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!

Conscious of the Benighted (home)