out in international waters; think 'Waterworld' and 'Atlas Shrugged'. First adopters would be server farms and financial institutions and tech firms. If the cost was low enough, you'd see artist colonies and tourism (go to 'Freedonia' and do whatever drugs you want, fire automatic guns with chainsaw bayonets, get medical treatments that work but are only five years into the FDA's ten-year approval system). It would be safer than you'd think since they'd determine who could and couldn't join, what building standards were and could organize a self-defense and police force. There is an anti-aircraft platform outside the British waters that people have taken over and have sovereignty. 'Sealand' has server farms and some financial institutions that claim residence. It used to give out passports that the UK honored and was actually attacked by pirates trying to put their own people in power; the UK refused to help as 'Sealand' is out of their jurisdiction.
It has an appeal, the idea of a new land without lawyers or regulations or bureaucrats or politicians. I hope they make it.
'via Blog this'
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Gay Marriage, Obama and The Added Charm
There's a phrase I love but rarely use, 'with the added charm of being meaningless.' I heard it in an old Bogart movie; Bogart and his friend were paratroopers and his friend had a mysterious past. The friend ends up dead, Bogart is having a drink with the man he realizes is the killer and makes a toast, 'Geronimo.' The villain says it's a quaint toast with the added charm of being meaningless. I use it when I am strongly contemptuous of something or someone. I am going to use it today.
Obama (the dog eater) came out for gay marriage. Well, sort of. Not really. It's evolving. In 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire while running for state senator where he said he was in favor of gay marriage and would oppose laws banning it. Then he ran for president and suddenly he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. For years, though, he's said his 'understanding' of the issue is 'evolving'. It gave him plausible deniability and allowed for him to appear friendly to gay donors and also religious voters. Now, though, he has stated he's for gay marriage. Which means he's going to press for the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed by Congress, right?
No. But he's declared that he's going to order the attorney general to not defend it in lawsuits, right?
No. But he's going to require companies bidding for government contacts to provide benefits to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to order Obamacare to give coverage to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to use the threat of losing public funds to coerce the states to make gay marriage legal, right?
No. He said that he believes in states' rights and won't interfere with their banning of gay marriage. So he's doing nothing at all?
No. He's cashing the checks of gay donors that were refusing to donate unless he supported gay marriage. He was going to lose tens of millions of dollars otherwise.
So Obama's support of gay marriage has the added charm of being meaningless. It changes nothing. He can recognize same-sex relationships in the federal bureaucracy and the military without Congress. He can give those rights to hundreds of thousands of people and there'd be no way to stop him. He won't though.
Obama (the dog eater) came out for gay marriage. Well, sort of. Not really. It's evolving. In 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire while running for state senator where he said he was in favor of gay marriage and would oppose laws banning it. Then he ran for president and suddenly he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. For years, though, he's said his 'understanding' of the issue is 'evolving'. It gave him plausible deniability and allowed for him to appear friendly to gay donors and also religious voters. Now, though, he has stated he's for gay marriage. Which means he's going to press for the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed by Congress, right?
No. But he's declared that he's going to order the attorney general to not defend it in lawsuits, right?
No. But he's going to require companies bidding for government contacts to provide benefits to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to order Obamacare to give coverage to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to use the threat of losing public funds to coerce the states to make gay marriage legal, right?
No. He said that he believes in states' rights and won't interfere with their banning of gay marriage. So he's doing nothing at all?
No. He's cashing the checks of gay donors that were refusing to donate unless he supported gay marriage. He was going to lose tens of millions of dollars otherwise.
So Obama's support of gay marriage has the added charm of being meaningless. It changes nothing. He can recognize same-sex relationships in the federal bureaucracy and the military without Congress. He can give those rights to hundreds of thousands of people and there'd be no way to stop him. He won't though.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Forward To The PAST!
Obama looks to move 'forward' with comparisons to Bush's policies - The Hill's Ballot Box:
"The reelection campaign aimed to remind voters about the winning campaign in 2008."
That's all they got. Bush, who left office willingly on January 20, 2009, was not a good president. I think he's a good man and a kind man and did what he thought was right, but he was a bad president. But let me be clear, he was not Nixon. He was not filled with hate, did not punish his enemies with the force of the federal government and tried to work with the other side whenever possible. He doesn't deserve the vitriol he's gotten from this administration, the constant attacks and insults and slights. After four years out of office, the man should be forgiven his errors and the world should move on.
