Bill Eccles: July 2012 Archives

As reported here, Hamilton Sundstrand and Goodrich Corporation just merged.

Please call us “Good Ham Sundrich” from now on.

Thank you for your cooperation.

(Thanks, Ray.)

(“Competes”? C’mon, guys. Your write for a living…)

What bothers me most about the attitude expressed both in the media, and now in the governments of Chicago and Boston, is that Chick-fil-A and its owners do not discriminate and have not discriminated against or have “hated” gays. They uphold the traditional definition of marriage based on their Baptist upbringings, and the mayors of Boston and Chicago have done nothing more than jumped onto the politically-expedient Christian-bashing bandwagon.

If this were anything otherwise, then the mayor of Boston would have also denied applications for every single firm “on Boston’s Freedom Trail” whose founders have beliefs which he believes to be discriminatory yet whose companies serve all members of the public, regardless of any distinguishing characteristic. But no, Chick-fil-A is a target of opportunity, and it’s a politicly-expedient means to draw attention to himself. Furthermore, it is an embarrassment for Boston, arguably the heart of this country’s fight against tyrannical rule and for freedom of religion—the very freedom he seeks to quash with tyrannical rule.

As to the BSA, this, too, isn’t really news. But casting the BSA’s decision as “hate” is a poor choice of words (the BSA does not hate gays, period) and, just like “war on women,” is media-supported inflammatory speech.

If I were a cynic… and maybe I am… I would cast this whole episode as an artificial uproar created by the media to distract from the flailing candidacy of their darling president.

This video of the Fair Oaks Dairy Farm in Indiana shows you that California doesn’t have an exclusive on happy cows.

Ω Are You a Bigot?

|

Are you a bigot?

If you answer, “No, I’m above that. I love gay people and people of all colors and I want everybody to be happily married and I think people who disagree with me are intolerant,” you crossed the very line which you use to separate yourself from bigots.

So welcome to the club.

You see, it’s a very easy distinction to make: bigots are people who are intolerant to the views of others. That’s the definition from multiple sources. The grandaddy of all dictionaries, the OED, defines bigoted thusly:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others [source]

There, you see? The definition isn’t “a bigot is one whose beliefs don’t align with the political establishment” or “a bigot is one whose beliefs aren’t politically correct” (whatever that is) or “a bigot is someone who disagrees with your beliefs.” It’s one who is intolerant of the opinions of others. Note that this isn’t a debate about whose opinion is “right” and “wrong.” It’s just about being intolerant of others’ opinions.

It’s just that simple.

If you look at the crucifixion of Dan Cathy in the media for his support of Christian family values, it’s quite clear that the media are filled with bigots. It’s clear that government is filled with bigots. It’s clear that Facebook is filled with bigots. Not one of us is anything short of a full-blown bigot unless you are truly tolerant of others’ opinions and beliefs. And in that regard, Dan Cathy may be closer to anti-bigot than bigot than you’d like to give him credit for.

The word “bigot” is tossed around with reckless abandon. “Dan Cathy is a bigot!” the posts scream. “I’ll never eat another of their yummy sandwiches again!” (Your loss.)

All this in spite of the fact that Dan Cathy never said he was intolerant of your views. And, in fact, he has stated quite the opposite.

So who’s the bigot? Look in a mirror. See what you see. Are you intolerant of someone else’s views? If so, you might reconsider throwing that first stone.

So… corn ethanol is the answer?

I don’t think so.

Neal Boortz does indeed have a few words for President Obama. He makes some extremely good points which I would point out to you as things I should have realized as I wrote Yes, She Did That. yesterday:

  • The government is by the people, for the people. The people are not for the government, nor are they created by the government.

  • The very businesses Obama and his administration are vilifying are the very businesses who do the work of the government. None of the towns around where I live do their own paving. Our town outsources its IT department. Power lines were installed by a private company (though with public oversight). The USAF’s airplanes, the Navy’s ships, and President Obama’s campaign busses are built by private companies. Successful private companies.

