Communist Humor

Maybe you need to have lived there, but I find Communist jokes very entertaining. The London Times gives this list of such jokes submitted by readers. I actually heard #7 in Ukraine too.

1) Three workers find themselves locked up, and they ask each other what they’re in for. The first man says: “I was always ten minutes late to work, so I was accused of sabotage.” The second man says: “I was always ten minutes early to work, so I was accused of espionage.” The third man says: “I always got to work on time, so I was accused of having a Western watch.”

2) An old man is dying in his hovel on the steppes.
There is a menacing banging on the door.
‘Whose there?’ the old man asks.
‘Death ‘comes the reply.
‘Thank God for that,’ he says, ‘I thought it was the KGB.’  

3) Pravda announced that it welcomed letters to the editor. All correspondents were required to include their full name, address and next of kin.
  
4) Q. "Why do the KGB operate in groups of three?" A. "One can read, one can write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals."

5) Leonid Brezhnev pays a state visit to France and he's given a VIP guided tour of Paris. He's conducted round the splendours of the Élysée Palace, but remains as stony-faced as ever. He's shown the masterpieces of the Louvre, but the curators fail to get any reaction out of him. He's taken to the Arc de Triomphe, but displays not the slightest interest. Eventually, the official motorcade drives him to the foot of the Eiffel Tower, where Brezhnev finally stares up in amazement and astonishment. He turns to his French hosts and asks in bewilderment: "But, Paris is a city of 9 million people... surely you need more than one watchtower?"

6) Stalin decides to go out one day and see what it's really like for the workers, so he puts on a disguise and sneaks out of the Kremlin.

After a while he wanders into a cinema. When the film has finished, the Soviet Anthem plays and a huge picture of Stalin appears on the screen. Everyone stands up and begins singing, except Stalin, who smugly remains seated.

A minute later a man behind him leans forwards and whispers in his ear: "Listen Comrade, we all feel exactly the same way you do, but trust me, it's a lot safer if you just stand up."

7) A man saves up his rubles and is finally able to buy a car in Soviet Russia. After he pays his money the he is told he will have his car in three years.
"Three years!" he asks "What month?"
"August"
"August? What day in August?" He asks
"The Second of August" is the reply
"Morning or Afternoon?"
"Afternoon. Why do you need to know?"
"The plumber is coming in the morning."

8) Why do ex-Stasi officers make the best Berlin taxi drivers?
Because you only need to tell them your name and they'll already know where you live!

9) Moscow in the 1970s. Deepest winter. A rumour spreads through the city that meat will be available for sale the next day at Butcher's Shop no. 1.

Tens of thousands turn up on the eve of the event: wrapped up against the cold, carrying stools, vodka, and chessboards, they form an orderly queue.

At 3 am the butcher comes out and says, "Comrades, I've just had a call from the Party Central Committee: it turns out there won't be enough meat for everyone, so the Jews in the queue should go home."

The Jews obediently leave the queue. The rest continue to wait.

At 7 am, the butcher comes out again: "Comrades, I've just had another call from Central Committee. It turns out there will be no meat at all, so you should all go home."

The crowd disperses, grumbling all the while: "Those bloody Jews get all the luck!"

10) A KGB officer is walking in the park and he sees and old Jewish man reading a book.

The KGB says "What are you reading old man?" The old man says "I am trying to teach myself Hebrew."

KGB says "Why are you trying to learn Hebrew? It takes years to get a visa for Israel. You would die before the paperwork got done."

"I am learning Hebrew so that when I die and go to Heaven I will be able to speak to Abraham and Moses. Hebrew is the language they speak in Heaven." the old man replies.

"But what if when you die you go to Hell?" asks KGB.
And the old man replies, "Russian, I already know."

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

(I've been itching to write this post for a while now, and since I'm stuck at work waiting for a massive file copy to finish, here you go).

One of the environmental/no oil crowd's biggest success has been halting oil drilling in ANWR. to justify it they show pictures of the refuge such as this:

Beautiful, who'd want to put a stinky old oil rig there?

And this:

awwww, look at the cute little squirrel, the poor thing must be afraid of the noisy oil well, poor little guy!

What they don't tell you is neither of these pictures is from the area where drilling is proposed. They are from the permanent wilderness area far to the south. No one is suggesting drilling there.

This is where the oil is:

Oh, wait, that's the winter picture, of course it's just a bunch of ice, it's Alaska for crying out loud! I wouldn't want to be accused of falsifying it's true beauty by showing it out of season. Here's the summer view:

Much prettier, no? I hear it often hits 40 degrees in July. Parts of it even grow grass as you'll see. But that's beside the point; it's the wildlife that will really suffer!

The best indication of the horrors that await the caribou and the other wildlife of ANWR can be found by looking at the sad plight of their brethren right down the coast in Prudhoe Bay who are already suffering the effects of the unfettered greed and environmental indifference of Big Oil! BEHOLD THE CARNAGE!!!!

