Uncategorized

  • Should men have a say when it comes to the issue of abortion? Why or why not?

    Of course, it is not simply a procreative issue it is a human rights issue.  The core of the debate is whether or not an unborn baby should be considered human and whether or not they should have citizenship.  Regardless of the rhetoric that encompasses the topic, life and death is the issue which is actually being decided.  Life vs. death, and the egalitarianism of a society can be assessed based on how it treats it’s weakest members.  That having been said, the outlook is currently rather grim.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

  • Environmentalism again…

    I was reading this entry on Revelife and some of the discussions;  http://weblog.revelife.com/revelife/669083651/question-of-the-day-saving-the-planet—pointless-or-priority.html when I came across this comment:

    Yeah
    why should I care about the world my daughter could enjoy or the future
    generations, why? is always better to be concerned about an imaginary
    future world lmao

    I’m gonna recomend this post for people can see
    how dangerous religion and christianism specially can be, I think I
    wasn’t aware of how damaging and toxic religion could be till now, I’m
    amazed.

    At first I was rather speechless, but I decided that I ought to share my position on the issue of environmentalism before responding to such an amazing remark.  At any rate, I believe with a relative degree of certainty that it is safe to assume that this person was an atheist, or perhaps agnostic since those are the sorts that typically self identify as not being religious and make sweeping generalizations about “religion.” 

    There are reasons to be concerned about the environment.  First of all, we live on earth, and when the air and water are polluted, it affects us.  Actually, pollution becomes more concentrated in organisms at high trophic levels than it does in lower life forms.  So there is a danger.  Air pollution is a serious issue.  When I moved to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area I was given long term exposure to much higher levels of pollution than I was previously accustomed.  The result was that I developed an incredible set of allergies.  My allergies were so bad and so constant that I would carry boxes of tissues in my backpack to school with me, and I blew my nose so much in any given period that the interior of the desk was stuffed with used tissues.  My nose was perpetually clogged so that I had to breath through my mouth all the time and I could not sleep on my back.  I was in middle school and because of my extreme and constant allergies I had to endure continual ridicule and frequent violence.  Of course, looking back on those hardships I am actually grateful for them because they made me stronger, but the point is, the pollution was the catalyst that set off those allergies.  Eventually I had successful treatments which got rid of most of my allergies.  I do not believe that many people enjoy pollution.  Drinking polluted water can be like swallowing grit, and aside from being foul smelling polluted air also feels like breathing in ashes from a campfire (which I also experienced directly when living in Columbus).  Pollution can also have carcinogenic affects. 

    While tropical rainforests are fascinating, and full of diversity and maybe even a few dinosaurs (according to the locals in some parts and certain hunters), they are not the most important environment(s) on the earth.  The ocean is actually where most of the oxygen which we breath comes from, and the ocean is also what absorbs most of the pollution which is not contained.  Mercury poisoning is a serious issue, and a lot of the world’s sea food is already contaminated with it. 

    I also believe in recycling and reusing.  My dad is one of those types of people who believes strongly in throwing things away.  When he cleans, he throws away.  If everyone did that then we would probably end up like that Wall-E movie pretty quick (or whatever it’s called).  The fact of the matter is land fills are a hazard.  They are unsafe to build over, and when it rains water often flows through the landfill bringing contaminants into the water table in the process. 

    What can be done?  This is where I am going to have to break with liberals…  It seems that the bulk of the environmentalist movement focuses on 2 key issues, global warming, and the deforestation of tropical rainforests.  Global warming is a hoax, the earth is not getting warmer, and even if it was, the earth goes through natural cycles of temperature fluctuation.  Concerning tropical rainforests, unfortunately the deforestation occurs in developing nations, which in spite of their backwardness, are still sovereign nations and I do not feel that an invasion would be justified, especially since they are mainly just hurting themselves.  Pollution of the oceans is a serious issue however.  When I was in high school I had a friend from Egypt.  He said that Egypt dumped all of it’s raw sewage into the Mediterannean.  I was greatly disturbed by that but he said, “Why?  Egypt is just a small country.”  I don’t know whether or not he knew what he was talking about but assuming it is or was true.  The question would be how much pollution is actually being dumped?  And who is being harmed by it?  If a country is deliberately causing a great deal of harm to it’s neighbors then that might constitute viable grounds for an invasion, as would the detonation of nuclear weapons on the border or the deliberate harboring of terrorists. 

    While there are reasons to be concerned about the environment, my concern is that a lot of the liberal and atheistic environmentalists place the environment above human welfare.  They are concerned about harming “nature” for it’s own sake as if “nature” were some type of entity capable of retaliation or possessing it’s own intrinsic objective value.  This is probably because they view themselves as being products of nature rather than the Christian view which teaches that the world was created for us.  Another concern I have with the liberal environmentalist movement is that it relies heavily on government actions.  Each action a government takes, and each regulation they make, results in a loss of personal freedom.  I believe that governments use environmentalism as a smoke screen to hide the fact that they are trying to consolidate power.  The most disturbing aspect of it all, is that it provides impetus for the growing movement to establish a system of extra-national authority to regulate actual nations.  I do not believe that anything is worth the price of freedom, and nothing could be less free than a one world government.  If I were faced with the choice of getting sick and maybe dying from pollution vs. being experimented on or tortured in a prison camp, I would chose the pollution.  All the same, I do not believe it is that serious, yet.

