30 December 2013

Top Ten of 2013

What a year. Just looking at the numbers there seem to be more people reading than the previous year.

1. The Sufficiently Alien Hypothesis
To be fair, there were six posts in this series, and it just barely made number one in page views. I'm thinking this is something most people wouldn't really be into, but some posts did get pretty good numbers on their own. Basically the series is my musings on philosophy of mind and basically why I am a creep and a weirdo.

2. The Government Shutdown
The biggest non-event of the entire year! It would be like someone's car breaking down on the freeway and nobody getting hurt making national news for weeks. A purely manufactured crisis to distract us from all the real issues like the NSA spying on us all the time and drones murdering thousands of innocent brown people. Come to think of it, why DIDN'T I write about the NSA? That's the real question. Like the alien question, I have no answer for this one either.

3. The War in Syria
Saudi Arabia dragging the US and Russia into a new world war over Syria? Selling chemical weapons on the black market? Check and check. And how did the biggest anti-war guy, John Kerry, all of a sudden become the biggest hawk? Isn't that weird?

4. Duck Dynasty
When I got an entire inbox full of mail about some guy I saw on a pillow in Wal*Mart I knew I should write an article (or three) on him. It paid off. Long story short: I don't like government interference in business, except when it comes to enforcing contractual agreements and preventing disastrous things like human trafficking and selling weapons to really bad people (Fast and Furious ring any bells?). But when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, they're really just pro-discrimination against people we dislike, and they treat adults like children.

5. The Difference Between "Fairness" and "Equality"
My desire to avoid the bukkake theater that is politics backfired and I ranted after just nine days. I actually think I focused more on politics this year than last year. I had enough of the mental contortions leftists go through with defining their words so vaguely that they can mean anything at all, and then getting pissed when you don't use one of the definitions that appears on their approved list of possible vague definitions. What is fairness? What does it mean to be rich? And why can't anyone ever give a concrete number when it comes to how much taxes any given person should pay? I'm guessing it has to do with brain damage caused by inhaling one's own farts for too long.

6. Enoch Strife 2024
My "America First" platform for when I run for president (meaning let's get America's shit in order before we start policing the world, not American national socialism). I plan to end the Fed, pass a balanced budget amendment, create a flat tax, bring our troops home, and investigate war crimes, among other things. A bunch of you seem to agree.

7. Trayvon Unmasked
A really long piece on what I think really happened and what the media circus that devolved around the situation says about who they are and who we are as a people.

8. Dreams of Foreign Suns
A pretty sad piece on why I think all the dreams of space travel I had as a kid reading science fiction stories will never happen. Humans seem doomed never to leave the Earth.

9. Lego, The Hagia Sophia, and Terrorism
Lego makes a toy that kind of sort of looks like a secular museum in Turkey and Islamists get pissed, threaten violence, and the toy gets pulled. Funny, the same group that wrote the "angry letter" also pretends the Armenian Genocide didn't happen. I wonder what's worse, making a toy that maybe looks like a building in Turkey or killing two million people and then ignoring it for the past hundred years? That's a tough one.

10. More On "The Walking Dead"
Yep, two years in a row! There are several reasons why Walking Dead style zombies are impossible (and that makes the show more interesting). Here's a funny quote I forgot about:

The zombies decay to the point where a fireplace shovel can cut through a skull like a chainsaw through pound cake, or you can pull a face off a skull easier than ripping off a band-aid, yet they never collapse under their own weight, bugs don't eat them, and they can bite through limbs like jello. I don't know about you, but if perfectly healthy and alive me were to bite into someone wearing overalls' leg I would not only not take a huge chunk out of his flesh, I would probably lose a couple teeth, yet these aspic soft zombies can bite through denim and muscle with no problem.

And what topics did I think not get enough attention? Well, pretty much just one.

On Gratitude
A lot of people complain about a lot of things (myself included). It is important to remember what we have to be thankful for, because, in the long run, those things are more important. If we have our health, loved ones, relative security and prosperity (a poor person in America is like a rich person in Namibia), we shouldn't focus so much on all the petty crap in our lives like that guy who cut us off in traffic, or the price of gas going up thirty cents.

