Free-range Oyster

New digs

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:15:41 GMT

Ladies and Gentiles, snakes and reptiles:

I have a brand new home.

Privacy and the White House

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:46:27 GMT

I had meant to hold this article until the new website was up, but we're having more technical problems than we anticipated, so I'm going to put this up here and now. My thanks to Guppie for his help in researching this. You can find the full text of the law in question here.

There's a lot to be said for the White House's latest tactic in the health care battle. Unfortunately, I gave up using most of those words years ago, so I'll have to limit myself to facts. The White House posting that started it all was supposedly about facts; ironically, it offered nothing in the way of facts, only reassurances that the President was not going to do all the horrible things that the evil Republicans were saying. Reassurances, and a chilling invitation to inform the White House of any fishy health care reform information that might come up in emails or through casual conversation.

Well, Mr. President, I have some facts to share in return. Starting with this gem: your administration's actions are blatantly illegal. Ladies, gentlemen, czars and czarinas, try to follow along as I demonstrate.

5 US Code §552a: Records maintained on individuals. This law was passed in 1974 as the Privacy Act, and it controls the government's gathering, storage, and analysis of info on individual citizens. It is meant to prevent any gathering or storage of information on citizens that is not absolutely necessary. No, Mr. President, falling poll numbers don't count as an emergency for the country. Now, let's dig a little, shall we?

Things are pretty dull for the first half of the Privacy Act, but they really start to get interesting around this point:

(e) Agency requirements
Each agency that maintains a system of records shall--
(1) maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or by Executive order of the President;(emphasis added).

In order to even establish an information system of this kind, the organization (in this case the Executive Office of the President) must have a relevant objective set by law. According to the latest info from the White House, no such Executive Order has been issued. Nor has the President signed any law created by Congress directing and authorizing the collection of this information. Frankly, that's enough to shoot the whole thing down the crapper, but only if one cares for obeying the law. Well, further down the rabbit hole we go.

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual--
(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

Now I have to admit, this one is a bit of a cheap shot. Since the administration doesn't have the authority to collect the info, it obviously can't state the authority [...] which authorizes the solicitation. Tough for them, because that still makes it even more illegal. The next lines dig a little deeper still:

(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection;

One of the creepiest things about this whole thing is that there is never any mention of what they will do with the information. Even if one trusted in the benevolence of government, there is still that curiousity, Why do you want to know? And whether anyone is curious or not, the law is plain: they have to tell you.

I'm going to lump a couple things together now for brevity and clarity's sakes. On a similar note to the last, we find these:

(e)(4) subject to the provisions of paragraph (11) of this subsection, publish in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records

(r) Report on new systems and matching programs
Each agency that proposes to establish or make a significant change in a system of records or a matching program shall provide adequate advance notice of any such proposal (in duplicate) to the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget in order to permit an evaluation of the probable or potential effect of such proposal on the privacy or other rights of individuals.

I have checked the Federal Register myself - there is no sign of such a notice. I have no confirmation on whether or not reports were submitted to the House, Senate, and OMB, but given how quickly the situation escalated it seems unlikely that such deliberation would have had time to process.

Now we come to the tour de force, subsection (e)(7):

Each agency that maintains a system of records shall [...] maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;

,p>The very core of the First Amendment is the right to openly disagree with your government - or anyone else for that matter. Speech is exactly what the administration plans to monitor and track (albeit clumsily), and that is very simply and clearly forbidden unless there is a clear law enforcement issue. The law is blessedly unambiguous on this point. The issue of law enforcement comes up again in two later parts, subsections (j) and (k). Each section states that an information system can be exempted from these constraints on certain grounds. Those grounds are primarily law enforcement-related, though exceptions for the physical safety of the President are also mentioned. Is the White House going to make a law enforcement issue out of this? I doubt it, given that they haven't bothered to go through any of the other legally-required channels. If they do make a law enforcement issue of it, it will likely have nothing to do with complying with the Privacy Act. Even if they did, the law still requires them to announce that it is being exempted. This is a blatant assault on the First Amendment, and an insult to the decency and intelligence of the American people. I leave you all, and especially you Mr. President, with this last quote:

(i)(1) Criminal penalties
Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
(2) Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

The law will out, one way or another. By hook or by crook, they take our liberty. By word or by rope, we take it back. Oyster out.

9066 Redux

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:08:42 GMT

Just came across this at Atlas Shrugs: the National Guard is recruiting "Internment/Resettlement Specialists." I wish I were hallucinating from the lack of sleep, but this is real. You can find the job posting here. Combine that with the rash of attacks by SEIU operatives on peaceful protesters around the country, the Internet Snitch Brigade (article on that coming up as soon as the new server is operational), and things look ugly. Batten the hatches, friends. I don't like the look of the clouds ahead. Oyster out.

Packing up

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:14:46 GMT

Hey folks, Guppie and I have been working for the last couple of days to get my new blog up. Should be up in a few hours. Then, sleep. Also, with the new online home will come a new article on the legal rammifications of the Dear Leader's Internet Snitch Brigade. See you there soon! Oyster out.

The fall of a sparrow

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:46:57 GMT

I stopped by Bill Whittle's corner of Pajamas Media today for the first time in months. I just finished my three month hiatus on news and politics, and I'm trying to ease myself back in without going crazy. He had some interesting things to say, about well-meaning tyrrany and the danger of continually doing for others what they can do for themselves. Then he said some things that hit me like a fencepost to the head:

The Book of Matthew it says that not a sparrow falls without God knowing it. For most of my adult life I’ve believed that all that we see is all that there is: just bone and skin and feathers. I believe absolutely that little Howie’s perfect form is the result of millions of years of evolution and natural selection… in fact, millions of years ago, Howie’s ancestors were three times my height and mine were about his size. Bottom rail on top now, huh Howie? [...] Howie’s brain – charitably – is about the size of a pea. Mine’s about the size of a cantaloupe. [...] But if there’s that much difference between a pea and a cantaloupe, how is it that I once believed that there is nothing beyond the perception of a cantaloupe made of grey jelly?