    My solution does not involve population control or additional government action.  I believe that the answer lies beyond the earth.  The earth is a relatively small speck when compared with the universe as a whole.  Even in our solar system, there are abundant resources which greatly outnumber what we find on earth.  The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are rich in water ice and organic compounds.  Other planets, such as Mercury and Mars are rich in ore.  Possibly the moon is as well. At any rate, it would be beneficial to move centers of production elsewhere.  On the moon or in space it would not matter what byproducts were generated, and energy and resources could be harnessed more directly.  It might also help relieve population pressures for some countries.

    Now, concerning this person, she also wrote an entry on her page:  http://weblog.xanga.com/Nieblung/669104741/religion-global-security-issue.html

    This is what we call a hasty generalization.  First of all, it’s not true, but I would like to point out that predominantly atheist society is not necessarily an environmentally friendly society.  In Communist China atheism is the religion of state, and they generate more pollution than anyone else.  In addition to that, they also denuded Tibet, and I believe they have also cut off some of the headwaters which supply India.  Aside from that, their human rights record is rather… sloppy.  Also, if atheism were true, why should pollution and environmental destruction be a bad thing?  There would be no afterlife and there is no natural mechanism to prevent a natural heat death, so whether it happens now, or billions of years in the future, it ultimately would make no difference since everything is going to die out and it will be as if you and your progeny never were.  Also, within the atheistic paradigm what is there to lend objective value to anything?  Be it plants, animals, or people?  Finally, if evolution were true, pollution and environmental destruction would be a good thing, because based on the predictions made by evolutionism such a thing should accelerate the process of evolution.  Hardship coupled with an increase in mutagens ought to cause leaps and bounds, just like it does in X-men. 

    I believe I covered everything.

  • Speechless…

    I realize that a few people are waiting on my extensive critique of evolutionism, but I just saw this and had to share it.  For once I have almost nothing to say, so I decided to post the whole article here just so that everyone can see:

    The blockbuster Disney movie, Wall-E, was criticized for its portrayal of a future in which not just some humans, but all of humanity becomes obese. A new study from Johns Hopkins, however, finds that its depiction comes uncomfortably close to projections from public health researchers.

    As one of our commenters wrote, echoing other critics, “The future presented in the film was ridiculous and over-the-top in how unlikely it was, and portrayed humans as fat, disgusting, and stupid animals (which may be true of some people, but not of many).” 

    The new study, however, finds that if something doesn’t change with the American food system, almost 9 out of 10 Americans will be fat by 2030.

    “National survey data show that the prevalence of overweight and obese adults in the U.S. has increased steadily over the past three decades,” said Youfa Wang, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and a professor at Hopkins’ Center for Human Nutrition. “If these trends continue, more than 86 percent of adults will be overweight or obese by 2030.”

    It’s not just an aesthetic problem, either. The health risks associated with obesity are well-known and the researchers say treating obesity-related conditions could result in nearly one trillion dollars of added health care costs. 

    The projections appear in the July 2008 issue of the journal Obesity.

    Image: The Captain from Wall-E. Via Worstpreviews.com.

    WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter , Google Reader feed, and webpage; Wired Science on Facebook.

    Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/wall-es-world-8.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

    What I will say, however (almost nothing is not quite nothing), is that this is one of the reasons why I disapprove so sharply of the culture I find myself surrounded by.  It is also one of the reasons I am still single.  Furthermore, Mississippi is actually the fattest state in the country.

  • Hitler’s head ripped off

    Well not really the actual Hitler’s head, but the head of a wax replica of Hitler. 

    Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080705/od_nm/hitler_head_dc

    Just minutes after the museum opened, the 41-year-old German man pushed aside two security men guarding the figure before ripping off the head in protest at the exhibit, a police spokesman said. The police were alerted and arrested the man.

    As amusing as that might sound, it becomes far less amusing in light of this:

    About 25 workers spent about four months on the waxwork, using more than 2,000 pictures and pieces of archive material and also guided by a model of the “Fuehrer” in the London branch of Madame Tussauds where he is standing upright.

    While I realize that what Hitler did was terrible and adversly affected many people and still continues to do so, I see no point in ripping the head off of the statue.  While I could understand how one might wish to destroy the monuments that a despot had created of himself following an overthrow, I cannot understand why this guy, being 41, would do something like that when he never lived under Hitler.  Some argued that constructing a likeness of Hitler in Germany and displaying it there is in poor taste.  That may well be so, but if you find something offensive then don’t patronize it, spend your money elsewhere.  Furthermore, I have some Jewish ancestry, and actually some German ancestry also, and I do not find the statue offensive.  It was not a Caesar type statue where the subject was portrayed as heroic and ideal, it was a lifelike wax sculpture that showed Hitler as he really was near the end of life.  Pretending that Hitler never existed will not change anything that happened.  What I find offensive, is how some rash fool would destroy something that 25 artists spend a long hard time working on.  Clearly he has no appreciation of or understanding for the artistic processes.  If some guy walked into my room and spontaneously ripped up one of my drawings then I might just do something horrible, and I don’t have any drawings that took me 4 months to make.  Being offended by something does not give you the right to destroy other people’s property.  If something belongs to someone else, then you keep your hands off unless given permission. 

