natural rights of the unborn

ABORTION

Roe v wade was not decided correctly and now is a supper dupper precedent. Well born humans have a right not to be killed and the courts are not supposed to legislate nor invent new constitutional rights. Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere in between conception and birth. Killing an infant one hour old would be a crime handed down by societal evolution from antiquity. Killing an infant before birth is viewed as somehow different. A civilization that allowed or encouraged killing infants would not survive more than a few generations. Womens liberation was the main justification of unlimited abortions, seems how evolution had played a dirty trick on women who engaged in casual sex as opposed to men. So two competing claims of rights are best decided on a state by state basis and through the legislative process as the constitution says all rights not granted explicitly to the federal government are retained by the states and their people. That is the best way for legitimacy of the rule of law and civilized society to be upheld. It is when the elites in robes' actions are indistinguishable from sovereign rulers evoking divine rights, that sets us back to medieval times instead of advancing society like they fantasize they are doing.

smart growth

NEW URBANISM

Sprawl is taking over - it must be restrained. We all know that sprawl is evil, clearly we can't develop all that farmland - where would organic food come from? Open spaces are becoming scarce and city limits need to be stopped dead for infinity. So we must re-plan the city center (back fill). Right now poor folks live in dilapidated apartments downtown. They shop at the few remaining dilapidated stores and ride subsidized modern buses. But that is just the present, because the intrepid city council has a plan for the future. First, force (kelo style) any property the city wants into the cities hands with taxpayer financed bonds. Second re-allocate that land to politically connected developers. Third, give them tax breaks to develop according to the cities master plan with at least one great work - a convention center, sports arena with luxury boxes, or performing art center (the stuff working class people like). Forth, have a big gala with news reporters and the cities business and political elite with plenty of self congratulation (which is the best social policy.) Soon those poor folks will be living in new luxury loft apartments. They will be spending at upscale retail shops and restaurants that the city approves of. And they will be riding the new commuter rail! Thank goodness the intrepid city council will block that walmart and those fast food joints. And those buses have to go with their flexible routs and cheap operating expenses. In the new progressive city there will only be planned (smart) development by kicking poor (dumb) people out...

relativity

SOCIALISM

What a hard thing to understand - or so it seems. If something is at its current position and a change is proposed, what is the best way to quantify the change? The relativists like to smear reasonable differences so they make G91(relative) comparisons. Absolutists would prefer a comparison based on an G90(absolute) scale not some flimsy qualitative emotional one. So if (hypothetically) the current tax rate is 90% on the rich and the proposed change is to lower it to 35%, the relativists declare that as unjust if the working poor only get a tax cut from 25% to 15%. In their glass half empty world view, they see the bulk of the cut going to the rich irregardless of the fact that the tax rates were absolutely not fair initially (see the 1980's and 2000's tax cut debate). Progressives are dogmatic relativists. A perpetual election machine worked for them for a wide middle portion of the last century. Progressive pop history reads that the new deal solved the depression when it actually made it worse. The great society battled poverty but in reality it remained at the same rate. Now they like to cite stagnant wages to argue for increased government health care and tax credits, even though the calculation they use to calculate wages does not take into account the very things they are advocating for, and therefore could not increase wages. That way, conveniently for them, we will need more socialism that definitionally can't fix societies supposed problems. Its a turn left - turn right - mentality that gets one lost when north, south, east west directions are needed. How is one to know if humanity is making progress if its all relative?

urban darwin

THE UNDERCLASS

In the olden days men selected women to be their mate based on the probability on giving birth and raising healthy offspring to reproductive age. This evolved preference included child bearing hips, ample breasts, and a overall healthy bodytype. An aesthetically pleasing face would not directly affect genetic transmission success but obviously increased the attention received from the opposite sex. In the olden days women submitted to a suitor based on his ability to provide protection and appearance of healthy genetic traits. Parenting skills that transferred health and stability to the next generation had an advantage. Natural selection was responsible for the bulk of the human race up into the industrial revolution. A reward in genetic terms is the propagation of ones own dna. But since the industrial revolution the reward is much easier to obtain without darwinian filtering. Women die less frequently during childbirth. Conception and carrying a child to term are achieved at a much higher rate. Infants regularly advance into adulthood now that disease and nature are more in check. In fact, the reward is a disincentive for people the more materially rich they are (the irony of post modernism ) due to increased financial burdens and the availability of 'safe sex.' Those left having many offspring are generally poorer, less intelligent (due to high correlation between wealth and intelligence), and of weaker dna/parenting skills (weaker as defined by the pre-industrial revolution natural selection process). But current societal advancement perpetuates this demographic through the marvels of modern science and socialist transfer payment supports. In the olden days rampant promiscuity was kept in check by famine, disease, warfare and societal pressure. But in post modern deconstructivist society, uber promiscuity is rewarded (the propagation of ones dna) and assuming that the trait is learned via environment and/or genes it is perpetuated ad-infinitum, with the possibility of overrunning the more selective.