The problem is that Obama has nothing positive to campaign on. The economy is horrible, unemployment is terrible, inflation is rising and we are less respected internationally than when Bush was president. The public doesn't want Obamacare, doesn't want trillion dollars of new debt every year and doesn't want the government to constantly expand.
Yes, we killed Osama, but we used methods of interrogation Obama campaigned against at a facility Obama campaigned to close and a military Obama wants to shrink from bases in a country Obama was against invading. He still took sixteen hours to give the order and gave operational control to an admiral for the express purpose of insulating himself from blame if the operation failed. Was it a gutsy call for Hoover to go after Al Capone? Is it a gutsy call when the FBI goes after a serial killer?
He passed Obamacare which no one wanted and is unconstitutional to boot, he let the military kill Osama and...? His campaign slogan is 'Forward' but there's nothing forward-looking in his policies. New Deal control of the economy, Great Society entitlement expansion and...? We've got five trillion in debt and...?
Forward. I do not think this word means what you think this word means.
'via Blog this'
"The reelection campaign aimed to remind voters about the winning campaign in 2008."
That's all they got. Bush, who left office willingly on January 20, 2009, was not a good president. I think he's a good man and a kind man and did what he thought was right, but he was a bad president. But let me be clear, he was not Nixon. He was not filled with hate, did not punish his enemies with the force of the federal government and tried to work with the other side whenever possible. He doesn't deserve the vitriol he's gotten from this administration, the constant attacks and insults and slights. After four years out of office, the man should be forgiven his errors and the world should move on.
The problem is that Obama has nothing positive to campaign on. The economy is horrible, unemployment is terrible, inflation is rising and we are less respected internationally than when Bush was president. The public doesn't want Obamacare, doesn't want trillion dollars of new debt every year and doesn't want the government to constantly expand.
Yes, we killed Osama, but we used methods of interrogation Obama campaigned against at a facility Obama campaigned to close and a military Obama wants to shrink from bases in a country Obama was against invading. He still took sixteen hours to give the order and gave operational control to an admiral for the express purpose of insulating himself from blame if the operation failed. Was it a gutsy call for Hoover to go after Al Capone? Is it a gutsy call when the FBI goes after a serial killer?
He passed Obamacare which no one wanted and is unconstitutional to boot, he let the military kill Osama and...? His campaign slogan is 'Forward' but there's nothing forward-looking in his policies. New Deal control of the economy, Great Society entitlement expansion and...? We've got five trillion in debt and...?
Forward. I do not think this word means what you think this word means.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, May 5, 2012
No, really, they make it too easy. Obama 2012: Just Because
If Obama wins, what would he do in a second term? - The Washington Post:
"The president’s advisers are naturally reluctant to discuss what happens if their candidate wins in November. They don’t want to appear overconfident or undercut the messages of the campaign. None were willing to speak on the record."
Read that again. Obama's running for re-election. Nobody wants to talk about what he would do if he wins. It's a secret.
'via Blog this'
"The president’s advisers are naturally reluctant to discuss what happens if their candidate wins in November. They don’t want to appear overconfident or undercut the messages of the campaign. None were willing to speak on the record."
Read that again. Obama's running for re-election. Nobody wants to talk about what he would do if he wins. It's a secret.
'via Blog this'
More, Please!
Mitt Romney issues Ohio challenge to President Obama | cleveland.com:
One of Obama's greatest challenges in this election is that, for the first time in his life, he's actually going to have a real opponent. Obama won elections by having primary challengers removed from the ballot and using divorce records to discredit his opponent and to get the Republican candidate to drop out. McCain ran a pathetic campaign that refused to say anything bad or negative about Obama (for example, that he ATE A DOG) and was stunned that the media that loved him when he was a maverick turned on him when he ran against a Democrat. Obama, when he is not using a teleprompter, is good for at least three 'uh' per sentence and is amazingly thin-skinned. His campaign won't drop the Romney dog 'issue' and keeps reintroducing it time and time again because he simply can't accept anything he has ever done is less than awe-inspiring.
Obama really needs people to ignore the horrible economy and the jobless rate and the way he is making us weaker internationally and focus on anything bad he can think of about a man who's:
'via Blog this'
One of Obama's greatest challenges in this election is that, for the first time in his life, he's actually going to have a real opponent. Obama won elections by having primary challengers removed from the ballot and using divorce records to discredit his opponent and to get the Republican candidate to drop out. McCain ran a pathetic campaign that refused to say anything bad or negative about Obama (for example, that he ATE A DOG) and was stunned that the media that loved him when he was a maverick turned on him when he ran against a Democrat. Obama, when he is not using a teleprompter, is good for at least three 'uh' per sentence and is amazingly thin-skinned. His campaign won't drop the Romney dog 'issue' and keeps reintroducing it time and time again because he simply can't accept anything he has ever done is less than awe-inspiring.
