Good news for those of you who missed Jimmie Bise on DaTechGuy on DaRadio You can now listen to the whole show here.

And for those interested in the Johnsonia relief party we talked about, and the beer available there Click here and buy your tickets in Advance and save between $3 and $16 while helping people who have lost their homes due to fire in Fitchburg.

And remember you can enter the raffle to be a co-host on DaTechGuy on DaRadio August 27!

If you live too far away to attend find out how you can help here.

One of the things we are often told by atheists and radical darwinists is that we are simply an evolved animal. The idea that we are “created in God’s” image is simply nonsense and that we should accept the idea that we are simply no different from an Ape except for being slightly ahead on the evolutionary curve. Many earth worshipers (and yes many radical environmentalists are simply worshiping dirt but I digress) insists that we are no different or more valuable than any individual plant or animal on the planet.

It’s an interesting argument and one that always produces the same question in me:

If this is the case why are you complaining about anything we do?

If we pollute, so what, that is how we evolved to do things.

If we mine, so what, we are just animals using tools as our development dictates.

If we build houses in pristine wilderness or divert rivers and it hurts a fish, so what, that is how evolution has directed the human animal.

If we drill for oil, if we tear down mountains if we go to the moon, this are all things people do.

“But But” you might scream, you have a duty to protect your environment. You have a duty to protect other species?” My answer is “what duty”? Nothing in my evolution gives me that duty, it is simply your opinion, my evolution tells me to try to get the best food I can eat, the best drink I can drink, the best shelter I and find and the best mate I can locate. Your societal constructions are just from one branch, no different that if one species of monkey does one thing and another species does another.

And it goes beyond that, Remember Ms. Watson in the elevator? If we are just an evolved animal on what basis does Ms. Watson or anyone else have to complain about that guys behavior? Darwinism trumpets the survival of the fittest and the strongest. If that is natures way and we are mere animals than how is any such action anything more than the natural animal expression of that truth. In fact if you are a Darwinist woman you have no business complaining if your man or woman is cheating, they aren’t cheating, they are just acting the way evolution steered them.

Why do we complain about a thief who steals? If he is the stronger and cleverer than of course he preys on the weaker. That is natural. And since we are not dealing with eternal rules but rather rules that we as a society agree on (all cultures being equal of course) then who are we to say what rules have to be followed at what time?

New York by just two votes redefined what the state recognized as “Marriage” for over 3 centuries word marriage means. Whose to say that someday a new vote might change how other things are defined? If one chooses to deny the Golden Rule than they have no business complaining about fair play, because in such a world he who has the gold or the biggest stick makes the rules and philosophically by their own standards, that is how it should be.

And if in countries women are oppressed or people are tortured or enslaved, hey that’s evolution for you, remember Polar Bears eat their young, they are just being themselves, so are we as humans. All of the “evil” acts that we commit, we can’t complain.

That trial in Florida last month? Hey Casey Anthony it’s not her fault she just evolved this way.

BTW I define a “radical Darwinist” as a person who doesn’t just look at his scientific work as scientific work worthy of study and admiration for what he got right and instead elevate it to a religion complete with excommunication for those whose belief is not of sufficient purity. Such people in Catholicism would be committing the sin of scrupulosity, (a deviation of pride)

UPDATE: 9 p.m. EST. The president, the speaker of the house and Harry Reid have all signed off on a deal, it seems to me that the president has one chance to get a bit of political traction out of this, if he is able to draw say 80 democratic votes in the house and 30-35 votes in the Senate then the president can take some credit for a “compromise” however it doesn’t change the fact that the biggest win here belongs to the tea party.

The real trap for the democrats is if the Tea Party supports this bill. If they end up going for it and Democrats oppose it en-mass then it will be much harder for the MSM to attack the tea party on the deal (not that it has ever stopped them in the past).

Do I support the deal? I have no idea, I haven’t read it, I can’t support something when I don’t know what it is. They say there is a balanced budget amendment piece in it but lets not forget this quote from Presidential candidate Buddy Roemer:

Question: Buddy, are you in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Gov Roemer: No, unless we have a 2/3 requirement to raise taxes. That’s the key. A Balanced Budget Amendment will force the Congress to raise taxes, ’cause they don’t want to cut spending. So you’d better give me a 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes. You see the difference there? If you have the law that says a balanced budget, then the President won’t have to go to Congress; he’ll raise taxes 1.3 trillion, that’s how much the budget’s unbalanced. You see? The law helps the taxer, so be careful about a balanced budget; you don’t want to be for a Balanced Budget Amendment without a 2/3 vote to raise taxes.