    Another thing that surprised me was the fact that it seems that Nazi paraphanalia is outlawed in Germany:

    It is illegal in Germany to show Nazi symbols and art glorifying Hitler and the exhibit was cordoned off to stop visitors posing with him.

    The wax sculpture certainly did not glorify Hitler, but at any rate I disagree with the law.  While I dislike Nazism, making a law like that tramples on people’s freedom of expression, and making a law like that will not change the fact that Hitler came from Germany.  It seems that some Germans, or at least their government, wish to distance themselves from Hitler as much as possible, which is understandable, but acting like him will not help with regards to that.  Yes, I said acting like him, because censorship and curtailing freedom of speech and expression were some of Hitlers main tools.  A free society is one in which everyone can express their views even if they are unpopular.  Just as a sidenote, I do not blame modern Germans for Hitler, that would be absurdly foolish.  I do not even entirely blame all the German people of the early 1900′s for Hitler, because the truth of the matter is that Hitler would probably not have been so popular if the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles had not been so extreme.  The people who wish to blame Germany for Hitler (forever), are never going to see past their association regardless of what laws the German governmnet passes.

  • Do Ghosts Really Exist?

                I would like to preface by stating that prior to moving to Georgia I never took seriously the issue of believing in ghosts.  I just put ghosts in the same category with Santaclause and assumed that other adults did as well.  Once we moved to Georgia, my sister started telling me that a lot the kids in her school believed in ghosts and some even practiced crude forms of divination.  I assumed first that they were purposefully putting forward an idiotic face to see if they could get her to believe what they were saying and then make fun of her for being gullible (that’s the sort of stuff kids did in the places I grew up in), but the stories continued.  So I just assumed that the children were a little slow or perhaps Biblical teachings were less pervasive in Georgia, and I forgot about it.  Then when I was attending GSU finishing my undergrad degree, there was a girl in one of my classes, who I will refer to as X, who firmly believed that there were ghosts living in her house.  After she made her statement there were others that felt like sharing their own ghost encounters.  I was rather baffled.  Then in some of my other classes I brought up the topic of ghosts while simultaneously concealing my position on the matter in order to goad people into speaking, and I found that a great many adults also believed in ghosts.  When I was living in south Georgia many adults and children I encountered admitted to believing in ghosts.  In those cases I just attributed it to a lack of education, but when I moved back to Atlanta and began work on my 2nd degree at Kennesaw, I actually had a professor who stated to the class that Kennesaw was an unusual campus because it had no ghost.   He then went on for a bit about how the other campuses he worked on were all haunted.  I believe that for most people the term ‘ghost’ refers to a disembodied human spirit which persists in the physical realm after the death of the body.  It is my contention that there are no such things as ghosts. 

     

                In matters regarding the afterlife I tend to fall back on the Christian paradigm, which means that the spirits of the dead either go to heaven or hell and do not linger on earth.  So my default assumption, in the absence of empirical data to the contrary, is that there are no such things as ghosts.  The belief in ghosts falls within the realm of superstition, it is not something that has never been confirmed empirically nor can it be.  Of course evolutionists/atheists frequently equate any belief in the supernatural with superstition (except for their own beliefs about the universe spontaneously erupting from nothing and forming itself, which somehow gets classified as science in spite of the complete lack of empirical corroboration), so I therefore deem it necessary to differentiate between religion and superstition.  In this case I am going to rely on the definition provided by the historian Robert Redfield:

     

    In a civilization there is a great tradition of the reflective few, and there is a little tradition of the largely unreflective many.  The great tradition is cultivated in schools or temples; the little tradition works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities.  The tradition of the philosopher, theologian, and literary man is a tradition consciously cultivated and handed down; that of the little people is for the most part taken for granted and not submitted to much scrutiny or considered refinement and improvement.

     

    Robert Redfield, The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 41-42.

     

    Superstition can be viewed as irrational and unstructured folk beliefs.  Now that having been said, I realize that most people do not share my Christian background, so I will deal with the issue of ghosts on a strictly empirical basis.

     

                The first question one must ponder is why do people believe in ghosts?  They believe because they are told to and/or because they may have actually seen or experienced something unusual which they lack the experience or reasoning skills to understand, but ultimately they believe because they want too.  At the end of the day, regardless of what the evidence indicates people will always believe what they want to believe.  The first reason is simple enough to dismiss, most people hold a wide array of incorrect notions and beliefs, and just because someone says something is true does not make it so.  In order for a thing to be true it must actually exist, or have existed, and while many things disappear from history completely, if a thing is common and widespread it leaves behind evidence.  The belief in ghosts is widespread, but there is no evidence.  Yet, the belief persists, why?