Obama really needs people to ignore the horrible economy and the jobless rate and the way he is making us weaker internationally and focus on anything bad he can think of about a man who's:
- an expert on turning around economies and
- was a moderate governor in one of the most liberal states in the country and
- sober and not cheating on his wife and
- not a fanatic on social issues and
- has spent almost six years running for president, only losing to the man the media backed
- is far more moderate than Obama, who was more to the left than the only member of Congress to declare himself a socialist.
Romney isn't falling into the trap of defining himself by whatever Obama says he is. Romney is pushing for the conversation to be about the failed economic policies of Obama. Obama wants to run against social conservatives in Congress when the Republican party hasn't been less socially conservative and more fiscally conservative... ever. The 'war on women' thing Obama is pushing is to cover up that Republicans don't really care about abortion any more. While the population is getting (slightly) more pro-life, everyone not on the left seems to agree that abortion isn't important when people are not working and Washington is spending us into extinction. It really IS the economy and neither the Republican party nor the public really want to talk about immigration (more illegal immigrants are leaving the US than are coming in; they are deporting themselves) or racism (a black man is running for re-election to the presidency) or sexism (actual sexism is illegal, more women graduate from college than men and I've already talked about abortion). Romney's temperament is too polite and even-keeled to make him look racist by attacking Obama harshly and Romney's whole tone is 'Obama tried but his policies are wrong and don't work,' not 'Obama is a commie muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the US!' I really thing Obama is going to lose this election. More, please!
'via Blog this'
The Obama-Supporting Media goes to the dogs
Literally.
President Dog-Eater's minions are still attacking Romney on his putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his station wagon in 1983. Even though they are looking more and more foolish as they claim Obama eating dogs isn't relevant but Romney taking his dog on vacations is. CBS, formerly the most trusted name in news, has a photo essay on presidents and dogs, showing Obama cradling his dog's head (the dog is named BO, as in Barack Obama). The 'story' is that someone released a report that dogs relieve stress, so they choose to do a photo essay on presidents and their dogs. They also happen to show Obama, the current president and the first president to eat a dog, with his dog. Either this is bias towards Obama or CBS ran out of news.
Part of what makes this whole dog scandal irresistible is that the Left can't admit that they hold anti-American and conflicting principles. Multiculturalism holds that every culture is equally wonderful except for America's. Obama put the dog-eating story in his biography because it was multicultural and un-American and therefore better. He talks about how the Indonesian muslim tradition allows animist and pagan beliefs and rituals such as the belief that eating an animal allows you to gain mystical power from the spirit of the beast. The paragraph ends with his stepfather promising that Obama would get to eat tiger. Tiger is rare and usually a protected or endangered species, certainly not an animal for the dinner table. If a bitter gun-clinger hunted the tiger, he would be attacked on the Left as a butcher and killer of a majestic animal not meant for sport. If the tiger is hunted and butchered and given to a small child on the belief that the tiger's spirit will pass to the kid, however, it is a beautiful example of a diverse and wonderful culture equal to our own. If an American kills the dog or tiger, bad. If someone from a non-Western culture kills a dog or tiger, good. Putting a dog crate on the roof of a car to take the dog on vacation means you aren't fit to be president. Eating dog as a child and talking about it in a memoir with no revulsion or shame means you are multicultural and fit to be president.
Here's a fun trick: read an article about a politician in trouble and count how many sentences it takes before their political party is mentioned. If it's a Republican, you'll be told that in one or two sentences. If it's a Democrat, they won't mention it in the first two paragraphs. A recent article about Democrat John Edwards, the 2004 VP candidate and 2008 presidential candidate who is facing thirty years in jail for using campaign donations to cover up the fact he fathered a child with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, never mentioned his political affiliation. He stole campaign funds from a 98-year-old woman to pay off his mistress who he was having live with his aide (he had the aide claim paternity even though the aide was married and had a vasectomy) while he was running for president. The Left can't mention his party, however. It's not like he took his dog on vacation.
President Dog-Eater's minions are still attacking Romney on his putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his station wagon in 1983. Even though they are looking more and more foolish as they claim Obama eating dogs isn't relevant but Romney taking his dog on vacations is. CBS, formerly the most trusted name in news, has a photo essay on presidents and dogs, showing Obama cradling his dog's head (the dog is named BO, as in Barack Obama). The 'story' is that someone released a report that dogs relieve stress, so they choose to do a photo essay on presidents and their dogs. They also happen to show Obama, the current president and the first president to eat a dog, with his dog. Either this is bias towards Obama or CBS ran out of news.