That right there took me aback. You see, I've known Bill Whittle for a few years now (only through reading him, I don't move in such prestigious circles yet) as a passionate moral atheist. He believes in doing the right thing because it is the right thing, because we are happier and more successful when we are free and kind and cooperative. He quoted a few times Carl Sagan's invisible dragon argument about the non-existence of the supernatural. I still loved what he had to say, in part because he never had the vicious attitude of the "evangelical atheists" as I call them that I often encounter in libertarian circles. He has always been happy to live how he wishes and let others do what they wish even while telling them they were probably wrong.

But this? This is different. He's seen something to change his perception. I haven't gone back to catch up, to see if this is the first sign or one of many that I missed over the last three months. But he continues:

The distance between Howie and me – between the pea and the cantaloupe – may not be much less than the distance between myself and a greater being who’s perceptions and powers are as far beyond me as mine are beyond Howie’s, and who may in fact note the fall of every sparrow. And if he does, I hope he takes special note of this one. I hope he will lift him – and all of us, too – up and out of the four dimensions of space and time the way I first lifted Howie out of his broken nest, and for the same unlikely reason that this hairless primate cares for this little bird: because he can.

That is a beautiful sentiment from anyone. It is all the more poignant because it was unexpected. God is great, trite as that sounds, and I am grateful that He forgets no one. Praise God because He does not forget us, even when we forget or even ignore Him. Because He loves all His creations, and His children most of all. Because He will stretch His hand out all the day long, waiting for us to accept it. Praise God because we can always come home. Even when we didn't know we had left.

Oyster out.

Happy Independence Day

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:16:46 GMT

That's really all I have to say today. I would like to say a lot of other things, something profound and moving about the great blessings we enjoy in this great land, but can't. The crazy amount of work that Ducky and I have done this week in preparing to launch our business has left me completely drained. But even that could never have happened, for a hundred reasons, anywhere else on Earth. God bless America, today and always. Oyster out.

In which I wax philisophical about the music business

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:11:17 GMT

I've been reading Nassim Taleb's Black Swan lately, and slowly beginning to wrap my head around its implications. Black Swan explores the impact of unlikely and unexpected events, which he refers to as (surprise!) Black Swans, and the foibles of human nature and physiology that make us so vulnerable to them. That's actually a gross oversimplification, but despite the complexity of its subject the book is easy to read and superficially easy to understand. That is, it is easy to understand the concepts; it is not so easy to comprehend all the implications of those concepts and perspectives. There are two parts to the world, Taleb explains, Mediocristan and Extremistan. These are not geographic locations, nor are they philisophical positions. They are a metaphorical division of the events and activities of life. Things that are inherently predictable are in Mediocristan. He applies it especially to careers. Jobs in Mediocristan would be things like mechanics, accountants, grocery store clerks, people who have a predictable income based on a predicted amount of work. There are actually few events in Mediocristan now. As our world as become more complex (not to mention faster) most things function in ways we can't really anticipate, making up Extremistan.

I won't try to recreate the whole book here, you can read it yourself. It's worth the time and then some. Here's what I want to get to: the arts have usually fallen into Extremistan. Public opinion is not predictable, though there are an awful lot of people who have fooled themselves into thinking that they can and fooled others into paying them to do so. For a long time the artistic professions had a few winners and hordes of losers. Not because the losers didn't work hard, or because they weren't talented, or produced poor quality, though of course many of them fit some or all of those descriptions. There are and were people who produce good work and don't make it, don't break out and become stars. That's part of why I decided years ago against a music career. I had talent and drive and connections, but I didn't want either end of the existing, narrow spectrum: I didn't want to be a superstar, and I didn't want to starve. When I was in high school, those were the only visible options, and they didn't appeal. So I relegated music to a hobby and went of to learn how to make a living.

Enter a flock of Black Swans. First was the power of the Internet. No one saw it coming, but it has obviously revolutionized the way we interact with the world and one another. Most obviously because you're reading this right now! We're still discovering the potential and implications of the Internet after years of using it. It continues to grow and evolve, spawning other Black Swans. One of these has been the impact on the mainstream music industry. The titans are falling, and its not a dozen Olympians but a swarm of tiny gods who step up to take their place. The filesharing issue is mostly dead, and the pirates are mostly fallen. But before they fell, they lasted just long enough to show the world that the big businesses weren't impregnable. They were vulnerable and prone to panic. They looked weak. That set off the slow but inevitable decline of the major labels. The synthesized superstars of the last couple of decades are fading fast, each one lasting less time than the one before. The public can go online and get whatever they want now, why would they swallow crap being force-fed to them by the labels? Try the Lefsetz Letter if you want an up close view of that process in action. That's where I first began to catalyze these ideas. The superstars are gone. The last real superstar, I think, just gave up the ghost this week. Their era is over. No one is going to take their place, I think. The age of stars is done, the age of musicians is just beginning. The old channels don't work anymore, but that's a good thing. We are headed for a level field, and that brings me to my point. Music is moving from Extremistan to Mediocristan. It's not an all or nothing game any more. The transition isn't done, but I think it's mostly inevitable at this point, unless there's some other Black Swan revolution in the mean time. The labels are still oblivious, fighting to keep this Black Swan from happening, but it's too late.

