Thebastidge: 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010
  • Cascade Policy Inst.
  • Evergreen Freedom Foundation
  • Free State Project
  • Seastead Institute
  • Open Carry.Org
  • No Nonsense
  • TDA Training
  • Believe it

  • ********************Southwest Washington Surplus, your prepping supply store********************

    Tuesday, July 20, 2010

    Guess who's got my vote?

    Questions by Columbian staff writer Kathie Durbin:

    Describe briefly your vision for the nation’s energy future and the region’s. What new energy sources should the federal government promote/subsidize? Do you believe it’s possible for the U.S. to wean itself from fossil fuels? Regarding the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, what steps, if any, would you support to hold BP accountable, repair the environmental and economic damage in the region, and strengthen federal spill prevention rules?


    Answers by David W. Hedrick, Republican

    Any nation that lacks the ability or political will to provide for the energy needs of its own people is a nation that will find itself at the mercy of foreign governments.

    The U.S. has a tremendous amount of untapped oil, coal and natural gas resources as well as the potential for the use of safe nuclear power. New discoveries of plentiful supplies of energy providing fossil fuels and minerals are being found at an accelerated pace. By some estimates, the U.S. has more unused natural resources capable of producing energy than any other nation in the world, and larger quantities of oil than even the Middle East.

    For our country to wean itself off foreign supplies of energy, we must increase the use of resources found right here at home. Burdensome government regulations based on phony science has prevented our nation from achieving energy independence for far too long. As a Congressman, I will fully support an energy plan that greatly eliminates restrictions on U.S. energy exploration and production.

    Companies, including energy companies, have an obligation to pay for damages in the event that they injure or damage a third party. These damages should be determined and assessed in a court of law, in the light of day and not in back-room meetings at the White house where unlawful pressure is put on leaders of companies to conform with political agendas. In the specific case of BP, they have the responsibility to cover any and all damages caused by their corporation permitted under law.


    What is your plan to protect American consumers from a recurrence of the abuses committed by Wall Street investment banks that led to the Great Recession? Do you favor reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or something similar?

    I find this question to have an inherent bias. Wall Street did not cause our recent economic problems. These problems were caused by our Federal government whose regulations and subsequent actions created an environment where risky investments were encouraged and often rewarded.

    Politicians within our government are well known for this kind of circular strategy that increases the size and scope of government at the expense of individuals and small businesses. First, they create a problem through excessive government regulation and then, attempt to solve the problem with yet more government regulation causing an even larger problem.

    To end excessive risk-taking in the markets, companies must be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merit. The recent string of government bailouts where government chooses winners and losers at the expense of the American taxpayer must stop. This only serves to encourage the next round of poor decisions by business leaders who make the judgment that there is no risk for poor decisions.

    I agree with Ronald Reagan. Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.


    As a member of Congress, how would you work with other House members, the Obama administration and Washington state leaders to help small businesses and create jobs in Southwest Washington? Please be specific.

    I disagree with the premise of this question. It has never been the prerogative, obligation nor expertise of House members, the Obama administration or Washington state leaders to create jobs. The majority of those in government, including the Obama administration and even Obama himself, have little if any experience in the private sector. I find it absurd that a President, who has never spent a day of his privileged life working in the private sector, would arrogantly assume that he has any understanding of the job creation process. Government officials have proven time and time again, that the only thing they can grow is the size of government.

    I agree with one of our great founding fathers, Mr. Thomas Paine. Government, in its best state, is but a necessary evil, and in its worse, an intolerable one. When government makes any attempt to “help small businesses” or “create jobs,” the wisdom of Pain’s words becomes transparently clear.

    To create jobs in this nation, we must unshackle our citizens and our businesses from the intolerable chains of government control and free private industry, small businesses and entrepreneurs to peruse their own ambitions.

    Government’s proper role is not as a creator of progress, but rather a silent witness to the affairs of its citizens and an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    Friday, July 16, 2010

    Re: Link-a-licious

    Friday, July 09, 2010

    Oooo-rah

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis

    --
    The difference between theory and practice, is much greater in
    practice than in theory...

    Thursday, July 08, 2010

    The Brady Campaign Sucks

    The Brady campagn doesn't meet Better Business Burea Standards. Go figure.

    Hat tip to the ladies:

    http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/

    http://www.twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/

    --
    The difference between theory and practice, is much greater in
    practice than in theory...

    Thursday, July 01, 2010

    Race wars

    When the census taker came to my house, I told them that two people live there full time and nowhere else, and that this is the only information I was willing to give. They attempted to guilt me into further, but I told them "Good Day." I had not further comment or time to give them.

    So now my employer, a public school system, recently nudged me about not having filled out therir race questionairre. I typically do not care to participate, and will check "decline to identify".

    However, in what I believe to be a blatant lie, this automated web
    form informed me that identification was a requirement in Federal Law and did not give a spot for "decline to identify". In fact, I was informed that if I didn't identify myself, that another employee would be found to identify my race, and thus it was in my own best interest to accurately identify myself, as another person could only identify me based upon external characteristics that might be incorrect or subjective.

    In other words, we WILL force you into a racial category, in order to further Marx and Engel's "inevitable march of history" towards a situation where class/race struggle will tear down all the classes in capitalist society when the proletariat rises up in force to seize the
    means of production.



    Given no other option, I checked ALL of the racial and ethnic categories presented, and I shall do so for the rest of my life, as well as encouraging EVERYONE else to do so.

    ...Drifting slightly off-topic...

    It's amazing to me that so few people can explicitly show where Marx went off the rails, even people who hate communists.

    Marx et al missed a trick by assuming the only way the stupid proles could ever get even would be through violence and seizure of assets- couldn't possibly everr develop them on their own, or in concert with an enlightened class of capitalists.

    It's hard to say what they thought would happen AFTER the revolution, if the only way new people could gain assets is to seize them from people who already have them; a class war between the old and the young every generation, perhaps? Now wouldn't that truly be a workers paradise:

    -Kill off all the old people and take their shit.
    -No old people to support, means the workers truly benefit maximally from their labour.
    -At least until they have kids. But then modern Marxists all seem to believe that kids are an abomination against Gaia, so there'd need to be another class war to kill off all the breeders. Of course that would probably take a couple generations to get everybody to the same age, so Party member would need some kind of exemption to stick around long enough to make sure everything is fair.
    -No more kids means everybody works, and we could spread all the wealth around equally.
    -But then people would probably get sick sometimes, and it would be our duty to euthanize them so that they're not a drain on society.
    -And people who cheat the system, or try to withhold more than we decide is their part. We'd have to kill those greedy bastards too.
    -In fact, we'd have to have a bunch of people to take everything away from everybody and hand it all back out to ensure equality, as well as a bunch of guys to kill all those other people that wreck the system. These guys wouldn't be able to be really productive because the state's requirements would keep them pretty busy killing enemies, so they'd have to take stuff from the workers...


    ...Anyway: Fuck you, commies.



    --
    The difference between theory and practice, is much greater in
    practice than in theory...