     

                Before I deal with the issue of why, I would like to refute absolutely the notion that ghosts exist.  First of all, I do not deny that consciousness and the state of sentience has remarkable properties.  Cogito ergo sum.  It is reasonable to assume that we are more than the sum of our molecules and parts.    Is the body and it’s various parts the source of consciousness, or is the body a vessel for something higher?  Those are metaphysical issues, and not so much scientific issues.  It remains clear, however, that when a person dies something has definitely left the body.  I find it easy to believe that the essence of consciousness endures free of the body, which as complex as it is, is still made up of dirt and water.  At any rate, whether or not the essence endures beyond the body is difficult to verify one way or another without dying.  One can approach metaphysics logically but not empirically as they deal with the unseen.  If the human spirit, the essence of human consciousness is capable of enduring without the body, then it is not visible, and it is not capable of manifesting or interacting with the physical universe.  Without a body, a person has no physicality or substance.  A human spirit cannot have any substance therefore it cannot manipulate physical objects, which also means that it cannot reflect light so that it cannot be seen even if it does exist.  In order to move objects in the material universe one must have matter and energy, and if the human spirit had matter or energy in order to interface with the physical universe then how could it reside within a body in the first place?  And how would it be that when the spirit departs none of the matter in the body departs with it?  Now some argue that there is a type of spiritual energy contained within the human spirit that can allow it to give off an ethereal glow and manipulate objects.  I call this balderdash.  If the spirit glows and gives off energy then why does one have to be dead in order to see the glow?  Shouldn’t we be glowing now?  OK, perhaps the body traps the mystic glow, but in that case amputees should have a glowing ethereal arm or leg where their physical arm or leg used to be.  And if a human spirit can manipulate objects using some type of mystical energy (mana?) then we ought to be able to move objects without touching them without being dead first.

     

                So why then do so many people believe in ghosts in spite of the impossibility of it?  Why would someone like X claim to have been harassed by ghosts?  There are a few possibilities, X is hallucinating, X is lying, or X really was visited by something she could not classify.  There are a few ways a person can hallucinate.  A person can hallucinate through drugs, which probably accounts for a great many of the ‘paranormal’ experiences people claim to have.  A person can be insane, in which case all of the ‘paranormal’ events are actually in their head.  However, a person need not be insane or under the influence of drugs in order to hallucinate.  When a person is sleep deprived for an extended period of time, their ability to think becomes muddled and if the deprivation continues they will begin to have episodes of microsleep and in some cases hallucination.  The first time I was in college around test times papers were also due.  What ended up happening is for extended periods of time I had to go without sleep, or at best minimal sleep of perhaps 2 hours in a 24 hour cycle, hardly healthy to say the least.  Of course the most immediate symptoms were reduced thinking skills, sluggish movement, and decreased awareness.  Things became truly strange when I would seem to be following someone (usually looking down and seeing their feet or legs), and then enter the elevator, round the corner, whatever, and no one was there.  Or I might out of the corner of my eye see a person enter a room, and upon entering the room found that no one was in there.  I began to question my own sanity, but then I thought about it a little more and came to decide that my altered state of consciousness was a result of my lack of sleep, just like my reduced thinking skills, reaction time, and physical sluggishness.  There was no reason to apply a mystical explanation to those symptoms, so why apply one to the hallucinations, and at any rate, once I resumed my normal sleeping patterns the hallucinations subsided with the rest of the symptoms.  A superstitious person might attribute the hallucinations to ghosts because rather than thinking things through analytically they leap to conclusions, they are unreflective, as Robert Redfield stated.  It could be that a great many college students experience such hallucinations during testing times which might account for the belief that many college campuses are haunted.   

     

                What if they are fully awake, well nourished, well rested, not doing any drugs, and still see something?  Of course ghost stories abound depending on which part of the country or which part of the world you are in.  Whether or not the person is lying only that person can know.  At any rate, I am going to refer to 2 examples of “ghost” stories I heard from students at GSU.  The first was an impromptu speech given during a class discussion and the other was an “informative” speech given by a student in speech class:

     

    X believed that her house was haunted and throughout the course of her speech her voice wavered and there was some sniffling.  X stated that one night when she was in bed she heard loud chanting in a foreign language by monstrous inhuman voices, the source of which remained unseen.  Her bed was also shaken violently by unseen assailants.  She stated that she was terrified and asked God to make them go away.  She said that the next day she checked for hidden passages or openings in the wall or floor or ceiling and found none.  She also searched for speakers or electronic devices of any sort and found none.  X described other encounters around the house but I can’t remember the details.  I believe that they were fear sensations, or a sensing of evil.  She said that her dogs were terrorized as well and were afraid to enter certain portions of the house.  She concluded by saying that she didn’t care what anyone thinks because she ‘knows’ that ghosts are real and wishes to move out of her house as soon as possible.

