This one comes courtesy of Margaret Thatcher:

The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

This should be an obvious observation, but it seems that many people are unable to wrap their head around the idea that taking money from one group and giving it to another group does not change the amount of money. That means it is impossible to stimulate the economy by 'spreading the wealth.' Those who had the money taken away would have spent it on something, or saved it in a bank, who then would have loaned it out. Either way, the money gets spent, whether you spread it around or not.

But throw in the lost productivity associated with transferring that wealth through a bureaucracy and you are actually shrinking the economy.

Hat Tip: House of Eratosthenes
(As an aside, I did get the idea for Best Quote from Freeberg's Best Sentence I've Heard or Read Lately.)

Our third award for best quote goes to Oleg Atbashian, for a rather long article about the foolishness of liberalism/socialism. This just about made me fall out of my chair laughing:

And the more I look at Obama's agenda the more I realize that wishing him well is like wishing luck to Don Quixote in wrecking the windmill that feeds me and my family.

It's not a matter of taste. The spectacle of a bombastic crackpot in medieval armor poking his lance at random objects is disquieting if you own and operate an industrial facility.

One crazy old fool yearning for the utopian good ol' days that never actually existed seems rather harmless, lance not withstanding. But what do you do when a large number of people decide he's right and elect Don Quixote as leader?

This past weekend, I started building a table top for Warhammer. My friends and I had previously just marked out a four foot by six foot space on the floor and played, but I decided it was time to actually make a gaming surface. So I went out last weekend and got all the supplies I needed, shanghaiing a friend with a truck to haul it all over to my dad's place. Dad has all the tools.

Warhammer is usually played on a six foot by four foot area, so the table top itself is a sheet of 1/2 inch thick MDF cut down to that size. I framed the whole table with 2x2. To make storage easier, since I don't have a space where I can just leave it out, I cut the whole thing in half and set it on hinges so it will fold up and I can put it away.

I still need to put some kind of terrain on the table top. I'm thinking of making this table for my Tau army, so this will be a snow covered table. Eventually, I'll make a second one for my Empire (fantasy) army, which is the more typical grassy terrain. I also need to get some legs made for the table, so we can stand up and play. Right now I'm thinking of keeping them separate, so I can swap out table tops. But that's all a project for another day.

Here are a few pictures showing the table.




This all took only a couple hours to make. It's a fairly simple design, and Dad had all the appropriate saws and drills and other tools. He's something of a handy man, so he's collected quite a few along the way. It made for a good father-son project, and of course we celebrated by going out to happy hour. It's good to be able to build things yourself.

This list was sent to me by a friend, and comes from the Georgia Family Council. It is a list of ten foundational tenets of a just and democratic society. I'm just going to list them here, but they have a bit written on each on.

1. The rights of the people come directly from God.
   

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

   The Declaration of Independence

2. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
   

   We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

   The Constitution of the United States

3. Government should only perform those functions delegated to it by the people.
   

   The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

   Patrick Henry

4. Government is instituted to protect rights, not create them.
   

   Government...should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view, as its principle object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.

   James Wilson

5. People, through private enterprise, create wealth; government does not.
   

   A people...who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantage may achieve almost anything.

   George Washington

6. Government can give nothing except what it first takes from someone else.
   

   It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income.

   Benjamin Franklin

7. Where government must act, the smallest and most local entity capable of doing the job should do so - as it is closest and most responsive to the people.
   

   We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the center.

   Alexander Hamilton

8. All government policies should favor long-term health of the country over short term gain.
   

   Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

   John Adams

9. Where government policies are necessary, they should not encourage irresponsibility, dependence, vice, or sloth among the people.
   

   The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.

   Frederick Douglas

10. All government policies must be judged in light of the principles of federalism and the division of powers (checks and balances) as envisioned by our Founders.
    

    When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided on one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

    Thomas Jefferson

These principles seem sound. But something doesn't quite sit right. It's good, orthodox conservatism. Nothing jumps out, which means the matter should be investigated further. This is, after all, merely a list, not a complete set of reasonings. I shall post my musings on this later.