All this gives me hope, because at the same time I was figuring all this out, I was beginning the thrilling and painful process of unearthing my own music. It's been a long time since I focused on music, and many of my skills are rusty. I'm a long way from my 10,000 hours. But I'm on the horse, because I see a revolution on the edge of town (much closer than the horizon) and I want to ride it. I want to take the opportunity to make music I love that would never have gotten anywhere in the old paradigm. To take folk and rock and electronica, run them through a blender and see what comes out. To create something and have people hear it. It can happen now in ways I never dreamed just a few years ago. So, what are you going to make of the new world?

One of my favorite quotes ever

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:46:03 GMT

Outside of holy writ, anyway. Here it is:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Robert A. Heinlein.

I have been giving a good deal of thought lately to manliness, what is means to be a man, particularly what it means to be a strong Christian man, and what my proper role and demeanor as the head of my family should be. Heinlein's quote deals mostly with the practical rather than the philisophical aspects of manhood, but they reflect an underlying understanding of a man being diligent and able in whatever might be entrusted to him. Food for thought, fraters. Food for thought indeed. Oyster out.

Suggestions needed

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:56:52 GMT

Ducky and I are looking at a family business, and we need your help. I'm not making a sales pitch (yet), what we need are ideas for a brand name. We'll be selling homemade jams at the local farmers' market, made from local produce. First and formost will be apricot-pineapple, based on my mother's recipe that earned the nickname of "crack jam" for its addictive quality. We have other ideas for foods we can expand into later, but for now that's what we'll be focusing on. But we need a name! So we're putting the word out: make a suggestion, and if we choose your idea you'll get a free jar of jam as soon as the season begins. So, all you marketing geniuses, get those ideas moving! Oyster out.

Quote of the day

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:23:46 GMT

From Pundit & Pundette on the demographic differences and birthrates in the US and Europe:

"Human beings don't breed well in captivity."

Amen.

The monkey-cat

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:09:18 GMT

Mack has always taken to gymnastic activities. He climbed before he could walk, learned early on to shrug off falls, and lost all fear of heights and falling by the time he was six months old (I had a lot to do with that). The appelation "Mack," in fact, comes from "macaco" or monkey, for the amazing feats of strength and dexterity he showed at an early age. So when Ducky called me today to tell me that Mack had given her a heart attack, it wasn't really much of a surprise. Then she explained how. At the playground, she looked over to find him at the top of the seven-foot chain-link fence surrounding the pool area. For those who might not know: Mack is three years old. About the time she saw him, he fell (or dropped, I'm not clear on that). Seven feet. To the ground. He landed on his feet, and walked away without a care in the world. Seven foot fall, on his feet, without even a bump. Ducky and I have determined that Mack is clearly a mutant destined to become a hero and savior of humanity. So we're now pondering a name and costume for him, and any suggestions are welcome. My children, friends, never cease to amaze me. Oyster out.

My random happy for the day

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:27:51 GMT

I'm plugging away here in the business building at the university, prepping for an exam, and I had happy moment I wantted to record. It was a little thing. There are small lounge areas scattered around the hallways here that students use for crashing or study. I looked through a window into one of those hallway areas just as an excited group of what looked like marketing students proceeded to rearrange the furniture. They were talking animatedly, bringing couches and stuffed chairs around so that eveyone could see what they were working on. Their excitement was palpable, and infectious. It perked up what has otherwise been a tired, grumpy day. Now, I am reminded how great it is to be surrounded by people who are excited about what they are doing. It rubs off, no matter how cranky I might be. May you find a random happy spot in your day as well. Oyster out.

A pensive shellfish

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:55:22 GMT

Hello, friends (also enemies, innocent bystanders, etc.). I'm at Life, the Universe, and Everything this weekend, taking in the glories of geekdom. There's been quite a bit to enjoy, and a lot of food for thought. A number of people I knew only as names online, or had traded a few emails with are now real, flesh and blood individuals. Bob Defendi and Sandra Tayler triangulated to give me some serious food for thought. This blog has already been repurposed a couple of times. It began so that I could comment at Sandra's Journal, morphed into an outlet for work stuff, then political stuff (both briefly), and now languishes unused. I have some thoughts on where I want to take it next, but I have no exact timing in mind yet. I do not have time to maintain the level of political involvement I had intended after my move, which I have struggled to accept. My family needs more of my time than they get lately, and this weekend has stirred interests and talents that I had buried. There are sleeping beasts that may yet wake in terrible glory and eldritch horror. We will see what comes next, but this journal will have content of one sort or another some day in the near future. Oyster out.

I have arrived!

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:57:32 GMT

Well, this is a mite embarrassing. I have an excuse for a lot of my absence - I had no Internet connection for weeks - but mostly it's just been a matter of getting overwhelmed with things to do and too many ideas to write. I'll try to put some of the thoughts that have been spinning in this mollusc's brain up here in the next few days. I won't be doing anything here tomorrow only because I'll be busy helping out at Read the Bailout. (Hattip Instapundit) So for now, know that the Oyster family has safely arrived in the heart of the Rocky Mountains (cue jokes here) and are feverishly trying to setup house in the midst of a 15 credit-hour semester. Wish us luck, and I'll be back with more details and updates soon. Oyster out.

Victory

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:41:11 GMT

All I can say is "Praise the Lord." Zombie has a lot more to say, with a lot more useful facts. Spread the word, people, and thank every Iraq veteran you meet. And tell them "Congratulations." We They won this war. Oyster out.

A more perfect society

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:44:35 GMT

There is an apparent dichotomy in my worldview that has been brought into sharp relief in the last few days. The first recent trigger was a comment over at E3 Gazette by Orrin Johnson:

"Modern Liberalism is the belief that utopia can be engineered if only is it designed and run correctly, and that individual liberty must be subsumed to the greater good for this societal machine to run smoothly for the greater good."

