Archive for February, 2007

The "Right to" Enslave Others

Monday, February 26th, 2007

Nobody has the moral right to own slaves. This is generally accepted in the free world today.

However if slavery is renamed and resold to the public, there is apparently no problem with practicing it. Increasingly in the modern word, governments are forcing people to work for others. They demand payments of wealth to be “redistributed” to other recipients. If people disagree and choose not to be slaves, they will be forced to comply. This means incarceration, further seizure of wealth, and if people choose to defend themselves, this means death.

Modern politicians have redefined the word “rights” to include the right to enslave others (i.e., the right to force people to work for the benefit of others). Since self-sacrifice is an unquestioned “virtue” in many religions and philosophies (even though Kant was trying to defend religion against reason), this is an easy pill to swallow for most—it’s been taught in the public schools all along.

These days it’s common to hear phrases such as the “right to health care,” the “right to work” or the “right to be free from hunger.” However these “rights” all include finding some poor victim to provide this wealth. Generally, they are phrased as a “right to” instead of a “right from.”

The founding fathers of the United States of America had it correct. Rights should be honored to protect people from each other (i.e., individual rights). Since we all have a right to be free from coercion/force and to pursue happiness (not to be guaranteed happiness by enslaving others), they created the US constitution to defend those rights.

Everyone should scrutinize the supposed “rights” in the modern world and check them to ensure that they’re not actually renamed excuses to enslave other people. Any supposed right that requires wealth forced from another person is immoral.

I came across a well-written article about the “right” to health care written by Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute entitled “Health Care Is Not a Right.” It discusses not only the immorality of this supposed right, but also how it would be disastrous in practice.

Run, Don't Walk, Away From the Word "Fair"

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

We typically grow up using the word “fair” in the context of games and sports. Not playing by the rules of games amounts to fraud. A card game opponent with 5 aces is certainly perpetrating fraud. Tackling soccer (football outside the USA) players is certainly outside of the authored rules of that game.

Games are engaging activities that serve as entertainment and/or contests to compare a narrow set of human abilities against one another. It’s important to remember that games are human constructions.

In reality, the only “rules” are those imposed by nature (e.g., physics and psychology). Humans increasingly learn to manipulate the raw materials of nature to create increasingly complex and useful products—products that achieve the goals of the people who seek them. To understand reality, humans use reason to integrate and simplify reality’s seemingly endless details in to useful concepts.

In free societies, the division of labor greatly improves the quality of life by allowing individuals to voluntarily trade with one another—thus reaping the benefits of each other’s expertise. Individuals in societies should be protected from force or fraud (killing/threatening, stealing, or violating agreements).

However, politicians and liberal pundits alike are increasingly using the word “fair” out of context of games. They use it to imply that someone isn’t playing by the proper “rules”. Most societies already have rules against murder, stealing, and breach of contracts, so what are they seeking to add to this list?

Those who use the word “fair” in politics are seeking to impose their own game on a society separate from reality. Most often, they’re inspired by destructive and unreal games thought up by the likes of Marx and Lenin. Of course, when these games are made in to laws (imposed by guns), no one can choose to stop playing.

There is nothing more proper than people dealing with one another by voluntary free trade. There is nothing more evil than people dealing with one another by force and extortion. Societies flourish when individuals are rewarded for creating wealth. Societies crumble when individuals are penalized for creating wealth.

The use of the word “fair” should send up an automatic red flag in the mind of anyone who enjoys political freedom.

What Al Gore Doesn't Want You To Know….

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

This column by former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont appeared in the Wall Street Journal this week. I’ll put the link below (free, no registration required), and copy the text for when the link breaks.

http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country–grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate–so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive. Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars’s southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that “the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming.”

Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century’s warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to “Climate Change and Its Impacts,” a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and “average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s.” British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet “grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year,” and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won’t be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.

While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970–from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 “hockey stick” graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that “in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka’s malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths” in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring,” invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded “a ban, not just a curb,” on the use of DDT “even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control.” International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings’ experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Obama is just another racist?

Saturday, February 17th, 2007

Obama seems to want to be elected because he is black. At Claflin University, he told the audience “At every turn in our history, there’s been somebody who said we can’t.” By stating “we,” he has lumped himself in with all other people with black-skin producing genes. Simple racism. Since he treats people based on their skin color, who will he favor when in office and why?AP Photo of Obama

He goes on: “Some people said we can’t do this, we can’t do that, so we shouldn’t even try. If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I’m here to tell you, ‘Yes we can.’”

If the qualification for holding public office is to paint feelings in to sentences without saying anything at all, then I know that I’m not qualified. It’s a shame that people are ready and willing to elect a person who spews such drivel. Perhaps it’s hard to be a politician and be expected to say something all of the time without offending anyone.

Ultimately, since Obama supports universal health care (robbing from the “rich” to create medical bread lines), I’ll not be voting for him.

Czech President is Unlikely Opponent of AGW Junk Science

Friday, February 16th, 2007

In the midst of the man-hating anthropogenic global warming (AGW) orgy, an unlikely dissenter emerged to speak up for reason: The Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus. He’s even apparently writing a book on his estimate of the issue.

According to the Drudge Report, he has made some biting yet insightful observations of the AGW hysteria. I’ll copy the interview transcript below in case the Drudge Report link gets moved.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …

A: …I am right…

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

 

 

North Korea Successfully Extorts… Again

Friday, February 16th, 2007

Once again, North Korea has threatened people outside of its borders with nuclear death, and in exchange, received treasures and booty. Where do these rewards come from? You and I– taxes that are STOLEN/EXTORTED from us to pay this dictator to NOT kill us. Why would anyone doubt that this scenario will play out again in 5-10 years when North Korea wants more “aid”? We’ve already seen several rounds of this. Why would anyone believe that other aspiring dictators in the world are not adding this to their playbooks?Winning Dictator

Socialism and all forms of slavery government collapse if left alone. Humans are not very inspired to work for brother love (in spite of what Jesus or Kant or Marx tells you), and central economic planning is no match for large numbers of distributed INDIVIDUALS solving economic problems. No economic system except the free-market (laissez-faire) capitalism is sustainable for very long.