     

    Again, the possibilities here are that she is lying, insane, or that she is telling the truth.  Due to the inflections in her voice and the fact that she risked ridicule and being classified as insane by telling such a story indicates to me that she at least probably believed that she was telling the truth.  She could be insane, but if that is the case then her hallucinations would have to be quite complex and protracted, and they must extend to her dogs which she believes will not enter certain parts of the house and wimper when close to those places.  Assuming her encounter is actually real, it certainly could not be ghosts because in order for the bed to be moved there must be a physical material substance involved and a dead human spirit bereft of it’s body no longer has access to any type of material.  Which also rules out the strange chanting in a foreign language, because assuming it happened, sound is produced by vibrations moving through the air, and those vibrations must be created by a physical substance.  So if there was something in there with her, it had to have some type of physical substance to it or it could not produce sound.  That rules out the possibility of dead human spirits as the culprit. 

     

    Y believed that the spirit of the wife of a plantation owner was following her around and tormenting her.  She said that she was visiting an ancient plantation on which the mistress was actually responsible for a great deal of the excessive cruelty that took place, and in fact had become famous by means of her abusive nature.  The grave of the mistress was on the plantation and Y believes that when she stood before the grave something entered into her or became attached to her.  Something evil and intangible which she believed was the spirit of the plantation owners wife.  She said that after that she could feel an evil presence in her life that never completely left her, although was more pronounced at some times than others.  Y stated that once she tripped and fell down a set of stairs and she believes that it was because the plantation mistress pushed her.

     

                It is possible that Y perceives that she is telling the truth, however, even if her account is taken as absolute truth there is nothing in it that provides any kind of evidence that the paranormal is involved.  It could merely be that she is experiencing a paranoid delusion, similar to hypochondria.  Accounts like that can be easily dismissed.

     

                The problem with the paranormal is that there is no way to study it empirically.  And I think it is more than a coincidence that the people who are staunchly opposed to the belief in ghosts never manage to ‘see’ any.  It seems that only people with a predisposition to such things ever think they see them.  Furthermore, why do people no longer claim to see brownies, feys, pixies, faries, elves, etc.?  People don’t see them anymore because people don’t believe in them.  In all fairness however, there is no reason to assume that humanity is the only form of intelligence that exists, or even necessarily the highest form.  The universe is a big place and there are things which cannot always be explained logically, however, there are bogus explanations which can be disproven logically, the existence of ghosts being one of them.  It could be that ghosts, djinis, pixies, faries, brownies, etc. are all actually the same thing.

  • People say smoking is a choice. But if you’re addicted to something, doesn’t that rule o

    No, you’re in control of all your voluntary functions regardless of how strong your desires are to do something.  That’s the grim truth about it.  Whether it’s smoking, drinking, sex, or whatever, you are in control.  Now breathing, that is something you are not in control of because it is primarily regulated by your autonomic nervous system.  But smoking yes, no sympathy from me.  Addiction is not an excuse.  By that line of reasoning all those people stuck on WoW can’t help it.  The problem with addiction is you, if you’re addicted to something it’s because you have a weak mind or a weak will.

       

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

  • Metabo

    For those who may not yet know, Japan is being slowly depopulated.  The ratio of retired persons to people in the workforce is increasing due to really low birthrates.  At any rate, the government of Japan has become increasingly concerned about people being overweight.  Part of the reason being that Japan has government supplied medical care.  So they make it illegal to be overweight. 

    Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

    To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?no_interstitial

    The condition of being overweight is being referred to as “metabo” which is short for metabolic syndrome.  The Japanese government is going to be leaning on businesses and local governments to reduce their overweight population by 10% over the next 4 years.  So there is some complaining about how this is an attempt to desocialize medical care (which is fine because it never should have been socialized in the first place), but the fact of the matter is that when someone else is paying your bills then it’s their prerogative if they want to add a few conditions.  I happen to be living with my parents right now.  I’m working and finishing up with school, but the point is I’m an adult, already have 1 degree, and I live with my parents.  They dont give me medical coverage, but they do feed me (most of the time), so if my dad says that I need to help out around the house then I comply without complaining, because it’s not a right.  The situation is the same, getting things without having to work for them is not a right, so people shouldnt complain if the government wants to add conditions.  At any rate, I think government funded medical coverage is absurd, and I would rather have it remain with the private sector. 

    At any rate, this quote from the opposition got me thinking:

    “I don’t think the campaign will have any positive effect. Now if you did this in the United States, there would be benefits, since there are many Americans who weigh more than 100 kilograms,” or about 220 pounds, Mr. Ogushi said. “But the Japanese are so slender that they can’t afford to lose weight.”