Less than a whole day into the Obama administration, and he is already providing us with things to mock.

I like this guy's music. A lot of it actually reminds me of the sound track to the original Perfect Dark.

I found brilliant quote by Mark Steyn today. I'm going to take it here out of context:

We're now told that the problem with the last New Deal is that it was too small, so Obama's new New Deal has to be even bigger. That's like telling New Orleans that the problem is they're not far enough below sea level so they need to dig deeper.

This seems to be the direction the government is taking. Seems being an understatement. The economy is 'in trouble' so the federal government is going to throw money willy nilly at everyone who comes to call. Van Helsing actually gives a much more appropriate analogy:

If you'd like to test out the Keynesian theories that guide Democrats, take on unmanageable expenses until you're as deep in debt as our government, then go out to the shopping mall and max out your credit cards. According to liberals' "theoretical knowledge," it will return you to solvency.

This crisis revolves around people taking on more obligations than they could afford. Simply put, Americans on average spent more money than they earned. This can work in the short term. The whole point of credit cards and even long term loans is to get now and pay later. For long term loans, you typically know what the monthly obligation is and can budget accordingly. You can even do this with credit cards.

But the idea is to eventually pay off the debt, not extend it in perpetuity. This is where the problem lies. You cannot consume more than you produce. A single person can, certainly, but as a whole, people cannot consume more than they produce. If Sony produces 1000 TVs, the people cannot buy 1200 TVs. This is a very basic concept.

And I say production and consumption because I wish to distinguish it from earning and spending. Money is just currency, a measure of the ratio of worth between various goods and services. The ratio is set by supply and demand. The money supply determines the actual unit of worth. Spending more money than you earn does not change the fact that there is only so much stuff to go around. What it does is inflate the money supply. This scales the unit of worth, but doesn't actually change the ratios of worth.

Well, actually it does, because there is a lag time between money supply inflation and price inflation. So it looks like an increase in demand, which affects supply (production). Where it falls apart is where someone remembers that money only represents wealth. Someone says, 'wait a minute, you said you're giving me 1200 TVs, but you only have 1000.' Plus you promised another 1200 to that other guy. When people realize that they cannot meet their material obligations, the economy halts while everyone sorts things out. You can borrow money from the future from now until doomsday, but you cannot borrow stuff from the future. And the economy is made of stuff. Money is just bookkeeping.

Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine

I read an article in the Telegraph about a college student who is selling her virginity to pay for her master's degree. Normally this would be noted as more evidence of civilization's decline and wouldn't warrant further comment, but there appears to be some incredible stupidity at work here, so comment I shall.

First off, the bids are running at $3.7 million. 3.7 million. I could live over 20 years off that much money (well, if the socialists in Washington let me keep any of it). With over 10,000 bidders. Are men really that desperate for sex? The early men probably were, but at this point, people have to be bidding solely for the prestige of having a four million dollar prostitute. What kind of man spends that kind of money on a one night stand? It is bragging rights only, which means they expect to become more popular after this escapade, rather than shamed. Seriously guys, a bar is much cheaper.

But it was the subtitle that really floored me. She is selling herself to pay for a master's in Family and Marriage Counseling. That's right, a prostitute is going to tell you how to raise your kids and save your marriage. A person who has decided that sex is not important cannot give good advice on familial relationships. Sex is part of an intimate relationship, not just a recreational activity, and if you don't accept that, you aren't going to be able to tell people why their marriage is falling apart instead of being an intimate relationship.

Of course, our prostitute in question is a liberal feminist, having a degree in Women's Studies. This does not surprise me any, based off her behavior. Actually, it does surprise me that she is still a virgin. Modern feminism accepts as one of its tenants that sleeping around is virtuous. Obviously the lesson sunk in, if she is selling her body without any qualms.

I do not expect her to have a happy marriage herself. I think she'll end up going the Sex and the City route, and have a slew of partners but no commitments. I feel sorry for the people she's going to be counseling.