I also know that any deal that offers cuts “over 10 years” is not enforceable.

I don’t know if this will pass with 216 votes 316 votes or 416 votes. It might even fail but until I see this bill I won’t know for sure.


Unlike many of my friends on the right I hit the sack early yesterday after concluding that the entire “debt crisis” business is not an economic crisis story but a political story where the winner (The tea party, honorable mention GOP) and the loser (The White house, honorable mention the progressive left) has already been established.

So even through there were a few amusing moments such as Harry Reid blocking consideration of his own bill as chronicled by Stacy McCain and Michelle Malkin I decided it wasn’t worth losing sleep over.

When I woke up to see there is a possible congressional deal I yawned, nevertheless (Captain) Ed Morrissey raised a point that exactly dovetails with what I’ve been saying:

If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure.

This is the political corner that the democrats have painted themselves into, you can’t be crying “crisis” and then not choose to solve it.

The only other option for congressional democrats, if they’ve already decided the president is a loser, is to abandon him en-mass in the hopes the GOP can’t get tea party to pass it. That is however very risky thus highly unlikely.

Either way the left can take solace from the one caveat to their defeat, as Rush Limbuagh loudly pointed out this week. Any and all of the cuts (real or phony) comes after the left set a new higher baseline for spending.

It will make the actual fixing of the problem by the republican congress and president post 2013 that much harder, but the Tea Party republicans and hopefully a non-establishment GOP president will be up to the task.

Stacy at the American Spectator

Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post briefly describes the contents of the deal:

The agreement would take the country through the 2012 election, but the Boehner bill two-step cutting process would remain. A trillion in cuts up front would be followed by $1.8 more to be determined by a bipartisan commission. . . .
The president gets a deal through 2012; the House gets its cuts; and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gets his commission.

Every party to this bargain could thus claim partial victory. The key triumph for the GOP? No new taxes, not even on those “millionaires and billionaires” whom Obama has been demonizing in his speeches for the past several weeks.

Claims, shlaimbs, people can claim all they like, we already have a winner and no claim by anyone is going to change it.

What do you do if you are the NYT and your attempt to convince the GOP that if taxes aren’t raised the sky is going to fall fails? You do the only thing you can to make sure your President is not blamed for a the crisis he insisted was upon us. Redefine the scope of the “crisis.”

A credit downgrade would probably increase the cost of borrowing for the federal government and for everyone else. But the Obama administration, House Republicans, some economists and Wall Street strategists have concluded that the economic impact would be surprisingly modest

But But we’ve been told by everybody that the sky was falling? How can this be? The Times again:

“A downgrade of the U.S. government would, in our view, not cause that many investors to dispose of their Treasuries,” Arnaud Mares, head of sovereign strategy at Morgan Stanley, told investors during a conference call on Thursday.

“We think it would accelerate the ongoing trend toward less reliance on ratings in regulation and investment mandates.”

“So the effect,” he said, “would be more on the use of ratings than on the market itself.”

In other words need to make sure that you understand that when the president’s giant political bluff is called, there won’t be any kind of disaster to blame upon the White House.

In other words, this was a crisis that could devastate the entire US…

…right up until the point where the president could be blamed for it.

Related: A system about to go into panic (it’s not the system you think)

On DaTechguy on DaRadio Jimmie Bise of the Sundries Shack joins me for the full two hours.

We will also be joined by Andrea Neale from the Fitchburg Republican Committee.

We will be talking about the Budget deals and the debt limit, we will touching briefly on Wisconsin and on Buddy Roemer’s trip to Leominster as well.

You can join us live on WCRN 830 a.m. Or you can tweet us at #daradio or #wcrn or you can call 508-438-0965

The latest in our series of Questions on the 10’s Buddy Roemer answers a question on Unions and the Balanced Budget Amendment

If your candidate is appearing anywhere in driving distance of me in Fitchburg Mass. and you want me to cover a Q & A, send me the event info. If it is farther away and you want to fly me in, cover my expenses and I’ll do that too.

Looking at MSNBC this morning on the debt ceiling I can see that where this is and where it is going.

I slept in a bit this morning but caught the end of Morning Joe and the beginning of Chuck Todd’s show, they are opining on the dysfunction of the house of representatives because Boehner bill did not pass.