sodomy or trans-fats

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Which is more dangerous to society: sodomy or trans-fats? And should the government force individuals to abandon them? The human rectum did not evolve for the purpose of intercourse. This is not a value statement - it is a fact. Damaging disease transfer probability are much greater through anal sex than vaginal. HIV and trans-fats, which may cause heart problems, both lead to death. All humans eventually die (currently 100% deathrate in your lifetime!) - presumably governments only regulate to prevent unjust premature death. Heart disease affects older people, HIV the younger. Which is more important to society? If the government banned sodomy (which is a new constitutionally protected right...) it would have very little impact on HIV. The rest of us would still be subsidizing through taxes millions in research into the disease and millions for medical treatment. And the same is true of heart disease. Ban trans-fats and it will make minimal impact on overall death rates. So in a free society why should government ban either? Why not let people make their own choices and let their personal cost/benefit dictate their further behaviour in any particular practice. Its when their cost gets transferred to others that society ceases to be free.

ban anarchy not guns

SECOND AMENDMENT

L.A. riots post O.J. verdict, New Orleans post Katrina - these are examples of the the right of people to bear arms not to be infringed upon. The citizen militia becomes crucial for protection of life and property when regular law and order break down. The police and courts provide protection of ones rights under normal conditions - however after the trial of the century or the storm of the century anarchy ensued (is global warming the next such event!?!) Under these potentially disastrous circumstances natural law applies - and that includes the right to self protection. People who live in privileged neighborhoods, who feel safe, are often the first to impose their will on the rest of society. Anti gun activists tend to bowl over facts. Such wishful thinking will not reduce inner city gang violence, nor suicide which is most of all gun deaths. Background checks don't prevent domestic violence. Criminals do fear law abiding citizens' concealed weapons. Gays with guns don't get bashed. Guns provide minorities with an equalizer against an oppressive majority or state. The saying goes if you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have guns.

outcomes and good intentions

MODERN LIBERALS

Now if one has only pure innocent thoughts, if one's heart swells for all humanity, if the level of one's kind intentions exceeds all others, is one still bound with the blame if there are negative consequences? Or is one exempt on the account of ones superior wishful thinking? If one is drowning in ignorance what is one's moral obligation to self educate? A key in answering these questions would have to be an evaluation if ones ignorance was the result of cognitive limitations, a willful refusal of reality, or self psychopathical denial of truth. It also raises the question of a genetic link to political ideology.

There are a lot of whining little children out there. They're at the checkout counter and crying for some candy. Now the adult has to decide: passivate the child or practice tough love. For the adult with a rational brain its a no-brainer. But for the progressive brain the signal gets routed through the heart. Short term convenience at the expense of long term effects (trial and error never resulting in a learning curve with a positive slope). Endorphins swarming their brains after such good intended acts - holier than thou - the progressive mindset is dulled from sensing and observing the outcomes of their failed social policies.

second hand smoke screen

SMOKING BANS

Cigarette smoking has been linked to lung cancer and heart disease. It is being banned from cities and states across the nation. Cars also have second hand effects such as being linked to killing their occupants and other people. Thats why we should make cars illegal in public places. Thousands of Americans die each year in auto wrecks. The fact is they weigh two tons and go sixty five miles per hour - thats a lot of killing energy (m*v=kE). Seatbelts and airbags do not fully prevent death and don't protect people on the sidewalk. And most cars also poison the environment with cigarette lighters/ashtrays and occupants who exhale carbon dioxide. But the big auto industry have special interest lobbyist who petition congress of grievances. The state attorney generals should take up a class action suite and get an auto settlement out of them. They can use the money in anti-car campaigns and to educate young people not to even try driving. People would be better off walking their trans-fat asses around. If it saves one life it would be worth it.

