Drowned at the River

I really need to write more…

2011-03-12T19:05:53Z

That is all.

That is all.

Zombie Rule #3

2010-09-26T02:41:45Z

Zombies are like a pack of lions: if they’ve just eaten, you are more likely to walk by without them going after you. On the other hand, a pack of hungry zombies will take after you.

Zombies are like a pack of lions: if they’ve just eaten, you are more likely to walk by without them going after you. On the other hand, a pack of hungry zombies will take after you.

Zombie Rule #2

2010-09-26T02:41:28Z

Zombies will decay (like regular corpses) but at a much slower rate. It is still possible to differentiate between “young” and “old” zombies, though.

Zombies will decay (like regular corpses) but at a much slower rate. It is still possible to differentiate between “young” and “old” zombies, though.

Zombie Rule #1

2010-09-26T02:41:15Z

The ability to run is based on the amount of time the zombie has been undead, and how much rigor mortis or decay has set in.

The ability to run is based on the amount of time the zombie has been undead, and how much rigor mortis or decay has set in.

Zombie Awareness Month – 2010 Edition

2010-09-26T02:40:56Z

Before I draw any criticism, yes, I know… May is the official “Zombie Awareness Month,” but I have always tried to spread the word during October. Part of it, obviously, is to capitalize on the spooky Halloween season; part of it is to steer people’s attention away from ridiculous fears (like Vampire and Werewolves), and [...]

Before I draw any criticism, yes, I know… May is the official “Zombie Awareness Month,” but I have always tried to spread the word during October. Part of it, obviously, is to capitalize on the spooky Halloween season; part of it is to steer people’s attention away from ridiculous fears (like Vampire and Werewolves), and focus them on the real threat (Zombies).

Oh yes… I said real.

Additionally, this year, I have additional incentive to go with October, as this year Z.A.M. will culminate in the premier of AMC’s new show The Walking Dead…

So there you have it… Me: 1 / Internet: 0. I win!

Toward a More Perfect Union (Part I)

2011-02-19T22:45:13Z

In my last missive, I called attention to the fact that some 38 States were considering taking legal action against the Federal Government over the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, and how 38 was a meaningful number, Constitutionally speaking.  It happens to be the number of States necessary to ratify an Amendment. This [...]In my last missive, I called attention to the fact that some 38 States were considering taking legal action against the Federal Government over the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, and how 38 was a meaningful number, Constitutionally speaking.  It happens to be the number of States necessary to ratify an Amendment. This post is the first in a series of articles discussing Amendments that, in my opinion, should be considered in the event that the States call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. We know, from the speeches, debates, and writings of our nations’ founders that the Government created by the Constitution was imbued with limited, enumerated powers.  Beyond those words, we have, in the 10th Amendment, a clearly worded codification of that intent: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is unfortunate that in the time that has passed, all three branches of the Federal government have stretched the plain language of the document to expand, or wholly invent new powers. Today, as evidenced by their interference in the medical industry, there is literally no human endeavor which they would consider out of bounds as far as their ability to interfere, regulate, tax, or prohibit is concerned. In an effort to remedy this, I would merely offer some clarification as to the meaning of the two most abused clauses in the Constitution: The Commerce Clause The General Welfare Clause This post will deal with the first… The Commerce Clause Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists all of the legitimate functions of the Legislative branch of our government.  Among these functions, we find the commerce clause listed: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” The meaning of this clause, with respect to the regulation of commerce ‘among and between the several states,’ was meant to ensure free trade within the union.  Prior to this, it was not uncommon for States to erect tariffs, and/or collect duties, on foreign or domestic goods that passed through their territories in transit, en route to States which lay beyond.  Obviously, this was a tremendous economic advantage to coastal States with major harbors, like Massachusetts or South Carolina, and put other States, especially Vermont, which is land-locked, at a disadvantage.  The Article of Confederation did not give the Federal government the power to smooth out these economic imbalances. To wit, Madison wrote, in Federalist 42: “The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with [...]

Take Two, and Call Me in the Morning…

2011-02-21T14:01:14Z

So a funny thing happened on the way to the socialized medical utopia…  Today, many in America were looking for a morning after pill (alternatively referred to as “Plan B” amongst the crazy college kids).  If you have been following the whole Health Care Reform debate, and all of the drama that led up to [...]So a funny thing happened on the way to the socialized medical utopia…  Today, many in America were looking for a morning after pill (alternatively referred to as “Plan B” amongst the crazy college kids).  If you have been following the whole Health Care Reform debate, and all of the drama that led up to Sunday night’s historic vote, you’d probably heard that several of the States were planning on hatching a litany of legal challenges to many of the provisions in the final bill. Virginia, Florida, and several others have been in the news.  Apparently Idaho got off to the fastest start, not just passing a bill through their legislature, but actually having their bill, requiring the State Attorney General to sue the Federal Government, signed into law by their Governor late last week.  The Associated Press carried the story here: An interesting statement from the article: “Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.” More interesting, to me however, was the statement which preceded that one: “Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.” Why is that a more interesting, and, dare I say, a more provocative statement?  I’m surprised that the “Constitutional Law Experts” didn’t see the significance.  37 other States, plus Idaho, equals 38 States.  Remember that number, while we dust off that crusty old document, the Constitution. Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof psp buried movie download , as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. download divx due date movie While many would have you believe that it takes a “Constitutional Law Expert” to divine meaning from this mysterious document of antiquity, the truth is that the language is very straight forward.  The document was not written in legalese; it was written to be understood by the common man, in the normal parlance of the day.  It is, after all, the document that created a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. From the highlighted text of Article V, you can see that in addition to the process that has always been used in our history, Mr. Madison left we, the people, a second method for altering the Constitution.  To date, every Constitutional amendment has been offered, bandied about by Congress using the first method described, prior to sending it out to be ratified by the States. The second method has, to date, never been used.  A Constitutional Convention can be called by the States, if two-thirds choose to do so, where the States can propose amendments directly.  Two-thirds would be 34 States download yogi bear film high quality the full tron: legacy movie full the sorcerer's ap[...]

