Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Freedom of the press - to make things up!

An important link if you have not been following the doctoring of news from the Israeli conflicts.

This message, and it’s links provides a capstone on a lesson people should have learned many times over – but don’t. “The Press” makes stuff up to suit their own agenda. I put the press in quotes because I want to point out that this fictional writing style masquerading as factual accounting is a tradition that is millenniums old. I provide as an example Julius Caesar’s writings of Gaul describing Celts and Druids. A more modern example is news media coverage of firearms incidents. When was the last time you saw a headline that describes a private citizen using a firearm, rifle, shotgun or handgun, to defend themselves against an attacker? There was the handicapped lady in NYC. Unfortunately to do so meant that she was probably breaking several NYC ordinances. According to the NRA it happens on an almost daily basis. The truth is probably somewhere in between Mainstream Media’s rarely reporting and NRAnews saying that it happens almost daily.

My point is that the truth is usually found by listening to both sides of the story, looking for as much of the raw information that is available, listening to what is not being said, and looking at the history behind the story.

More later,

p.s. Yes I promised more about being an election judge. It’s coming. I’m still needing to do more research in the Illinois Statutes.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

How's your spelling?

[Here's another post from the previous blog site.]

Monday, October 23, 2006
How's your spelling?
Watching the race for Illinois Governor is interesting. In the same way that watching the State Legislature vote away our inalienable rights is interesting. You can see where its going and there’s not a d**n thing you feel you can do about it.

Lets briefly mention some problems that are obvious to myself, perhaps its because I’ve moved here from out of state. Sample ballots? Seen any? Downloaded any? Perhaps I’ve been spoiled, but in NJ the League of Women Voters always mailed out sample ballots. Go to the IL League of Women Voters and see if you can find anything on their website that will give you a clue as to who is running for what in this state.

This is consistent with the general nature of the stealth candidates. In the Belleville precincts there is often only one candidate to vote for. Even the Republicans don’t bother trying to run candidates against the Democratic machine down here. And since there’s no opposition there’s not a lot of information available on the candidates that are on the ballot.

What about the candidates not on the ballot? Oh, you didn’t realize that there really are write-in options? I’m not talking about Mickey Mouse. Due to ballot access requirements that, in part, have been declared unconstitutional by a Federal court, independent and alternative party candidates are driven to run as write-in candidates. However else I may feel about the Green Party, their platform and their candidates, give them kudos for actually their names printed on the ballots. Now if they could figure out a platform that didn’t include a punitively progressive income tax they might get people voting for them other than socialists, single issue environmentalists and students.

I’ve met two of the other write-in candidates. Randy Stumblebeam and Mark McCoy.Randy is representing the Constitutional Party.

I use to call myself a constitutionalist. No longer since the term has essentially been co-opted by a group that, apparently, has not read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I refer to: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Familywhere they wish to impose choices driven by religious belief upon everyone. The same can be said for their stance on abortion as well. I’m Pro-Life. I think life is a good thing. But I consider abortion a personal choice between the people who are responsible for the pregnancy. I liked Randy. I think it could be an entertaining evening to sit around with him and a few other intelligent people, like McCoy (Libertarian) and Whitney (Green Party) and discuss natural law, individual rights, and the line between personal beliefs and public policy.

Mark McCoy. http://www.markmccoy.com/ An interesting person. Like Randy he firmly believes that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, not collective rights. Mark is also intelligent enough that he realizes that you can not go from our current culture of a nanny state to free society based on individual liberty in a single step. Or even a few steps. However, starting a campaign 37 days before the election is going to be a serious handicap to overcome.Mark more closely matches my political beliefs. On the other hand, is there an inherent value to supporting Whitney ( http://www.whitneyforgov.org/ ) simply so that an alternative party gets the Illinois benefits of ballot access for the next election?

After the election I’ll have more to say about Illinois law and Election Judges.

The Illegal Wiretaps - Make that Unconstitutional

[In the continuing effort to rebuild my blog, here's another previously posted message.]
Tuesday, August 22, 2006

The Illegal Wiretaps - Make that Unconstitutional For the most part I am a rather conservative person politically. I've been reading LittleGreenFootballs for years. I prefer Foxnews to MSNBC. But I have a splitting of the ways with both our current Attorney General and some of the more conservative style blogs.

(Normally, when I participate in debates online, something I've been doing for 25 years, I chase down lots of references and direct quotes. That's not happening tonight. I'll try to do better in the future. On the other hand, encouraging you to learn to do your own searches is useful for your own personal growth.)

I've read in a few places where writers have chastised the NY Times for revealing the unconstitutional wiretapping program. And the Attorney General, not denying that the warrentless taps were either illegal or unconstitutional, decried their unveiling because they were so useful in the war against terror.

Both sides are missing the point - if a government agency had gotten warrents before putting the taps in place then there would not have been unconstitutional tapping to reveal and the usefulness of the data sources would have been preserved.

Nobody said that the war on terror was going to be easy. In fact, if we are to act as Americans, governed by law, everyone of us, then we are going to be fighting with what may seem like one hand tied behind our backs. But thats okay because we can beat the terrorists with one hand tied behind our back. We must, or the terrorists and extremists that wish to destroy our society will have won. Remember: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

As much and as often as I may dislike the left wing bias of the stories and op-ed of the NY Times in publishing the news of the misappropriation of powers is why we have a strong First Amendment. Now if only the NYT would support the 2nd amendment as strongly. :)

Hello, again

Hello. Again. I'm Michael. I've just noticed, weeks later, that I mispelled the url for my blogs name. So I'm recreating it. Here is the rest of my original Hello post. I'll copy the others over here over the next couple of days.

... And I am egotistical enough to think that you should be reading what I have to say. On politics, religion, history. Here's a picture of me from several years ago. Add more grey to the beard and that would be me now. I use to consider myself a constitutionalist until the name was hijacked by these people that don't seem to have read the first amendment. Otherwise their platform wouldn't have this:"The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman." I am happily heterosexual. But does anyone remember that this country use to have laws saying who you could or could not marry based on race? Nowadays a congress critter or state level politician would be laughed from the podium if they were to propose a law banning marriage between, for examples, an oriental and a white anglo-saxon or an irish-american protestant and an irish-american catholic. I believe that government should get out of the personal decision about marriage. Because of the existing legal structures I believe that marriage should be defined as a contracted relationship between two or more people that meet the normal constraints of being able to enter into contracts.After 30 years as a registered Republican I have had to find a new home. I've joined the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately for the other local members, I'm a warmongering libertarian. I support the war on terror. I do not support the Patriot Act. I do not support President Bush misrepresenting the reasons for attacking Iraq. I think that there were sufficient reasons that lies were not needed. I am not an isolationist.As should be obvious by the name I've chosen for this blog I am a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment. I believe that our inalienable rights are individual rights.More later,Michael