I have been thinking about that and my feelings on the subject ever since. I had been considering posting something on the subject, and thoughts were slowly resolving themselves into a coherent format. Then I read a recent comment over at Bill Whittle's Eject! Eject! Eject!. A poster by the name of Ryan G had been arguing in favor of government redistribution and other typical liberal positions. He wrapped one of his arguments with this (emphasis mine):

If you're religious, it's worth mentioning that even the Apostles practiced systemic charity [...]Whether it's a personal choice or part of the way society operates, looking out for your neighbor is not, in itself, an evil thing.

This offends me on the deepest of levels. This takes things near and dear to me and drags them through the mud. The Apostle Paul placed charity above all the other virtues and gifts. It is a precious and vital part of a successful society. The reason the quote from Orrin was significant to me is because what he describes as liberalism very nearly approximates my ideal society.

Confused yet?

Human beings are social creatures. God created us to rely on one another; our greatest achievements and most noble societies have come of learning to work peaceably together for a greater purpose than the individual. I firmly believe that it is the duty of every person, particularly for a Christian, to put the good of others before himself. I dream of the day when all people will have all things in common, when we will offer to others more than they need, and they will take less than is offered. I dream of that day, as many others have throughout history. But I know something many of them missed, or learned the hard way: a government will never take us there. The key is not organization. We have to get there ourselves. One by one, in our own hearts and with our own choices, we have to change ourselves. It cannot be imposed upon us. The only way that we can give all that we have is to be free to do exactly the opposite. If we do not have complete control of our decisions and our possessions, we cannot freely surrender them to the impulses of charity and the work of God. By comparison, that is exactly what God has done for every one of His children. Having created them and placed them on the Earth, he gives them the freedom to choose. If they want to be happy and live by his instructions, they are free to do so. But that only has value because they are free to ignore Him and all that he has to say. Many of them do. That is their choice and their freedom. For the opposite contrast, look at the fruits of Communism, where that equality is forced at the end of a gun. People rebel, often becoming more jealous, hateful, and materialistic. You cannot give away what you do not have, and a gift that is not given freely is no gift at all. It turns to poison.

This is why Ryan G.'s comparisons riled me so badly. To say that the covenant of the saints to care for one another, to give their all freely to God and their fellow man, is no different than forced economic redistribution by a tyrannical government is a vile and pernicious statement. Government redistribution is not freely done. If you think it is, try opting out. Looking out for your neighbor is not evil, of course not. Stealing someone else's property to give to your neighbor is.

I do my best to give to those around me as my means and situation allow. I have a peaceful conscience in that regard. I have made promises to God to bear my neighbor's burden. But whether I fulfill that promise or not is not the affair of government. Socialism is not pious. It is robbery clothed in self-righteousness, and I will have none of it.

Oyster out.

On the resistance of tyranny

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:18:14 GMT

I have been exceptionally busy (and considering my normal level, exceptional is saying something), and I have not had a chance to keep my thoughts and activities posted here. I have been active in a few places hammering out with like-minded people (and a few trolls) where we are going as conservatives. I'll share some of what I've found soon, but until then, I give you this - an essay from my brother-in-arms Dave over at Thoughts Aloud:

The following may strike some as provocative. Good. It is meant to inspire Patriots and government officials alike to think, discuss it with their friends, and be prepared for the momentous decision they will be required to make rather quickly, if an attempt to disarm Americans is ever tried again. For, no matter how it might be couched, spun, and rationalized, it will signal the end of America, as we have known it. With the current mood among the electorate, and big-government oriented Progressives now at the top of the ticket for both major political parties, the Progressives are about to take over our government lock, stock, and barrel. These folks have a radically different view of the proper role of government than common folk in the heartland, and actually think the majority has the right to violate the Liberty and natural rights of the minority by legislative or judicial fiat. Liberty loving Patriots will need to remain vigilant and prepared to defend those rights, or accept the status of serf or slave in a glorious sounding Progressive utopia, organized on the repugnant principle of mob rule.

Remember Katrina - Gun Collecting Can Be Treason

Since our schools won’t teach genuine American history anymore, many can be forgiven for not recalling the provocation that caused proud Englishmen to take up arms against the forces of their king at Lexington and Concord Massachusetts in 1775. These are now considered the opening battles of the American Revolution, even though they occurred over a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

When the Minutemen started shooting the Redcoats, who were on a mission to confiscate and destroy their arsenal at Concord, they would have been considered by most as engaging in insurrection against their lawful government. From the perspective of the King, his loyal troops, and the majority of loyal British subjects then residing in the colonies, the king’s troops were just following lawful orders to disarm the colonists. The Loyalists undoubtedly viewed the Patriots as a lunatic fringe of disgruntled ‘tax protesters,’ and supported the Redcoats.

The Patriots learned a couple of valuable lessons that day. One was to disperse and conceal their arms so they didn’t make a convenient target for the forces of tyranny. The other was that they could easily rout an overwhelming force of ‘Regulars’ with guerrilla tactics. The lesson for the Loyalists was that vigilant free men on these shores – American Patriots – would never passively allow themselves to be disarmed by their government.

To true Patriots, the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is not in question. It is no less than the reset button on our Republic – in case the First Amendment doesn’t work, the Second one will. It protects a sovereign right of all free men that is not negotiable, alterable, or subject to judicial interpretation. Frankly, all those officials forever tinkering with ways to get around it are wasting their time, on an endeavor that is bordering on treason. Please understand that this inalienable natural right existed long before the Constitution was drafted, and will exist long after these United States disintegrate. The only reason it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was to make it clear to our public servants that it was taboo for them even to try repeating King George’s mistake.