Part of what makes this whole dog scandal irresistible is that the Left can't admit that they hold anti-American and conflicting principles. Multiculturalism holds that every culture is equally wonderful except for America's. Obama put the dog-eating story in his biography because it was multicultural and un-American and therefore better. He talks about how the Indonesian muslim tradition allows animist and pagan beliefs and rituals such as the belief that eating an animal allows you to gain mystical power from the spirit of the beast. The paragraph ends with his stepfather promising that Obama would get to eat tiger. Tiger is rare and usually a protected or endangered species, certainly not an animal for the dinner table. If a bitter gun-clinger hunted the tiger, he would be attacked on the Left as a butcher and killer of a majestic animal not meant for sport. If the tiger is hunted and butchered and given to a small child on the belief that the tiger's spirit will pass to the kid, however, it is a beautiful example of a diverse and wonderful culture equal to our own. If an American kills the dog or tiger, bad. If someone from a non-Western culture kills a dog or tiger, good. Putting a dog crate on the roof of a car to take the dog on vacation means you aren't fit to be president. Eating dog as a child and talking about it in a memoir with no revulsion or shame means you are multicultural and fit to be president.
Here's a fun trick: read an article about a politician in trouble and count how many sentences it takes before their political party is mentioned. If it's a Republican, you'll be told that in one or two sentences. If it's a Democrat, they won't mention it in the first two paragraphs. A recent article about Democrat John Edwards, the 2004 VP candidate and 2008 presidential candidate who is facing thirty years in jail for using campaign donations to cover up the fact he fathered a child with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, never mentioned his political affiliation. He stole campaign funds from a 98-year-old woman to pay off his mistress who he was having live with his aide (he had the aide claim paternity even though the aide was married and had a vasectomy) while he was running for president. The Left can't mention his party, however. It's not like he took his dog on vacation.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Gay Marriage and Gayness In General
I 'liked' George Takei on Facebook and get his posts, mostly funny pictures with a pun describing them. He did a post today about North Carolina and a no-gay-marriage amendment up for a vote soon. As an Evil Conservative I'm supposed to hate gay marriage and the mainstreaming of gayness in our culture but I don't and it makes me angry that we're in this fight. Part of conservatism is a live-and-let-live mentality towards most social issues. I mentioned in my Mad Men post that I love beautiful women and Christina Hendricks is pretty much the center of the Venn diagram in regards to what I find attractive. Liking tall and busty redheads doesn't affect my opinion on the UN or energy policy or the fact that our president ate dog (HE ATE DOG! DOG! I LIKE DOGS! DOGS ARE NOT FOR EATING!) and bragged about it. It affects who I date and do a google image search for and that's really about it. Gay people getting married doesn't seem like a problem for me. The one argument I've heard that was even slightly compelling against gay marriage is that it would be a tool polygamists would use in arguing that polygamy should be legal. It stopped being slightly compelling when I learned that the British government recognizes polygamy on some levels but gay marriage is not. Gays are gay, gays get in long-term relationships and gays have to deal with the legal problems of property ownership, not getting benefits a straight couple gets (insurance, pension, etc), the division of assets after a breakup and so on.
Part of the anti-gay bias, I think, is the confusion with homosexuality and pedophilia. It started with the Greeks liking grown men to 'mentor' teen boys and the Catholic Church perpetuated it with their silence about pedophile priests. Some people think that gay means you'll molest boys. It ignores men that molest girls as well as women that molest boys. To be blunt, it's a stupid argument.
Another part of anti-gay bias might be better described as a bias against those not following traditional gender roles. Back in the 1980s, there was a 'Saturday Night Live' character called Pat whose sex was impossible to tell. The gag was that Pat would say something that sounded like proof Pat was one sex (It's that time of month I hate...) and then finish the sentence with something that made it ambiguous (you know, bill time!). It was funny in part because the other people in the sketch knew that it didn't matter and it shouldn't matter but they just wanted to know. I've said, when a woman talks about something difficult and painful in regards to women's fashion or hygiene, that if I were a woman, I'd be the hairiest lesbian anybody ever saw. I had a friend that was a drag queen and even he used dancer's leggings rather than shave his legs. I occasionally wear polo shirts and khakis because they're comfortable and acceptable pretty much everywhere. My haircut is pretty basic, relatively short and parted on the side. A few weeks ago I watched a cute animal video (cute animals constitute about 40% of the internet with porn being another 40% and everything else taking what's left) and the zookeeper being interviewed had my haircut and was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. It took a few minutes to realize she was a woman. When I figured it out, I was vaguely bothered for a moment. I had no idea of her sexual preference and didn't give a damn but her appearance not being gender-appropriate was bothersome enough that I consciously noticed it.