Two Americas

2011-02-19T20:25:08Z

I haven’t written anything lately, having been overcome by demands on my time from both personal and professional sources.  This post has been percolating in my mind for a couple of weeks, but in the long while that I’ve been thinking about it, I still haven’t really come to terms with exactly what it is [...]I haven’t written anything lately, having been overcome by demands on my time from both personal and professional sources.  This post has been percolating in my mind for a couple of weeks, but in the long while that I’ve been thinking about it, I still haven’t really come to terms with exactly what it is that I feel needs to be said. I will start with what has become exceedingly obvious to me, and hopefully, the necessary words will come of their own accord. Senator John Edwards, former presidential candidate, gave a speech during the campaign describing “Two Americas.”  It became a recurring theme throughout the duration of his run.  He spoke of: “the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who lived from paycheck to paycheck. [He] spoke of the difference in the schools, the difference in the loan rates, the difference in opportunity.” He rhetoric was typical of politicians hoping to ride the class warfare train all the way to electoral victory.  After all, if “divide and conquer” weren’t an effective strategy, then we’d have never heard of it referred to, and it certainly wouldn’t have come to dominate the American political landscape in the manner it has for the past 100 years. Another common rendition of the Two Americas theme is spun not along economic disparity (directly), but rather along racial lines.  How many times have we heard about “White America” and “Black America?”  Race baiting has always been an effective means of driving a wedge between people, but it is just another approach for manipulating group dynamics for political gain. At this point, I’d love to come back and counter these superficial divisive arguments and make the case for One America…  The sad truth, though, is that I can’t. You see, there really are two Americas, but the dividing lines cannot be drawn between the rich and the poor, or the black or the white; nor can they be drawn in a manner that bi-sects us neatly into to warring factions based on anything that can be so easily observed by looking as our ethnic heritage, our religious preferences, our skin tones, our genders, or the monthly bank statements that show up in our mail boxes. The two Americas that I observe transcend the differences of our births…  The wealthy show up on both sides of the divide, as do the poor.  There are black men that fall on either side.  Education doesn’t seem to play a role.  White people and Hispanics straddle the boundary. So what are these two Americas, and how are we to discern between the members of each? They are age old questions that were supposed to have been put to rest, at least, within the confines of our own borders. What is the relationship between Man and the State? One America believes that Man exists to serve the State; the other believes that the State exists to serve Man. What is the purpose of Government? One America believes that Government is meant to rule the people; the other believes that it exists only to protect the peoples’ rights. From whence does Government’s power originate? watch monsters film in high quality One America believes that Government is inherently imbued with power; the other believes that the power of Government emanates solely from the consent of the governed. What is more important: the Individual, or Society? for colored girls the movie One America believes that the individual must accede to th[...]

QOTD

2011-02-19T22:38:22Z

“The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.” - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action , 1949 hi-def quality the twilight saga: eclipse download megamind buy

“The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.”

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action , 1949

Thankgiving and America's First Foray in Communism

2011-02-19T22:53:23Z

Thanksgiving is recognized as a distinctly American holiday, with the common story being a community event with the Pilgrims, and the local Wampanoag tribe.  While the first “Thanksgiving” occurred in 1621, the real first Thanksgiving, such as the Pilgrims would have understood it, did not occur until 1623.  Known then as a harvest festival, Thanksgiving [...]Thanksgiving is recognized as a distinctly American holiday, with the common story being a community event with the Pilgrims, and the local Wampanoag tribe.  While the first “Thanksgiving” occurred in 1621, the real first Thanksgiving, such as the Pilgrims would have understood it, did not occur until 1623.  Known then as a harvest festival, Thanksgiving was meant as a means of celebrating the bounty and abundance of the harvest, and recognizing God’s benevolence in having provided it.  Prior to 1623, the Pilgrims had been faced with weak harvests, and dwindling food supplies.  In the face of scarcity and starvation, there was relatively little to be thankful for. In 1623, however, things changed.  Few people are aware of how the Plymouth colony turned the corner…  What many don’t know is that the settlement at Plymouth was America’s first foray in Communism.  For its first two-and-a-half years, the economy of Plymouth Plantation took the form of a communal system. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford, Governor of the colony from 1621 – 1632, in Of Plymouth Plantation: “ wake the movie buy the film The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.” By 1623, facing starvation Plymouth Plantation’s leaders took another course. Upon allotting private land plots it is evident that productivity increased. Again, according to William Bradford in his account: “So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family.[...]

Comments (0) - Read and Add your own Comments