Ninety percent of Americans could vote to repeal the Second Amendment, and the right of free men to own and carry weapons would still exist; for our Constitution does not, and could not, grant or deny our natural rights. It can only help us defend them from those who wish it could. If you do not understand this truth, please do some studying, discussing, and pondering until you do. Free men in this world are born with their natural rights, they are not a mere privilege to be bestowed or withdrawn at the whim of a capricious government, popularly elected or not.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target practice, or fowling pieces. Arms are weapons, and it would be irresponsible of Americans ever to permit errant public servants to disarm us. The disarming of honest citizens during the civil unrest (when they were arguably most needed) in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, was an embarrassment to law enforcement everywhere, and a wakeup call to the rest of us. The citizens of New Orleans were so caught off guard by the audacity of the move that the police got away with it. We simply cannot ever permit such a travesty to happen again.

Therefore:

To all elected officials, sheriffs, deputies, marshals, constables, sundry law enforcement officers, and military personnel. As a Vietnam era veteran and former peace officer myself, I respect your service and understand that most of you value our Liberty as much as any citizen. For the few who may not fully comprehend what that means, this is a reminder that as a condition of your employment as one of our public servants, you were required to swear an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States of America. We the people who employ you, take this oath seriously and regard any breach of same treasonous.

Be advised that hereafter your sovereign employers will consider any order to disarm private citizens, in any jurisdiction within these United States, a brazen act of treason. Further, any officer who obeys such a treasonous order, and attempts to confiscate our arms, is himself engaged in an act of treason. Keep in mind, “I was just following orders…” never has been, and never will be, considered a valid defense for treason. Anyone receiving such an order has the solemn duty to arrest immediately the traitorous fool who made it; and, most regrettably, any fellow officers inclined to execute it. Failing that, it would be advisable to resign and get out of a conspicuous uniform immediately.

For those arrogant enough to think government has the overwhelming force and would prevail, think again. We take our Liberty seriously. Unlike the unprepared and baffled citizens of New Orleans, do not expect us to cower in our homes awaiting your arrival. You will be ambushed in the field in the spirit of North Bridge at Concord, by a serious force of well-armed citizens, intent on summarily eradicating with extreme prejudice, any traitors who are intent on disarming us. Then, we will track down and hang the supercilious smurf who gave the treasonous order.

Don’t even think about violating the Posse Comitatus Act and trying to field our military forces against us. It is unclear how many would violate their oath and fire on American Patriots defending their right to keep and bear arms, but we would prevail in the end anyway. We would win the same way our forefathers defeated the British occupation; the Vietnamese defeated the American occupation; the Afghans defeated the Soviet occupation; and the Jihadists are in the process of defeating the occupation of Iraq. These victories came about, not by brilliance on the battlefield; but by simply refusing to lose, and wearing down the occupiers until they eventually just gave up and went home, weary of the grind, the cost, and the frustrating inability ever to achieve final victory.

Ponder this carefully, you Sons of Liberty, and be well prepared for the fateful decision you are likely to eventually have to make. Respect for authority is deeply ingrained in many; but there frequently comes a time in a man’s life when honor and self respect demand that we stand up on our hind legs and bellow in rage at injustice and the forces of tyranny. We are fast approaching such a time and our birthright as freemen will be seriously tested. Freeman, serf, or slave… the choice will be yours to make. Choose wisely.

Note: Please feel free to copy and disseminate any or all of this post, with or without attribution, as far and wide as possible. I really do think that our nation would be well served by thoughtful and open discussions on this subject ahead of time; particularly in cop shops and military barracks. ◄Dave►

Tell me something

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:32:58 GMT

A smart army knows when it is beaten, and knows when to retreat. Sadly, the conservative movement has no general today to keep the men together as they make their way to a place of safety. The movement and its flagship party are in disarray, and many are hunkering down in holes, far from their comrades, to weather the coming trials alone. I heard Roger Simon and Co. at PJTV talking about the fact that right now we do not need a leader, we need ideas. I guess that's the point at which my metaphor breaks down, because they are right. There is no clear cohesion to the movement today, at least not from where I see it, and until we have an objective a commander or guide will do no good. We need to be having an open conversation about who we are collectively and where we are going. The great Bill Whittle made an excellent suggestion for where to start thinking about this: how would you describe conservatism in one sentence? I liked and support his answer to his own question, but that was his. I am still considering what mine is. There are a lot of valuable principles to be found in the conservative movement, and I'm not sure how I would condense the ones I think most important. I think we need to talk about this amongst ourselves both here on the Web and in person with the people we meet. I want to start that conversation with you. Yes, you personally, reading this right now. What is conservatism to you? And second, what are some of the governmental and social issues that are most important to you?

I'm not trying to form my opinion based on the consensus of my (currently) small pool of readers. I want to know because I want to move this discussion forward. I want to know what things are important to people who are not me. I have ideas on what we can do to bring people together, but first we have to know where they're all starting.

So feel free to respond in the comments here, or send me a quick message at oyster_survey@live.com if you're not an LJ user. Plans are in motion for a move to classier digs, but we work with what we have. I'll post more information on my plans as information comes in. We have a chance to revive ourselves, and as great as they are, the pundits can't do it for us. The election is over. The work has just begun. Hand me a wrench.

Oyster out.

Never, never, never give up

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:21:17 GMT

Almost everywhere I go, I see signs of despair. People making plans for the impending Obama presidency, moaning about how McCain is hopeless, portending doom, gloom and disaster in our future. Many prominent conservatives - aside from the turncoats endorsing Obama - are calling the election for That One. The fight has gone out of them.

I'm not buying that crap.

We can still win, and if we do not give up we will win. There are a great many fools willing to sell their liberty and their souls so as not to face the difficulties of life. There are many who hate the principles this nation represents. But I refuse to believe, even in my most pessimistic of moments, that they are the majority. This is the greatest nation on Earth - go not softly into that good night! The City has not fallen, the walls still stand. Will you stand on them in the name of Liberty? Will you throw open the gates? Will you shuffle back to your home to fall upon your sword? Go to the polling place, and make your solitary stand. Enough of us doing our part will win the day. The battle is not over until the votes are cast, and Election Day is still days away.