I hope you enjoyed 2013. I look forward to spending the next year with y'all, and hopefully getting away from all the negative crap in the world.

Always Love

29 December 2013

I'm a sexy woman, so stop objectifying me!

Why is it deemed perfectly okay for women to objectify David Beckham, while men who waggle their eyebrows at pretty young women are considered pigs?

Watch and subscribe. Brilliant channel.

28 December 2013

The Adjustment Bureaucracy


I guess A&E knows how to count after all. 14 million viewers is the bigger number than a couple thousand butthurt professional activists who never watched the show in the first place. The quasi-free market (which is really a corporatist global oligarchy) has adjusted itself just like... wait for it... I mentioned a few days ago:

If a business doesn't want to hire someone, fine. If a people don't want to shop there as a result, fine. Markets adjust and societies reach equilibrium without needing to be micromanaged by a top-down bureaucracy.

Phil Robertson is back with A&E filming episodes for "Duck Dynasty", the higest rated show in cable history. From the article:

In a statement released late Friday afternoon, A&E said, “While Phil's comments made in the (GQ) interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the ‘coarse language’ he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would ‘never incite or encourage hate.’"

The network added that “Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family, a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A&E Networks also feel strongly about.

GLAAD (GLobalist Anti-American Douchebags) made some shit up about Robertson "comparing gay people to terrorists and praising Jim Crow laws," which anyone with basic reading comprehension of the English Language can clearly see he never said and never implied. Even someone new to the English Language or with a first grade reading level who actually took the fifteen seconds to read Phil Robertson's actual statement can see this statement from the New World Order front group is a bullface lie.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said ... "A&E Network’s reversal in the face of backlash is quite telling to the American people who are growing tired of GLAAD and cultural elites who want to silence people and remove God and His word from every aspect of public life."

Got to love that mean green. Turns out greed is a bigger motivating factor than intimidation, even among the globalists. A step has been taken to restore the balance created by exactly 50 years of tyranny.

23 December 2013

Free Will and Individual Liberty

A VERY abridged version of my very long Duck Dynasty piece.

Why can't businesses discriminate against whomever they want? Because mommy and daddy government want the children to play nice? Because the enlightened bureaucrats know better than us? Why can't we treat the businesses, the workers, and the customers like adults? If a business doesn't want to hire someone, fine. If a people don't want to shop there as a result, fine. Markets adjust and societies reach equilibrium without needing to be micromanaged by a top-down bureaucracy.

The attitude of the power elite and the lemmings who support them right there is the non-problem of evil. God, the ultimate parent, lets us have free will to choose to be good or not so we'll grow up on our own. The all powerful authoritarian nanny state wants to keep us in Matrix pods where we can't hurt ourselves or anyone else (WE can't, but they hurt us all the time with the deadly psychotropic drugs they push on everyone, endless abortions, GMO foods, and hormones and fluoride in our water), and where we can't make any of our own choices. And all this time I thought they were "pro-choice"! No, they're pro-abortion and anti-choice. They don't want us to have free will and as such we cannot say we are living in a free society.

REAL crimes against persons and property (murder, arson, theft, rape) still have consequences in this world, just as there are consequences for transgressing God's law as well, but to force people to "get along" and to force people to do business with people they do not want is totalitarian evil. It is anti-free will, it is forced will. Thought and will are no longer free and so society is no longer free.

If a person is forced to be good that person's deeds are no longer good because they are meaningless. Forcing someone to do good is slavery, and forcing someone to give charity is theft, and silencing dissent and punishing thought crimes is rape of the mind and soul. These actions are all the hallmark of tyranny.

Maybe if we stop treating adults like children they will stop acting like children.