Best stupid quote: "It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore." Here's a hint; at $4 million, it is very highly prized. (Though in this case as a trophy rather than through good Christian values). Just because feminists think virginity is bad doesn't mean everybody else does.

Random prediction: prostitution will effectively become legalized across America. I don't know if it's legal in California, but I saw no indication that she was in trouble for this. Liberals want us to tolerate a bunch of other sexual depravities; prostitution and everything else won't be far behind.

Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine

I was reading an article over at American Princess today about a new movie that Borat guy is making. I don't really know what the movie is about (and don't care enough to find out), but apparently it's just supposed to shock us American Christians. But Emily asks an intriguing question in her post: "does shock value really work anymore?"

It's intriguing because while the answer is yes, shock value does work, but nobody is actually shocked by it. And those who are actually offended are going to ignore it and go on with their life. When the purpose is to shock and offend, but most people's reaction is exasperation and confusion over why someone would degrade themselves like Borat does, you have to wonder why shock value still works.

I don't know anybody who actually gets worked up about stuff like this. Many of my friends are disgusted and dismayed by the deliberate offenses that are given under the guise of art, but none of them complain to the press or write their congressman or otherwise do anything that would be noticed beyond their friends.

And yet every time something like this happens, I hear about somebody who is offended and outraged by it and wants something done. And often times there is a non-profit involved. I really have to wonder if they are actually offended, or are just making noise to justify their existence.

I am going to put the blame squarely on the media for this one. They are the ones who make the big deal about it. They find someone who is shocked (or at least willing to say they are) and then trumpet this as a popular view among Christians. They go looking for the view that most caricatures Christians and then they play it for all to see.

So of course shock value still works. It's free advertising for whoever is doing the shocking, it allows liberals to tell everyone Christians are still close minded bigots, and it allows 'experts' on the shocked group to stay employed.

I had a random thought this evening. There is mounting evidence that global warming is done for and global cooling is on its way in (see here, and here). This despite the fact that humans are doing more and more of what the climate change people are saying causes global warming.

But it suddenly occurred to me that the liberals are going to do a complete about face. Sometime after the Obama administration implements some programs or policies that are supposed to 'fix' global warming, the climate change activists are going to admit that the earth has actually cooled. And they are going to give full credit to the iPresident. Crisis will have been averted, AGW will have been solved, and the oceans will begin to recede.

And anybody who points out that the cooling started years before Obama took office, or that the effects of said policies has proven nill, will be called evil liars by liberals in the same breath that they say that of course liberal activism stopped global warming at that time (in spite of Republicans of course), but that Obama is still the savior.

This is my prediction for Obama's presidency. A bunch of terrible policies that hurt everyone, harm the environment, and don't slow down climate change will be given credit for a global cooling that started well before any of the policies were implemented.

Posted here for the record. Hopefully so I can say I told you so.

NOTE: The term 'iPresident' is stolen without permission from House of Eratosthenes, because I thought it was funny.

A week ago I commented that finding furniture was hard. But sometimes the furniture just shows up. I received this as a late Christmas gift from my grandmother:


Apparently grandma bought this for herself, but when she got it home, decided she didn't like the way it looked. My dad knew I was looking for a stand, and thought it would match my tastes, so he brought it home with him after Christmas.

A coat rack/hat stand is one of the many pieces of furniture I have been looking for to decorate my house. I've wanted one because I do not have a coat closet downstairs, and I wanted to be able to put my hat and jacket by the door. The hat/coat stand appealed to my sense of anachronism. This one looks good. The wood is a little bit lighter than what's in the great room, but you can't tell from across the house.

I've already put it to use.

I found a brilliant rant by Gary Graham while wandering about the internets today. He goes off on the liberal bias in Hollywood, and how he's tired of it. About half way through is my favorite quote:

I’d like to offer, in utter compassion, and speaking on behalf of at least several like-minded bretheren out there, a class-action BITCH-SLAP to every mamby-pamby, limp-wristed douche-bag of a complainer who has the audacity to hope that we hard-working, God-fearing, America-loving taxpayers should be forced to give you one penny of our income to enable you further in your responsibility-shirking, self-destructive habits.