indoctrination gives to reality

UNIVERSITY

The joke about college faculty diversity goes - you need a black marxist, a lesbian marxist, a latino marxist, ect - and if you must, a few white male marxists (until you can replace these with new 'targeted hires') Ironically those individuals with physical disabilities don't get preference in the mix especially if they are white. Its said that the ones sitting in university offices today are the ones from the sit-ins of the late sixties (can they trust themselves being over thirty?) And despite all this, i have no fear of indoctrination of the current students. Eventually most will leave campus life and enter the real world and will confront reality - rejecting socialist fantasies. My definition of the real world is: 1)working for a for-profit/non-union/non-fortune-500 company. 2)shopping for ones own groceries. Now this excludes a large proportion of the country but this is just my arbitrary opinion. People working in government/union/fortune-500 jobs don't experience real world compensation packages and job security. They are buffered from market forces. I put the grocery store shopping in there to exclude some rich people. I have nothing against them but if you don't do your own shopping then your contact with the real world is limited. One sees quite a bit of ones fellow humankind at the grocery store on a weekly basis (assuming its a regular one and not some organic or exclusive neighborhood market) Especially at the beginning of the month.

third world mess

WEST HATERS

Ok - so there are two predominant world views in the west. One believes in the individual as expressed by the individual, the other believes in the individual as manged by elites. So when a third world country gets into a mess the two camps see different causes and solutions. The pro-west wing defends western culture as superior and offers - that if it is the aim of any third world culture to become as successful as the west - they need to adopt western practices (its ok to be different just don't expect the same results). The anti-west wing blames western imperialism as the cause and offers more imperialism as the solution (they call it aid). They believe in the basic equality of all cultures and beliefs expecting equal results. Clearly these poor souls lack the self efficacy to mess things up on their own- only the west can be blamed!

declaration from dependence

CONSTITUTION

"...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..." Well that was a good thought - too bad very few practice it. FICA social security and medicare taxes are forcibly stolen from me every week. I didn't sign up for these ponzi schemes, I don't want to assume their unfunded liabilities - why can't I opt out? (the fact that these programs still exist is due to ignorance among the voters and cowardice among the politicians - mutually embracing economic doom) Oh, I'm taking the Constitution literally. See I thought that when it said "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." that it meant, well just that. People have a natural right to opt out of this mammoth social insurance program. It will be hard because this mammoth social insurance program has an army.

carriage makers guild

PROTECTIONISM

The carriage makers guild has called on their noble lord to make things right. It appears the official carriage makers guild of the kingdom has fallen on hard times - no fault of their own of course. Some visigoths and vandals have set up rival carriage works in the kingdom and have gained an unfair advantage by not promising their tradesmen promises they can't keep. Now all of this is very upsetting to the carriage guild and they are relying on the noble lord - whom is well versed in mercantilism - to come to their rescue. If that fails they can always rely on a popular uprising among the serfs who will pressure the noble council to pass a resolution and send it to the noble lord for implementation. After all, the noble council is vested with the power to make commerce regular - like a bowel movement - there must be no surprises! Such measures don't work as good as they did back in the golden age - but the carriage makers guild knows they should get something - lest they be forced to make promises to their tradesmen they can keep!

syntheses theory vs practice

INEQUALITY

Hegel's thesis, anti-theses, syntheses is being challenged today by modern liberal democracy. Witness the current domination of marxist dogma over any current economic debate. It would seem to the rational mind that capitalism has won the war of ideas over the last three decades, but the current state of synthesis is skewed horribly in favor of the marxists. Tax cuts, even when defended by the capitalists, are defended on the grounds that they help the poor, not that they are fair for the rich. The correct approach of being equally fair to all seems to lack legitimacy if it leads to increased wealth disparity. The fact that the progressive income tax and property value tax, are completely entrenched as fair in society at large is a marxist victory. If ones house is valued at a million dollars or 50k does one not receive the same police and fire protection; the same road and school neighborhood effects. Does not the person who makes six figures receive the same national defense as the person making 20 grand? And with the estate tax, the government gets to double dip, and this is justified by the fact that it only effects the supper rich. Again the basic fairness of these policies is not even debatable in the 'national dialog'. It is always stated that "cannot the richest nation on earth afford to increase government spending on such and such anti-wealth gap program" Its never asked how long we will remain the richest nation on earth with such policies. Nor is it ever pointed out that maybe we are the richest nation on earth because we didn't go down the socialist road as far as some other nations. It raises the possibility of collusion among the worlds political class in the o.e.c.d., to not let a direct comparison available. Marxism lost on paper but is winning in practice.