Obama touted the internet as having been invented by the government, but overlooks the power grid and the cell phone system as equally important accomplishments which were created by private firms. Successful firms. Firms created by innovators who had a vision and overcame everything the government threw at them, and who succeeded. Along the way, they created millions of jobs. I doubt very strongly that our government would have nearly the success if it tried to do the same things.

  • Without successful businesses, the only way for us check writers to get something done will be to hire the government to do them, and we know how efficient and lean our government is. One need only look at the former USSR to see where this path takes us.

The funny thing is that the same roads which carry the innovators to work are the same roads which carry the high school-educated welfare recipient to the store. We the people have contracted with our government to provide these opportunities, but some of us choose to use them differently than others. If all it took to achieve success were a paved road and an educated population, there would be no failure.

One more time: The US will fail if we continue along President Obama’s path of ensuring that success is no longer desirable.

(via ChicksOnTheRight.com)

Ready for some laughs at Apple’s expense (usually)?

Scoopertino

Ω Yes, She Did That

|

Her name is not Julia.

Her name is Terry M. Eccles, M.D., and she did that. She did build that business that President Obama is trying so hard to tax and regulate into nonexistence. She did work 100 hours per week to take care of her 3,000 patients. And it doesn’t take context to understand that she continues to do so, tirelessly, day in, day out.

No, she alone built her business, and nobody else did it for her.

But Senator Elizabeth Warren, President Barak H. Obama and Democratic apologists are trying to diminish that accomplishment, to reduce the illustrious achievement of making it, by saying that it’s only by the efforts of every other person in America that she somehow did it. That she couldn’t have done it without everybody else’s help, without the government’s help. That if those roads hadn’t been paved, she couldn’t have done it. That if those teachers hadn’t taught her, she couldn’t have done it. That if those student loans hadn’t been guaranteed, she couldn’t have done it. That if the government hadn’t been there to coddle her, that she couldn’t have done it.

What they all fail to realize is that the people who do things are going to do them, with or without the government’s help, with or without the help of a larger community, with or without all the benefits of this great society of ours.

They will find a way to go to school without a paved road or a bus ride. They will learn their ABCs in spite of the lack of a textbook or an attentive teacher. They will find a way to pay for college. They will fight government red tape to get the best health care available for their fellow citizens. They will make good decisions in spite of the lack of a role model. And they will do so because they aspire to greater things. They will overcome, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

Though the President used the “i” word in his speech, he doesn’t understand that initiative is not legislated. Initiative is not granted or bestowed. Initiative is not earned. Initiative is not purchased with food stamps. Initiative is not available by mail order or court order.

Initiative is part of us, and it is either fostered or hindered by the government and those around us. It is clear that President Obama and his administration believe that they foster initiative by taxing the rich, belittling the successful, devaluing hard work and giving trophies to every kid on the losing team just for showing up to the field.

This childish mentality will not stand between those with initiative and their success, but it will certainly make achieving success significantly more difficult. And everything that makes it more difficult for them to succeed makes it more difficult for us and our country to succeed with them.

The people in this country who are doers will do. Our country’s success is riding on their shoulders. So if you want them to succeed, get out of their way.

In November, let’s get Barak H. Obama out of the way.

The Wirecutter

|

The writing is good, the advice is culled from a lot of first-hand and web-based research (which is what I do for my own product evaluations when I’m shopping), so The Wirecutter is my go-to spot for advice on tech items.

And non-tech items, too, like rain jackets.

Fans of xkcd.com should rejoice because Randall Munroe has created a new outlet for his creative energy. Need I say more?

As an example, I give you this week’s entry which will only make you wish next Tuesday came sooner.

Is anybody else annoyed that iTunes can’t seem to remember what you were doing last when you start it back up again?

For a program whose lineage is as long as Mac OS X, which has enabled that behavior by default for all other applications, solving this annoyance is long overdue.

"Void where prohibited."

|

Does anybody else get the giggles when you read this phrase and imagine the consequences?

I know I do…