We could have a really boring argument over what percentage of gender is biological in nature and how much is imprinted on us but whatever is imprinted onto us is almost never consciously chosen. One of the terms for homosexual is 'queer' which originally meant unusual and not fitting in. People know that it's not socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gays; there are serious social and legal consequences for it. You can lose your job in the private sector and almost certainly lose it in the public sector and people will think you're a hateful asshole if you show honest prejudice against gays. I think that it is a good thing for our society that homosexuality is acceptable. I mentioned that I like George Takei who is a proud gay. I was inspired to talk about this when watching an interview of John Barrowman, an actor who plays a recurring character on 'Doctor Who' (yeah, I said I was a geek) and came to find out that the actor (who plays a slutty bisexual from the future) is a flaming gay guy who is hilarious and raunchy. The interview is great and fun and he talks about his 'partner' (can I say that that is an awkward term and I wish it would go away?) and it hit me that out gay people tend to be pretty cool. Not sure if it's because boring and uptight gays tend to stay in the closet somewhat but it is interesting. Look, I am not an expert in gender studies and this post is running long already. Gay marriage doesn't hurt society. Hatred does. Forcing people into the margins does. If you can't handle a flamboyant gay couple at the next table or the next door down, I hear the Amish are hiring.
Part of the anti-gay bias, I think, is the confusion with homosexuality and pedophilia. It started with the Greeks liking grown men to 'mentor' teen boys and the Catholic Church perpetuated it with their silence about pedophile priests. Some people think that gay means you'll molest boys. It ignores men that molest girls as well as women that molest boys. To be blunt, it's a stupid argument.
Another part of anti-gay bias might be better described as a bias against those not following traditional gender roles. Back in the 1980s, there was a 'Saturday Night Live' character called Pat whose sex was impossible to tell. The gag was that Pat would say something that sounded like proof Pat was one sex (It's that time of month I hate...) and then finish the sentence with something that made it ambiguous (you know, bill time!). It was funny in part because the other people in the sketch knew that it didn't matter and it shouldn't matter but they just wanted to know. I've said, when a woman talks about something difficult and painful in regards to women's fashion or hygiene, that if I were a woman, I'd be the hairiest lesbian anybody ever saw. I had a friend that was a drag queen and even he used dancer's leggings rather than shave his legs. I occasionally wear polo shirts and khakis because they're comfortable and acceptable pretty much everywhere. My haircut is pretty basic, relatively short and parted on the side. A few weeks ago I watched a cute animal video (cute animals constitute about 40% of the internet with porn being another 40% and everything else taking what's left) and the zookeeper being interviewed had my haircut and was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. It took a few minutes to realize she was a woman. When I figured it out, I was vaguely bothered for a moment. I had no idea of her sexual preference and didn't give a damn but her appearance not being gender-appropriate was bothersome enough that I consciously noticed it.
We could have a really boring argument over what percentage of gender is biological in nature and how much is imprinted on us but whatever is imprinted onto us is almost never consciously chosen. One of the terms for homosexual is 'queer' which originally meant unusual and not fitting in. People know that it's not socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gays; there are serious social and legal consequences for it. You can lose your job in the private sector and almost certainly lose it in the public sector and people will think you're a hateful asshole if you show honest prejudice against gays. I think that it is a good thing for our society that homosexuality is acceptable. I mentioned that I like George Takei who is a proud gay. I was inspired to talk about this when watching an interview of John Barrowman, an actor who plays a recurring character on 'Doctor Who' (yeah, I said I was a geek) and came to find out that the actor (who plays a slutty bisexual from the future) is a flaming gay guy who is hilarious and raunchy. The interview is great and fun and he talks about his 'partner' (can I say that that is an awkward term and I wish it would go away?) and it hit me that out gay people tend to be pretty cool. Not sure if it's because boring and uptight gays tend to stay in the closet somewhat but it is interesting. Look, I am not an expert in gender studies and this post is running long already. Gay marriage doesn't hurt society. Hatred does. Forcing people into the margins does. If you can't handle a flamboyant gay couple at the next table or the next door down, I hear the Amish are hiring.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)