The whole thing is great. I especially like the way he signs it at the end.

Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine

Friend and compatriot Gtmunch has posted another video of our New Year's Eve rocket battery. Roll camera two.

I also dug up our video from last year's display. There are not as many bottle rockets in this one, only 300-400. Nor did we strap fire crackers to the side. Watch until the very end, though.

I was at Walmart today getting some groceries when I passed by a young women that made me think. Not intentionally, mind, but she did make me go 'huh.' She was wearing a shirt that said 'Touch whatever you want.' And 'touch' of course was in four inch high letters stretched across her chest.

The 'huh' was when I thought about what would happen if someone actually touched. I imagine her reaction would be somewhere around shocked, offended, angry, and violated. Even though her shirt is politely requesting that you grab her boobs. Whenever I go out into the general public, I almost always see a women dressed provocatively, or wearing some racy slogan across her chest. Yet I am sure that most of them would be offended if someone tried to get more than a look.

There is an interesting double standard at work here. There are a number of women who dress, and often behave, like sex objects. But they don't want to be treated like sex objects. They think they should be respected, treated courteously, irregardless of how they behave. Where do they get this idea that how they are treated is independent of their behavior?

I doubt many of them believe that appearances are unimportant. Most of them dress like that to catch men's eyes. Or at least the right man's eyes, however they define the right man. Unfortunately, presenting yourself to the world as a Babylonian prostitute catches a great many eyes. But they do seem to get away with it. Or at any rate, they aren't molested.

At the very least, men are trained to act respectful, even if they aren't thinking respectfully. And these women accept this as normal. So both men and women have been taught that women can behave however and men must be nice to them. (I generally don't see the opposite case. Men are still judged on how they dress and behave, though men usually don't display themselves as sex objects.)

This has all the hallmarks of modern feminism on it. Men must be respectful towards women, even if they don't deserve it. Strange it is, that the liberation of women from male oppression has resulted in large numbers of women aggressively choosing to be sex objects.

Some of my bosses and managers are pushing my supervisor into getting a master's degree. They are also after me to go back to school, though less insistently. Since I walked in the door three years ago right out of college, my managers have wanted me to get a master's degree. The problem is, they want me to get a degree for the degree's sake.

From what I can tell, the primary reason to get a master's degree is so HR can check off that box next to your name when they are considering promotions and raises. A master's is a filter that HR applies to determine how qualified a person is. Someone with a master's is considered better than someone without a master's.

Except that all the coworkers I've talked to agree that a master's degree doesn't teach you anything you couldn't learn quicker and cheaper on the job. Nobody actually expects me to be a better engineer or manager when I'm done with the degree. It's possible I could be, but I expect it would be a better use of my time to actually go do engineering rather than watch a lecture online explaining how to do it. Especially under an experienced engineer.

This brings up an interesting question. Do the senior managers actually want me to get a master's degree, or are they telling me to get one so it's easier to work me through HR? They've all said it's a good idea, but the only reason I ever got was that it would help me in the long run. Nothing about actually learning how to do a thing. In fact the company offers training and mentoring programs for learning how to do stuff.

I wonder if I would get in trouble if I just asked straight out if I'm supposed to learn something or if it's only to help me deal with HR. I wonder if I would get an honest answer.

Courtesy of Dave Barry.

Hat tip Conservative Grapevine.

We gave 2008 a fine send off and ushered in 2009 in the time honored manner. Copious amounts of things that go boom. To do things right, we built our own rocket battery. Here is the monstrosity.



There are near to 1000 bottle rockets in that array. We actually had more, but ran out of room. Next year we'll get a bigger grid. We set the whole thing off at midnight.

Of course, at the end of it our cardboard launch platform was on fire. Hey, you use what you've got. That's why God invented fire extinguishers. Here are the smoldering ruins.


Happy New Year!