Warning: Adult Language

The video runs a little long but this is quite an excellent rant.
(Via United Liberty)

Here's a little something to help you escape all the doom and gloom going on in the news today.




And here I always thought that dogs were just dumb animals.

The bailouts of banks, mortgage lenders, and insurance companies by the federal government will now cost American tax-payers about a half-trillion dollars. This according to Neil Cavuto of Fox News. But, according to Congressman Ron Paul, it could be considerably more.Congressman Paul rightfully points out that the best course of action by the federal government should have been no course of action at all.
Watch the video for more.

Here we have an excellent piece from Reason about the hypocrisy of the Hollywood Left.

From Reason:

Andrew Breitbart, long associated with The Drudge Report, prop. of the excellent newsfeed site Breitbart.com, author of The Washington Times col "Big Hollywood," and maker of lists for reason, finds it larfable that Matt Damon is worried about GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin banning books. Breitbart writes:

The sad fact is that actual artistic oppression—book banning in its many modern forms—is a matter of course in the entertainment industry, especially when the underlying product is declared politically incorrect or runs contrary to the interests of Hollywood's political altar, the Democratic Party.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations runs rings around Hollywood's pious First Amendment absolutists.

"I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs," director Phil Alden Robinson wrote after changing the script from Muslim terrorists to Austrian neo-Nazis in the Tom Clancy thriller, "The Sum of all Fears." "And I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination."

While Mr. Clancy put up an admirable fight, actor Ben Affleck acquiesced, cashed his multimillion-dollar check and fought the dreaded Austrians, whose flagging Teutonic self-confidence again took a hit. Thanks to Hollywood artistic appeasement, Arab youth in totalitarian Muslim countries indoctrinated in anti-Western thought dodged another esteem bullet....

The silence of the celebrity political class was heartbreaking when Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic radical in retaliation for making "Submission," a critically acclaimed film that portrayed horrific female oppression within the practice of Islam.

Yet Hollywood—quick to find martyrs near to its heart (Valerie Plame, et al)—ignored its fallen Dutch comrade and refused to celebrate the film and its maker, fulfilling his murderer's greatest desire.

More on this story here.(Link via Reason)

Why? This is why:

Always good for us rah rah capitalism types to keep in mind that sweeping out the dusty corners of private enterprise will reveal just as many dunces as when one does the same thing in government. From today's Telegraph:

Were it not so serious, the role reversal would be hilarious. For years, US governments have called in titans of finance for advice on how to run federal affairs more effectively. Now, those clever clogs who were once deemed to have all the answers are asking difficult questions, like: "May we have some help, please, we appear to have burned through our shareholders' reserves?"

More here.
From the fine folks over @ Reason's Hit & Run .

Here's an excellent argument for NASA to get out of the way.

This one is for you Objectivists out there.
From Kushal Sharma @ TheAtlasphere:

When most people hear about open source software, they think of charity, altruism, and "free stuff." At a deeper level, however, the open source movement is often highly individualistic.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand’s writings, and I deeply admire and follow Objectivism to the extent of my understanding.

I consider rational selfishness to be a great virtue, and anyone who understands its value would scoff at anything that has an altruistic motive.

For this reason, some Ayn Rand fans might disagree with the premise of the open source software movement. That, however, could be a mistake.

What exactly is open source? Open source is a movement started by people who believe that when customers buy software, they should have the actual source code to the software.

This means anyone capable of making changes to the source code and customizing the software to suit their needs, can do so without worrying about whether they’re infringing upon copyright or trademark laws.

It also follows that you are free from mandatory updates and have a choice about whether to use any updates you receive. Unlike some commercial products, once you buy or download open source software, you get the entire software with redistribution rights and not just the “right to use it for a limited time.”

This freedom, coupled with the availability of the source code, is the backbone of open source. This has made it possible for people to incorporate a great number of important changes to the software and make it truly world-class.

This also makes the nature of development in open source community-based, which is the reason why almost all open source software is available free of cost.

The open source movement has developed an intricately balanced, yet surprisingly robust, community for developing software.

However, since open-source software is available free of cost, most people outside the movement — and within it — mistakenly see it as an altruistic undertaking.

Quite a few of them have even forgotten that it is not intended to be free as in "free beer" but free as in “freedom of speech.”

Either way, most of them fail to realize that there is an individualism at its core. And it is this spirit, not altruism, which lies at the heart of the open source movement.

The article had alot of excellent premises and definitely made me rethink my views on open source software.

So I'm going through my blog aggregator and come across this article from Protein Wisdom.
Here's a little tidbit:

Randall Kennedy, professor of law at Harvard University and the author, most recently, of “Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal,” writing in the WaPo:

[...] Whether black onlookers believe that this election was decided “on the real issues” and that Obama was “judged fairly” will be shaped in part by future developments, including the nature of the campaign in its closing weeks (will race-baiting intensify?) and the demographics of the final voting tally (will people who have traditionally voted Democrat vote differently this time around?).

— Of course, if blacks vote overwhelmingly for Barack — say, 96% or more — we needn’t ask any questions about the whether they supported him on the issues. That would just muddy the intellectual waters, and take the sting out of the implication that is to follow.

And I must say that I agree, for the most part, with the analysis posted.




On a side note: Just remember that critical, objective thought is needed when considering your judgment of a political candidate. It's usually the best way to determine who most closely holds your own personal ideals and philosophies. And it's the only reason I'm not voting for a major party candidate this election year.

I'll go "waste" my vote on a third party candidate.


update: there's a related post here from Bureaucrash.com.

I guess I'm all of the above, then.

(Thanks to Break The Matrix)