This is one reason why dictators tend to threaten others. Free people living by voluntary free trade (capitalism) generally have no need to steal from others. Dictators must invade/threaten/kill in order to keep their regimes from collapsing.

However, the free world should have known better than to feed the fire. So instead of some military clean up of North Korea that would end this once and for all, we’re now feeding and aiding the very regime that would/will kill us. In the next round, they’ll already have the nukes they developed this round if they haven’t already sold them to some doomsday cult.

Is this justice, or even sanity? Shame on the leaders of the free world.

This site was hacked

Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

I tried to log in this evening, and found that someone had gained access to the administration of this site and deleted some content. Now if these adolescents only put some of that effort in to something constructive…

I think the lesson here is not to install Wordpress and leave the defaults in place. Search the web for additional security measures both in Wordpress and in the Unix environment on the server.

Even Business Leaders Have Bad Ideas

Friday, February 9th, 2007

Today, the AP reports that Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic will offer a $25M prize ($5 for an initial “solution” and the rest over 10 years if the judges think the “solution” is working) for anyone who can create a method of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

He even has the gall to compare his prize with the 1675 longitude measurement contest that was eventually won by John Harrison. That prize was for something useful; Branson’s prize simply helps promote some passive-minded anti-human religion.

Do environmentalists really want a “solution” to global warming? They must realize that if a “solution” is achieved, they lose their back-door path to installing world socialism (the ulterior motive). But of course, anthropogenic global warming is not their only claim to hate humanity: they also have anthropogenic mass extinctions, toxic waste, habitat encroachment, population increases, and anything and everything else that humans ever do.

Also, wouldn’t rational people be opposed to such a machine? Who made Al Gore an expert in the “proper” level of carbon dioxide? He certainly doesn’t want you to know that CO2 was more abundant in the atmosphere during previous ice ages

The temperatures in Chicago this past week were never above 10F. Wouldn’t those residents have something to say about manipulating the atmosphere to make their frozen winters even colder? Perhaps this machine would incite a new civil war between the “ice age now” southern factions versus the “keep it warming” northern states?

What about all of the human deaths attributed to cold weather? What about the increase in vegetation that carbon dioxide should bring? That would help increase the food supply.

The only thing good to say about this prize is that it’s privately funded. I.e., all money is the result of voluntary free trade (except the tax breaks), and not the result of some overzealous socialist politicians seeking to cripple individuals by stealing their earned wealth to fund their religious environmental causes.

However, at the very least, if you care about rationality in the world, you would not contribute to Virgin Atlantic’s madness.

24 No More

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

I’ve enjoyed watching the Fox TV show 24 in the past–I started watching season 5 on television, and then rented seasons 1-4 from Netflix. I’ve found the show’s frantic pace engaging, even though many of the subplots and characters are corny. In past seasons, the writers (and actor Sutherland) have been very careful not to point the finger at the purveyors of terrorism in today’s real world: Muslim fanatics. Instead, they’ve typically woven the plot so that the real villains are some white male government insiders conspiring to grab power, using Muslim fanatics as pawns/excuses in their evil plots. This has always been a mild irritant.
 
However, this season’s script has been a complete assault on the free world, and is just too distasteful to watch. The plot seems driven by some liberal writers’ desire to remake reality to fit their fantasies about the real source of evil: the US government. The roles of real world villains and heroes have been reversed. Those who are actually intolerant fanatics seeking religious tyranny (Muslim fanatics) are made out to be victims of US oppression. The bad guys (judging by the villainous music) are those suggesting that the civil liberties of potential terrorists be “violated.”
 
Of course, the story doesn’t take you to any real-world society made in the image of “Allah” where “civil liberties” consist of the choice to pray to Allah or be executed. Also gone from this script are the real-world foreign sources of religious fanaticism: Iran, Syria, and much of western Pakistan—offering no real solution to the script’s dilemma of invading Muslim terrorists (i.e., eliminate the sources).
 
We’re all fully aware of what the boisterous leftists’ skewed worldview is (e.g., murderous dictators play nice if you’re kind to them first, the nations that honor individual rights are always more evil than all others, etc.).

Watching 24 feels more like a leftist sermon than entertainment. I’m officially tuning out.

Associated Press Publishes Racist Article

Saturday, February 3rd, 2007

Errin Haines has written a blatantly racist news story for the Associated Press (AP) that has been published throughout the web today. It is titled “Black NFL Fans Confront Welcome Quandary” and begins with “With two black coaches in the Super Bowl for the first time, the historic accomplishment presents a welcome dilemma for many black fans: For whom to root?”

The premise is that if your skin is black, then you will quite rightly favor others of the same skin color to win. She implies that if there was just one coach with black skin, then black skinned people would obviously rightly root for that coach. Of course, the further implication is that those without black skin are disenfranchised this year because their skin tone is not represented in the Super Bowl at all.

The article goes on: “We can’t lose,” said New York University history professor Jeffrey Sammons, who studies sports and race.

The fact that the real news story isn’t about the firing of this reporter (or at least controversy over her published words) is evidence that this culture doesn’t recognize what racism actually is. Furthermore, one would have to wonder what a uproar would have been caused if the article were about which white skinned coach white skinned people were going to root for.