Excuse me?

The House has passed bill after bill, they passed a budget when the neither the Democratic House of the Senate under Harry Reid, they have sent these bills to the Senate but they have been a model of inaction. They passed Cut Cap and Balance which still sits on the table in the Senate today.

For the MSM it has been a heads you lose, tails you lose. If the GOP passes Boehner bill (and I thought it should pass) then the Senate would ignore it, and the story would be all about how the house can’t pass a bill that the senate could accept and intransigent GOP members.

If the GOP doesn’t pass the Boehner bill then it’s all about a dysfunctional house not passing anything in a crisis. (Somehow the 180+ democrats who wouldn’t vote for it hold no responsibility for this.)

Now lets look at the senate side. Reid has passed NOTHING, zip zero nada. There have been a lot of talk about this plan and that plan but there has been no bill, nothing brought to the floor, nothing with actual figures that people can vote on.

So what is actually going on? I’ll tell you, it’s Libya on the Potomac.
Continue reading “The Debt debate: Libya on the Potomac”

The latest in our series of Questions on the 10’s Buddy Roemer answer a question on Public sector employees.

If your candidate is appearing anywhere in driving distance of me in Fitchburg Mass. and you want me to cover a Q & A, send me the event info. If it is farther away and you want to fly me in, cover my expenses and I’ll do that too.

A few days I mentioned to someone that I had a bad feeling in my gut about Rick Perry.

I had no rational reason for it, no explanation, just a bad feeling.

Now I know that my gut was right:

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”…

This is a Sine Qua Non for me and a bunch of people who only vote Republican over abortion. This is not a 10th amendment issue this is life or death as Klaven pointed out

But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion, but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted.

For me Perry’s position is worse than pro-abortion people who at least don’t think they are killing human life, he apparently believes abortion is the killing a child but is still willing to let the 10th amendment override it. That’s obscene.

Or think of it another way; since before the 13th amendment was passed Slavery was permitted by the constitution we must assume he would have supported slavery in the south even if he was “personally opposed” It’s not quite Alexander Stephens but it isn’t good.

If Rick Perry is the nominee and the GOP expects me to send money or sing his praises they’re idiots. I will still argue against Obama but don’t expect me to hold a Perry sign anywhere. For Perry the 10th Amendment may trump life, but to me, life trumps Perry. And Allahpundit thinks this is smart?

Stupid Stupid STUPID!

Update: And yes I saw this coming:

This week, Texas governor and potential Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry took a states’ rights position on abortion saying states should have the ability to ban abortions. Now, a pro-life organization is challenging him to go a step further by endorsing a federal Constitutional amendment that would offer legal protection for unborn children. informs us that the wealth gap between whites and blacks and Hispanics has been widening, and then informs us that the reasons for such a disparity are historical.  Yes, you read that right: the twenty-first century increase in wealth is due to historical problems. (Note to any aspiring statisticians, sociologists, etc. who are reading: if you see a trend that is changing in one direction, do not posit an explanation for such that would imply a change in the opposite direction.)

Now, far be it for me to say that everything can change in one generation, and that poverty is not handed down from one generation to the next, nor to ignore the recession’s disparate effect upon some minorities, but there is a social reason for this modern increase in the disparity between whites and minorities: differing family structures.  Marriage is the single best way to build wealth in a family.   Prior to the sexual revolution, whites, blacks, and Hispanics married at similar rates.  For example, almost 80% of adult African-Americans were married in 1960, compared to 28% in 2000.  (Data are here.)  Sixties-era marriage rates amongst whites were slightly higher than blacks, but very similar; however, the modern decline in marriage amongst whites pales in comparison to the drop in marriage rates amongst blacks.  (More data are here.) Likewise, the vast majority of black babies were born to married parents up through the 1940s (about 80%), whereas only 20% of African-American babies are born to married parents today.  Amongst whites, those numbers are about 6% through the 1940s and 1950s, to about 30% today.  Declines in marriage rates and in-wedlock birth rates amongst Hispanics are approximately between those of whites and blacks, which mirrors the achievement gaps and wealth gaps.

The Left’s mad experiment in social re-engineering did not hurt privileged groups nearly as much as under-privileged groups.  As I often say, traditional values aren’t for the upper-middle class or the rich; they are for the people who want to be middle-class or want to stay the middle-class that their parents were (rather than becoming working class).