Note the oil drilling operation and pipeline behind all the rotting carcases. . . what? . . . wait a second . . . those caribou aren't dead, they're eating and resting with their young!. . . huh? . . . well I'm sure they're scared of all the development! you'd never see them get any closer than that to an oil rig!

. . . like right on the access road . . . D'oh! Well, caribou aren't the brightest . . .  savvy predators, like bears, surely understand the danger posed by the human intruders!

well, OK. . . those are just dumb brown bears. Polar bears would never. . .

. . . ah, but small animals, like birds, would be driven away by the . . .

. . . they may hunt, but they'd never nest near an oil rig . . .

Um . . . Ok. Maybe we should learn from the other Alaska coastal drilling sites and not hyperventilate over ANWR.

Current Oil and Gas Prices are Self-inflicted Wounds

For several reasons, I always enjoy finding articles that summarize everything I've been thinking on a current issue. First, it confirms what I've always thought - "I'm a smart guy." Second, it saves me the trouble of composing long blog posts - I can just cut, paste and link. Much easier.

so I'm glad I found this post on the real political and historical reasons for the current "energy crisis."

Short version: Congressional dismay about high gas prices is like me blindfolding myself and then complaining when I bump into things a lot.

Long Version:

Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office.

Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year.

Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India.

At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. . .

Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.

Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?

Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.

It's not as if we don't have the oil available. According to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress:

Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.

That doesn't include ANWR, and it doesn't include offshore drilling.

The real problem, I believe, is that liberals, and environmentalists in particular, want oil to be expensive. Read the words of Sen. Obama when ask his opinion of high oil prices:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.

I think most people fail to see the need for an adjustment at all. the article points out that Democrats don't have this attitude about other scarce "resources."

Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs?

Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. 'Adjust to having less' is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance.

Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves.

Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy?

Funny Church Schedule

An Incredible Lack of Perspective

Bob Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television (apparent motto: "because white folks just ain't funny") either misspoke, or is deliberately saying stupid things on national television. It has to be one of those two, because I cannot accept that he really believes the following:

I believe that if Senator Obama leads this country the way he ran the primary, it will become a historic event for African-Americans, probably greater than the Emancipation Proclamation, which was signed in 1863.

The election of single man (and a wealthy, liberal, Harvard-educated, socialist man at that) is more important that the freeing of tens of millions of human beings from slavery? Maybe we should ask Mr. Johnson's great-grandparents what they think. If he's correct, my recent graduation from law school must be just as historic to white people as the Magna Charta, or at least the advent of gun racks in pickup trucks.

That kind of thing just boggles my mind. I fear this is only the beginning of Obama's cult of personality, so let me be the first to say "I, for one, welcome our socialist overlords, LONG LIVE THE DEAR LEADER!"

Now, where can I buy a picture of Comrade Stalin, err, Senator Obama for the shrine?

Climate and the Precautionary Principle

We went to a memorial day barbeque today with several families from the ward, and I got into a debate (friendly, of course) with a brother about the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change (whatever it's called now).

Anyway, we each had points and counterpoints. I'm a lawyer and he's a physicist, so it's not like either of us really knows what we're talking about. But I noticed that whenever I'd make a point, the response would be something like "yeah, we don't really know, but we shouldn't risk it."

I've encountered this attitude recently as I wrote my final law school paper. It is basically "better safe than sorry." The formal name for this philosophy is the Precautionary Principle. It's widely used in environmental circles as a justification to prohibit, regulate or tax any activity that could conceivably impact the environment.

the Precautionary Principle is insidious for at least two reasons.

• First, it reverses the burden of proof - forcing one side to prove a negative. Instead of the environmental advocate gathering evidence of actual harm and using that evidence to advocate halting the damaging activity, all the activist has to do is come up with a scenario that will potentially harm the environment, and invoke the Precautionary Principle. The activist doesn't have to prove anything, the other side has to prove that their activities will be harmless. This is nearly impossible. I can't prove that driving to taco bell to get lunch will be harmless. This being the case, the precautionary principle says I should not do it.
• Second, it is used selectively. Environmentalists use it to force industry to prove they will cause no harm, but activists don't take into account the harm caused by their own actions. DDT was banned because it may have harmed some birds, but this ban has allowed millions of people to die from mosquito-bourne malaria over the last 3 decades. One would think that if an action had the potential of killing millions, the precautionary principle would dictate that it not be taken. not so. Only environmental harm is fair game. (and humans are not part of the environment).

Just something to keep in mind next time you hear predictions of possible environmental catastrophe.

Church Irony

As I waited at a stoplight the other day, the sign outside the Mount Hope United Methodist Church here in Lansing was showing the service times, then the alternate worship times, then the following:

Sometimes religion gets in the way of God.

--Bono

(Yes, Bono, as in U2)

So the message is what? Come to worship Sundays at 9:30, unless it gets in the way of God?

Talk about a mixed message.

European 'Human' Rights

A British woman is trying to convince an Austrian court to declare a chimpanzee a 'person' so that she can adopt him and be appointed his guardian. Read the whole story here.

36-year-old Miss [Paula] Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

She insists that the chimp [Matthew] needs legal standing so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests  -  especially if the sanctuary shuts down.

Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A person, not a human? I, being a lawyer, know there is a difference, but legal persons who are not human are usually organizations or companies. Maybe the chimp should just incorporate in Nevada. I know a guy on the radio who will do it for just $499.

But later she seems a bit fuzzy on the difference.

'Everybody who knows him personally will see him as a person,' she said.

'In his home in the African jungle, he would have been well able to look after himself without a guardian.

But since he was abducted into an alien environment, traumatised and locked up in an enclosure, it did become necessary for me to act on his behalf to secure the donation money for him and to avoid his deportation.

'Since he has no close relatives, I am doing this as the person closest to him.'

He was 'abducted?' She's trying to 'avoid his deportation?' As to his close relatives, isn't science always harping on how close we are to chimpanzees, genetically?

The sad thing is that the court will probably take the case, and probably rule for the chimp. After all, this is the same court that doesn't recognize that an unborn child is a person. In fact this very court awarded damages to a Polish woman who's "human rights" were violated when she was denied a 'therapeutic' abortion.

Europe's idea of 'human rights' is, I fear, irretrievably lost.

The "New Homeless"

CNN ran a very misleadingly-titled article today: Mom Forced to Live in Car With Dogs. What an outrageous example of elder abuse, right?... No. Kids out of control and trashed the house?... No. A fire or flood?... No.

This poor lady is a member of the "middle class homeless." At the beginning of the article I felt bad for her, but as I read, I gradually found it harder and harder to really sympathize. Let's just say she's not your stereotypical homeless person.

Barbara Harvey climbs into the back of her small Honda sport utility vehicle and snuggles with her two golden retrievers, her head nestled on a pillow propped against the driver's seat. Californian Barbara Harvey says she is forced to sleep in her car with her dogs after losing her job earlier this year.

Poor lady. But wait, she owns a Honda SUV? Oh, then I saw the dateline: "Santa Barbara, CA," so it's all relative. (a late-model Honda CRV in Santa Barbara is like a 78 Chevy Nova anywhere else, right?). She also owns (and feeds) two large dogs. Just the bare necessities for her. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the homeless can't even afford to support two large dogs when forced to live in their SUV.

A former loan processor, the 67-year-old mother of three grown children said she never thought she'd spend her golden years sleeping in her car in a parking lot. . .

Harvey was forced into homelessness this year after being laid off. She said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house. . . costs more than $1 million. She lost her condo two months ago and had little savings as backup.

Gee, I wonder why she wasn't able to save anything. Must be George Bush's fault. There might be a place or two where it would be cheaper to live. Especially when you have transportation and no steady job tying you down! That just makes me feel like shouting - MOVE TO A NORMAL TOWN!! The rich can barely afford to live in Santa Barbara.

And her children must be real deadbeats, not helping their mom, huh?

Her 19-year-old daughter moved in with friends to avoid being homeless. Her other children live overseas, and she didn't want to tell them about her living status.

Even if her children offered to help, she said, she wouldn't accept it.

She wouldn't accept help from her own children? But she'll complain to CNN! Are we supposed to just ignore this and feel sorry for her anyway? At least she's an optimist when her daughter calls. (on her cell phone?)

"My daughter especially is very unhappy. Sometimes she'll cry, and she'll call and say, 'Mom, I just can't stand it that you are living in a car,' " Harvey said. "I'll say, 'You know what? This is OK for right now, because I'm safe, I'm healthy, the dogs are doing OK, and I have a job, and things will get better."

Well, as long as the dogs are OK! Things WON'T get better, not in Santa Barbara they won't. Get in your car and leave, find an affordable apartment in an affordable town, get rid of the dogs, and the cell phone and, for crying out loud, talk to your children!

The article quotes an economist blaming the California housing crisis and the dearth of affordable housing in Santa Barbara. blah, blah, blah. The real issue here is stubborn pride and a fundamental disconnect from the realities of life. Unfortunate, yes, but not unforeseeable, and certainly not irreparable.

Discriminatory Dollars

A federal court ruled today that the treasury department discriminates against the blind by . . . get this . . . printing money!

Well, not exactly. But, the court did rule that the fact that different denominations aren't distinguishable by touch violates the Rehabilitation Act. In essence, the government needs to make sure that blind people can tell a $5 from a $10 from a $20 by touch.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but where does it end? Aren't the Homeland Security color alerts discriminatory? How does someone know what an "orange" threat level is if they've never seen color?

There's no really effective way to comply with this decision. Make each denomination a different size? won't they need to carry several reference cards for comparison? (not to mention the forced redesign or replacement of every single vending machine / ATM / counting machine / ticket machine / cash register / wallet in the country). Print raised marks on the bills? That will last until the bill gets wadded up or washed, and what a great way to counterfeit! a few minutes with a needle, and viola! all my ones are twenties. Texture? How many different textures are there, and do they survive wadding?

Some difficulty is, I think, an inevitable result of blindness. That's why it is called a handicap. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the blind, but I don't think the court thought this one through.

Incidentally, I'm not simply being "ableist", the American Federation for the Blind opposes changing the money too.