And even if I am wrong, what of it? Even if through hook, crook, or mass of fools the Democrats come to power, the battle is not over. If the walls fall, I will not retreat to prepare for 2012 or even 2010. This is my homeland. With you as my witnesses and as I live, I will devote my time, my words, my money, my prayers and my strength to preserving the principles and institutions that make this nation great. I will give up when they pry the keyboard from the cold fingers of my left hand and a weapon from my right.

I realize these words sound overly dramatic. They are. A metaphor without drama is not very effective. It is time we rallied ourselves, time we remembered who we are and why. The war is over when the people give up. If we lose, it will not be because I lost hope. It's morning in America. Oyster out.

I never thought I'd say it

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:53:22 GMT

For many years, especially as a teenager, I was deliberately on the fence politically. I called myself a radical centrist, because I bought into the idea that both sides were wrong and out of control and corrupt and selfish and stupid and... well, you get the picture. I called myself a "theoretical communist" because I believed it was a great idea that had no chance on this green earth of working. I associated myself with armchair radicals: commies and punks, hippies and conspiracy theorists. I thought I had an open mind. I thought I was pretty sophisticated, pretty in the know.

Let me sum all that up in a few words: in the not-too-distant past, the Oyster was an Idiot.

I got older, got a full-time job (I cannot begin to tell you what a difference that made. If you're reading this I probably don't have to.), discovered real religious conviction, spent some time abroad, got married, had some kids... and somewhere along the line discovered that my view of politics and the world had changed. I still held myself aloof from parties, but I had discovered that I had a lot more conservative in me than I had thought. I always loved my country, but after living in another one and after 11 September 2001 opened my eyes to the state of the world outside, I discovered a passion for the United States and the principles of freedom it represents that surprised me. I started opening my eyes and ears to find out what all this was about.

Which brings me to today. Goldilocks and I were carrying on our twice-weekly debate this evening as we traded off shifts. I replace him on Thursday and Sunday nights, and we inevitably get into lengthy discussions that usually gravitate to either politics, religion, or both. It was near the end of our discussion that the bomb fell. Goldilocks was criticizing the choice of Palin as the VP candidate, a subject he has discussed many times before. To him, her selection was nothing more than a gimmick, and he refuses to take her seriously. He brought up once more the argument of her lack of governmental experience, as compared to the three statesmen on the tickets. She isn't qualified, he said.

"To us, experience as a normal working person is a qualification," I explained.

As soon as I'd said it, it hit me. I said "us." In all my discussion with Goldilocks and online, I had never clearly identified myself as belonging to a group. I preach conservative ideals wherever I can, but the expressions "we" or "us" were foreign to me. But now, having said it, I think I have passed a key turning point. I have gone tonight from someone with a clear grasp of the principles that make conservatism what it is to a committed member, an active part of the conservative community. It's kind of a thrill. You all are stuck with me now. Hope you don't mind too much. Oysters are unbelievably hard to move once we've found our place to stay.

The rise of a king

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:25:51 GMT

I saw a disturbing thing today: a man who wished to be a slave. An anonymous poster joined the discussion over at E3 Gazette, and had the following to say (emphasis mine):

I can't wait for eight LOOOOOOOOOOOONG years of OBAMA rule

Now the inimitable Mark Paules already made a simple rebuttal regarding the use of that word, and how inappropriate it is in light of our system of representative government. The problem here is not just that the term "rule" is inappropriate. It is frightening. It frightens because of what it reveals of the mentality of this person, and probably many others. I'm going to reveal myself now as a member of the reviled "Religious Right.": I'm going to take an example from the Bible.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw that statement was the story of the first king of Israel. For those unfamiliar, I'll summarize the situation. The nation of Israel had been a loose theocracy for a long time: the people largely ruled themselves, based on the Mosaic law and enforced by local elders and judges. Samuel the prophet had made his sons judges, but they failed to obey or properly enforce the law, and the people demanded a change. These judges had let them down, so they decided it would be better to have a king. After all, everyone else had one. All the cool nations were monarchies!

Samuel was worried - he was an old man and he had seen the horrors that monarchy had created in the surrounding nations. He knew that a monarch would likely weaken the people's connection to the religious law that kept them free and prosperous. He consulted with the Lord, who told him in essence that if the people did not want to fulfill their promises to follow the order He had set (and by implication, fix the errors that had crept in), he would let them do as they pleased and reap the result. At the Lord's instruction, Samuel warned the people what was in store: that a king would tax them into poverty, take their property to give to his friends and favorite servants, that he would use them to glorify himself, and concluding with the direct "and ye shall be his servants." And a free people who had ruled themselves effectively and successfully for centuries, wanting so badly to "throw the bums out" and be like their neighbors, replied "Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations..." All of those warnings and more came to pass, and in the end the nation of Israel was divided forever by the pride and arrogance of its kings.

I will not even begin to claim that the comparison is perfect, but the parallels are striking. This is the freest nation on Earth, made so by a divinely inspired form of government. We have seen a great deal of corruption over the years, but the system has stood, and we have made small adjustments so that the system could work as it was intended - to make men as equal before the law as they are before God. Now, fed up with not having things just the way they want them, a great many people are prepared to vote for a man who will take their property, their liberty, and in the end their self-respect, just so that they can have the kind of system that paved the way for the death knells quietly ringing over Europe and parts of Latin America. They are willing to make themselves subject to a demagogue for the sake of popularity and revenge. They have been warned, we have been warned, the Samuels of today have shouted as far as their voices will carry the warning that this is the road to tyrranny and misery. Some have not listened. My voice is not as strong as theirs, but if you have not listened to them, I hope somehow you will listen to me.