    Why not institute some metabo laws in the US?  Probably will never happen because such legislation would have to be agreed upon by the majority of porkers in Congress, and signed by the porker in the Oval Office, but as an idea it is interesting.  Personally, I remain an anarchist and I believe that the government which governs best governs least, or doesn’t exist.  But I was thinking, we already have the Federal Income Tax which is 100% unconstitutional.  Why not replace the income tax with a metabo tax?  When Czar Peter the Great visited Europe he noticed that it was a lot more developed than Russia, and he assumed that it was the lifestyle, or perhaps the style, of occidental society that made it more powerful.  So when he came back to Russia he began cutting the beards of his noblemen.  A rather horrid thing to do given the cultural context, but the point is it was done.  He instituted a beard tax in order to turn Russia into a beardless country and succeeded.  Now I am by no means advocating beardlessness, but if the government here instituted a fat tax, then it would be a major source of revenue, and the income tax could be done away with.  The tax would be in proportion to the persons age and level of obecity.  Obviously parents would be charged for overweight children who are too young to work, and teenagers in the workforce might have their paychecks deducted for the fat tax as they are now deducted for the income tax.  People over 18 or perhaps 21 would pay a higher rate.  Overall the rate would be proportional to the persons physique and how much of an endomorph they are.  Can’t afford the tax?  Well you sure can afford to eat.  In fact, a metabo tax here might have long term sustainibility due to the prevelance of fast food chains and all that.  I think that this idea is positivily brilliant, but at any rate, I await feedback and dissent.

  • Global Warming

    It seems that articles about “Global Warming” are appearing with increased frequency.  It is as though they are desperately attempting to generate panic.  Why?  Especially considering that global warming is a hoax.  The following excerpt comes from Australian News www.theaustralian.news.com.

    Excerpt:

    Climate facts to warm to

    jserve.write(“/SITE=TAUS/AREA=NEWS.OPINION/AAMSZ=110X40/”); ipt>

    Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

    CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

    Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

    Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”

    She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”

    Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

    Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.”

    Duffy: “It’s not only that it’s not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there’s any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it’s put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary.”

    Source:  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

    The fact of the matter is that natural mechanisms seem to be in place which keep the climate stable, and for the most part compensate for the increase in CO2 emissions.  The climate is actually getting cooler rather than warmer.  A truth which I have suspected for years but which seems to have been confirmed by this article.  If the earth was actually warming, we would experience an increase in precipitation as there would be an increase in evaporation leading to an increase in ambient moisture.  The polar icecaps would actually grow under such circumstances, although even if they are growing it does not automatically follow that the earth is getting warmer.  According to the article the earth did go through an interval of warming, but it stopped about 10 years ago.  So I restate my question, why all the scare?

    I came across this article today: http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20080519/sc_afp/japanenvironmentclimate.html
    Everyone who knows me well or at least reads my page will know that I have problems with the herd mentality, but when something which is a patent lie is continually pushed forwards as truth with increasing emphasis it can be somewhat irritating.  It’s as though it is continually trumped up to compensate for waning belief or to prevent waning belief, sort of like evolutionism.  Of course, I found that more often than not evolutionists typically also subscribe to GW (global warming), but I believe that believers in the GW paradigm might be a bit more extensive than only evolutionary believers as the belief in GW encompasses other groups as well.  GW has been so continually emphasized as being a fact that now it is considered to be one by most people, and like evolutionism, there are few people who examine the basis behind the belief and the opposing view is not given equal treatment. 

    As to the question of why, the answer is simple if one merely looks at the “solutions” for GW and those who will be responsible for enforcing and instituting said “solutions.”  It is governments who enforce and propose solutions, and it is the UN.  The purpose behind it is to increase the control of governments over the people, and the control of the UN over governments.  To create a higher level of world organization in which people will have less freedom.  Population control and the belief that there are too many people in the world also factors into this.  Liberals often believe that there are too many people in the world and that we ought to cut back the population so that the environment can prosper more.  Are there really too many people for the environment to sustain?  No of course not, but it is a fact that the more people there are the harder it is to keep track of everyone.  It may be that in order for a one world government to maintain absolute control and hegemony, it might be necessary to reduce the population, or at least helpful.  Hence the scare tactics and emphasis on population reduction for the sake of the environment.  It is an effort to get people to voluntarily reduce their numbers, however, in the meantime the government poisons the environment as well as the population with sprays and vaccines. 

  • Jimmy Carter Speaks for Hamas

      Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/carter_israel;_ylt=At15e6tv88Ln7kG7i4N3WDes0NUE

    It appears that Jimmy Carter has been meeting with Hamas and attempting to broker “peace negotiations.”  I don’t know why Jimmy Carter has taken it upon himself to get involved with the situation in Israel, or why he would WANT to talk with Hamas.  For that matter, I wonder how he is able to meet with them without getting taken hostage or having his head cut off.  At any rate, it seems that the Democrats are always wanting to play nice with the terrorists, as if they are dealing with rational people that can be negotiated with.  Or it may just be a natural extention of their general hostility towards Jews.  At any rate, to sum up what they told Jimmy Carter, Hamas is supposedly willing to allow Israel “live as a neighbor next door in peace,” if Israel will agree to return to it’s 1967 boundaries.  Of course they also said that if Israel returned to those boundaries it would be the beginning point for negotiations of “peace in stages” and in the meantime they have not forsworn their goal of the absolute destruction of Israel, have not agreed to a ceasefire suggested to them by Jimmy Carter, and have not made any statements about what their ultimate goals for the placement of the new border are.  So in other words, they have agreed to nothing special, and I don’t see anything particularly advantageous to Israel coming out of all that.  What Hamas is saying translates to: “If you give us everything we want then we will maybe thing about stopping but we might still want more later on.”  Because that is the way of terrorists, they are fighting a guerilla war and they will keep fighting until they get everything they want.  They already exist as outlaws, so they aren’t about to enter into anything legally or contractually binding, and if they do, there is no way to gaurantee that they will honor it.