19 December 2013

Duck Dynasty and Individual Liberty

Now, y'all have probably heard about this issue with that Duck Dynasty guy Phil Robertson being fired ("suspended") from his hit A&E series. I had not heard of Duck Dynasty until not that long ago when, at the store, I saw cupcakes with pictures of old men on them. I could not imagine kids wanting to buy these things, but I brushed it aside. Days later I came across a pillow with those same old guys; on the reverse was the words "Duck Dynasty". I decided to look it up (okay, I asked some friends). I found out it's a reality series about a family that manufacturers duck calls and it is "not bad, as far as reality television goes." I also caught a video of one of the sons and his wife talking about not having sex until marriage. That's always good, what with the rampant outbreak of bastard children and the toll it is taking on the welfare system, not to mention the psychological damage children of single parents face (as just such a child, I can assure you, not having a good female and male role model to teach you properly in feminine and masculine ways how to be a responsible adult does have negative effects).

That said, I have not watched the series. I have no opinion one way or the other on the series. I do not have cable, I rarely watch television, except for the weather and sometimes The McLaughlin Group and Nature on PBS, and the occasional NFL football game.

What this all stems from is an article in GQ (and I had to search through a forest of links to find the original article - one thing I've learned is the value of original documents cannot be downplayed) where Phil Robertson was interviewed to cash in on the meteoric success of his television series Duck Dynasty. And I am not exaggerating. With 11.8 million viewers for the season premier this year they brought together numbers that network execs have wet dreams over. It is the highest rated series in A&E history. This is a gold mine, no question. I say this purely from a marketing standpoint (since I have never seen the show before and am writing this article just to draw traffic to my site) it is a huge mistake, financially, to anger 11.8 million dedicated viewers by messing with the formula of their program (14 million, according to the original GQ article itself - more than the Breaking Bad finale).

From the article (written by Drew Magary, who has a completely nondescript appearance, like any random sloppy beer belly guy you will see on the street and not some hoity toity Left Coast journalist):

"[Phil Robertson] is welcoming and gracious. He is a man who preaches the gospel of the outdoors and, to my great envy, practices what he preaches. He spends most of his time out here, daydreaming about what he calls a “pristine earth”: a world where nothing gets in the way of nature or the hunters who lovingly maintain it. No cities. No buildings. No highways.

"Oh, and no sinners, too. So here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable. Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength. If you watch Duck Dynasty, you can hear plenty of it in the nondenominational supper-table prayer the family recites at the end of every episode, and in the show’s no-cussing, no-blaspheming tone. But there are more things Phil would like to say—“controversial” things, as he puts it to me—that don’t make the cut."

Now, before I get into the controversial things, let's look at what this Phil guy likes. He likes wilderness free of cities and highways. An environmentalist's dream (even the World Wildlife Fund acknowledges that regulated hunting of elephants has increased their numbers and dealt a serious blow to poaching in African countries where hunting is legal. Cities and highways produce carbon, which is bad, and forests absorb carbon, which is good. Need-e forget that all those indigenous groups liberals like to say lived in perfect harmony with nature were hunters. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that 92% of hunters wanted to be closer to nature and only 19% wanted trophy kills. 60% wanted meat that was not tainted by GMOs and artificial hormones created in factory farms that kill millions of animals a year and produce carbon, which is bad, and methane, which is much worse.).

Now here's the controversial part. In Phil's own words: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."

Here's another quote that is not the subject of ire in today's manufactured outrage: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Drew takes the time to point out next: "And then, of course, there is their faith, which plays no small role here. During the family’s initial negotiations about the show with A&E, Jase told me, “the three no-compromises were faith, betrayal of family members, and duck season.” That refusal to betray their faith or one another has been a staple of every media article about the Robertson family. It’s their elevator pitch, and it has made them into ideal Christian icons: beloved for staking out a bit of holy ground within the mostly secular, often downright sinful, pop culture of America."

Or as one brilliant martyr of this sinful world once said "come as you are."

Phil began his life as a sinner, as he would say. He was a drug addict who went out picking fights (one of which got him kicked out of the state of Arkansas). He hit rock bottom and then found salvation in Jesus Christ and turned his life around. In his own words: "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

He also said "We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?"

Drew asked "What, in your mind, is sinful?"

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right."