If the American people elect Barack Obama, they will seal their - our - fate. If the American people abandon the principles of liberty and responsibility that God has helped to establish in this nation, we are doomed. This nation was made free and has been kept free at great cost and against great odds, but it has never been so surrounded by enemies, never assaulted so fanatically by enemies foreign and domestic. If liberty, the shield of the Republic, is lost now, I do not think we will be able to reclaim it before the sword falls. Think long, think hard, pray if that is your wont, but whatever you do, consider carefully the real implications before you cast a vote on November 4th.

God bless the United States of America. Oyster out.

The wealth game

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:39:53 GMT

As I've dived once more into political discussion lately, I've noticed a drastic difference in perspective that leads to a lot of ugly mud-slinging and chest-pounding. Many people do not seem to understand the nature of wealth. In one discussion today, someone claimed that conservatives do nothing to address the disparity of wealth in our country. There are a number of issues tied up in that, but I will give you one angle that is near and dear to my conservative heart. Leftists of whatever stripe, from Democrats to Euro-socialists to Fascists to Marxists, all look at wealth as if it were a finite resource. There is only so much of it to go around, they say, and the means of survival need to be made available to everyone. We are a social species, we rely on one another by nature; our greatest achievements are by collaborative effort. So these limited resources should belong to all. Sound familiar? The tricky thing here is, their logic is sound and the motives of some at least are pure. The fundamental flaw is a massive error in the underlying assumption, that first point: the nature of wealth.

Money is not the means of survival. Ask any survivalist. A piece of paper or a small chunk of metal is not food (trying to teach my one year old that), it is not clothing, it will not keep you warm, or cool, or dry, as the weather may demand. Money is one thing and one thing only. Money is an illusion. Money is a fake thing that we have all agreed to pretend is real to facilitate our economic dealings with one another. It is an illusion in the moral sense, the metaphysical sense (see Richard Bach), the practical sense. The great Robert Kiyosaki taught and teaches this over and over again. The truly rich are rich in part because they know that money is an illusion. It can be created from nothing, out of thin air, and it can disappear there just as easily. I say the truly rich because there are many people who have money who do not understand it. But that is a subject for another time. Do you see how dangerous this misunderstanding is? To socialists and the like, there is only so much money, and if the poor do not have it, it must be because the rich are hoarding it somewhere. That is simply not the case. The wealthy do not hoard - hoarding will not increase their wealth! To make themselves wealthier, they need to create more wealth. And in what I can only call a divinely-inspired way, the only way for them to grow that wealth is to share it with others. Don't believe me? Try this on. What can a man do with his money?

He can spend it. That money is now gone into the hands of a business that uses it to pay their employees and buy goods and services from other companies. Those employees, and the employees of those other companies, now start over at the beginning of this question with their own money. Everyone does this, and the rich do this more than anyone else.
He can hide it in a safe or under his bed. No wealthy man of any intelligence is going to do this with his money. Money does not grow this way. It just sits there and loses value as the steady climb of inflation accrues.
He can put it in the bank. The bank then invests this money in the markets, in loans to other customers, etc. These activities make a profit, creating more wealth, and they share this in the form of interest on the money saved with them.
He can invest it. There are multitudes of ways in which one can do this. There are mutual funds, stocks, tax liens, real estate, starting one's own business, venture capitalism, even the horse races if you can afford to throw it all away. If that investment is sound (again, the ponies are not the smartest way of doing this), the money invested will be returned with interest, having been used to create more wealth, more jobs. Smart people will then reinvest that money, speeding and growing the creation of wealth.

In none of these examples does the money sit glistening in the hands of the greedy rich. It goes out into the hands and pockets of the rest of us, creating more wealth for everyone involved as long as it is handled correctly. I am not in favor of a huge disparity in wealth. Neither is anyone else I know. The only people I know of being in favor of that are class-baiters, jealousy-mongers who want to whip up the poor to the hatred of the rich to exploit them (the poor) for their own ends.

I want to see all people wealthy. When any man becomes wealthy, that wealth spreads in all directions. Unless he's one of the foolish ones, hiding stacks of bills under his mattress, the nature of the economy is going to bring some of that money my way - and yours. There are things that the government can do to promote that growth, if they want to help the poor. State governments can strengthen the work force with real education reform - more on that in the near future. All levels of government can protect the consumer from those who are too short-sighted to do good business, and try to cheat or defraud their customers to get rich quicker. They can tax everyone less, leaving us all with more wealth to be spread and multiplied by the open market. When the government seizes money, it stops growing. Money needs room and wise care to make it grow. The national government can regulate and facilitate trade between States and from our States to the world at large. It can protect our market from an influx of leeches who siphon off that wealth being created here and send it south. In other words, it can limit itself to the responsibilities it was given in the Constitution of the United States, and leave the rest where it belongs - in the hands of the States, and the people of those States.

So you see - conservatives are doing their best to address that growing gap as fast as they can. The more money we have to invest, the more jobs we create, the more wealth we create and spread. There is no need for government to do the spreading. We are smart enough to do it ourselves. Oyster out.

Dang, I left the lights on!

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:19:03 GMT

On the bright side, I won't bark my shin on the table this way. I had forgotten about this account until recently, but it is convenient for the moment. I'll be posting stuff here until I get my cooler, independent new digs in order. In the mean time, I am changing directions personally and here on LJ. I have things to say that the world needs to hear, so I'll be starting with this little corner of the intarwebs I already have staked out. The next few months will be a wild ride for everyone, the Oyster house especially. We'll be packing our bags and heading East just after Christmas. God willing, our move will be followed by John McCain's - into the White House. Oyster out.