soul asylum

FUSION PROJECT

Virtue does not count if it was not by choice. A good deed only counts as good if one had opportunity to do other vise. If government tries to enforce morality it does not make its subjects more virtuous, just more depraved of the very feedback loops that give humanity information to make their own decisions. Only government has fiat power to forcibly coerce the individual through taxes and regulations. The only legitimate use of this police power and tax power should be to protect the rights of the people and to provide a common defense against enemies. Somehow government has evolved into an evil nanny dictating social and economic behavior. Even if the net result in a few instances could be judged as good, it would not be virtue. When all self directed opportunity to strive toward virtue has been effectively removed by government, humans will have surrendered their souls.

discriminating the bottom line

DISCRIMINATION

Big business is evil, a well known fact. Multinationals are the devil smelling like sulfur. All they care about is the bottom line, and they screw the people. Each morning people are bolted against their will and brought to work. Then in the afternoon the company sells their product at a (highly immoral) profit to unwilling consumer nuts. They do whatever it takes to increase the bottom line. Equally qualified people are locked out by the company door screwed shut. Sub groups are bolted to the floor within the company so they don't crack the glass ceiling even though they could do a better job. The company increases the bottom line by not hiring and promoting the best? These seem to be mutually exclusive charges (evidently you don't need logic if you're emotional). Perhaps incentives to increase the bottom line need to be increased to prevent all this discrimination. Competition keeps one honest. Regulations and protections breed vise.

brave new cell research

STEM CELLS

Now with these stem cells they can clone one person and repeat multiple times (how egalitarian). That way everyone would be equal (and identical). Don't worry multiculturalism won't go away. Everyone will be randomly assigned a culture (so poverty tourists can still travel the world to see other colorful cultures). Disease, disability, physical and mental diversity finally conquered by the new immortals! Now who do we pick as the archetypal human? To be fair and eliminate the (societal imposed) differences between the sexes we need a hermaphrodite, capable of reproducing with either sex organ (although reproduction would only be needed every thousand years or so with the immortal clones having a right to die with dignity). Preferably someone who is a cross in equal proportions of all the worlds ethnicitys (which are constructs anyways). A little genetic modification will insure that the offspring of the clones don't regress to the former mean. In case some of the clones and/or their offspring gain an unfair advantage and express differences from the others (other than assigned culture) the state would step in and naturally select the deviants to be neutralized.

raise living wage now

MINIMUM WAGE

It should be at least $10 dollars an hour - a 'living wage'. Now I know what your thinking: "what about those greedy landlords that would raise rent on the new living wage earners?" Well we could freeze rent that land owners could charge. Lets call it 'rent control'. And while were at it, I'm worried about the food supply. What if there is a drought or a hail storm? Farmers are the backbone of our economy. We need 'subsidy' and 'insurance' protections for them. Also, cheap goods are made overseas by foreigners. We need a 'tariff' on imported goods to protect good U.S. jobs. Isn't totalitarianship great? Clearly people cannot manage their own lives deciding how much to work for and pay in rent. (And to think that market prices send signals? blasphemy! Centralized planning is the only way if you want justice.) Millions upon millions of Americans are struggling below subsistence. By definition they are dead. Six feet under.

equality democracy justice

TAX THE RICH

Why do some insist on using these words interchangeably? Well its a good way to ignore the first principles of our Nation. One can use the word equality or democracy to yield justice and that clearly trumps all, heads always nod. See in the world there is an unequal distribution of wealth. Some people are rich others are poor. It is known by the moral elites of the progressive church that the poor do not choose to be poor - that it is the result of circumstances beyond their control. And then we have all theses show-offs. The over achievers. The RICH. They don't deserve anything they have because its not earned. Ideally to make things equal ( remember in a democratic society equality trumps all) you would give the bad luck poor folk some money so they would be as rich as the undeserving rich folk. This is a brilliant strategy! Its just so awful that this money has to come from somewhere. Wait a minute, the rich people have money (the rich bastards) we can take it from them and give it to the poor to preserve democratic justice. Yes that's it! A majority of poor can exploit the minority of rich. That's democracy, majority rule as long as it doesn't violate equality (if majority rule violates equality then that's not justice). Ah-ha, we'll suppress the rich, restrain them by any means, for making such an embarrassment out of the poor folk, making them look unproductive, lazy, and chronically disabled. We must hate the successful. Give them no credit (in fact most of them have benefited from a illegitimate system devised by dead white males!! Gasp!!). Our egalitarian values demand we must make everyone equally poor...