And that's the problem. Homosexuals are the pet minority of the power elite in 2013. They'll be dumped really soon, as we're seeing the rise of politicians openly supporting polygamy. It's not moved into the arena of hard and fast laws, yet, but those in power are letting the people know they will not tolerate polyphobia! That was quick. And they said the slippery slope was a fallacy. Newsflash: The government does not give a single fuck about homosexuals. The government does not give a single fuck about black people, or Hispanics, or women, or anyone else. They are using minorities to grow their own power. When a single unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat dictates something by fiat without putting the issue to a vote, everyone's voice is silenced, even if you agree with the decision (as happened in New Jersey, where 1 judge got a single vote and the other 9 million people got a middle finger, even the ones who agreed with her). You may be happy now, in your slave chains, growing fat off of massa's scraps, but they still hang from your neck. And there is no telling when massa will see you as no longer useful and cast you aside like yesterday's trash.

He's also badmouthing adultery, prostitution, bestiality (sex with animals, which is legal in Jersey as long as you can prove you're not hurting the animal), drunkenness, greed, slander, and theft. He's also badmouthing swinging, or the "hookup culture," where young people have anonymous sex out of boredom. He also did not compare homosexuals to zoophiles (animal fuckers), unless you are 1. dishonest or 2. admit he compared heterosexuals who have sex out of wedlock to zoophiles too, since they both appear in the same list.

What I think is interesting is his choice of wording. "Homosexual behavior" is sinful, as are "homosexual offenders" but he doesn't outright say homosexuals or homosexuality is in and of itself sinful. Having desires is not a sin, whether they be desires for certain types of sexual acts or for drinking alcohol to excess are not themselves sins, but acting on those desires is. That's at least how I interpret what he is saying.

In a general sense I agree, that acting on desire is sinful while having the desire itself is not, though I disagree with the specifics. I don't think homosexual behavior is a sin. In fact, when I started out with the idea for this article I was going to talk about sex in the context of Classical Greece and the good and bad ways men can have sex (between the thighs is good, up the butt is bad, that's the brief synopsis). This is getting very long, so I'll hold that off for a future date. I also think prostitution is a lot better than casual sex and should be legal, though well regulated to prevent the spread of diseases, and that pornography is also better than causal sex, even if the people all look pretty much the same and multiple cuts create the misperception that guys can go for hours without ejaculating. And what's with the sudden fashion of chopping off all pubic hair? Not having bush looks gross, plain and simple. You don't have to have an out of control forest down there, but try to keep some ground cover for display purposes. As for vaginas themselves? They're great. Too bad they're attached to women.

But I dye grass.

After the interview A&E released a statement: "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Just a quick note, guys, the Robertson family agrees with Phil, though they're not as "outspoken," and his opinions are reflected in the series Duck Dynasty (according to the original GQ article). He's a gazillionaire. He's not doing the show for money, he's doing it to spread the gospel as he understands it.

Now onto the meat and potatoes of the notes I prepared earlier on this issue (everything above has been off-the-cuff synopsis of the article, which I read in full, and the news I heard on the situation, interspersed with my own brand of flippant humour).

Regarding A&E firing Phil, I don't care. I am of the position that a business should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason. That's not the politically correct answer, but that is my answer, just as it is my position on private property rights.

Don't like blacks? Fine. Don't like whites? Fine. Don't like Democrats, Republicans, fat people, skinny people, people who climb rocks? Don't like men, women, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, omnisexuals, asexuals, transgender, cisgender, whatever? Don't like anyone for any reason? I don't care. I really don't. Adults should be treated like adults and have the right to discriminate against whomever they want, and hire and fire whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. Political correctness and quotas destroy our dignity, our productivity, and our freedom.

Are you a "white" Christian man with long hair who speaks out against the government all the time? You will be legally discriminated against. Any other kind of person? You still will be discriminated against, only in your favour. Not as qualified as the white guy? If you meet the racial quotas you can get that job!

Affirmative action is racism and anti-discrimination is discrimination, and these practices treat adults like children.

Here's a quick test.