Songs of Understanding

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:37:26 GMT

There’s nothing like an argument to make people stop thinking. Slogans, catchphrases, and factoids have replaced open discourse years since. Even when there is no opponent in sight, the deliberation on which intelligent argument is based is generally MIA. Yet when that argument is being held by one man, with himself, and not on a street corner, the results can be thought-provoking. I wish there were more things in this world that prompted that response. Even with the modern obsession with questioning everything held as truth, and the absolute glut of data that are the hallmark of today’s information culture, there seems to be little real analysis going on. Critical thinking, one of the great foundations of the rise of Western culture, has gone missing. Ours is an era of constant change, Tradition is a hiss and a byword, and “status quo” might as well be an obscenity. Yet periods of transition and revolution are nothing new, and this mindless rejection of everything past is not helpful to their true progress. William Blake was a revolutionary thinker, and certainly someone who deeply questioned the traditions put before him. His collection Songs of Experience is jaded enough for the most disenchanted Gen-Xer. He does a marvelous job of dissecting what is wrong with the society around him in brilliantly crafted verse. He shows the corruption of government, the pollution of the earth, the heartlessness of the powerful clergy. Sound like familiar circumstances to anyone yet? Yet the work is not truly complete with only the Songs of Experience. Given equal weight – by the author at least – are the Songs of Innocence. Here Blake explores what is right with the world – the beauty of the Earth, the goodness of God, the value of love. Primarily from the vantage-point of children, he explores hope and gratitude and joy and pleasure and beauty. He straddles the chasm between joy and despair with one foot and one book planted firmly on each side. Neither is lip-service; both are sincerely felt and sincerely written.
I am not suggesting that everyone should be dual-minded in their opinions. Universal ambivalence is the hallmark of moral relativism – which is not one of Western civilization’s high points. On the contrary, we must be able to form solid, well-informed, and passionate opinions on the issues we face. There is right and wrong, and it is as important to endorse and pursue the right as it is to avoid and punish the wrong. But the key is understanding. I cannot say what conclusion William Blake came to regarding the fate of orphaned children at the hands of the Anglican Church, or regarding violence and death in the world, or the tiger and the lamb, or the death of the chimneysweep. He presents both sides with equal weight and leaves to the reader the work of deciding. It is easy to read whichever of the books most lends itself to one’s worldview and ignore the other, leaving one feeling smug and justified. It is far more difficult to read the Songs in their entirety, weighing and considering what all those elements mean. That is truly the value of the Songs of Innocence and Experience. In a sea of data and a storm of rhetoric, only the light of understanding can guide us. The moral questions are the greatest beacons for establishing our course as individuals, families, and nations. Blake’s Songs can help us to establish for ourselves what we choose to believe, and what we want our society to become.

I'm only a little crazy

Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:10:32 GMT

Sometimes in this business it pays to be a little nuts. Not that healthy, well-adjusted people are hard to find working Supported Living. I would never say that! (Whether I would think it is another matter) But for me at least, having a little bit in common with my consumers' disabilities helps me relate to and deal with their problems. I am not disabled. Most people might go so far as to say that I am "quirky." Those who spend a lot of time around me know that I can be odd at times. I have certainly found over the last few years that my thinking, the way I am wired is a slightly different schematic than everyone else. I could cite some examples, but that would quickly lead far from my point. I am prone to a lot of introspection and almost obsessive self-analysis. I am constantly observing and evaluating my own actions. In doing so I have noticed several areas where I fit an extremely mild description of a particular mental diagnosis. The first time someone explained the autism bell curve to me and some of the common signs, whole vistas opened up in my understanding of myself. Small, irritating and seemingly immutable quirks of mine suddenly took on relevance. I would not identify myself as obsessive-compulsive, but I have a few things about me that sure lean that way. I have worked with consumers who have severe cases of these. There are others. Lately it has been anger issues and the associated compulsive behaviors. I have dealt with those almost my entire life. Study of my field and my consumers has helped me understand my problem, and vice versa.

For an example, my current consumer Art. Most of his problems are not related to his disability - they are a result of his attitude. The one exception that seemed to elude us was one of communication. His screaming tantrums are one of our major obstacles to helping him become a fully functioning member of the community. So long as he resorts to that, our job is very complicated and not very effective. Two things came up tonight in our shift-change debriefing. I was explaining yesterday's "amateur shrink" epiphany and how it related to Art. I realized that part of the problem he faced was a lack of coping mechanisms. Where I had found workable outlets for my frustration-induced rampages, he had none. That was tied into the root of the problem: until he came to work with us, he was always in complete control of the situation and all the people in it. Thus, he never had to develop a coping mechanism. Now Goldilocks and I don't roll over for him, and he has no system in place for how to deal with that. Without an outlet, his frustration and anger become a recursive and dangerous loop. So we'll be working on finding him some outlets.

Another parrellel came up when Goldilocks made a connection. For reasons unknown, Art seems to be unable to express what makes him angry. He will lie, avoid the question, or fly into an even greater frustrated rage. It didn't seem to fit in with what we knew of his disability. It is mostly physical, with only slight retardation. So far as we know there are no mental health issues like psychosis, delusion, or PTSD. So his strange mental block didn't jive. It has frustrated us for weeks now. Goldilocks pointed out that it only happened when he was actually feeling angry. He could tell you how horrible you were and what awful things he was going to do to you and your family and your little dog too. But he can never seem to say, "This is why I am angry."

"I understand that," I told Goldilocks. "That happens to me when I twist off too. I don't understand why it is either, but I know it happens. I just can't seem to make words come out." Suddenly his behavior made more sense to me. It wasn't that he was (once again) being a spoiled prima donna, it was that he literally could not make the relevant words come out of his mouth. I don't know that this insight will help us find a solution. I haven't even found one for myself yet. But it makes it more familiar, and therefor easier to cope with.