Blagojevich Seeks to Appoint Illiterate Boob to Senate

I don’t care what “color” or “race” or whatever someone is, nor do I care whether a person is able to sound out the words on a printed page and otherwise mimic functional literacy, any person who says he’s eager to get to work in Washington “to face a convergence of parallel crises”1 is an illiterate boob, and we have more than enough of those in the Senate already. (OK, he heard someone somewhere get the plural of “crisis” right and aped that well enough.)

Roland Burris may be a nice enough guy, and he might even be an honest guy (Hey! It could happen, even in Illinois politics! It could too!) Heck, he might even possess a modicum of intelligence (although Howard University certainly can’t take any pride in his alumnus status given the assinine statement above). But he’s illiterate and butt stupid if he thinks parallels can converge. Heck, even taking its loosest meaning, if he can converge parallels, then HE should be our political messiah, not Obama.

The Dhimicraps should refuse to seat Burris on the basis of how much stupidER he makes them look, if for no other reason…


Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The World According to Carl, Right Voices, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

CompGeeky: OSes, Browsers and Word Processors, Oh My!

Long ago, I stopped being flabbergasted by folks who have no idea what their operating system is. Some, when asked, will respond “Microsoft” or “Word” or “Microsoft Office” (or just “Office”) or “Internet Explorer” or some random word/phrase based loosely on “Windows” or variation of whatever program they use most often, usually just whatever came installed on the computer when they bought it, and they’re usually obstinately vague about whatever version of that most-used program is. Most don’t know (seriously–I’m not kidding here!) any difference between whatever web browser or email client they use (not that they know what email client they use) and their operating system.

And they don’t really care, as long as things look familiar, they can type and mouse and click to get wherever their stubby lil brains can manage to go on the internet using whatever browser they have been trained however poorly to use (usually by default Internet Exploder, but more and more often now some other browser, installed by a friend or relative who is simply tired of being bothered by a naif who gets in trouble using Internet Exploder).

So who really needs “upgrading” to Microsoft’s latest-greatest OS offering?

Microsoft will claim more than 300 million installations of Vista since its release, but most of those are consumer PCs sold through retailers and direct distributors. According to a recent survey by ITIC and Sunbelt Software of more than 700 senior corporate executives, only 10 percent had deployed Vista on their desktops, whereas 88 percent reported Windows XP as their primary client OS.1

Most software and hardware works well enough with XP, and software that won’t you probably don’t really need anyway. WinXP 64-bit, for those who have made the move to 64-bit computers, is as stable as Win2K (M$’s best overall OS to date, IMO) and more nimble, less hardware demanding, than Vista. Not that Vista is a particularly bad OS, but why retrain for a new OS (with new, not always better and often more obscurantist ways of doing things) that is far more demanding of hardware when an existing OS is just “good enough”?

That’s probably one reason so many folks who’ve bought one of those new comps with Vista on them have called on techie friends or paid some tech to “downgrade” ’em to XP, and it’s certainly a big reason why nearly 90% of computers used in businesses still use XP. (Another reason many have downgraded or kept XP is likely just that they can’t handle the learning curve Vista requires them to climb–a learning curve that is in some ways steeper than simply switching to a modern Linux distro with a nice Windows-like GUI.)

Continue reading “CompGeeky: OSes, Browsers and Word Processors, Oh My!”

The Road Ahead 4.1

I gave “The Road Ahead” and other posts a rest through the Christmas season, but now that it’s the last day of the year, it’s time to start a new thread in the series: issues that face us.Already, I feel the urge to simply drop a laundry list of issues that need cleaning up in ur society, but I’ll try to be disciplined enough to simply mention briefly one issue per post. Today’s issue: anarcho-tyranny.

What are the classic, time-honored reasons that legitimize government? What benefits do citizens rightly expect from obedience of the law and submission to a “ruler”? Hobbes put it this way,

Obedience is exchanged for protection. …It is sufficient for each citizen to know that anyone who intends to injure him has more to fear from punishment by the sovereign than he has to gain from his crime

In arguing that Christians owed respectful obedience to civil government, the Apostle Paul made this argument,

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

But what can we say of the legitimacy of a government that does little (or nothing) to protect its citizens from miscreants, because miscreants have no cause to fear the government, but instead that government encourages evildoers by persecuting its own citizens and at most simply handing out mild slaps on the wrist to those who do others harm? What can we say of the legitimacy of a government that goes even further and persecutes citizens for simply being prominent or for doing their duty or for being different or standing up for their God-given and supposedly constitutionally-protected rights?

Well, we can be honest and admit such a government has surrendered any legitimacy; it has become an outlaw government that simply uses its power to afflict the powerless and expand its own power.

Under anarcho-tyranny, criminals aren’t punished (which is why it’s anarchy), but the innocent are (which is why it’s tyranny).– Sam Francis

Examples of state-fostered anarcho-tyranny abound in today’s (dis)United States.

Continue reading “The Road Ahead 4.1”