Look at any two things. It doesn't matter what they are. Could be anything: eyeglasses, coffee cup, pen, Dodge Chargers, whatever. Look at any two things. Now that you're looking at two things, can you tell the difference between them? It may be a big difference, like a cat and a tree, or it may be two otherwise identical paperclips and the only difference is their position in space. But you can tell them apart at least somehow, right? You can?

You are guilty of discrimination.

That's it! That's as complicated as it gets, as simple as it gets. If you can tell any two things apart you have just discriminated. Congratulations, you bigot.

As I have pointed out before, there's a big, massively hypocritical, anti-discrimination movement that is really a great big authoritarian anti-individual liberty, anti-free association, anti-discrimination against certain politically expedient minority groups who are being used to exponentially grow the size and power of government, largely without said minorities noticing it. It really is about treating adults like children by the peace loving, beneficent autocrats who know better, and the eventual extermination of hundreds of millions of people in the creation of a global superstate whose power cannot be challenged.

Remember, LBJ said in regard to his phony stance on the civil rights movement and the Great Society "I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." (He tried to kill the movement in the 1950s under Eisenhower, as he was one of the most stringent anti-black politicians who has ever held office, and revived in the 1960s to distract the public from his murder of Kennedy and his great love of killing kids in Vietnam.)

The power elite keep blacks as victims through soft racism such as affirmative action and race baiters such as Al Sharpton. Blacks are not good enough to compete on their own, they argue, so big daddy government must give them a hand up and take care of them just as big daddy massa did. "Massa don't want to hear that slave shit, sing him something different!"

If you take a look at just about every problem society faces today you can trace it back to people with power wanting more power, disenfranchising one group to play off another, keeping us all separated so we can't unite and defeat them. Racism has always existed and probably will always exist, but the idea of permanent racial victims exists only as a device by the elite to divide people.

If people do not want to shop at white only or black only places, if they do not want to shop at anti-hetero or anti-homo shops, the market will adjust itself accordingly. There is no reason for almighty government to turn adults into children and force them to do things against their will. People have enough good judgment (and if they don't, then in ten years of free market then the government can come back and clamp down, okay?) to regulate themselves. Problems arise when government purposefully dumbs down people and indoctrinates them into the cult of self-indulgence. Government dividing people is the problem, not people dividing themselves naturally into like-minded groups. All class warfare is manufactured by the power elite so they can play both sides off against each other and steal all the power for themselves.

Why do we need to treat adults like children? "Now play nice with people you don't like." We're not talking about assaulting or killing people you don't like (and Phil has said he loves the sinner but hates the sin, that is, he doesn't hate people, just behaviour). That would still be illegal, as it would be causing gross bodily harm on another person - a violation of that person's right to life (which is something the left has no problem denying the unborn). We're talking about the government denying people the right to free association by forcing them to do business with people they do not want to do business with. Forcing people to do business against their will... kind of sounds like slavery.

Informed by the above, let me reiterate, I do not care that A&E fired Phil Robertson. They should have the right to fire whomever they want if he was in violation of his contract (contractual agreements are still to be upheld, as it is one of the few valid jobs of government). From a financial standpoint it's their loss, but they still should be free to do it. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Phil Robertson is free to say what he wants and A&E is free to exercise their speech by firing Phil Robertson if he violates his contract. Now, if he didn't violate his contract then he rightly can sue for damages, but that's a separate issue. The left doesn't want to talk about firing people who legitimately violate their contracts when the person being fired is a protected minority, but a long-haired white Christian male? No problem. He should have been fired a long time ago for worshiping a "sky daddy" and owning a gun as far as they are concerned.

I find is humerous, and perhaps hypocritical, that A&E, a network that has made millions of dollars and produced hundreds of shows, if not thousands, on Adolf Hitler, letting him spew all his racist hate and advocacy of genocide, but Phil Robertson says one little thing about not liking homosexual behaviour - not homosexual people - and the shit hits the fan and they fire him. Hitler's rhetoric led to the deaths of tens of millions of people; no one has died as a result of Robertson's GQ interview. The execs at A&E should be a little more consistent and stop airing all Hitler programs. But that's just my opinion.