evil walmart

WALMART HATERS

Yeah Walmart is evil, can you believe that people shop there? If only they knew what they were doing promoting rising standards of living and free exchange and the like. What we need are powerful elites to make better decisions for those poor benighted people. I mean people in China are willingly working in those factories, and those factory owners are willingly selling to Walmart in long term contracts, with goals to reduce costs and improve quality. And to make matters worse people in the U.S. work at Walmart without union representation. In fact it is the nations largest employer, do you think they can think for themselves without union bosses looking out for them. This is clearly a slippery slope toward individualism and self-interest and against the common good as defined by progressives. Anti-walmart delusionists of the world unite!

the melting world

SOCIALISM

An idea for another world way off somewhere, is for the planet to have receding ice sheets that expose new land with more/less the same natural resources in abundant supply as the already exposed land. And suppose that this was occurring at roughly a country size area every generation of people. That way it could be decided by custom that each new area would be inhabited by a new group of people, since there would be no need for competition of resources (lets pretend that offensive military actions are easily defeated by defenses). Each new country, founded in the newly melted area, would be free to adopt whatever political, social, economic, system that evolved there. That way direct comparisons could be made between the countries as to what system worked best. Most likely nobody would agree on what the measurements should be so every country would in their own mind be the best. Of course the socialist countries would have to build walls around themselves to keep their people in, not wanting them to wander off into a less caring unequal society.

free parking

FIAT MONEY

Money is mostly worthless: paper money that is. By chance people think its worth something because the government does not print too much of it. Sometimes they do and then you need a wheelbarrow to haul your worthless loot around. I'd like to be paid in airplane parts if that is what the company i worked for made. Not the actual part but some certificate of ownership. The company that bought the part would pay for it with certificates shares to whatever it made: airplanes. They would sell the airplanes to airliners who would pay in tickets. Therefore i could trade my shares in parts for tickets. This kind of relationship could be replicated throughout the entire world economy therefore removing the problem of fiat money. This would make money very fluid and eliminate the problems of inflation and it costing money to produce money. Also wages should be negotiated on a weekly basis eliminating the problem of wages not being as flexible to respond to market conditions. This would make the market very efficient and provide instant feedback loops through prices of shares. All markets would clear almost instantly. Instead we roll along with the governments monopoly on play money.

atheists believe in god - themselves

ATHEISM

When people stopped believing in a higher power as has happened the turn of the last century it turns out that they didn't stop believing- that is they would believe anything. The marxists, darwinists, freudians, utilitarians, eugenicists, progressives and their like all converted to science/reason and the human mind of elite scientific managers reigned as god. A social hierarchy based on intelligence evolved with the zenith of the pyramid patronizing to the base in a real egalitarian fashion. The poor benighted holding heretical views contrary to the anointed, romantic, post-modern, progressive caste - millions of them died violent deaths in the 20th century, some were saved.

more hot air

GLOBAL WARMING

There will be no refugee crisis even if the coastlines all flooded. Some think only of apocalypsical outcomes with the earth giving us a biblical icecap melting baptism. It would happen so slowly over hundreds of years and people would just move just like they moved to florida in the first place. I wonder if people would exhale less spurious claims if this would reduce CO2 emissions. How can the weather be hotter with more rain and more drought, more hurricanes and violent storms. Would the net average be the same? Could not climate change just make it more boring? More overcast days, less wind, gentle rain. But these do not make good headlines. Have not humans been altering the face of the earth since there have been humans? If overgrazing of domesticated animals by humans caused the sahara desert then the sierra club was formed 10,000 yrs too late.

neo gravity

GUT OF PHYSICS

See I think gravity is because everything is getting bigger at a rate proportional to its mass. The earth is getting bigger at a rate of 32ft per second, and after one second the yardstick is now bigger so its actually accelerating 32ft per sec per sec. The fact that the further away from earth an object is, the faster it is moving may be explained by the fact that the further you look into space the further in the past you are looking when the universe was expanding due to the big bang. I still need to work out a few kinks because this does not explain objects orbiting each other and how the speed of light appears constant (maybe photons are stationary and mass is moving), its just that I don't like the graviton.

disaster averted

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

The Constitution is in shreds, burnt by the very people who swore an oath to protect it. What a mess this highway robbery has turned out to be. It could be worse, pragmatically the U.S. is still in better shape than the rest of the industrialized world - our Constitution occasionally stops a government power grab here or there. The progressives have so effectively re-written much of it that limited government is in a century old remission. How can a Nation get back on track once the damage has been done? How can the two thirds of the federal budget - that is unconstitutional - be eliminated in a legitimate smooth transition? The rejection of potential justices on the grounds that they will not enforce the Constitution as it was written is a good start. People who wish to amend the constitution should use the amendment process not judicial fiat.