    Excerpt:

    Carter urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, saying failure to do so was hampering peace efforts.

    “We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” he said. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

    Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist group and has shunned Carter because of his meetings with Hamas’ supreme chief, Khaled Mashaal, and other Hamas figures. Hamas has been behind dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed some 250 Israelis.

     

    Carter is delusional, negotiating with them in no way gaurantees that they will honor anything that is agreed upon.  We already know what their stated purpose is, the complete destruction of Israel, and they have not yet forsaken that position.  For terrorists, negotiations are just a means to an end.  Negotiating with terroirsts is thoroughly idiotic, because all it does is strengthen the position of the terrorists by showing them that their methods are successful.  It encourages them to be terrorists.  Hamas IS a terrorist group, I would like to know why the article states it like, “Israel consideres Hamas to be a terrorist group,” as if it were a matter of perspective.  They are the textbook example of terrorism.  Perhaps it is also negligable whether or not the KKK is a hate group.  Incidentally, Hamas people look a whole lot like Klansmen with their choice of wardrobe:

    Hamas:

    _1691961_hamas150

     

    hamas_sucks

     

    The KKK:

    KKK

    74_3_kkk_in_kansas

     

    Uncanny, isn’t it?

     

    At any rate, the solution to terrorism is really quite simple, wipe them out, and then they can’t terrorize you any more.  How many people terrorized the Mongols?  Or the Assyrians for that matter?  I don’t think the Mongols had to worry about terrorism, so the key here, is to learn a lesson from history and adopt methods that are proven to have worked.  Terrorism is a situation where it is appropriate to fight fire with fire.  No terrorists = no terrorism.  They must be shown that terrorism does not pay off and that it is futile.  As a subset of this topic, I would also like to comment on a hostage situation.

    Excerpt:

    Carter said Hamas has promised to let a captured Israeli soldier send a letter to his parents.

    Direct communication between Israel and Hamas could facilitate the release of Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held in Gaza for nearly two years.

    Israel agrees in principle to release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Schalit, but after back-and-forth talks through Egyptian intermediaries, has approved only 71 of the specific prisoners that Hamas wants freed, he said.

    That sort of behavior will only encourage the terrorists to step up their activity.  Why should they release more than one prisoner in exchange at the most?  The solution here is to give the terrorists an ultimatum, one terrorist taken prisoner will die every day until the prisoner is released.  If the terrorists decide to kill their prisoner, then they all die right away.  The solution is really quite simple.  The key is to demoralize the enemy and show them that they have no legs to stand on, then when it comes to negotiations and negotiations which ensue can be unilateral and one sided.

  • Keep Your Legs Closed and Pants Zipped

    This entry is going to be rather caustic mind you, so those who are easily offended may want to bugger off at this point, or better yet, don’t.  At any rate, I wanted to critique modern western culture a bit while emphasizing the value of chastity.  One of the reasons for which I have decided to eschew western females, is the fact that very few of them are virgins.  It seems that most women in their 20′s are no longer virgins, and if they have not lost it in highschool they typically lose it in college.  I am fully aware of the fact that western culture in general, which includes most of Europe and some of the former colony nations, such as the US, Canada, Australia, S. Africa, etc. glorify sex and sexuality as a general rule.  They glorify the act of sex and de-emphasize reproduction, which probably accounts for the population decline.  For certain sex was intended to be enjoyable, and not all sexual encounters within the context of marriage need exist for strictly reproductive purposes.  But fruitless sex is over emphasized, and chastity and reproduction are devalued.  In spite of the enormous cultural and social pressures placed on young people to engage in fruitless extra-marital sex (a.k.a. fornication), I fail to see what is so difficult about keeping your legs closed and pants zipped.  I have managed to hold onto my chastity, so I don’t see what is so difficult about it.  Aside from rape, there is no reason why women should not also be able to maintain their chastity.  I realize that women are far more likely to become victems of violent assault then men, but even so, how many cases of lost chastity are attributable to rape vs. other things, and how many of those cases of rape could have been avoided by using a little common sense?  For instance, not getting drunk at that party, or better yet, not going to that party at all.  Or how about staying out of the bars, or avoiding the drugs?  Or how about the boyfriend, if you know the guy has violent tendencies, or engages in morally questionable behavior, then why date him in the first place?  “OH, I can change him!”  Ah, I see you fell for that lie.  That is precisely what he wants you to think so that he can get inside of your pants, and at the end of the day, it’s just your word vs. his.  I will never understand why women are attracted to the dirtbag persona.  In such cases, I have no sympathy for the woman, for certain I believe that the man should be punished, but that is out of a desire for justice and security, not sentiment.  The wheels of Justice must turn, even if the victem in question is just as much a victem of their own stupidity as they are of someone else’s aggression.  At any rate, for the sake of simplicity, I would like to list my main points in the case for chastity in numerical order:

    1. Damaged Goods:  Under the best of conditions, a woman who has sex is damaged goods.  The best gift a woman can give her husband is her virginity, and if she doesn’t have that, then she lacks something important.  She has already bonded with another man (or more) before she joined with her husband.  She is, by default, less desirable than she would otherwise be.  It is like this, of one goes to the grocery store to buy a turkey, and there are two left, one of which is completely intact, and the other of which the plastic wrap has been penetrated and is now open, which one is the buyer likely to purchase?  Now assuming there is a disparity in prices and the buyer is starving, he might be desperate enough to buy the cheaper turkey which has already been opened, simply because no other options exist for him, however, his desire and preference will be for the one that is still intact, even if it cannot be acquired.  Or, harking back to my younger days when I worked at Service Merchandise during it’s close out sales, suppose a customer is looking to purchase a table, or some other piece of furniture.  There is of course a sample on the floor out on display as well as more of the same packed up in unopened boxes in the back of the store.  Even taking into account that the display item is offered at a discount, most customers choose the items which have not yet been opened.  Furthermore, even if sample item is unharmed, the customers will still prefer the boxed items, and if there are no boxed items they will expect to purchase the sample item at a discount.  So it suffices to say that under the best of conditions, women who no longer have their chastity cannot afford to be as picky or selective as those who do.  Options are more limited.  Again, those are under the best of conditions, under other conditions the woman may be viewed as a whore.

    2. Cultural Double Standard:  For better or worse, there is a double standard in western society, in fact it probably exists for most of the world in general.  That is, a woman who has sex is more likely to be catagorized as a whore than a man of similar credentials.  A man who has lots of sex is a “player” and a “stud,” a woman who has lots of sex is a “whore” or “skank.”  When a man engages in sex he is lauded and slapped on the back, and while he boasts of his exploits his friends listen as if they were war stories.  All the while, his reputation rises in their eyes, while the reputation his whatever woman he just penetrated, is simultaneously lowered.  The more a woman a woman has a reputation for engaging in sex, the less likely she is to become engaged in a successful, permanent, serious long term relationship.  The reason being that she will not be taken seriously by most men.  Most men will view her as nothing more than a source of cheap sex/quick flings.  The word EASY comes to mind.  And of course every time she has sex her reputation is further depreciated, but she keeps seeking it anyways because she wants affection and that is the closest she can probably get to real affection (even though it does not involve affection on the part of the man any more than when he pleasures himself).  It is most certainly a double standard, and not one which I personally approve of, but it remains fixed regardless of how fair it is.

    3. Biological Risks:  Of course the possibility of contracting an STD is something which both men and women must face when engaging in fornication, however, there are other biological risks which only women face.  Women run the risk of getting pregnant.  Successful DNA tests and court cases might result in some type of monetary compensation in the form of child support, but is that lifestyle really preferential.  I should say not, because it does not create a good environment for the children, and the woman is still alone.  However, in cases where a woman engages in frequent sex with a multitude of men then DNA tests and court cases are probably out of the question.  For certain a woman with children is far less likely to find a husband than a woman with none.  A man who might be willing to overlook the fact that a woman is no longer pure will probably not be able to get around the fact that a woman already has children, at least, not a responsible man.  For me personally, finding out a woman has children is an instant deal breaker.  However attractive the woman was before, becomes completely irrelevant because it must now be weighted against a new set of variables:

    1. The amount of children she has must be weighed against the amount of income that will be produced by my career, and the woman’s (either way the woman has to work as well).  Having to support her children may preclude the possibility of being able to have my own.  Under the best of conditions my lifestyle would have to be altered, and perhaps my career choice as well.  If reproduction is not an option then the case of marrying such a person is severely undermined.

    2.  The children already have a father (perhaps different fathers for each one), and I’m not it, they are not truly my children and they will know it.  My role as a father figure would therefore be compromised from the beginning, and it would be more difficult to maintain discipline. 

    3.  Finding time to properly get to know the woman would be difficult because her first obligation must be to her children, assuming she is responsible, if she is not, then that is a different story…  Either way, it’s no good.

    So while a woman with children may still be physically attractive, and appealing in the sexual sense, her attractiveness as a mate goes way down, and instantly.  For a responsible man, it is usually unthinkable.  However, in cases where these variables are not considered, then her physical attractiveness, which may have been the initial basis for the attraction, remains just as strong.  An irresponsible man might still be willing to engage her for sex, as that was his only interest in the first place, and if the sex is good enough he might even stay around for a while, but once things become inconvenient for him, or irritating (which they may since children are involved), then it’s time for him to move onto his next fling or conquest.

    So the moral of the story here, is keep your legs closed and your pants zipped.  That is all.