15 December 2013

On Disability

All these pro-disability people are a fucking joke. They're right about one thing, it's not a good thing to mock disabled people, but they're wrong about everything else.

Why shouldn't we look for a cure for blindness or deafness or crippleness? Why should we celebrate disibility like it were a real accomplishment? It is wrong for the exact same reason as chastising disibility. In trying to combat hate or disaproval or "discrimination" or whatever they want to call it, the pro-disability crowd goes off the deep end in the other direction, becoming just as fanatical about celebrating what, in reality, is nothing to celebrate.

That's one of the biggest gripes I have, that it only makes sense to celebrate or take pride in accoplishments, not accidents. Why should I be proud of my height, or race, or the number of fingers and toes I have? I had NOTHING to do with any of that. It took ZERO effort on my part to achieve any of that. In what sense, then, should I be proud of what ammounts to chance and circumstance? If I had nothing to do with it, if I had no choice, didn't set out to do something and then did it, what does it have to do with my greatness (or lack thereof)? Nothing.

Everyone is all on the pride bandwagon. No accomplishments? Didn't succeed at anything in your entire life? Can't win worth a damn? No problem. You too can be a champion! Just pick some random aspect of your person, it doesn't really matter, and claim in a confident voice "I won the genetic lottery!" It's the ultimate self-esteem booster for losers and lazy people, like "Everyone Gets A Trophy Day".

There's accomidating disability (which is what humans do really well, as evient from all those seriously injured cro magnon skeletons that indicated they lived long lives being cared for by others), then there's treating it like it's better than ability, which it's not. Being blind does not make one better than a sighted person. People with proper hearing shouldn't ALL learn sign language, doctors should look for a cure for deafness and blindness. There's a reason we don't have "Polio Pride" or "National Measles Day," because people recognise that fatal diseases are nothing to celebrate. Unfortunately, in this hyper-sensitive society we live in, people DO celebrate non-fatal diseases*.

I think, but am not certain, the problem is a faulty association in the pro-disability people the proposition that |in society it is accepted that the word "disease" = "moral failure of the individual," or, otherwise, that the word "disease" is associated with "moral failure of the individual.| I have pointed out before, many times, that being diseased is not a moral failure. One does not need to feel ashamed to admit one is diseased. One is not immoral because one is diseased. That is true. However, I think the pro-disability people are as guilty of perpetuating this faulty association as the anti-disability people. A scab indicates that a wound is healing. If you pick the scab it will never heal. It's the same problem with race baiters, who sabotage healthy race relations just as much, if not worse, than extreme outspoken racists.

I'm never going to run a four minute mile, I'll never be able to box like Mike Tyson, or write music like Mozart, or see properly without mechanical aid. That doesn't make me immoral, that doesn't make me bad, but I'm not going to celebrate being slow, or frail, or musically disinclined, or having poor eyesight. Those are not accomplishments, and I refuse to be proud of them.

A disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

If a body part, or mental function, or whatever, isn't working properly it is diseased.

13 December 2013

Eternal Day

A lovely short program (22 minutes) on the Super Specialty Hospitals founded by Sai Baba. This is in celebration of the 22nd anniversay of the hospitals, which opened in 1991. Tragically, Swami cannot be here in person to witness this event, but he is ever present, even if we cannot see his body.

The lovely ideal of selfless service (seva) is exemplified in this pair of free hospitals which have thus far helped 2.3 million patients.

This is the ideal. This is totally different from universal healthcare/ socialised medicine/ single payer. When people give of themselves of their own will selflessly that is the highest virtue. When a government steals money from people and redistributes it as it sees fit that is worse than thievery. A government cannot mandate morality, or else the value is totally removed. One cannot be moral or virtuous if one is compelled to act in such a way. It is only through one's own will that one may be virtuous.

12 December 2013

Funeral Fiasco!

Millions (I guess) attended the funeral of South Africa's most famous native son Nelson Mandela. It was meant to be a solemn occasion, admiring how a radical communist terrorist turned his life around while in prison and adopted love instead of revenge. Instead it was a circus of horrors.

