If it weren’t an election year it’d just be Fat Tuesday. What does that make tomorrow? Ash Wednesday, of course.

I’d touch on some politics (with specifics) in the spirit of the day, but it seems thanks to a current candidate such rants could fall under some sort of ‘illegal’ category. Thus, one will resort to a guided vagueness. Something to do with campaign financing or something like that. Let’s just say it’d be a cold day in hell before I’d vote for that individual, who like most of his party seem more focused on staying in office than actually sticking to their principles. Without principles what distinguishes the two parties? Nothing. When you become more focused on keeping power than serving the people your usefulness to the populous dwindles on the verge of nothingness.

Voters should (re)read some of the great 20th century science-fiction books about dystopian societies. Then take a look at the current crop of candidates. Look at the supposed desires of the people. Where are we headed? Which book captures our future the best? In which book do the people feel only pleasure? Do you want a world as depicted in that book?

What is a common theme in all of these dystopias? Big government? Loss of rights (including the right to feelings and thought)? An overwhelming proportion of the populous not caring, or are too inept to acknowledge the deficiencies in their surroundings. Trusting the Media constitutes a fair chunk of the problem. It also presents a catch 22, is it possible to verify the claims made by one outlet with those made by another? If they differ which is correct? If they do not differ what stops them from distorting the truth for their own gain?

We live in a world of relatives. Even worse, in our relative wold the desirable and undesirable ends of the spectrum are not always obvious. Accurately discerning the desirability of a position depends on the input from our surroundings. Should our surroundings be manipulated into an artificial state in which the apparently obvious choice of desirability contradicts what is actually desirable we may foolishly define a state that is truly not desirable as desirable. Resolving this logical conflict is not straight forward. And, truth be told, it may not be possible.

Yeah, it’s a homework filled Mardi Gras, and this had nothing to do with school work.

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]

Washington DC’s lawyers in a case defending the city’s unconstitutional handgun ban, claim that the scope of the second amendment of the constitution doesn’t apply to individuals. They cite that it is only for the use in militias. The problem with this defense is the wording of the second amendment explicitly states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Nowhere with in this statement does it imply that it only applies to militiamen. Two parts of this statement are being confused and one homogeneous statement. By the way this amendment is worded; the first part only provides reasoning behind the need of the other part. What isn’t said is that the first part is the sole reason, nor the limiting reason for individuals to keep armaments. Most will try to convince that eliminating guns will eliminate crime, ask Speaker of the House Elect Nancy Pelosi. She has always supported gun restrictions and the abolishment of the second amendment. Pelosi will cite her firm belief that eliminating guns will decrease crime. Sadly, ignorance overcomes most politicians, and many cities in the USA stand as a testament to this. The very city that has imposed a complete ban on all handguns has one of the highest crime rates as a result. Where is the logic here?

Reading on Digg, and the comments represent a surprise to one. For such a liberal site the number pro-gun ownership comments is overwhelming. Where’s Pelosi’s party members, did they betray her? Most likely not, as Pelosi is one of the most out of line politicians in Washington right now, not to say that some conservatives aren’t out of line as well. The majority of the arguments against the second amendment are poorly formed, and in most cases by Europeans. For some reason the ‘all mighty’ Europeans on Digg still fail to conform to their policies of tolerance. By now all Europeans should understand the differences in American thinking, and accept that our thinking has lead to our dominance in the world. Instead they view us still as the disobedient colony that needs to be taught a lesson, and people in our own country believe the same. They can’t fathom the fact that we actually enjoy freedoms, rights, and gun ownership. Then they make the bold statement of labeling the USA as a dystopia, ironically no book on dystopian societies even mention the possession of weapons by the suppressed citizens.

Here is the link: Washington Post

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]

Misleading America, a more appropriate title for this clearly biased media source. Media Matters for America at first appears to be a site truly concerned with correcting the mistakes of the media, but after further investigation the glitter wears off. After reviewing several articles, and reading more titles, a clear bias appears. Browsing to their about us page, reinforced one’s observations:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

To their credit the articles they cover are typically done well, with sources, etc. But, in some articles, tidbits appear without citation. Typically these push a political ideology. As the about us page states, Media Matters for America is a organization that corrects conservative misinformation in the media, but what about the other half? One can criticize Fox for its conservative slant until one’s face turns blue, but Fox isn’t the only one misinforming. Plenty of liberal misinformation makes it on to the ‘idiot box’ that many in America use as their source of news, moral guidance, parental guidance and education. Those educated by this device (TV) don’t understand the meaning of the word progressive as used by Media Matters. Progressive suggests progression, e.g. bettering oneself, only covering half of the story and not providing links to a quality site that covers the other half isn’t progressive; it’s more typical of politicians and the media.

Still on Digg rabid, idiots raised on TV will insult one’s intelligence as one correctly disagrees with their political philosophy. They believe one is crazy, if by crazy they mean informed, then yes one is certainly crazy. Join one in the insanity, educate thyself.

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]