The sign language guy at the funeral had a schizophrenic episode and made meaningless hand gestures instead of real sign language. He also has a history of violence and they let him get within three feet of the President Oblahblah. Guess the Secret Service was drunk that day - very drunk.


Speaking of Oblahblah, he took a selfie next to Mandela's dead body. He then gave a speech in which he talked entirely about himself, not mentioning Mandela once. In total he used the words "I," "Me," "My," and other first person pronouns 5,724 times. His wife was disgusted. The photographer who took the picture of Oblahblah's wife being disgusted at Oblahblah's behaviour apologised and then committed suicide for shaming his one true god. Oh, yeah, Oblahblah also Frenched some blonde.

10 December 2013

Housing Discrimination and Private Property Rights

HUD has a radio ad about "property discrimination." Surprisingly, it is a crime to be discriminating when deciding whom may rent your private property. Maybe I don't want to retrofit my 150 year old building to accommodate people with wheelchairs or who are morbidly obese. Maybe I don't want a crack dealer or gang member or convicted felon renting my property. Maybe I don't want people who can't speak English or who play loud music or have huge parties with their entire tribe at my private property. There should be absolutely nothing controversial about this!

If I can't be discriminating with regard to who rents my private property – people who are my responsibility – then in what sense can we say we have private property rights? In what sense can we call this a free country?

This is a separate issue from the ideal world. Divorced from issues of love thy brother as thyself and judging people by the content of their character rather than the colour of their marble (the Dr. King statue controversy). Al that is still true, and that is the ideal, but this is an issue of freedom. Let's face it, if someone tried to have a "coloured only" fast food shop today the free market wold see the place lose business and close down rather quickly. If we treat people like adults and let them have the free choice the Lord has endowed us all with, many people will choose to do the right thing and the free market will close down many of the other establishments. What this really is about is the issue of a grotesquely bloated predatory government trying to legislate morality. We see how well the government runs the post office and the IRS and public education (fewer than 40% of HS graduates actually have a twelfth grade level of education – "no child left behind" was instituted by Bush because he didn't want to be left behind as a child. It may or may not be true, but it still is funny.). So, with the stellar failure of everything the government does, why do we think the government should try to regulate morality?

And this is all skirting the issue that it is my property! My private property should be something I have more control over. If I want whites only living in my house I should have that right. Other like-minded people will congregate around me and different-minded people will go somewhere else, like adults. People who like to smoke should have freedom of smoking and be allowed to work at pro-smoking establishments and non-smokers would do the same at smoke-free places, just like I should have the right to rent my private property to whomever I want.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but freedom is something I am really concerned with. My earliest memory is of wanting freedom and resenting authority, so freedom is sort of my thing. Again, this is beside the point of loving others and judging people based on their characters – all good stuff – but being good is meaningless when it is forced.

(Written 31 October 2012)

Blan B is Racialist

From Mother Jones:

"The European manufacturer of a pill identical to Plan B says its product won't work for women who weigh more than 176 pounds. Will American pharma companies warn women of weight limits?"

The abortion pill* NorLevo (Levonorgestrel - the same drug sold in the United States as Plan B) is completely ineffective in women who weigh more than 176 pounds (how did they come up with that number? Why not 175 or 177? Why not just round to 170 or 180?), and has greatly diminished effectiveness in women over 165 pounds. Weight data from the CDC indicates that the average American woman weighs 166 pounds and is therefore too fat to use Plan B.

I think the important point to take away from this story is not that American women are too fat. The point to take, at least for me, is that the makers of Plan B are racialist. From the article: "The average weight of non-Hispanic black women aged 20 to 39 is 186 pounds, well above the weight at which these pills are completely ineffective." [Italics added]

The average black woman in America is too fat to use Plan B. Only those skinny white (I'm guessing) women can use it. Isn't that racialist? They make a pill black women can't take to save themselves from bad decisions. Making something for one race and not for black people is racialism, plain and simple.

*The definition of "abortion," like the definition of "marriage," was changed by the quack medical establishment to be "the termination of pregnancy," and of course "pregnancy" is redefined as "beginning with implantation of the zygote [the new human being, fictitious referred to as a "fertilised egg" so it sounds like a tumor or a turd and not something alive with unique DNA]. Since Levonogestrel cannot destroy the zygote once it has implanted itself in the uterine lining it is, by the new magic definition, not causing an abortion. The drug supposedly works by preventing or delaying ovulation (it is admitted that no one knows how it really works, and it is still sold over the counter without having to show ID), however the drug may thin the uterine lining, making implantation more difficult. While not "technically" an abortion, it is still ending the life of a brand new human being with unique DNA who is in no way part of the mother's body. Not "technically" an abortion, it is still homicide.

09 December 2013

Nuclear News You DIDN'T Hear

Have you heard the one about the deal between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan regarding nuclear weapons? No? Maybe the news was too busy focusing on what inanimate object Miley Cyrus was having sex with this week.

Stolen Cobalt-60

A truck delivering 40 grams of cobalt-60 pellets, material used in radiotherapy, was hijacked last week in central Mexico. The truck and the cargo was recovered near Hueypoxtla, and the hijackers are believed to have received a fatal dose of radiation.

This was another narrow miss. There is an increasing number of nuclear incidents in the world today. Cobalt-60 is particularly deadly and persistent isotope that was proposed in use for area denial weapons. An area exposed to the fallout of a cobalt bomb would be uninhabitable for 100 years due to lethal levels of radiation. Had this stolen material been placed in a truck bomb like the kind that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it could contaminate an area of four square miles[1]. If set off at Wall Street the plume of radioactive debris would probably reach the Empire State Building.

Iranian Nukes

"Saudi King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were not won over by President Barack Obama's pledges in personal phone calls to the two Middle East leaders last week not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Their skepticism only grew."

He probably said something along the lines of "if you like your nuclear program, you can keep it*"

*"Program" does not include "programs Oblahblah does not like," or "programs that do not include abortion on demand until three years after birth." "Like" is a subjective term, subject to verification by Oblahblah and his bureaucrats.

This is exactly what the mullahs wanted. Oblahblah is eating out of their hands. After stalling for time "negotiating," they managed to get Oblahblah to back down and give them everything they wanted and more. Experts estimate that Iran  has enough material to make four nukes already.

Leaders in Saudi Arabia have made clear that if Iran gets a nuke then they will be forced to get one as well, since they may well be the primary target of attack, before Israel even, due to the fierce hatred between rival Muslim factions. Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program, and if push comes to shove they claim to have an agreement whereby Pakistan will deliver weapons to them as compensation.

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ticking time bombs in the region. Both are ruled by horrible, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, prehistoric, amoral, psychopathic monsters. The war in Syria is, in part, a proxy war between these two repressive regimes that threatens to suck the entire world in with it. If either one gets their hands on a nuke it would be a disaster for every freedom loving, moral human being on the planet.

Iran will not negotiate at all with Israel, and probably won't negotiate with Saudi Arabia either. In the world of inter-tribal warfare the aim is always extermination, and both proto-nuclear nations most definitely are run by tribal strongmen.

1. "Here the lethal combination of glass and a bomb projected shards at high speed causing 5 per cent of the deaths and 69 per cent of the injuries outside the buildings for a radius of over 10 blocks from the blast centre."

10 blocks, as seen on a map, is about one mile. A circle with a radius of 1 mile has an area of exactly pi square miles. I rounded up to 4 to be safe.

07 December 2013

A Minarchist Justification of Taxation

Basic points to take away from this very short (4 minute) video:
*Governments are inevitable
*Elected governments are better than warlords
*People should be compensated for their work, including elected officials
*Something has to pay government wages, and that is what taxation is for

Now, there may be some confusion about the title. I'm not saying I'm a minarchist, or anything else for that matter (besides a constitutionalist, as that is the rules of the government we have in place and, since we have them, we should follow those rules and not just invent things on the fly without justification or oversight, but that is not to say I think we have an optimal constitution or anything). My own thoughts on an "ideal society 1000 years from now" can be found, pretty much in this video:

A framework of working out different issues with government can be found in my Integral Politics series.